Brush-bamboozlement and Badger-ology…
An industry wide standardisation of badger brush terminology is most likely counterproductive to any brush seller other than the long established players. Marketing relies on a point of difference (perceived or otherwise) and nonstandard nomenclature can be good for business.
Brush assembler as opposed to brush maker is a term that perhaps needs some recognition among the traditional wet shaving community. A brush assembler generally takes a preformed knot and sets it in a handle. Most brush assemblers are also handle makers. A brush maker creates both the handle and the knot. Both handles and knots were traditionally made by hand. Now most handles are at least in part machine made and so are some knots. I tend to favour the more holistic idea of a brush being made completely in house, but I also applaud collaboration between handle makers and knot makers. CNC machines enable greater production capabilities and more consistency with handle production which makes plausible business sense especially in terms of time management and quality control. Even more importantly it provides the ability to satisfy more customers. The same might be argued for knot making. Personally I put most stock into the business end of a brush, which for me is the knot and for my money I like the idea of hand tied by an expert in the trade.
Considering knots, the glue bump has almost been reinvented as a term. Once considered an element of a sub standard brush, its now considered more favourably and discussed as free loft. The issue here, is that every single knot is formed with glue. The obvious appearance of glue leaking through the fibres of the knot is definitely undesirable and likely an indication of poor craftsmanship. However, traditionally the glued portion of a knot was always contained within the handle - out of sight and out of mind. Its the fact that knots are now regularly being set differently into handles that glue bumps have become more frequently discussed and more interestingly accepted.
The new trend can be hypothesised thusly. Badger hair is getting shorter. Not necessarily on the animal, but definitely in the knot. It might be argued that an increase in badger brush consumerism translates into more juvenile badgers being harvested and the at their pelts have not had sufficient time to grow long fibres, but that sounds silly to me. A better explanation is that the current trend among brush users sees 2 band badger hair as more favourable, both in terms of appearance and function.
The appearance aspect is obvious - to have a 2 band knot any lighter coloured hair at the base needs to be eradicated which stands to reason that most 2 band knots are likely to possess shorter loft capacities compared to 3 band.
As for function, the more traditional mop-like characteristic no longer curries favour with the wet shaving masses. Backbone was until very recently, one of the most discussed and consequently most coveted attributes. Backbone is directly proportional to density, loft and more recently individual hair thickness. Traditionally 3 band knots improved knot integrity with additional hair. A dense knot provides less splay and the sensation of more backbone. Three issues arise here. 1. Density reduces flow through. 2. Density increases the cost of the knot. 3. Individual hair strength is actually a better measure of backbone. Generally speaking, 2 band hair is less fine than 3 band and therefore exhibits more backbone.
However, there is another way to influence knot characteristics and thats through construction. A bulbous knot relies in part on the density principle with hair supporting each other by way of placement rather than simply through bulk. A fan shaped knot requires significantly more hair to display a similar level of knot integrity, thats why they splay more and feel larger on the face. Then there is glue…
As stated earlier this used to all be hidden in the handle. Now the handle itself can be responsible for the presence of a glue bump. The Simpson M6 provides useful example. The shape of the handle limits the width of the knot possible (just like any other handle) but also the depth of the bore. When the knot specs for this brush were announced the masses called for a wider knot. Yours truly argued against it, but in an effort to accomodate the outnumbering requests the knot diameter was increased. The bore was bevelled permitting the actual or apparent larger knot (depending on your level of cynicism and spacial reasoning), but the depth of the bore could not be altered. In short, a wider knot could not truly be installed. The bevelling meant the knot would be less supported by the handle (is this why some manufactures have that classy looking ring?) and NEEDED more glue in the centre of the knot to maintain the same characteristics that that particular grade of hair was known for. Hence a noticeable glue bump or the knot would have exhibited significantly more splay and less overall integrity (or in other words a feeling of reduced backbone).
This example leads me to the firm conclusion that a brush is best conceived in relation to matching a suitable handle to the knot and not the reverse. The depth a knot is set into a handle will greatly effect the characteristics it ultimately displays. The handle can be almost as much of a determining factor as hair grade and knot construction.
I’m just saying that knots are being set differently into handles giving rise to this new phenomenon now known as free loft. The focus on offering a variety of handle shapes coupled with a possibility that preformed knots might not take into account the effect of bore depth on knot appearance and function, gives rise to the need to make explanation in a positive light of what was once considered more of a flaw rather than a deliberate and now necessary design requirement.
Brushes are not necessarily better or worse for it. The entire premise is a marketable product and a rational to justify change. If anyone is to blame its consumers!
The lack of standardisation in knots is just the tip of the badger.
Buying badger was once a bit of crap shoot. Batch variation not unlike wine vintages meant there were stellar years as well as less favourable ones. Now more brushes are being offered, but with much greater consistency. The only explanation is that the Chinese are producing badger pelt in sophisticated and controlled environments such as state of the art laboratories rather than being the byproduct of an inexpensive protein source… Or, tip treatment has become much more prevalent.
To my limited google investigation there is no authenticated sub-species of gel tipped hair badger, blonde badger, finest badger or super badger. I’m not even convinced of the existence (dare I say it) of an elusive Manchurian or even High Mountain White genus of badger. What I do prescribe to is environmental factors. Primarily geographical location, but also season when harvested and maybe even age of the individual badger, logically must have some impact on the hair. Location on the body definitely does and is where most traditionally and accepted hair grade terminology stems from. However, much must surely be attributed to how the hair is treated (and of course as previously touched on, how the knot is constructed and set).
Is treated hair better than natural hair? I’m not sure. Super soft tips logically don’t seem to be conducive to coarser, thicker or more robust individual shafts of hair. Strong banding with bright white tips again seems more consumer driven as opposed to Darwinism. If treated hair possesses the characteristics shavers want it must be good then? A search of the bathroom that I sometimes share with my wife (I shave in the kid’s bathroom - which seems fraught with hazard given sharp things just out of reach of small hands, but its better than sharp things within reach of my wife’s lovely hands when she realises how much I’ve spent on brushes)…Where was I going with this? Well, my wife’s shampoo and conditioner are much more expensive than soap from MdC or any other high end brand (and they don’t last nearly as long either), but I’m reminded that coloured and treated hair is damaged and requires expensive products to repair and maintain. I considered trying some on my more obviously treated brushes, but SWMBO would not be amused.
Unnatural badger hair does seem to be a natural development and does seem to go hand in hand with preformed knots. I don’t know if some of todays almost McDonald’s style badger hair will last as long as grandpa’s old brush (sadly I never inherited one), but I do know that I have far too many brushes and by virtue of that fact it’s unlikely I’ll ever risk wearing one out. Besides, I’ve also been informed that the majority of badger hair I’ve invested in is in fact UN-treated (yes, some people do provide direct answers to direct questions devoid of smoke and mirrors!) and that goes a long way to justifying price in my mind at least.
The good news for all of us is that there is such a variety of badger brushes being produced that ensures all tastes and budgets are well catered for. The bad news is when we champion a brand or worse attack another which seems to happen regularly now, particularly in relation to handle design. Not too dissimilar to a razor, which essentially is just 2 or 3 pieces of metal holding a blade; holding a clump of badger hair is also going to have its design limitations. Long established brands will provide the inspiration for every brush handle I’ve seen, its folly to argue complete originality. Even Italian master craftsman Marco Finardi who’s brushes must be some of the most unique being offered today surely must take some inspiration from exisiting designs as a starting point for his wonderful creations. Rather than debating the virtues of one producer over another or further muddying the descriptive waters of badger brush terminology, I propose we should all simply celebrate a shared passion and limit justification and qualitative measures to “Gee, that’s a nice brush mate!” Just like we used to…
