What the fuss with new razors over the old ones?

The Kman

The Kman

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Location
Melbourne
Yep, I'm pretty new to all this, so maybe the answer is obvious to everyone else, but I struggle to understand where new razors have a clear advantage over the 50+ year old competition from Gillette; et al.

The design hasn't changed much, if at all, depending on your particular perspective. The major change I see is weight. My '72 Tech weight barely 30 grams, where the Feather AS-D2, which is not that heavy by modern standards, weighs in at 90 grams. Looking at the Merkur Futur, or Rockwell 6S for example, these are massive heavy beasts compared to their 50 year old counterparts.

The only significant advantage I can see to the added weight is to stop the propensity to bounce over dense stubble. For example, the Tech can stutter over the ATG pass around my neck, but the Feather tends to stay flatter. I image a heavier razor will do better here, rather than force you to add pressure to prevent stutter.

Is that it? Maybe a couple of lead fishing weights could transform my $10 razor, rather than spending big on a 6S?!
 
In short, they don't. The old razors (not all, but many) as just as good as today's examples. Folks go for moderns because they want something modern, not because it's better.

In fact, when it comes to straights, the majority believe that a modern blade cannot compete with a quality vintage blade.
 
I think some very great improvements have been made, especially to the head design.

In my experience modern razors hold the blade much tighter, which results in greater blade rigidity, less blade chatter and therefore a smoother shave.

Some have achieved this with precision machining while keeping the head flat - Wolfman/BBS-1 and ATT come to mind.

Other by twisting/curving the blade - many of the RazoRock razors do that.

BTW the blade rigidity is IMO also the reason, why single edge razors are so popular with experienced shavers - the blades are thicker and therefore don't chatter.

Having said all that: once you know what you are doing, you can probably get a decent shave out of all of the above - for me it's the fun and ease factor that make modern DE's so much more appealing ;)
 
I enjoy and use both vintage and new razor designs.
Alf's comments above are salient. Another factor to consider is the significant advances made in metallurgy during the last 100 years, resulting in improved materials of construction, the ability to machine to tighter tolerances, and reduced corrosion.
But hey - I love my vintage razors, and get great shaves with them!
 
I'm looking at my '72 English Gillette Tech and the blade is held rigid very close to the edge, just like the Feather. There's nothing in it. I reckon our forefathers aren't getting enough credit! Honestly, most of the modern razor I've seen don't hold the blade rigid to the edge, far from it.

Corrosion resistance is great, but if you're using it daily and maintaining it, you could just as easily make a razor from copper and still have it last a lifetime. It's asthetic really.

Don't get me wrong, I like a shiny new toy as much as the next testosterone driven human. However, purely as a utilitarian device, I can't justify spending hundreds, when $10 does the job just as well. If I'm not kidding myself, I should get rid of everything else.

Truth? Are we that shallow?
 
I have only been wet shaving for several months now and I do have a couple of vintage DE Razors and I do have two or three more modern razors and none of my Vintage razors come close to the shaves I get with the likes of my ATT, Timeless or my Rockwell 6 S. So i guess my opinion is unbiased one way or the other but I will stick with my moderns and use my Vintage razors only when I feel like a little change. (y)
Cheers
Tony
 
Interesting. It would be helpful to get an idea of why this is in a quantifiable way. ATT, Timeless and Rockwell 6S are all heavy razors, but beyond this I still struggle to see how newer razors are advantageous.

I had a go at trying to find manufacturing tolerance issues on two old razors with stamped steel bases and both were meeting cap to base to within .038mm across the entire edge. If the gap is smaller than this I can't measure it as this is the thinnest feeler gauge I have. All of the capture surfaces were as flat as I'm able to measure with the same limitations. With the stress of bending the blade creating a more rigid edge I suspect this level of tolerance would be largely irrelevant. I also tried to fit a feeler gauge between the blade and the locating lugs in the caps, but whether the feeler gauge was too flexible or the gap is too small is difficult to determine at this scale. Either way the slop is almost imperceptible in both cases.

As quantifiable performance measures go there are really two groups; those which are objective, and those which are subjective. I'm interested to see if there are others I'm not aware of, so here's a list of performance measures by category I can think of, perhaps you folks can think of more?

Subjective (performance benefits which vary by user):
o Blade gap: The clearance between blade and guard measured perpendicular to the shaving surface (straight tangent line contacting guard and cap).
o Sharpness/smoothness: As a function of the blade in use. This is a very big bag of variable in itself.
o Weight: I'm not sure this is really a subjective variable, but I suspect most people will align quality of outcome with weight, making the variable subjective by default.
o Balance: Distribution of weight and balancing point. Again, not sure this should be subjective beyond the human condition.
o Blade presentation angle: The angle of the blade measured against the shaving surface (straight tangent line contacting guard and cap). I suspect this one would be simple to objectify with a statistical trial analysis.

Objective (performance benefits we all agree would be good for everyone):
o Blade straightness: The ability of the razor to maintain a perfectly straight edge to the blade.
o Consistent clearance: The ability to maintain the same blade clearance/gap across the entire cutting edge.
o Tight parallel-ness: The ability to ensure each edge of the blade is presented exactly the same, rather than more aggressive on one side when compared to the other.
o Tight locating tolerance: The ability to locate the blade with minimal slop, such that impact on gap/clearance/parallel-ness is minimised.

That's all I can think of at the moment. Of course, this completely ignores software/prep.

It occurs to me that the phrase "Your Mileage May Vary" is really just shorthand for "There are too many variable to create a complete matrix of tools and conditions to select a tool that will be perfect based on your particular set of conditions". Or TATMVTCaCMoTaCTSaTTWBPBOYPSoC... you know, for short.. :S

I suppose what I mean is this: If you're able to lock down all of the variables, it would be trivial to determine what, if any, advantage is assigned to newer products over older ones. It's clear that some see that newer products do a better job, and I subscribe to this notion, I prefer my Feather to the vintage Gillette, but the scientist in me is screaming to understand why! In my case the sample size is far too small to draw any conclusion. Is it because there is simply more data on the performance of newer products freely available, swaying our purchasing choices, sort of self-reinforcing? Perhaps it's still marketing driven, even though we'd all like to think we're bucking the marketing trend?

I don't know. Perhaps no one else really cares, but it bugs me very badly.
 
I think you are not the only one trying to determine this - but I fear you won't be the last either :(

I told you already my personal experiences - maybe @TomG could chime in on the thickness of a modern razor blade and what tolerances in the production would be needed to keep a perfect straight edge?

I have the suspicion, that your feeler gauges might not tell you the whole story...
 
alfredus said:
BTW the blade rigidity is IMO also the reason, why single edge razors are so popular with experienced shavers - the blades are thicker and therefore don't chatter.
Click to expand...

gallery_3406_853_429.jpeg
I am an "experienced shaver"!

These days I shave with a SR pretty much 29/30 times. It's a GEM SE on that other occasion so I don't know about DEs and there are no GEM style modern SEs, sadly. I do have a DE or two that I used once upon a time. Both modern and vintage. I don't (or didn't) find any difference between them but I am comparing Merkur's to vintage, not Timeless and the like.
 
@Sxot: Pardon my ignorance, but SR doesn't stand for Safety Razor? SE and DE I get, what's SR? Unfortunately this is also a DE sample size too small to be much use, but good to know that objectivity isn't lost, all the same. :)

@alfredus: My precision measuring tools are limited to an analogue vernier (~20 years old), a cheap micrometer (Chinese) and a set of feeler gauges I last used to set the points on a car that was the same age as me... and it wasn't no classic. Suffice to say my engineering skills are focused in the binary space, I'm probably well out of my depth. That said, a DE razor is hardly rocket surgery. :)

EDIT: Is that Straight Razor?
 
The Kman said:
@Sxot: Pardon my ignorance, but SR doesn't stand for Safety Razor? SE and DE I get, what's SR? Unfortunately this is also a DE sample size too small to be much use, but good to know that objectivity isn't lost, all the same. :)
Click to expand...
Straight Razor yep :D

I think a really good indication of tolerances is the current situation with the Rockwell Model T. The plan was to manufacture the head out of brass, however highlighted they were unable to achieve the tolerances desired using this material. I would imagine, that if they cannot achieve that now, that they couldn't back in the 50's, and it may not have been as big of a consideration. That is not mutually exclusive though. Some vintage may have turned out spot on, or may just suit the user. Personally, I find that in use, vintage razors do not work as well for me as modern razors. Theorising, I come to the same conclusions as @alfredus ... People are using much better technology to work out dimensions and exposures, to much greater tolerances than you would find in a razor >20+ years old (they may have been good at time of production, but time catches up to all).
 
For me, the vintage razors never worked, to the point where I nearly went back to carts.

It's the head geometry that made all the difference for me. It's not so much vintage versus modern cos even most modern razors don't suit me.

The only two razors that really work for me (and hence the only two I own), are the progress and rockwell.

The heft is a bonus as I can truly use no pressure where as with light razors, I found myself pushing down. The short progress is the lightest razor I'd use, nothing lighter.

I guess it comes down to beard type and skin type that will determine what we require.

It's like those threads that state astra blades are as sharp as father blades, clearly these are the observations of a man with light stubble cos astra blades are blunt for me and at best I can achieve a CCS from them.
 
Its horses for courses... I love my Vintage razors and think they are so well made (especially the British Aristocrats and Rhodium plated versions) plus have the advantage of interesting history to them. I am always impressed with how well they have survived the passage of time. I have a few modern razors too, but prefer the Vintage.
 
I hear a few people say "head geometry", but what does mean quantifiably? Is there a variable we can add to the list?

I joke about copper, obviously, but brass has a thermal expansion rate which would not suit a razor at all. Personally I reckon brass is a poor choice of material, rather than reflecting newer, better manufacturing processes. Just sayin' :)
 
But a lot of the famous/well liked vintage razors are brass...Fat Boy, Slim, Old Techs, Many Aristocrats...Or am I wrong here @Mark1966 ?
 
alfredus said:
But a lot of the famous/well liked vintage razors are brass...Fat Boy, Slim, Old Techs, Many Aristocrats...Or am I wrong here @Mark1966 ?
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct mate - that was the material of choice
 
The Kman said:
I hear a few people say "head geometry", but what does mean quantifiably? Is there a variable we can add to the list?

I joke about copper, obviously, but brass has a thermal expansion rate which would not suit a razor at all. Personally I reckon brass is a poor choice of material, rather than reflecting newer, better manufacturing processes. Just sayin' :)
Click to expand...

All the old gillettes are brass. I think they went to zinc or maybe aluminium later, but the early techs, news, olds, slims and fatboys are brass.

With head geometry, my understanding is that it's about blade angle and gap. Personally, I get the best shaves from my slim and my razorock hawk. That said I haven't tried any high end modern DE razors so I really can't comment on that side of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top