I love my newer Wee Scot! I just got it last month. It is a powerhouse of a face latherer! Thanks for all this information. I'll be on the lookout for more small brushes. Have a great night!
Kind of, but not really. With the Simpson's wee scot nano, it's fairly simple. Ivory = Pre-somerset era, early 1900 Butterscotch nano = Somerset era, 1940-1980 Modern wee scot = post Somerset era There's bound to be some overlap there too, and the dates I pulled out of thin air. There are serious Simpson's collectors on other forums who could answer your question better than I. The gentleman I sold my nano to sent me a picture of his Simpson's collection, and he had probably 100-200 Simpson's brushes. Edit: since the brush is marked sterilized, it's post 1920's. Hope that helps.
From some reading I did yesterday, I am going to say that this little Ivory "Wee Scot" is from before 1938. In 1938 it appears that Simpson dropped brand names 'Bajer', 'Simie', 'Alexsim', 'Simbal' and 'Wee Scot' and began to unify the branding with 'Simpson' being the sole brand name used by the family from that point on.
I fixed it... There is a work-around. If you have a photobucket account, right-click the image and save the image on your computer as a .jpg. Then upload the image to the appropriate thread or post. It will try to save it as a .webp, but just save it as a jpg. You might have to re-interpret or decode the hyperlink address, but it is pretty simple. For example, this image, with this link<http://i1241.photobucket.com/albums/gg505/PLANofMAN/Mobile Uploads/111bb1e3_zpsnqoldehe.jpg translates or can be decoded to: https://theshaveden.com/forums/prox...2Fkcy8xMTFiYjFlM196cHNucW9sZGVoZS5qcGc=/?ref= To see the good image, you need to find the image link, normally beginning with <http://i1241.photobucket.com/...> and change the beginning of the address to <http://www.photobucket.com/...>
I'm not sure if starting a new thread is necessary, but if it is, I don't mind a mod setting that up. In terms of the many sizes of Wee Scot, it does look like there might be a difference related to either 1.) the Carter version and the Post-Vulfix/Isle of Man or 2.0 A shift in handle specs. Below is a comparison of 2 Wee Scot brushes: One knot is definitely more dense(the one on the left). The "class" of hair used in the handle on the left also looks different. The handle on the right has a more pronounced ridge near the base. The handle sizes are also ever-so-slightly different too. Is this merely a pre-2008 and post-2008 difference?
I doubt it. As big as Simpson's (shavemac, vulfix, etc) is, it is easy to forget that these are hand turned handles and hand tied knots. There are likely to be minor variations between the same brush type, depending on who made it that day. Edit: mine has the same type of lower ring as the brush on the left, and the pronounced line of the brush on the right. @HolyRollah posted a picture of it earlier in this thread.
Thanks. Does anyone have a Wee Scot 2 from the first 3 production era's? 1. Made In London(pre-1941) 2. Nimmer Mill, Somerset(1941-1990) 3. David Carter(1990-2008)
Should you ever decide to part with that set, let me know. I've had a few regrets in my life, and selling my nano was one.
Can you share the measurements on the Hoffritz? Is the diameter 21mm at the base and a handle height of 25mm or 23.5mm at the base and a handle height of 31mm?