Thread: Help for datation - Fox razor inside

First of all, hello everybody, it's really nice to find such a place, full of razors enthusiasts.

Secondly, please excuse my english, as it is not my mother tongue.

I recently bought a beautiful stub tail english razor that I have difficulties to date.

First the pictures:





At first, I basically dated that razor to 1790-1810: wedge profile, stub tail, straight handles. But I like to have things well documented so I did a few search.

When you google "fox straight razor", you quickly find Fox Cutlery, a Solingen brand. Doesn't match. Dig a little deeper and you'll find the Fox brothers:

The Fox brothers (John: 1714 - 1790s, Stephen: 1716 - 1773, and William: 1719 - 1769) were Samuel's uncles, and Samuel was heir to their business Samuel ran Fox and Norris and later Samuel Norris and Son

(source: Full A to Z list of Razor Manufacturers & their Dates of Operations)

Here we find a William ! Bingo !... Except that he's supposed to have died in 1769... So here is my main question: is it possible that this razor has been manufactured, let's say, during the 1760's ? I know that english razors have had tails longer before french ones did, but this kinda surprised me.

It would be possible that the W. FOX mark had been used after William's death but the Fox brothers shared with Mathew (then Samuel) the *P mark. Here is a John Fox razor, using the *P mark instead of his name only :





(source: http://straightrazorpalace.com/razor...king-info.html)

This makes me think that, at William's death, the surviving brothers would have used either the *P mark, or their own name (John or Stephen), or both... But I may be wrong.

Talking about this razor on a french forum (Coupe-chou Club), it's been suggested my blade has been reworked someday (when ?) like this:

(from: http://straightrazorpalace.com/razor...rge-smith.html)

What leads us to that:


Definitely a 1780-1800 blade profile, but could that be a little older ?

And, to complete the mystery, I just found a William Fox in some 1781 document:



(source: https://books.google.fr/books?id=jqB...J&pg=PA289)


Same adress as Fox and Norris, but 12 years after his death... now I'm definitely lost...

So, gentlemen, any information would be very, very welcome.

I would say that it's very plausible that this is a Wm. Fox. I can't really add any information, but you've done an excellent job of information gathering already. I believe that it has been reprofiled and it originally would have looked very similar to what you have there, and I believe that it could very well be from the tail end of the 1760s. An excellent piece, thanks for sharing.

I think your dating is spot on. The razor could quite easily be 1760. It has been re-profiled at some stage and your drawing of the original shape looks good. When the blade runs directly into the tang with no change of shape, as it was before re-profiling, then they are very early.

All I can say is......nice razor!


Mike

What a treasure, thank you for sharing.

Thank you guys for your kind and informative messages.

My main interrogation is William's death date. He's supposed to have passed away in 1769 but is still present in the directory in 1781...

So, either the informations from taylor1000 (and Neil Miller in the SRP thread linked above) are false, or the directory still mentions someone who died 12 years earlier...

For sure, in the 18th century, things weren't updated as fast as today, but this seems quite a long time to have documents not corrected. But if that razor was made before 1769, it's almost 250 years old !

Or: someone else, called William Fox, worked at the same place as Fox & Norris in 1781. Maybe a son of one of the three brothers ? Unfortunately, the Fox family isn't as well documented as the Norris one, I wish I had the same tree for them:


About the reprofile, I really wonder when it could have been done... What amazes me is that the grind doesn't seem to have been touched (or very lightly):
1) I suppose a regrind would have faded the W partially strucked on the blade, which shows the same depth as the other letters
2) blade measurements seem to be untouched: the blade regularly tappers from 5 mm (13/64 in) at the point to 3mm (1/8 in) at the heel, until 1 mm (3/64 in) at the end of the tail

In your opinion, could the reprofile have been done during the 19th century (let's say 1850, before the full hollow regrind fashion) or could it be a recent work ? For sure (considering the almost immaculate blade), it's been restored recently but I have no idea if it was more then a very good cleaning (and perfect honing as this baby came shave ready to me)... I definitely have to ask the seller.

EDIT 1: Well, maybe all this information gathering was useless...

There were MANY William Fox during the 18th century...


(source: http://www.sheffieldindexers.com/)

The database itself contains details (where available) of the apprentice (name and year of apprenticeship or Freedom), his parent (name, abode and occupation) and the master to whom he was apprenticed (name, abode & occupation). The following notes should be borne in mind:

Where no abode is given then "Sheffield is generally to be understood".
Abbreviations of forename, occupation and abode have been exapnded in full when possible.
Where years of both apprenticeship and Freedom were available only the apprenticeship had been entered
Where the year of Freedom has been entered then the year will be followed by (F)

So that razor may have connections to the Fox / Norris family or not...

EDIT 2: Lunch is a profitable moment to think and rethink...

I'm not particularly familiar to the old cutlery guild usages and laws, but did you have to be a master to stamp your name on a blade (i.e. to be a manufacturer) ?

The extract above shows only the apprentices and freemen during the 18th century. Maybe most of the Williams above were "just" cutlers for a manufacturer (and maybe some of them haven't even been freed).

I'm waiting for my registration by the Sheffield Records Online so I can check the Foxes who have granted masters.

Beautiful razor, Inoe, and most excellent research. Your skills would be quite appreciated around here on a regular basis!
We have some great historians here and I feel certain they will comment on this.

It is interesting that as you find out more, it only seems to raise more questions. Names, family histories. Good stuff!

Thank you sharptonn

I have done similar searches for Rodgers razors and, man ! this was way easier... Big company, long history, well documented...

Here, it seems like when I think I have found something, two hours later it appears to be false... Or maybe finally true the next day...

It makes me look in every direction and that is really much more interesting.

Currently, I try to find out how the company of cutlers was organized (apprentices, freemen, masters, etc)... and things are not that easy...

For example: William Fox, son of Stephen, was apprentice to Thomas Rose, his master, and freed in 1740. And Thomas rose was made Master cutler in 1742 (source: http://www.cutlers-hallamshire.org.u...rs,%202011.pdf)... There is a confusion between master (of an apprentice) and the Master cutler, elected (by whom ?) every year:

There has been an annually elected Master Cutler since August, 1624, except during the two World Wars. There are a number of men who served more than one year, but in the early years, it is not possible to say whether the same name refers to the same person.

Was it possible to have apprentices as soon as you were freed ? Did you need to wait, to take some kind of tests, to be allowed by the company ? No idea... Could you stamp your name when freed ? No idea...

So many questions...

You are most welcome. Well deserved.

I have summoned Zak (Voidmonster) to this thread. Hopefully ScienceGuy will attend as well.
You should enjoy getting to know them, if you don't already!

Well, I have read some of their posts (I've been lurking a lot here before I registered...) and I'm very grateful you summoned them !

Maybe things will get clearer... or maybe we'll dig even deeper... Anyway, thanx a lot.