Very cool. The Brit Flair Tips are great! Enjoy!Well, in any case, these two are in the mail now coming my way: a new old stock 1970s English Tech and a 1963 flaretip that I just couldn't resist
View attachment 1626149 View attachment 1626150
A rant about uneven blade exposure...
- Thread starter Rivers23
- Start date
The flaretip is a very nice razor with beautiful build quality. If it has II on the bottom plate it is a post 59'. Gillette London did not use datecodes. II indicates a medium shave. The Red Tip's of that date have III.Well, in any case, these two are in the mail now coming my way: a new old stock 1970s English Tech and a 1963 flaretip that I just couldn't resist
View attachment 1626149 View attachment 1626150
Slightly longer handle than the 53-54 Rockets I have, and a touch milder, but that is very subjective.
Here is my lovely little English Tech from the late 50's with the cross pattern hatched aluminium handle. Brass flat top cap. A markedly efficient Tech and my travel DE.
You can't go wrong with any of them. Great choices!
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #63
Wow, they look awesome, as good as new! The Flair tip its just so irresistible, like a fine lady
I was actually surprised, I got it for 20 dollars and I was the only bidder, I guess I got lucky. The seller said it's from 1963 and it has a date code l2. So I guess it's not a British one? The seller is from France so I assumed it's British made but it doesn't really matter if it's US made.The Tech looks really sweet too, I'm keeping an eye on a Rocket too
Gillette London were chaotic in date code usage. They seem to have started using them in the mid-latter 60's onwards and most often on Techs and Slim Twists. I've never seen a dated coded Rocket or Flaretip, but I haven't seen that many. It's possible you have a later-production British made example from 1963?Wow, they look awesome, as good as new! The Flair tip its just so irresistible, like a fine lady
The Tech looks really sweet too, I'm keeping an eye on a Rocket too
Mostly the only way to date many English Gillettes are from accompanying blades if it's in a set. English blades were date coded.
As I said, chaos!
Last edited:
@Alum Ladd im right there with you. Brit Flair, along with two cross hatched handled Techs. One aluminum, and one heavy handle. Not sure if that one is brass or steel handled. All super shavers.
Some of this may be obvious from the above, but at least through the first 40 or so posts in this thread, folks are painting one part of the problem or another. I'll try to combine the various elements as I see the design problem.
In my day job I design and manufacturer turntables, and the most difficult part to manufacturer is the pulley that fits on the motor shaft. I'm at the mercy of the motor manufacturer's shaft tolerance specification (range). They quote +/- .0004". Double that number, and the range from smallest to largest is nearly one-thousandth of an inch.
So, I need to anticipate them delivering largest shaft, and specify the bore in my pulleys accordingly.
I also have to consider my machinist's tolerance capabilities. He can hold about . 0003" tolerance, but wait! There's more!!!
Since pulleys are round, there's an eccentricity specification to consider as well - how far off center the hole can be. He uses a 3 step boring process, and can hold. 0005" fairly reliably.
We're not done yet ...
Let's take the worst case scenario: a pulley designed for a large shaft, whose fabrication is on the large side of its tolerance spec, and is (say) .0003" off center. Fit this on to a motor with a shaft fabricated on the small end of its range.
Suddenly, our " stacked tolerances" have produced an error on the order of . 0015".
We're not done yet! Remember that these things rotate, so the difference between when the "high" side of the pulley faces the platter and the "low" side does is now . 003"!
Our . 0004" tolerance spec has multiplied by nearly twn and this is more audible as speed fluctuation as is that Feather slicing into your chin ;-)
My turntables are the equivalent of a $500 razor and these worst-case numbers are unacceptable. The only solution is to hand match the parts - measuring the system runout (how the combined tolerance errors stack up).
Obviously, a razor manufacturer can't sample every blade we're gonna use. The best they can do is to hold their tolerances (thank you Razorock and others). They can also assume that blade manufacturers hold slightly better tolerances which puts them at risk of having a slight tight fit for a big/little combination.
I don't know Henson's assumptions about this, as they claim that this is why they recommend RK blades - their agreement to hold better tolerances.
I haven't worked out the geometry of Henson's alignment "pins", in relation to conventional round pins, but perhaps this reduces the combined maximum error slightly. If I get to modeling this on my CAS software, I'll for back.
... Thom
Last edited:
You cannot go wrong with a Flat Bottom Tech. Get one.
I know the GC68-P is getting lots of mentions, but for under your nose and maneuverability, the Lupo is king.
As far as alignment issues with Fatip are concerned, these bushings I machined work like a charm!
~doug~
Brother Doug, you are a werk of Art, who created werks of Art. How in the werld do you do things like that that are so TINY?
We are blessed to have you as a member here on Badger and Blade.
People like you always make me feel inadequate. I have absolutely no idea what to contribute around here.
I wish my Dad were still living. He'd love this place, and I guarantee that he'd be picking yer brane to help him with his jury rigging projects. HE was a born farmer. He could create a mechanical miracle out of bailing twine, electrical tape, and a screwdriver and hammer that start on the first pull doggone!
Thanks for sharing that picture.
Thanks for the compliments Dave, I started machining miniature parts at the very beginning of my career, and found it much easier than having to use a hoist to load parts that weighed over 100 pounds.
Having access to a CNC Hardinge GT27 that cost the company over $85k, and a totally clueless boss, also made things easy.
~doug~
You my friend are NOT a genius then! Just wise! You remind me of my fellow nursing students when we were in our clinical rotations.... There are several nurses out there today that might love babies, but the main reason some chose to specialize in babies is because they weigh so little!Thanks for the compliments Dave, I started machining miniature parts at the very beginning of my career, and found it much easier than having to use a hoist to load parts that weighed over 100 pounds.
Having access to a CNC Hardinge GT27 that cost the company over $85k, and a totally clueless boss, also made things easy.
~doug~
I went with old folks because I already WAS one! True story doggone.
I had a similar experience with the Rockwell 6C. The screw post coming out of the top cap was slightly bent, so the handel would force the baseplate to shift slightly to one side once it was tightened. It was impossible to get an even blade exposure on both sides.After about a year of active wetshaving, I feel mad and discouraged. I have bought several razors and they all had uneven blade exposure.
Let's start with the biggest offender:
the Fatip Piccolo - it's embarrassing they produce it in this state. The blade can move 3 millimeters in every possible direction after you put it on the cap, you're pretty much eyeing the exposure yourself. I binned it after 3 days.
Wilkinson Sword classic - came with a bent safety bar right out of the box
Parker 97R - uneven blade exposure, different feedback sound, different feel on skin on each side
And the most disappointing offender: the Rockwell 6C. The cap is fine, the plates are uneven. Again, clear differences in blade feel and different audio feedback. I thought when I bought this razor that it's the only one I will ever need. Now it's basically a matter of days before I decide to bin it.
Currently, I'm shaving with the 5 dollar Lord L5 and I'm a happy camper, and an English Tech is on its way. I feel so mad that I wasted so much money for absolutely nothing. How is it possible that in this day and age razor producers can't get blade exposure right? It's just silly. I mean, wetshaving is still infinitely cheaper than cartridges, but I wasted money for nothing. I know those are cheap razors, but do I really need to pay 100 dollars?
Anyway, thanks for reading, I hope you've had better experiences
I was able to return it.
I replaced it with a Rockwell 6S and the handle does screw on straight, but the blade is a little loose as you tighten it. I have to check and fiddle with the blade to get it to "look" even. Even then it doesn't always feel exactly the same shaving on both sides of the razor, and I have to fiddle with it some more.
I also got the RR Gamechanger with a few base plates and the blade fits in very snug and looks and feels very close on both sides when tightened. (However I don't really enjoy shaving with them, and the results are just okay. I'll be selling them and maybe trying the Lupo instead.)
Same.
Similar threads
