Thread: HHT? a question again?

Oakshotte,

I have two (2) W&B razors of the same model ('For Barbers Use', ca. 7/8", quarter hollow).

The steel on one is very much harder than the other; you can really tell the difference when honing !

Have fun !

Best regards

Russ

Originally Posted by Oakeshott

Neil,
You have Rockwell C ratings for the W&B in the high 50's and I'm really surprised by that. I would have thought it was much lower. Is it your impression that this is probably a standard hardness form most of the good Sheffield manufacturers?

As Russ says, there is a lot of variation - I have seen HRC ratings of at least a couple of points lower than this for W&Bs. The main reason must be that in those days it was very much a hand-eye approach. You can imagine the difficulty of a man working in dim light trying to eyeball the colour of steel while it is being heat treated - different background light levels, how tired or how fresh he was, whether he had been on the razzle the night before, etc, etc, could all affect his judgement. As we progress into more modern times I suppose the accuracy improved, especially with the introduction of new tools and techniques. Sheffield, however, despite being the steel capital of the world and having the greatest array of alloy and bijou steels available at the time, clung to old methods - some companies continued to hand forge and grind well into the 20th C, for example.

On the whole, for the number of razors I have had in my hands, the oldest ones appear to have the most variation, although a very large number of late 1700 and early 1800s razors can still easily hold their own against modern razors - some eclipse the performance of some of most modern razors. After a while you can see trends in hardness among different makes - Bengalls all seem to be good hard steel, as do Butlers, Mappins and a host of others, while Slaters seem to be softer, for example. Most are more than capable shavers - out of the thousands of old Sheffield razors I have honed and restored, I have only ever had one back that was too soft to shave with - unfortunately it had six brothers, all in the same condition that I just keep for old times sake!

Regards,
Neil

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

As Russ says, there is a lot of variation - I have seen HRC ratings of at least a couple of points lower than this for W&Bs. The main reason must be that in those days it was very much a hand-eye approach. You can imagine the difficulty of a man working in dim light trying to eyeball the colour of steel while it is being heat treated - different background light levels, how tired or how fresh he was, whether he had been on the razzle the night before, etc, etc, could all affect his judgement. As we progress into more modern times I suppose the accuracy improved, especially with the introduction of new tools and techniques. Sheffield, however, despite being the steel capital of the world and having the greatest array of alloy and bijou steels available at the time, clung to old methods - some companies continued to hand forge and grind well into the 20th C, for example.

On the whole, for the number of razors I have had in my hands, the oldest ones appear to have the most variation, although a very large number of late 1700 and early 1800s razors can still easily hold their own against modern razors - some eclipse the performance of some of most modern razors. After a while you can see trends in hardness among different makes - Bengalls all seem to be good hard steel, as do Butlers, Mappins and a host of others, while Slaters seem to be softer, for example. Most are more than capable shavers - out of the thousands of old Sheffield razors I have honed and restored, I have only ever had one back that was too soft to shave with - unfortunately it had six brothers, all in the same condition that I just keep for old times sake!

Regards,
Neil

Thanks for the explanation, Neil. Admittedly, it's hard to imagine a tough old Sheffield razor maker letting a little post razzle fatigue impact his razor making judgment, but I'll take your word for it.

I always find it astonishing how skilled and exact experienced craftsman can be in the absence of sophisticated modern equipment. Reminds me of a man I once knew who started working in paper mills when he was 17 (lost his arm in one of the machines as a young man). By the time he was 50, he was the Superintendent of one of the largest, fastest paper machines in the world. He got a call in the middle of the night telling him to come down to the mill because "we're not making paper". When he got there, he walked into the lobby and knew right away what the problem was by the smell. He called down to the foreman in charge, told him what to do and then turned around and went home.

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

The main reason must be that in those days it was very much a hand-eye approach. You can imagine the difficulty of a man working in dim light trying to eyeball the colour of steel while it is being heat treated - different background light levels, how tired or how fresh he was, whether he had been on the razzle the night before, etc, etc, could all affect his judgement. As we progress into more modern times I suppose the accuracy improved, especially with the introduction of new tools and techniques.

I've been lucky with Sheffields from that era. I've has some that were very hard but none that were so soft they wouldn't hold an edge. This article, here, on the 1903 Springfield rifle failures during WW1 illustrates the variance of the eyeball heat treat method that Neil is referring to. Thought it might be of interest.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I've been lucky with Sheffields from that era. I've has some that were very hard but none that were so soft they wouldn't hold an edge. This article, here, on the 1903 Springfield rifle failures during WW1 illustrates the variance of the eyeball heat treat method that Neil is referring to. Thought it might be of interest.

Great article. Thanks.