I look forward to testing it. When you do that test, you are front lighting, not back-lighting it, correct? None of the pictures I've seen have been indicative of backlighting for translucence, but some of the descriptions have confused me on what exactly people are doing.
Looking at your pics at the B&B post, what I see (and also what I've seen in the majority of the pictures here) looks like a semi-translucent wavy pattern, whereas bone tends to have a more straight line grain, and celluloid is however they mixed it at the factory. Am I looking at the right thing, or is there a detail I'm missing?
Could you clarify for me what you mean by branching, please. When I look at the pictures of known ivory, I don't see anything I would describe that way. Thanks. Sent from my LGUS992 using Tapatalk
Interconnected lines, reticulated lines. Anything except parallel lines. This is a bad close up picture of celluloid made up to look like ivory. Note the parallel lines. This is an even worse close up picture of a better attempt to replicate ivory. The darker lines are broken up so that the lighter lines appear to be branching around the ends of the darker lines.
I know I'm four years late, but I do see other details. It's possible for bone and ivory to be polished smooth as glass, but when they're not, and when the color of the grain pattern is not visible, then sometimes the grain pattern will be visible in the slight irregularities on the bright part of a reflecting surface. If you look at the lower center of the scales where it is reflecting white, the surface detail appears to be stippled.
So, like waviness and kind of chopped up lines? I think I follow. I know the parallel lines like your first example mean either celluloid or bone, depending on the presence of the tiny pores visible on bone. To my eye, how I would describe ivory is a semi-translucence, where it looks as though the pattern exists into the material, rather than a strict cross-section of which you can only see the surface. It's like looking at laquer paint applied in many layers opposed to enamel paint where you only see the top layer. You don't look at it so much as you look into it. And because of the circular nature of ivory in its natural form, the pattern has little to no regularity. Does that sound right? Sent from my LGUS992 using Tapatalk
Ivory. Definitely ivory. Paper thin, not terribly flexible compared to thicker celluloid scales, and the most obvious schraeger lines I've seen. I don't have a separate flashlight here at the office, so we'll see how my phone camera does at capturing them. Also, the surface has ripples that follow the schraegers. Sent from my LGUS992 using Tapatalk
Maybe these will help, but you just need to get one real ivory and one real tortoise scaled razor and you’ll probably never have questions again - I can spot ivory in a bad image on Etsy lol. I will say that there’s more variation in tortoise than ivory.
I just want to say, that there have been some very nice Ivory scaled razors represented on this thread. I, for one, have also learned a great deal about Ivory Scales from reading here.
What do you think of this box? https://www.ebay.com/itm/EXTREMELY-...E-OF-ROLLS-RAZOR-7-DAY-BLADE-SET/203244522129
I really wish the pictures were better resolution and better lit. What occurs to me is that I don't know of any "animal horn" and very few animal bones that would be that thick other than tusks. I think the seller is being facetious when he identifies it as "horn". The main question, then, seems to be "is it actual ivory?", or "is it simulated ivory made of celluloid?" Since it seems handmade, I would lean toward the former. From what I can make of the grainy photos, it looks like it could have schraeger lines, but it's hard to be very confident of that assessment. With the price he's asking, he either knows it's ivory and what it's worth, or he's a big shyster. His feedback profile would indicate that he knows what he has. My vote is ivory.