Thread: Straight razor history

Actually, the folding razor as we know it is the one I'm saying predates 1650. It's what Samuel van Hoogstraten painted, it's what the Pilgrim's carried to Plymouth, and I've seen several examples in batches of early 18th century auctions.

How did it differ from 1550 to 1650 to 1750? The examples are few and far between, and while it's very tempting to come up with an overview, I don't think there's enough evidence to do that. I'm away from my main computer (where I've stored pictures) and all but my digital library or I'd dig up some to show other than the painting.

My currently unsupported guess is that the folding razor probably was derived from the folding bistoury. There didn't used to be any kind of clear dividing line between surgeons and barbers, but until I can dig through my books on the history of medical instruments, that's just a guess.

Another thing that it's useful to be careful of is the idea that there was a clear progression of forms. I know Henry Lummus says razors before 1800 had tiny or non-existent tails, but I've found too many razors that break his rules of thumb. Remember, the cutlers were always trying the occasional odd, new thing as well as making traditional razors.

These razors (after 1814):


were made more recently than these (around 1810):


And of course, the French and the English did the tails on their razors very differently.

I went mining the internet for early razors and found a few.

1760's English, John Pyke.

18th century Spanish set (these give me a righteous case of the 'GIMMIES!')

When you get home, I would be really happy to see photographs of those early razors. You really know your razors! Do you have any of the turn of the century (18th-19th) guard razors?

Originally Posted by fmlondon

When you get home, I would be really happy to see photographs of those early razors. You really know your razors! Do you have any of the turn of the century (18th-19th) guard razors?

I personally have very few from before 1800. But I'll see what I can turn up in the way of pictures.

I don't have much to add to this thread, as most of it has already been said here and elsewhere. I do, however, wish to point out a few things and add others for speculation.

Other ores were used in the english steel-making industry, both local, and from Spain. At one point there was little importation from Sweden - Russia provided immense exports.

That Huntsman was the prime instigator, innovator and paved the way for the establishment of Sheffield's key-role in the industrial revolution of steel-making is beyond question.

The steel-masters and guilds of Sheffield - most of them, at any rate - did indeed set up stern opposition to Huntsman's alloy, forcing him to seek alternate markets - the largest of which was France. Sheffields about-face in adopting Huntsman's version of crucible steel came more as a knee-jerk reaction to goods using his steel being imported back into the UK. That is an established fact. Why did France figure so highly in the story? One of the main buyers for Huntsman's steel was William Blakey, a Parisian toy maker. Blakey was sent more than cast-steel: he also received unwrought steel, blister steel (4 tons a month) and ready made items (like razors - made by others in Sheffield) from Huntsman. Hutsman appears to have been a broker more than anything else.

The opposition the OP spoke of - a resistance to the razor in England but not in France - is clearly misunderstood. The resistance was to Huntsman's alloy.

Huntsman was not the first to make cast-steel, also known as crucible steel. If we discount wootz which pre-dates Huntsman significantly and concentrate on other methods to achieve cast steel, then there are a small number of people who produced it before him, but not in a large-scale way.

Cast-steel owes its dependability on the fact that it improves on the blister steel process. For blister steel, iron bars were packed layer on layer with charcoal at the bottom, in between and on top, the pot (or 'coffin' as it was called) being made airtight and subjected to heat for a prolonged period (for a week or so). After cooling it was found that the iron had taken on carbon - around 1% - in the form of 'blisters' on its surface. The bars were then cut short, bound, reheated and hammered in an effort to spread the carbon evenly (it was concentrated on the outer side more than the centre originally) This led to a varying quality of steel. In an effort to get a more uniform spread of carbon, they were subjected to rolling and pressing to make 'shear-steel', a superior product capable of making razors from that could equal cast steel. Huntsman made the process simpler, breaking up the blister steel rods and re-melting them to ensure uniform carbon content, then casting the product into ingots - cast steel. The cast-steel ingots still had to hand-forged - you cannot cast steel into the shape of a razor.

There is some evidence that the practice of making cast-steel was already going on in London (main evidence is Henry Horne's book dated 1773, a London Cutler making crucible steel). Some doubt Horne's narrative, However, his refinery in White Cross Lane, Clerkenwell certainly existed. The area was the location of other prestige tool and edged instrument makers. A Swedish traveller to the area in 1749 remarked on the way that shear-steel was treated to make a superior alloy by a leading saw-maker called White - namely that it was melted into a lump - just like Huntsman's cast steel process.

Another person - John Waller - made what he termed 'refined steel' and laid claim to most of the items being sold at time, especially on the Continent, under the name 'refined steel'. Horne (a watchspring maker) provides the date - 1743. Many others had had similar ideas. It is suggested that Huntsman himself did not pluck the idea out of thin air, but was inspired by a book written in 1692 by William Salmon.

Jean-Jacques Perret has also been mentioned. What is not mentioned is that Perret questioned the worth - and the existence- of crucible steel.

In seeing Benjamin Huntsman as the generator of the modern razor industry, we have overlooked many others. His contribution (if rather a minor side-line of his raison d'etre) is no doubt huge, but we have not even mentioned another man whose innovation super-charged the steel-making industry by gargantuan proportions - Henry Bessemer and his steel convertor. The Bessemer process must take some part in the story. It failed at first becaus the steel ore used (swedish) was too pure, but another giant in the industry Robert Forester Mushet, son of the even greater inventor and steelmaster David Mushet, cured Bessemer's failed invention, although he was accorded little recognition, hardly any money, and became greatly impoverished due to Bessemer's self-promoting ego.

But these are just contributors to a single factor in straight razor making. To answer the question originally posed, it must be posed more clearly: what do we mean by the 'modern straight razor'? I think Jimmy is correct - if we think of the last design era in straight-razors, than we have to base our findings on shape, the most consistent of which is the tail/tang. All the main steel-making techniques had been mastered by then (at least, the ones that mattered - later developments having the status of minor 'tweak'), industries had arisen to make third party pieces such as scales, boxes, wrappings, pins, washers etc, and god was smiling in his heaven. That leaves a mind-boggling number of proponents of the Art.

Just a few thoughts, if a little off-topic for the main.

Regards,
Neil