Thread: Top-heavy fractions on old razor scales

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Ain't sayin' I "are" one but ....... Hell, 5 years ago I couldn't even spell it !

I always found it quite easy to spell "Lynn"

Originally Posted by Magpie

Just tossing this out there....

many a job was paid for "piece work" Perhaps the "honemeisters" of yore, were just sitting there being paid by the razor.
This could be nothing more than a simple tally system for how many razors were honed on that day.
I too have a number of razors with these scribe marks, but I never took note of the positioning of large/small numbers.
If the smaller numbers never go over the number 30, it would give my hypothesis more credibility.

Maybe, but why would he tally the number of honed razors on the razor it'self, not paper or log book?
or I don't understand your hypothesis.

Y'know I'm sure vintage Puma razors have little to do with old Sheffield razors but I've seen numbers at or near the pivot on the mark side of Puma scales. I've got at least one like that and maybe more. These are factory stamping though, not scribed in by hand.

FWIW, I don't think I have any old Sheffields with the #s but I'll have to take a look.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I always found it quite easy to spell "Lynn"

..and all this time he should have been using the "push" method, instead of the "pyramid" method.

Interesting subject, Tom.

I have had many razors marked like this, too - I thought about it a bit, then when I couldn't come up with a logical explanation I forgot about it and just sanded them away. To me they are blemishes - most are crudely done, dirt gets trapped in them, they detract from the scales which didn't have them originally, etc, etc, etc. But - I suppose I would keep them if they had a proven historical significance, like the dots on Lummus scales (though I now mistrust any razor I see with such marks on it, but that's another story!).

It's not a simple thing to get rid of them either - they take much more sanded then you think, then if you left the least little bit it magically appears again during re-polishing. If they are right up against a pin, then the pin has to come out.

Talking of which, I bet that scratched-out 64/2 was the first mark as it is so close to the pin. The next one (7/12) looks partially scratched-out, too, leaving just the 90/4 which lends a lot of weight to Glen's theory. If it was a barbershop razor, then maybe it is cabinet and row number - but why scratch out the previous allocations? In a barber shop I suppose two main things change - customers and barbers. Perhaps one of the marks identifies a particular barber, the other a particular client. Who knows?

One thing which they are not are honing records. Why on earth would they be? Although a bit 'charged' and over-simplistic, mdarnton's post does seem partially right to me. Watch repairers hid their marks away where they could not be seen. Those marks recorded, among other things, the repairers identity, the type of service and a date code, sometimes a job number. That way the last time the repairer worked on the watch could be seen along with what was done to it and that could help in identifying what was wrong with it the next time it came in for service or repair. But hone and stroke numbers? That seems meaningless to me. How could that possibly help if it came back with a ding, or with a frown forming? And honing by numbers - come on, it just doesn't seem reasonable!

Apart from that, if you marked a razor in that way - when ivory scales were considered a cut above celluloid, xylonite, vulcanized rubber, etc, then it could only have been your own razor. If I sent my pride and joy off to be honed and it came back with scratches like that I'd be going back and beating the honer about the head with his own stones.

Hopefully someone will come up with the real reason - but like so many other things in this hobby of ours, I kind of doubt it.

Regards,
Neil

Such fractions are referred to as improper fractions, improper perhaps because they are not translated, as they can be, into mixed numbers such as 90/4=22 2/4 or 22 1/2.

Not all of these fractions are improper. 7/12 is merely a fraction. The numbers do not likely refer to numbers of shaves nor numbers of honings. Recording such events would not be scale-worthy and very time consuming.

Because the denominators are smaller numbers in two of three cases, I'm going to guess that they identified the owner, each barber/shaver identified by a numeral, perhaps some shops having 12 working barbers/shavers. The top number, or numerator, would identify each razor in that barber/shaver's repertoire of razors, some having as many as 90 razors in operation. Describing the upper and lower numbers as numerators and denominators is probably in error as well because these were likely not fractions per se, but it is more likely they were just numerical identifications of razors. In this case, 90/4 belonged to barber/shaver #4, the old guy, 64/2 to an also old guy who was chronologically getting on but not using as many razors, and 7/12 was the Newbie in the shop with only 7 razors to his credit and his denominator 12 showing he was one of the latest hired.

Having done the detective work for you guys, I will stay safely clear of the Honemeister/Honescheister issue.

I think we are all clear that they aren't conventional fractions, Ace! That was just a convenient way to describe them.

Barbers razors sounds reasonable enough - very reasonable, actually - but 90 razors belonging to a single barber in a barber shop business? How on earth would he keep up with which razor was in what state, and honing - what a nightmare!

I'm sure I read in Napoleon LeBlanc's old barber manual that the recommendation was for each barber to have from 6 to 12 razors for just those reasons.

Martin posted an interesting article about barbers trading razors a little while ago. I'm sure they would only keep the best ones and trade-off the others.

Regards,
Neil

Originally Posted by mdarnton

As someone who's been sharpening tools constantly a good portion of every day of the last 30+ years of my life, as any craftsman who works with hand tools does, I hate this "honemeister" stuff. It makes people think that there's some mythological greatness involved in sharpening, which there definitely is not. You put it on the stone and shove it around until it's sharp. The first straight I ever held, I said "Oh, this is going to be SO easy--I've never had a tool that was so well designed just for sharpening", and it is.

As you said "Sharpening a razor is so easy" but honing one is a totally different story......

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

It's not a simple thing to get rid of them either - they take much more sanded then you think, then if you left the least little bit it magically appears again during re-polishing. If they are right up against a pin, then the pin has to come out.

Fast forward 20 years to 2033 ...... I'm taking my 100% original minty W&B FBU to Antiques Roadshow. So now I'm on camera and the guy is appraising my FBU for value. He says, " This is a wonderful example of an 1850s meat chopper. The blade has the original patina and the horn scales a few chips and bug bites. Unfortunately the razor is only worth $35.00. If someone hadn't tried to sand the top heavy fractions off of the scales it would be worth $100,000 !"

I feel you fellas Glen, Neil, and Ace have collectively solved the mystery. Certainly the lower,smaller number is the barber and the larger, top one is the razor. This seems an adequate explanation. The barber could keep up with which is his, and which ONE of his it is. If it needed a hone, he could simply put #90 down for touching up next. Good to keep track of when last honed as well. Also handy to retrieve a customer's preferred blade. If a barber moved around, he might need to scratch his new number as there is a distinct possibility a #4 was already in the new shop. Also in the event of a trade or purchase between barbers, more scratching would be required. Also, just because a barber was up to 90 on razor count would not necessarily mean he has 90. Just that he has HAD 90 over time.
Great thread and fine answers from all!