|
Post by PJGH on Apr 20, 2015 14:21:17 GMT -6
You guys know I like my oddities, those little differences between razors which are more than simple manufacturing variance ... well, here's a couple more. First: Can you see it? Look at the tab at the back of the cap - the bit you press to open. Perfectly flat on the one at the front and unique in my collection of over 40 1912s! The rest are like the one at the back, recessed detail. Second: Can you see it? The one at the back is most definitely shorter, measurably shorter by almost 3mm! The crease for the handle hole is markedly further up the back and so the handle hole plate is larger, the back shorter. Manufacturing variance? Again, this is unique to my collection and that particular razor came in a flimsy celluloid travel set ... and I have seen another such example of this, again, in a different celluloid travel set. The crease is much more akin to the GEM & Star 'lidless lather catchers' that I have - very defined and quite angular in effect. Thoughts?
|
|
fergie
Shave Master
Posts: 122
|
Post by fergie on Apr 20, 2015 15:11:47 GMT -6
Hi Paul,
When I saw the difference's in the opening tabs, that could perhaps be accounted for in terms of an unintentional manufacturing error that's slipped through the net....
The second difference is a definite manufacturing variance because of marked differences in size/tolerances which would have to have been an intentional change in machining......
My GEM Junior Parade Head has the same handle hole plate as your one displayed on the right...... but the bottom side of the opening tab whist also being identical to the one on the right it is also the same as the top side of the one you have displayed on the left.....
In other words my My GEM Junior Parade Heads opening tab is a mixture of your two opening tab variants....
Confusion in the ranks
|
|
|
Post by PJGH on Apr 20, 2015 15:36:42 GMT -6
Further to this, if you look at the second picture it's not an optical illusion but the curves on the back of the shorter one is actually shorter because the design is smaller - those curves are both shorter than ALL my other 1912s by about 1mm. It's not just the final crease. It is, I believe, intentionally more squat.
I've only seen one other like this after perusing page after page after page of GEMs (and Ever Ready) on eBay ... and it's coincidentally in a similar celluloid case.
Now, you've got a lidless Star 1914 Billy - look at it and see that the creases give a very angular shape, certainly more so than any 1912 you could place alongside. This shorter head 1912 is practically the same as the Star 1914 in terms of sizes, angles and those more angular creases. It is substantially different and so markedly different I believe it is intentional.
|
|
fergie
Shave Master
Posts: 122
|
Post by fergie on Apr 20, 2015 16:19:12 GMT -6
Yeah, your right Paul. I just hauled my Star 1914 out its wee box and had a swatch alongside an English 1912....I see what you are referring too in terms of "more squat" as you put it..... Yeah, its a definite manufacturing design......
|
|
ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on Apr 20, 2015 16:19:12 GMT -6
I wonder if a "miss" through a press made for the differences in the measurements? When detail is "punched in" that mass must come from somewhere. Could it be that these got by QC? I'm just speculating.
But Paul, you have them in hand, could that account for it?
Interesting none the less.
FWIW, my mom, many years before I was born worked on an assembly line. After she learned the job the line was sped up. What she could do at one speed became cause for quitting and she did. I wonder if these were made on an assembly line and heads were missed?
This illustrates it:
|
|
|
Post by PJGH on Apr 20, 2015 16:46:12 GMT -6
... not only that, look inside (it's not something I can photograph well) but the clip that is riveted to the inside of the back is also shorter on the more squat head. If it was the same size as the regular 1912 it would have got caught up in the crease - it's shorter because the crease is in a different place. I really do believe this is intentional now.
... but why is another matter.
Good points, Brian.
I know from production that first runs, QC failures, run-offs and so on are simply lost money and Machine Operators, Line Managers, Production Controllers and so on are held to account. If the mistake, if that's what it is, was large enough perhaps it was absorbed and these were pushed out as a "special model". As I said, the two I've seen are both in flimsy, vacuum formed celluloid cases. That smacks of cheapness.
But back to the tension clip that is riveted to the inside - it's shorter. I'll try my best to get a picture of it as a comparison, but it does measure shorter.
|
|
|
Post by PJGH on Apr 20, 2015 16:50:15 GMT -6
I love these razors! No end of fun ... and folks back in the day just bought them and shaved with them. What they missed out on ... Perhaps folks back then would have thought it madness to be sitting at almost midnight, Coon cat on lap pondering the minutiae of a simple utility razor.
|
|
|
Post by palmettoman on Apr 20, 2015 23:31:30 GMT -6
Are the weights the same, as in is it the same amount of metal? Or is the simpler one also lighter? I have no clue as to how to date them, but could it be an intentional cost/material savings measure for wartime? Or just a bad spot, money wise, for the company?
That could explain the cheap case, also.
Just my SWAG.
|
|
|
Post by PJGH on Apr 21, 2015 3:02:11 GMT -6
Good point! I'll be right back ...
Yes! It's 1g lighter - 22g for a regular GEM (old-style comb for a proper comparison) and this squat head is 21g.
Further measurements: on the back, from the very base of the blade retaining clip, measured down across the "GEM" and around the curve, over the handle hole, a regular GEM is just shy of 25mm and this one is just over 20mm.
I do have another one coming, so if the weights and measurements bear out, I think we can, albeit with tentative steps, begin to say that there is another style of 1912. Tentatively.
|
|
RocketMan
Gem Star
RazorAddict
Welcome To The Sharp Side!
Posts: 4,167
|
Post by RocketMan on Apr 22, 2015 9:52:28 GMT -6
Different frames to fit different case models? Often the case seemed to be the decision maker for the buyer moreso than the frame. New case and a fitted head?
|
|
|
Post by PJGH on Apr 27, 2015 6:38:58 GMT -6
Okay, I think it's fair to say that we have a definite specification for a particular designation of the 1912 head: the Travel Head. While I wait for another to arrive, one in a celluloid 'cigarette' case, I was looking at another recent purchase and blow me down! Another short head! On the inside of the 'catcher' this one has the crease further up the back, but also the inside clip is purposefully folded further up as well. Again, this one is slightly lighter (about 1g) and the measurement of the head from the bottom of the blade retaining clip around the crease to the end of the handle hole area is shorter than a "regular" 1912, quite considerably so. From the bottom of the blade retaining clip to the crease on these Travel Head razors, it's just over 10mm ... I've tried to put a ruler up against a "regular" 1912 to show just how much shorter they are, but when properly measured, 11mm is bang in the middle of the "Made in England" lettering on this example: So, I'll call this the 'Travel Head' or the 'Short Cap' ... thoughts on naming this one?
|
|
ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on Apr 27, 2015 12:12:50 GMT -6
Sounds good to me... name it.
|
|
|
Post by palmettoman on Apr 27, 2015 20:38:52 GMT -6
You found it, you name it what you want.
Hipsters will just change the name and claim it once they discover SE razors.
|
|
spidey9
Lather Catcher
All SE all the time!
Posts: 641
|
Post by spidey9 on Apr 27, 2015 20:44:14 GMT -6
Well, Waits refers to in as a "flat head," which isn't very imaginative. Here is my own specimen, which I believe was called the "Triumph" set: I actually use this as a travel set fairly often, for trips that don't involve flying. --Bob
|
|
|
Post by PJGH on Apr 28, 2015 2:00:53 GMT -6
Bob - Good spot. Yes, so Waits saw it, too!
In terms of nomenclature, we have a curved cap and a flat cap, and a squat cap, all in reference to the actual cap. I had thought of squat head as a description, short head perhaps, Waits thought flat head ... squashed head?
I think 'Travel Head' seems right - it's a good description of the razor and the set.
Lovely GEM set there, Bob. Mine pictured above is the Ever Ready equivalent set, so I do have my eyes open for the GEM. That said, I do have one coming, in a celluloid case styled like these cigarette case sets, but this one is usual again in that it has no "GEM" stamp on the back ... or is yours the unusual one in that it DOES? Looking at my comparison with the RADIO, there's not a lot of room actually on the backs of these 'Travel Heads'.
|
|