Henry Jacques Gaisman - Mastermind!

News article publish on January 7, 1930. The cat was out of the bag. Many on the factory floor had the designs. All the sales people were briefed in detail first part of January. Utmost secrecy? Hardly! The company handouts to sales people had to be printed? When?

But Waits must be wrong about 1929 on the blade production. Didn't start until Jan 1930

 

It wasn't a slam dunk case, Essex got to the Supreme Court because the Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled the patents had validity and had been infringed upon.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

Reason stated for merger over court fight:

1) Elimination of litigation with AutoStrop.
2) Consolidation of Gillette's and AutoStrops Sales, Manufacturing and Advertising departments valued at $1,000,000 per year savings.
3) AutoStrop's goodwill value of $30 million.
4) Nuisance elimination value of $5 million to $10 million.

All to be had for $20 million.

As per defense attorneys for Henry J Fuller and John E. Aldred, Executive Committe members at Gillette defending themselves at the suit for small shareholders against former directors that they did not act in the companies best interest in causing the merger between AutoStrop and Gillette.

Also...
5) Advantages of pooling both companies patents.
6) AutoStrop had net earnings of not less than $1.5 million per year.
7) Elimination of suits against certain people who had been handling Gillette products. (I believe this is a reference to United Cigar Stores, a large Gillette retailer, who was also sued by AutoStrop).

Further....
8) Once rumors got out on wall street or were started about a merger and then the merger did not go through the stock price would tank "eliminating a surplus" and no dividend would be declared. (for directors, management or others) -Aug 21, 1930 Henry J Fuller

Also... From the bond issuance advertisement 1930-10-07...
9) Obtain services of capable executives.
10) Obtain manufacturing process and equipment of considerable value.
11) Acquire modern plants - one of special interest because it is well located abroad.

 

Timeline of events in the AutoStrop/Gillette Story

1928-02-07 Gaisman awarded patent for "H" holed razor blade (US1658435)

1929-03 Patent troubles a concern at Gillette. R.E. Thompson tasked to solve them.

1929-4-25 Gillette's R.E. Thompson files for cut out corner blade patent (US1924262), an element of the New Blade

1929-06 Gillette decides to definitely design the New Razor

1929-09-26 Gillette's I.S. Bodkin files for slotted, diamond hole, corner cut out patent (US1826341), an element of the New Blade

1929-11-18 Gaisman applies to amend patent 1928-02-07 (US1658435) with substantial language change that conflict with Gillette's New Blade design

1929-11-27 Gillette's R.E. Thompson files for the New Razor blade design (US1850902)

1930-01-06 Gillette stops old blade and razor production and starts the New Razor and the New Blade production - briefs hundreds on the New designs.

1930-01-14 Gaisman awarded patent amendment for US1658435 as reissued patent (RE017567)

1930-03-01 The New Probak blade debutes in one page B&W advertisement in The Saturday Evening Post

1930-03-08 The New Razor and the New Blade debut in 5 page color advertisement in The Saturday Evening Post

1930-03-19 Gillette's Frank J. Fahey "invites" others to sue them for patent infringement

1930-04-03 AutoStrop Safety Razor Co sues Gillette Safety Razor Co for patent infringement

1930-05-28 Gillette asserts in court AutoStrop patents are invalid

1930-07-09 Negotiation with AutoStrop on a merger are ongoing as per Gillette's John E. Aldred in later court testimony

1930-08-08 NY Times reports rumors on Wall Street of a merger

1930-10-15 Merger deal announced with initial terms in NY Times

1930-11-18 Shareholders approve of terms of merger

 

So, I think Gaisman employed a carrot and a stick approach to Gillette Safety Razor Co. He was trying since 1926 to negotiate with Gillette some sort of sale to them patents or whatever. I now believe that once he sued them for patent infringement that Gillette had to listen to him in earnest and a new channel of communication had opened. So he quickly started being the nice guy and saying stuff like "You know I don't want to crush you, why take a chance in court, let's work together, buy my company and I'll come on board. Let's negotiate and see what kind of purchase price works for both of us. You know together we will have 80% of the shaving market. Let's stop beating each other up." I believe the argument went something like that and talk quickly turned from fighting each other to merger!

 

Fascinating history! Thank you, GlennConti! I really appreciated the way you laid out all the data! I'll bet a history journal might be interested in publishing such an article.

 

Notice how many different designs are in place for the Probak Razor guard. They(Probak) used pot metal(cheaper) and they could churn these out like nothing these.



I think [Gaisman] brought a gun to a knife fight.

And, from some of the ads I have read, there is reason to believe there were multiple sources doing the actual blades, hence this addition to the ad:

 

Setting aside the Goodwills did any of the Probak branded razors utilize more than the one common design?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

It looks like their razors incorporated many different designs but they didn't care because the blades would all fit.

 

Guess they did mix em up. Here's mine.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

I've owned 4 different guards(patent fig. #4, #10, #11, and one not listed in the patent doc),


with 3 different handles. The typical handle, but also the Thin Common Bar and Thin Uncommon Bar:

 

One additional point in this time frame, Autostrop according to Russell was actually distributing its slotted blade by January (not just the H blade) thus beating Gillette both to patent AND market of what was to be the New Gillette Blade. This factor according to Russell weighed heavily on the growingly pessimistic view of Gillette's patent counsel.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

As per Tim Dowling 2001 , Inventor of the Disposable Culture - King Camp Gillette - 1855 - 1932, Short Books, ISBN 0-571-20810-X

"Gaisman, a prodigious inventor in the Gillette mould, came up with a double-edged blade with an unusually patterned perforation, which he dubbed the Probak. ... The Gillette company countered with a new razor design, and a blade which fitted both old and new Gillette razors, but not Gaisman's Probak. They announced the move in October 1929, but by November Gaisman was already turning out Probak blades by the mile ... When Gillette finally brought out its blade in January, Henry Gaisman claimed he had a prior patent on their design." P89

Interesting! I looked at the Biblography for Dowling's 2001 book and he states it is "Select" so I don't know where he gets the October 1929 time frame. If true, Gaisman had plenty of time to get to the patent office in November 18, 1929 to amend his patent which in January 14, 1930 became RE017567.

 

I don't know what October announcement is being referred to but the general timeline is consistent with Russell who indicated the slotted blade had been decided upon by Thompson et al in May '29 but that "Gillette had been plagued by manufacturing difficulties throughout the summer and fall" during which time Gaisman was having no such difficulties apparently.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

Right. Agreed May 1929 time frame Gillette had decided to create the New Gillette. In fact by April 1929 Thompson had filed for a patent with blade corner cutouts, an element of the New. No problem with that.

Dowling says Gillette brought out their New blade in January 1930. That corresponds to the news article Jan 7 1930 announcement that the old style had stopped and the New had started. However, when did the New Gillette get to be public knowledge? Was it Jan. 1930 or as Dowling is saying October 1929. Also when did Gaisman start production of the New Probak? You say Adams says definitely by January 1930 for the New Probak but Dowling says it started as early as November 1929. Gillette had theirs in January 1930 definitely.

I tried to get a message to Tim Dowling but no go. His Twitter blocks messages and he’s not on Linkedin. He is active now at the Guardian so there may be a lead. I would love to know were he got the October 1929 announcement of the New from Gillette.

Further, consider this. Gaisman didn’t get the Reissued patent until Jan 14, 1930. Prior to that any New Probak blades would have had to not reference that number 17567. That is they would have said Pat Pending??? Also the March 1, 1930 Saturday Evening Post ad shows that number.

 

Between November and January the difference might just be production (Dowling) vs distribution (Adams)

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

So was Gaisman producing New Probak blades without the 17567 number printed on it I wonder?

 

Dunno. Sometimes patent info appears not on the blades just the wrapper.



Other times on blade



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

Phillip Krumholz is saying the New Gillette was test marketed in 1929 as #134. So Gaisman could have found out the new design during the Gillette test marketing and rushed to reissue his patent.

 

Lots of confused / contradictory info. Krumholz makes no mention of the long slotted Probak being available before 1931, only the non-slotted 1-8 per patent. This we know to be wrong, Adams says January 1930, I find ads appearing May .



Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk