Funding or Grants funded by non Industry for Shaving Research

[BBSSBOSS]

The Gillette written paper inspired me to create my Gillette Super Click with Flexball technology Frankenrazor. Forward pivot and ball pivot plus replaceable single blades. Works great!

Thats impressive. 2 of the 3 of the abrasive physical forces during shaving are smoothened with this kind of tech it seems.

 

[BBSSBOSS]

I agree with your B&B statement. I trust the people here far more than I would some sort of testing done in a lab environment with grant money... funded by someone. Here, other than vendors which are identifiable, no one is selling anything. This is perhaps the most unbiased shaving research center on the planet.

And guess what? Even with a well designed study, it would still come down to "YMMV".... I'm sitting here thinking... I guess if you segregated the shavers into groups aligned with their shaving preferences, you might end up with more of a consensus among each group... that's sort of what happens here. Each person starts shaving... and determines what kind of razor, brush and soap works best for them... then they find other people using similar products and compare notes. You can't do that until you start. You have to put soap and blade to your face.

Good pt about starting... it's been 7 yrs and counting of SE Kamisori and DE usage ranging from Futur to R41 etc. with uncounted soap/ blade/ as samples, so many of which have gone to landfills or tossed aside or passed on.
So yeah, a standardish high-level approach to describing the characteristics of a soap so one can eliminate or include it in trying seems a good path forward. Of course, post that one's MMV yet it starts from a more efficient point.
The folks here are magnificent yet after reading conversation after conversation the consensus which is broad-based (>30%) is elusive on brands, soaps etc it seems to me. YMMV

 

[hairless wonder]

Fair points, value is some parts perception and some parts utility.

Where am coming from is given the abundance of choice say for e.g. in Shaving creams, multiples of sample packets cannot make a dent in narrowing choice, so if as an user am focused on slickness or latherability or fragrance one hopes to narrow down choice from many wonderful providers to a smaller number.

Slickness and latherability aren't really objective in the real world. What I mean is what I consider slick/latherable may be considered not slick/latherable and a third person might consider it to be too slick/latherable. Sure, the values might be quantified (especially slickness, since that seems to be a value of friction or lack thereof).

Latherability, OTOH, is also impacted by other things, especially water. Not only how much water gets added, but also what hardness of water. On top of that, some soaps perform differently if they're allowed to dry out between uses.

Take MWF, for instance, while some people swear by MWF (or at least they did before the non-tallow reformulation), others swore at it. I include my self in the latter category. From most accounts, it performs best with soft water and poorly (with a few exceptions) with hard water. Also as reported by many in this forum, MWF needs to remain hydrated between uses and this can be best (only?) achieved by shaving with it daily. Not only do I have hard water, but I also don't shave everyday. This meant the MWF puck dried out every time between uses. So MWF resulted in horrible latherability and minimal slickness. Yet, those who swear by MWF praise its latherability and slickness.

With that in mind, how would a study take into consideration how hydrated a soap is between uses? Even if that were possible, how would the study account for the hardness of water used unless the report includes results of the soaps tested with water at various hardness. Even then, would the study also have to use water with other additives that could be in the water? For instance, in the US, fluoride is a common additive in drinking water while chlorine is commonly added to sanitize drinking water. How would the study account for the differences in the amounts of these additives?

Ultimately, the best way to gauge the latherability and/or slickness of each soap is to read the reviews provided by various people. This can provide a baseline of information. From there, you can try out some of the reviewed soaps and see where your results line up with reviews you read. By repeating this process a number of times, you'll find yourself in agreement more times than not with certain reviewers. You can then base your future new soap buying decisions more on their reviews and less on those with which you tend to disagree.

In other words, treat reasoned shaving product purchase decisions the same way you treat reasoned movie watching decisions (and decisions for just about everything else in life). The old saying that one man's trash is another man's treasure holds true for more than antiques and collectibles. (As does the unstated corollary one man's treasure is another man's overkill.)

 

[Multum in parvo]

Slickness and latherability aren't really objective in the real world. What I mean is what I consider slick/latherable may be considered not slick/latherable and a third person might consider it to be too slick/latherable. Sure, the values might be quantified (especially slickness, since that seems to be a value of friction or lack thereof).

Latherability, OTOH, is also impacted by other things, especially water. Not only how much water gets added, but also what hardness of water. On top of that, some soaps perform differently if they're allowed to dry out between uses.

Take MWF, for instance, while some people swear by MWF (or at least they did before the non-tallow reformulation), others swore at it. I include my self in the latter category. Not only do I have hard water, but I also don't shave everyday. This meant the MWF puck dried out every time between uses. From what I've read on this forum, MWF needs to remain hydrated between uses and this can be best (only?) achieved by shaving with it daily.

With that in mind, how would a study take into consideration how hydrated a soap is between uses? Even if that were possible, how would the study account for the hardness of water used unless the report includes results of the soaps tested with water at various hardness. Even then, would the study also have to use water with other additives that could be in the water? For instance, in the US, fluoride is a common additive in drinking water while chlorine is commonly added to sanitize drinking water. How would the study account for the differences in the amounts of these additives?

Ultimately, the best way to gauge the latherability and/or slickness of each soap is to read the reviews provided by various people. This can provide a baseline of information. From there, you can try out some of the reviewed soaps and see where your results line up with reviews you read. By repeating this process a number of times, you'll find yourself in agreement more times than not with certain reviewers. You can then base your future new soap buying decisions more on their reviews and less on those with which you tend to disagree.

In other words, treat reasoned shaving product purchase decisions the same way you treat reasoned movie watching decisions (and decisions for just about everything else in life). The old saying that one man's trash is another man's treasure holds true for more than antiques and collectibles. (As does the unstated corollary one man's treasure is another man's overkill.)

Good points and then there is always the discussion here that an excellent DE soap might be less stellar for SR shaves and vice versa…

 

[BBSSBOSS]

Slickness and latherability aren't really objective in the real world. What I mean is what I consider slick/latherable may be considered not slick/latherable and a third person might consider it to be too slick/latherable. Sure, the values might be quantified (especially slickness, since that seems to be a value of friction or lack thereof).

Latherability, OTOH, is also impacted by other things, especially water. Not only how much water gets added, but also what hardness of water. On top of that, some soaps perform differently if they're allowed to dry out between uses.

Take MWF, for instance, while some people swear by MWF (or at least they did before the non-tallow reformulation), others swore at it. I include my self in the latter category. From most accounts, it performs best with soft water and poorly (with a few exceptions) with hard water. Also as reported by many in this forum, MWF needs to remain hydrated between uses and this can be best (only?) achieved by shaving with it daily. Not only do I have hard water, but I also don't shave everyday. This meant the MWF puck dried out every time between uses. So MWF resulted in horrible latherability and minimal slickness. Yet, those who swear by MWF praise its latherability and slickness.

With that in mind, how would a study take into consideration how hydrated a soap is between uses? Even if that were possible, how would the study account for the hardness of water used unless the report includes results of the soaps tested with water at various hardness. Even then, would the study also have to use water with other additives that could be in the water? For instance, in the US, fluoride is a common additive in drinking water while chlorine is commonly added to sanitize drinking water. How would the study account for the differences in the amounts of these additives?

Ultimately, the best way to gauge the latherability and/or slickness of each soap is to read the reviews provided by various people. This can provide a baseline of information. From there, you can try out some of the reviewed soaps and see where your results line up with reviews you read. By repeating this process a number of times, you'll find yourself in agreement more times than not with certain reviewers. You can then base your future new soap buying decisions more on their reviews and less on those with which you tend to disagree.

In other words, treat reasoned shaving product purchase decisions the same way you treat reasoned movie watching decisions (and decisions for just about everything else in life). The old saying that one man's trash is another man's treasure holds true for more than antiques and collectibles. (As does the unstated corollary one man's treasure is another man's overkill.)

As a follow-up on that ... agree that the impact of soap performance is driven by varying the hardness of water, and hydration of soap b/n uses, and other mentioned factors (e.g., fluoride) ... because of that then any reviewer's opinion would be similarly impacted... by those variables, thus negating the utility of the reviews here ... unless every variable above is measured and mentioned in that reviews... one would think?

 

[ivan_101]

That's what I am curious about, how we have abundance of choice in brands yet no objective way to discern value. A $150 shave relative to $50 shave has to be somewhat objectively better in a defineable and repeatable way or we just have YMMV to fall back on.

Because there are too many factors in shaving that make things very subjective. Sorry, but you are wrong thinking a $150 shave has to be 'objectively' better than a $50 shave. No such thing.

 

[hairless wonder]

As a follow-up on that ... agree that the impact of soap performance is driven by varying the hardness of water, and hydration of soap b/n uses, and other mentioned factors (e.g., fluoride) ... because of that then any reviewer's opinion would be similarly impacted... by those variables, thus negating the utility of the reviews here ... unless every variable above is measured and mentioned in that reviews... one would think?

That's why I suggested finding a reviewer whose results are more similar to your own. If his water is as hard or of similar hardness/softness to yours, then there's likely not to be much difference between how a soap will perform for him and how it will perform for you. Similarly, if you find yourself agreeing with his reviews as to the other even more subjective factors (e.g., scent), you may be more willing to make your purchase decisions based on his reviews and opinions on the same.

 

[ErkRusselReserve]

This and all the things linked to it (including MIT reports) are interesting reads:

Razor Blade Evolution - Gillette Adjustable Razors

Gillette Razor Blades in the Adjustable Era UPDATE Research on why razor blades dull from Massachusetts Institute of Technology Aug 6, 2020. Patents have been applied for which will allow for the manufacture of blades which provide more homogeneity by compressing the steel at the blade edge...

gilletteadjustable.com

 

[NorthernSoul]

That's what I am curious about, how we have abundance of choice in brands yet no objective way to discern value. A $150 shave relative to $50 shave has to be somewhat objectively better in a defineable and repeatable way or we just have YMMV to fall back on.

People want to believe there is a linear scale from worst to best performance. This turns out to be a bit of a trap.

In the end, there are many ways to obtain good results when shaving. Some more expensive than others, without being clearly superior in results.

The assessment of value is not objective. It's not the exactly the same for each person.