This mentions a new Probak in 1929. Not trying to over load you. Don’t worry about what sources don’t mention. Also don’t know if by new Probak this article means “H” Probak or Slotted Probak. When I say New Probak I mean slotted.
I’m just trying to place the New Probak and New Gillette in the public domain in 1929. We already have them in 1930. But how early can we find them? By public domain I mean could Gaisman have found out without spies in a Gillette? Or other public methods by just having his finger on the pulse of going’s on? For me the key takeaway from Krumholz is the 1929 Gillette test marketing idea for the New. Exactly when in 1929?
The New Probak mentioned is not claimed to be the long slot blade. We know the H type was introduced that period . The ad shown for the long slot is June 1930 which is just a bit later than I find for ads showing the slotted blade (I find May 1930) Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Right. Yes I have a May 1, 1930 Saturday Evening Post ad showing the long slot Probak. I’m calling that the New Probak or slot Probak. Versus the H Probak.
I just ordered the Krumholz Blade Collector’s handbook. Maybe it will have pictures or proof of slotted Probak in 1929 or the test marketed New Blades from Gillette in 1929. Take a few days to get here I guess.
I care about this because it speaks to Gaisman having the opportunity to one up Gillette vis-à-vis patents. If it was out there already in 1929, Gaisman just changes his patent application in mid November 1929. Easy peasy. No spies needed!
I misspoke! The New Probak ad with the slotted Blade printed with the reissue number 17567 was not May 1, 1930. It was March 1, 1930 in the Saturday Evening Post. Gaisman sued Gillette in April 1930. Also, I have a historian contact at P&G that specializes in Gillette. I reached out to him via email about anything he could provide to document the New being in the public domain in 1929; test marketing, English products - whatever! He’s busy but maybe that will bring fruit. I am hoping for public knowledge of Gillette’s New prior to Gaisman’s Nov 18, 1929 patent application. Even if that public knowledge was limited in scope.
Not much to add here, but when that style of blade came out, they were referred to as "butterfly" blades, as the long center slot looked vaguely like a body with 'wings' on either side.
Well here we have it. Some reporter in Pittsburgh knew of Gillette's New Razors and Blade in August 1929. Gaisman had to have known being an industry insider! -- Pittsburgh Press August 30, 1929 P19. Gaisman had knowledge of Gillette's new blade so he just needed to see a drawing of it, make his redesign, draft a new patent with his lawyer and reapply by November 18, 1929! He had at least 2 and a half months.
It seems Gillette New Blades were common knowledge and their design properties to by November 21, 1929 - Daily News - P26 Gaisman had to do something - his whole Probak idea was about to go down the toilet! Talk about snatching victory from the jaws of defeat!!!
You seem to have quite a rosy view of the Gillette side of things which I don't share. There is no reason to think a superior Probak razor and blade wouldn't have been successful. Gillette's reputation as a blade maker was at this point in steep decline, and nobody was crying out for a new Gillette design , it had been the Old Type that had been Gillette's bread and butter in terms of their razor sales since 1904. The next ten years would prove the point, Gillette market share and earnings tanked through 1938, Americans were simply not that enthused about Gillette's expensive blades when there were adequate alternatives. This likely would have been the case with or without Gaisman at the helm. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
"t is understood..." as late as November doesn't imply the 134's were out and produced. Listing 1929 as a production date within the timeline seems pretty erroneous at this point. I'd like to nail down the dates of production of the various NEW base plates. I've wondered how Gaisman fits in with the Short Comb plates and Deluxe. Rotbart was the Gillette of its day -- in Germany. And they pioneered a great set of razors, cases, and blades -- until Gillette purchased Roth-Büchner in 1926. There is a striking similarity here: Short Comb w/ Probak Jr. Blades Look familiar?
Read this "It is understood a new model is coming out which will use only Gillette blades, thus increasing earnings." Gaisman had to respond. He had no razor at the time and the only market for his Probak would have been the old Gillette razors. Further Gillette would have a new patent and it would be 1903 to 1921 all over again just like when the three holed blade was protected.
If Gillette was no threat, why redesign his Probak? Gaisman had to try to outmaneuver Gillette. What happened after 1931 has no bearing on Gaisman's mindset in 1929. Further Gaisman was in control in the mid and late 1930's with his better blade manufacturing tech. If Gaisman and AutoStrop were so great how do you explain the poor performance later. It doesn't matter at this point 1929 and 1930. I mean what is it? Gillette as a company just stunk regardless of who was in control? I don't think so.
Duh, of course Gillette was a threat, that doesn't mean a better blade manufacturing product and process -- and razor -- wouldn't have been successful. That things continued to go south after 1931 doesn't imply they might not have gone as badly or worse under the old crew . And please don't put words in my mouth I'm not suggesting Autostrop was so great, just that there were enormous issues on the Gillette side of things. This was not a situation of white and black hats. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Let's not get hot over this. You make good points. Yes no doubt Gillette had issues in the mid and late 1930s. But, they could have been related to all the bad press coming out of the small shareholder law suit.
Gillette issues went beyond bad press: -Earnings decline such that all profits came from non-US operation by 1938. - Stock price falling 90% from its peak - Blades market share declining from over 80% in 1928 to under 20% in 1938. These declines in market share and earnings had begun after 1926-28 and simply continued on under Gaisman. - NY Stock Exchange demanding replacement of management after audits discovered Directors.had knowingly overstated pre 1930 earnings and taken huge bonuses on those fanciful earnings. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk