Hello
I'm sure the information is on this forum, I've read it in the past, but I can't find it anymore...
So I'm looking for the name of the Sheffield's cutler in the begining of the XIX century that use the mark "*P"
Attachment 115024
Merci
Printable View
Hello
I'm sure the information is on this forum, I've read it in the past, but I can't find it anymore...
So I'm looking for the name of the Sheffield's cutler in the begining of the XIX century that use the mark "*P"
Attachment 115024
Merci
NORRIS, SAMUEL
Sheffield
1795 - 1815
Samuel Norris Sheffield (c1795-1815), used trademark ‘*P
Many thanks !
Funny thing is that Charlie translated the Lummus article and posted at the "Coupe Chou Club".
What sim devaysom can do?
Glad you found the answer, and btw.....nice razor!
There is a little more to the *P mark than just Samuel Norris, Charlie!
For instance, in 1747 the mark belonged to Fox & Norris of Westbar, Sheffield - not Samuel Norris but his father Matthew Norris, as Samuel would have only been 2 yrs old.
Fox & Norris are also recorded in a 1787 Directory of Sheffield (confusingly, so is William Fox - he died in 1769, however - the only one of the Fox brothers left alive at this time was John Fox). Matthew died in 1761, so the Norris in Fox & Norris in 1787 must have been Samuel Norris.
This is confirmed in a 1797 Directory in which Samuel appears on his own as "Samuel Norris, late of Fox & Norris, factor, razor pen-knife & lancet manufacturer, also razor strop and case maker, 55 Westbar."
The Fox brothers (John: 1714 - 1790s, Stephen: 1716 - 1773, and William: 1719 - 1769) were Samuel's uncles, and Samuel was heir to their business.
Samuel was made Master Cutler in 1777. He had been running another business with his son as "Samuel Norris & Son" - this company is not listed in the 1787 directory, though, but it is recorded that it was dissolved in 1804 so was relatively short-lived. Samuel had five sons. Three of them - Samuel, John & William are all recorded as 'died young' which usually means in infancy and the fourth, another John, was born in 1780 and died in 1826 - he was recorded as a razor maker, so the partnership of Samuel Norris & Son was with son John. The other son, Thomas, was cryptically recorded as 'originally in trade' but was ultimately involved with the church.
Samuel Norris was declared bankrupt in 1809 and died in 1817. At the time of bankruptcy all his goods were sold, including the Westbar premises comprised of house, workshops, warehouses, a grocers shop with its own warehouse and dwelling house, land and with 4 newly erected houses on it, another parcel of land with 12 houses on it - several just built, stables, and his two grinding wheels (Cloughs Wheels) on the River Sheath.
In 1809 there were two others resident at the Culver Street works - Samuels sons John and Thomas Norris. John continued as a razor-smith, but Thomas took to the church quite a while earlier, becoming ordained in that year (1809) an Army Chaplain, Priest in 1810 and dying in Chelsea, London, in 1816.
So, if the maker was Samuel Norris then he could only inherit the '*P' mark after the winding-up of Fox and Norris - some time after 1787 (and possibly in to the 1790s, when the last Fox brother died but before the directory listing of 1797) as the 1797 listing has 'late Fox & Norris' then I would assume that Fox & Norris had traded until comparatively recently to that year. Which gives his dates of operation (ie using the '*P' mark solely for himself) as (say-) 1795 - 1809.
Regards,
Neil
Funny how we get different information about these people, for instance this article claims that Samuel had 10 children and you state he had five.
Attachment 115029
That's because you didn't read my post properly - I said he had five sons, I didn't mention girls!Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin103
Regards,
Neil
Neil without "Girls" their is no son, nevertheless my article claims 6 sons........Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Miller
Well one of them is evidently wrong, Martin! I have re-read my source at least twice, and can only make nine kids out - but I am a bit tired...
I took some of my info from the Fox/Norris family tree, compiled by Mr, T. Ince from the family bible in 1844, so it must have been quite up to date. That gives nine children in all - three boys and three girls died in infancy:
Attachment 115042
Regards,
Neil
PS: I would amend your quote to "without girls there is no sun..."
Thats fine Neil i totally understand, im finding recently with so many publication that many entries about people or children or dates, are somewhat close but a lot of them are different like in this case. Just going with 2 sources and we allready have different information.
Yes, that's true.
In this case it makes no odds though, as the surviving children are correctly identified in both sources - the discrepancy only arises in the amount of children that died in infancy, which although sad was commonplace at the time and doesn't really concern the issue at hand.
Regards,
Neil
Right but I havn't remember this fact, I'm getting old !Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin103
PS By the way, what an erudition gentelmen !
Thanks all for informations !!! :bow
Great information and collaboration guys. Keep up the great work, it is appreciated.
http://straightrazorpalace.com/razor...el-norris.html
Hello guys
sorry to dig up a old thread but i have a samuel norris just thought it would be intresting to show my restored razor. and thanks ffor some great info above
Attachment 182352Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Miller
Could it be then that the mark "S: Norris" dates before aprox. 1787, when Samuel Norris operated on his own?
Most kindest regards
Maybe something interesting:Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Miller
Attachment 182709Attachment 182710Attachment 182711
Could this be a *P John Fox BEFORE "Fox and Norris" ?
John Fox and Samuel Norris both produced goods under their own names even while they were in partnership, so there's basically no way to know, unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fikira
Either way, a VERY neat old razor!
Aha! Do you know where I can find such information?Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidmonster
The directory of 1787 only mentions "*P Fox and Norris" and I've got no luck finding earlier references...
As I understand it (Thanks to Neil Miller!),
the "Fox and Norris" in the Directory of 1787 where John Fox (1714 - 1793)
and Samuel Norris (1745 - 1817)
It was only after the death of the Fox brothers (John was the last living) that Samuel Norris could inherit the *P mark as his own. Before this happened, Samuel was the associate of John Fox.
Since the directory of 1747 already had a *P Fox and Norris, this Norris was Matthew Norris (? - 1761, this was the father of Samuel) and not Samuel because he was only 2 year old.
Now, since Matthew died in 1761, could it be that Samuel (16 years old) was too young for the association???
Maybe this is the timeframe where John Fox operated on his own until Samuel was old enough to become an associate. Or another timeframe is in the very beginning of the association.
I would like to know if John Fox or Matthew Norris began first...
Thanks!
Just bought it yesterday,
very excited to have it! :)
Kindest regards
Hi again,
A few things I've found when I was browsing the Hallamshire cutlers apprentices index of
"Sheffiled Records Online" and "The history of the Cutlers' company":
By comparing the dates, it is clear that Stephen Fox was the father of
the three Fox brothers John, Stephen and William.
Knowing this, we know the dates of their granted Freedom,
F John Fox 1735 of 1737, F Stephen 1736, F William 1740.
The Freedom of Matthew Norris, son of Benjamin, was granted in 1738.
This made me to believe that it were the Fox's that had a mark first, before Matthew Norris,
I could be wrong of course...
It also shows a short period (possible 1735), where John Fox was the only one that could have a mark...
Could it be that this was the "star P"?...
Maybe interesting to know is also that between 1761 (death Matthew Norris) and
1767 (Freedom Samuel Norris, was apprentice of master William Fox) the mark "star P"
could only be used by the 3 Fox brothers
(the first brother, William, died in 1769)
Most kindest regards
BTW i found some geneology info about Stephen Fox and his family: Stirnet Though this says Geoerge was one of the sons? and if you can take a screenshot before the site kicks you out for not logging in - it seems catherine died around 1746? wow that seems REALLY early.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fikira
IT IS possible that the John fox and matthew norris started fox&norris and using *P mark as a partnership from the get go, according that that site, by 1739 Matthew norris was married to Catherine Fox already.
BTW, if what you say is right then: a *P mark with "John Fox" on it COULD indicate when John Fox operated ALONE as you said, after the death of Matthew norris, but in the few intervening years before sam norris was too young? We know Sam norris got master cutler in 1777, so my question is: how young is "too young for association"? Or could it be that Sam never really went into business with his uncles, but went straight into doing on his own, until he inherited the mark for a few years around the turn of the century?
IDK how strict people were with these things tho? Cuz i've seen *P with "John Fox", I've seen a *P that is CLEARLY an early 19th cent. razor by shape so had to be Sam Norris...and mine - which is JUST a *P with no indication of names. My THINKING is that John fox operated on his own PRIOR to partnership with Norris, marking his razors with name and *P. Once he partnered with Norris he would have just used the mark? especially once it became well known. Until all the Fox brothers died and fox&norris was no more in the 1790s. This means: "*P John Fox" is the oldest - possibly dating to 1740s then came the partnership which was already there by 1748 (per the directory) until at least 1787 and likely into the 1790s when it is most likely the "*P" mark was used on its own without any qualifications/names.
That George is the brother of the Stephen Fox who is father of Catherine and her 3 brothers, John, William & Stephen (unmarried, all razor makers).
After Matthew Norris & Catherine Fox and her brothers (unmarried) died, it was logic that Samuel Norris was able to take the mark, there simply was no-one else... :D
My idea as well is that John Fox first had the *P mark, then Samuel Norris, proof is this "Dip-at-toe" John Fox razor:
Attachment 301935Attachment 301936
The "1747" directory is not correct, this was a wrong date, it needed to be 1774, to my knowledge there is no "1747" directory...
Meaning to make an article about Fox & Norris, someday... :p
wait...do i just suck at reading that website then? is that what that says?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fikira
Yep :rofl2:
It doesn't help that the son of Stephen is Stephen, and the father of Stephen is Stephen,... :p
I just knew it because in the past I've worked at this for a while :D
For a second i thought you said "worked with them for a while" like "wait..how OLD are you?".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fikira
So that's what I was ultimately thinking that John Fox had the *P mark along with "running?" (idk the right verb to use here) Fox& norris with his brother in law. until he died...and I just realized that although john was the oldest he survived the longest, somehow i always kept remembering he died first. So he kept using the mark until he died I suppose yea?
So here's my question, why were some blades MARKED with name - both Sam and john, along with *P mark, while others were not? There are some examples of most likely Sam works with just a *P i've seen on this forum (i.e. blades with a shoulder and shape like early 19th cent. blades), while others just have a "*P" with no name. And yet others have a *P with a name, for John AND sam....why not put your name on some razors if you're gonna do it on others? Though, it makes sense if you're producing 2 distinct razors either at 2 periods of time or simultaneously: like Sam likely made razors before he got the mark and likely put his name on them, then started using the mark once he got it...but then why continue using your name on only some razors?
So far though, from what you said, and what i've seen, my logical conclusion is:
- John used the *P mark, and in fact signed his razors with his name.
- Sam made razors BEFORE he got the mark, just using his name.
- Later, once he had the mark, he started using it as well.
Did John make razors with his own name and use *P mark on those WHILST also allowing 'Fox & Norris' razors to use the same mark? (or smthg to that effect)
IN all of this, i'm confused about where "not signed, just *P" fit in. Like the one I have, it's most likely not an 1800's razor cuz shoulderless, and dip-at-toe like 1700s razors are...there's no indication of any name on the spine however.
Sidenote: I swear to GOD, 18th and 19th cent cutlers and metal workers had like SIX names and that's it, they were only allowed to use those six.
P.S: did you read my story - https://sharprazorpalace.com/razor-c...ml#post1861049
P.P.S: MAN this razor is LONG. I bought an slightly wider strop at 3.1 inches and even THEN i have to do an X pattern.
I wouldn't be surprised if the combination "name" + "maker" was used perhaps in the beginning of ones career, until the name was established, and everybody knew which marked razor was from a certain maker, for example John Fox until it was known that the *P was made by John Fox. Later the mark had changed makers, went to Samuel Norris, so he had to put his name on the spine...
Not sure though if this is the real reason...
I do believe indeed that the "S:Norris" stamped razors where early ones from him, until he used the *P mark...
I also believe the "MATAS" mark was from Matthew Norris...
I would say your razor is a Samuel Norris, made at the end of the 18th century, shape, tang, size,... points to it IMHO
Not sure, but I believe the habit of putting the name on the spine is from earlier in the 18th century
What you said about name until established makers mark makes perfect sense!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fikira
I'm still gonna just say my razor was made before 1776 though :D (hey, it COULD have been!).
I have another one incoming btw, looks to be in good condition, marked S:Norris - so prbly between 1770 (or whenever sam started stamping his name on razors) till 1790-whatever when he inherited *P.
Neh, don't think so, the shape is really 1795-1800 ;) :angel:
:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Fikira
In all honesty - i was curious about that, what is it about hte shape that marks it as 1795 vs 1765?
Well, this is a typical "Dip-at-toe" 1760's razor:
Attachment 301959
And this is a razor around "1795-1800":
Attachment 301960
The missing heel? Ok, i have seen this in many razors from that era, and always wondered about this - the cutting edge at the heel is curving inward a bitQuote:
Originally Posted by Fikira
The spine of the "1795-1800" is curved, and there is a very slight start of a "heel"Quote:
Originally Posted by Tjh
Some further elaboration of Fox & Norris together with more marks of Fox & Norris!
https://historyrazors.wordpress.com/...norris-p-more/
:)
oooh yay, i own something that is used as a historical example... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fikira
