|
Post by mrraider on May 30, 2012 0:12:06 GMT -6
O :ok guys i have a question maybe i can get an answer the 1912 damaskeene that i have says damaskeene on the inside was it in production in 1912 or that was just the pat number or both.plus i have another model that does not have on the inside damaskeene it has the the chrome handle both are nice razors.
|
|
ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on May 30, 2012 10:39:45 GMT -6
1912 refers to the patent year. There are different models that use the same patent and they were made for a number of years.
Waits Compendium shows a picture of a 1912 with "Damaskeene" written on the inside under the 1915 area on that page.
There are closed and open comb Damaskeenes, a 1912 w/o anything special written on it, and the Jr. . They pretty much all indicate that they're made by GEM, Brooklyn , NY . Around the raised area where the handle screws into the head will indicate the 1912 patent.
There also is an EverReady that uses the same patent.
FWIW, I find that they all shave differently.
Now I'll back away and let our resident experts tell you more.
Edit: I just checked... My GEM '24 also shows the "Ptd 1912 " stamped where the handle screw hole is. So they were using that patent until '24 at least.
I see (In Waits) that the '28 still used the 1912 patent.
|
|
|
Post by wchnu on May 30, 2012 11:00:14 GMT -6
So which one shaves the best? I prefer the OC. What about yall?
|
|
ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on May 30, 2012 11:39:25 GMT -6
My preferences are the Jr or the '24, I find they shave so alike I can't distinguish between them. I like the looks of the '24 head alot more though. I think it's the curved cover that does it for me.
I also like the 1912s shave.
I find the CC Damaskeene to give a good shave , but it's too mild for me anymore. It just doesn't feel like I'm shaving.
|
|
|
Post by HoosierTrooper on May 30, 2012 12:54:24 GMT -6
I guess I'm a little confused about what a '24 and '28 Gem 1912 is.
|
|
ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on May 30, 2012 15:24:10 GMT -6
Near as I can figure Tom, a '24 is similar to a 1912, but the head is slightly different. At the rear, the vertical piece, it looks identical to the Jr, but where the Jr has a flat blade cover, the '24s is curved. The handle has fine flutes also. IMO the '24 is a better looking razor than the Jr, but they shave so close as to be identical. Let me see if I have a P'B' picture of it... Nope. I hope you don't mind looking at soapy razors. I find it on page Gem 8 in the Waits that I have.
|
|
|
Post by HoosierTrooper on May 30, 2012 17:21:53 GMT -6
I've got a couple of those but I've never seen it referred to as a 1924. I've always just considered it a variation of the 1912 with a slightly more compact frame to fit in the smaller cigarette style cases. It does have a curved top plate similar to the Damaskeenes, which in the original 1912 patent was referred to as being convexly concave.
|
|
RocketMan
Gem Star
RazorAddict
Welcome To The Sharp Side!
Posts: 4,167
|
Post by RocketMan on May 30, 2012 19:46:15 GMT -6
O :ok guys i have a question maybe i can get an answer the 1912 damaskeene that i have says damaskeene on the inside was it in production in 1912 or that was just the pat number or both.plus i have another model that does not have on the inside damaskeene it has the the chrome handle both are nice razors. In 1912 a design patent by a fella named August Scheuber was obtained for a style of single edge razor with a hinged cover plate (originally convexly concave as HT mentions). Look at the pics above and notice that the cover plate and the thumb lever are one part and use a spring to open and close. This was the first SE razor of this type. The 1912 patent covered the design of pretty much every one of these razors up to the entry of the micromatic in the late 20s. (two main different SEs for gem/ER were also introduced with the 1914 patent style where the cover plate was lifted and did not use a thumb lever - and the 1924 patent with the cover plate hinged at the front of the frame near the guard). So, pretty much every one of this style of thumb levered SE razor was stamped with 1912 on it to refer to the patent. They have all been referred to as 1912s in razor circles for some time. Stemming out of this patent design - a thumb activated one piece cover plate - was a multitude of 'models' if you will. The damaskeene which came out initially in 1911 just before the patent was finalized was riding the coat tails of a successful and popular style of forming steel into blades and knives. The word really refers to this metallurgy process - but was swiped by GEM and applied to their blades - and then the razors. For a few years before WW1 the name damaskeene was on all sorts of knife implements. You will see it coming back again in the manufacture of certain straight razors and high end kitchen cutlery. Things evolved and they tinkered with names and models. Razor manufacturers tinkered with case styles which followed a very strong style evolution. The styles reflected manufacturing processes and the ever changing access to metal, new plastics, the impact of wars etc. So there are all kinds of styles. The 1920's, after the large corporate merger bringing all the big SE players into one big fold, saw quite a variation in models - such as the model above with fluted handle, changes to head shapes to fit the popularized cigarette style slim cases, models still in large cases to make grandpa happy, models almost lather catcher like in big cases mirroring Gillette razors - lots of em. The 20's saw a resurgence of available cash and the market reflected this with all these new styles. So really, they are all off of the same patent design - the 1912. But fashion and time spun off a schwack of variations. Both of your razors are 1912s. Yet one is a damaskeene, and the other probably had nothing distinguishing to name it. Some people apply the name of a model - ie the Tourist, and other people may refer to a razor by the year/years it was sold - for example the model indicated above which shows up in Waits as being sold in 1924. One would need a very complete library of advertising literature to make firm statements on naming razors by year (this is seen when looking at references to pre 1910 lather catchers, people will call the same razor a 1906, 1908, 19..whatever based on what they have read or seen.) This gets pretty complicated with the many variations - so for me - I have decided to get lazy and just call em all 1912s!!!
|
|
|
Post by wchnu on May 31, 2012 5:07:57 GMT -6
So would it be correct to say that a damaskeene has it written inside? There are other 1912's with a similar shape that do not have it written inside. I don't consider them a Damaskeene.
|
|
RocketMan
Gem Star
RazorAddict
Welcome To The Sharp Side!
Posts: 4,167
|
Post by RocketMan on May 31, 2012 8:33:21 GMT -6
So would it be correct to say that a damaskeene has it written inside? There are other 1912's with a similar shape that do not have it written inside. I don't consider them a Damaskeene. Most comments about this seem to agree with Damaskeene needing to be written inside to call it a Damaskeene. Makes it easier to identify one with the name plunked right on there. There are threads around suggesting to check for the wording inside. I can never remember the arguments. HoosierTrooper and ShadowsDad have both worked hard at differentiating the models on these razors - you guys agree that 'Damaskeene' needs to be on the head to claim the title?? I am pretty sure this was covered in SDs thread here on 1912s yeah? I think too that expanding the naming to help narrow down identification is not a bad idea and I applaud HT and SD for chattin it out! : ) WCHNU - I tend to prefer the open comb Damaskeene (which was identified in advertising as a Damaskeene model) for a 1912 style razor.
|
|
|
Post by HoosierTrooper on May 31, 2012 10:07:52 GMT -6
I do believe the only true Damaskeenes are the ones with the round, knurled handles and the Damaskeene blade warning/advertisement stamped on them don't you? They are the only ones in the old ads that call them by that name, the later ads just call them by the set they where in such as the Peerless, Wizard etc. Oh, and great writeup Wayne.
|
|
ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on May 31, 2012 12:32:24 GMT -6
Yes, great write up!
I'm far from an expert, and I'm pretty easy. If it has p't'd 1912 stamped on it it's a 1912. If it has "Damaskeene" stamped in it that's what it is. Tom is probably correct with the knurled handle, for a 100% Damaskeene razor. Just to muddy the waters a bit more, even though there are a lot of 1912s, there are different models in that 1912 "bin" . Just like there are lots of vegeatables (1912s), and vegetables are composed of carrots, stringbeans, kale, radishes, etc. .
That's why I use the " '24" designation for that particular model, with that specific handle, with the Jr lower head geometry, with the curved cover. There are a lot of 1912s. I just got back from checking a hunch... re: the '24... It has the stamped head parts of the Damaskeene, but the geometry of the Jr. , and of course the fluted handle. So it's a sort of 1912 hybrid. That explains why I like the looks of it so much (I really like the looks of the Damaskeene head), and why it shaves like a Jr.
|
|
|
Post by HoosierTrooper on May 31, 2012 14:44:22 GMT -6
The whole "Junior" designation on some models and not on others is a whole nuther topic that I simply do not understand. From my understanding the Junior designation was first used around 1906 as a way to show consumers which of the razors could use the new thin, rib-back blades instead of the wedge blades. That makes sense. What I don't get is why ASR decided to mark some of the later models, well after the wedge blades had become obsolete, as "Juniors" and other identical models didn't carry that designation. It makes absolutely no sense. I have one of the fluted handle models that doesn't say Junior on it and doesn't have the Damaskeene ad inside. And one of the latest variations of the 1912 was the one with the fat bakelite Baton handle is designated as a Junior. Why? Anyway, back to the Damaskeene. Here are three that I have that I believe represents the three era's that the Damaskeene was made. From L-R is the early open comb model, the most common one with the solid round, knurled handle in the center and the last one has a slightly different handle. The first two are stamped Gem Cutlery and the last one is stamped Gem Safety Razor Corp. This leads me to believe the last one in the pictures is probably one of the last Damaskeenes made because the name was changed from Gem Cutlery to Gem Safety Razor after the merger in 1919. As you can see in the third picture it has the beveled edge at the end of the top plate, while the earlier ones don't have it. The beveled edge is seen on all of the 1912's made after the Damaskeene ad was dropped and replaced by the word GEM. Since I have a Damaskeene with the post 1919 merger Gem Safety Razor wording it leads me to believe that all of the non-Damaskeene 1912's we see were made no earlier than 1919-1920. Does that make sense? If I'm completely wrong on my ideas I'd really like to know. And if anyone can explain the stupid Junior designation on some of them I'd love to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by HoosierTrooper on May 31, 2012 14:58:22 GMT -6
Here's an ad I meant to attach but forgot. It's dated February 1919 and they were still advertising the Damaskeene.
|
|
ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on May 31, 2012 15:06:15 GMT -6
Tom, IMO, the Jr is there just because they wanted to indicate a different head geometry. Both of my Jr's have a similar head angle compared to themselves, but significantly different than the other 1912s, other than the '24. Like the Damaskeene is different from the "1912". It could have been made easier if GEM has somehow stamped them all differently, but they didn't. Obviously to give us something to discuss 100 years later. :-)
Now to muddy the 1912 water some more, no "name" on the "1912"... I bet in the day folks knew about the different models/years or didn't know or care. Just like today Muhle can make a 2010 R41 and the next year make a completely different R41 , yet they're both R41s. I'd have used a different example other than DE, but I couldn't think of one.
I think we're second guessing something that meant nothing back then. Or trying to find sense where there may have been none. I think it just is the way it is. Some things there are no answers to. They just are.
One observation I've made on all Jrs that have passed through my hands is that they appear made of lighter gauge or lower grade metal than the others. Maybe that's what the Jr means. I wish I knew if that was reflected in the price at the time. I don't.
|
|