Adding buyers guide columns to Aggressiveness Chart?

[shawnsel]

As an experiment, I've added three new, buyers-guide columns to the "Currently-Manufactured DE Razors Ranked According to User-Polled Aggressiveness":

1. Head materials (materials used in construction of the razor's head ... not handle)
   • Cr = Chrome
   • SS = Stainless Steel
   • Al = Aluminum
   • "Cr | Zamak" = "Chrome plating over Zamak"
2. Price index
   • Prices change over time and from place to place, so this index is meant to be somewhat fuzzy, but still give a quick, approximate, relative idea of starting prices for a razor with this head and a handle (from the same manufacturer) at competitive retail prices
     • $ = starting at under around $25 USD
     • $$ = starting at under around $50 USD
     • $$$ = starting at under around $100 USD
     • $$$$ = starting at under around $200 USD
     • $$$$$ = starting at over $200 USD
3. Country of origin
   • The country where the razor head is manufactured

So, the top of the chart now looks like this:

	Extremely Aggressive (9.5 to 10.0)	Head materials	Price index	Country of origin
10.0	Muhle R41 (2011) (out of production, but included as the most-aggressive reference point)	Cr | Zamak	na	Germany
9.5	Muhle R41 (2013)	Cr | Zamak	$$	Germany
9.0	Above the Tie (ATT) H2 open comb (OC)	SS	$$$$	USA
	Very Aggressive (8.5 to 9.0)
8.5	Above the Tie (ATT) H1 standard bar (SB)	SS	$$$$	USA
8.0	FaTip OC (Joris OC is believed to have identical head)	Cr | Brass	$ ($$$)	Italy (and ?)

Full list can be seen at:
http://wiki.badgerandblade.com/Modern_Double-Edged_Safety_Razors_Ranked_by_Aggressiveness

Three questions:

1. Is this a good idea? Is it helpful? Fair?
2. Is this a good place to include this information?
3. Any inaccuracies? If so, feel free to reply back with a correction (or make the correction yourself in the Wiki)

Thanks!
Shawn

 

[nuclearblast]

1- Yes. Yes. Yes.
2- Yes.
3- Nope. Excellent idea. Well done, Shawn.

 

[drifter]

Wish that guide was around when I joined B&B, yes it would be helpful. What about links to razor reviews?

 

[TourettesTuna]

That seems like a great chart, but I would strongly advocate moving away from the aggressive vs. mild single axis for razor performance. Instead I would advocate the two axis system of efficient vs. not and forgiving vs. not. This system was proposed by Leisureguy in this Sharpologist article a while ago, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

http://sharpologist.com/2013/05/mild-or-comfortable-aggressive-or-efficient.html

I will apologize in advance if this comes off as a bit anal. I am a scientist, and a stickler for precise, prescriptive language.

start rant;
Here's why I think it is a good idea:

• Let's say we have a razor that would generally be considered mild. OK, but what does that mean? It's ambiguous. Mild could mean that it is absolutely terrible at removing hair (inefficient), or it could mean that it will never cut your face no matter how bad your technique (forgiving).
• Similarly, if we have a razor that we call aggressive. It could mean that the razor will leave great big gashes all over your face if you don't have perfect technique (unforgiving), or it could mean that it will mow down the thickest most coarse beard possible without any trouble (efficient).
• Either of those ambiguities have possible interpretations that tell me I don't want that razor, so mild vs. aggressive doesn't definitively tell me anything about the razor. I need more information.
• Ideally, I would want a razor that is extremely forgiving, and equally efficient so that I could get a great shave in fewer passes and not worry about cutting myself in the process. The trouble is that a razor meeting that description would most likely just be called "mild" because it doesn't eat your face when you let it off the leash.

I will agree that efficient razors tend to be unforgiving, thus the term agressive. Also, forgiving razors tend to be inefficient, thus the term mild. However, I do believe there is a certain amount of deviation from that 45 degree line which provides us with some truly awesome razors like the RR Stealth Slant, and some truly terrible razors like so many poorly made Chinese Gillette knock-offs.
end rant;

 

[shawnsel]

Wish that guide was around when I joined B&B, yes it would be helpful. What about links to razor reviews?

I don't think we could link random thread reviews, but we could link to the B&B wiki reviews! I really like that idea. It could probably help to generate more reviews too.

 

[drifter]

I don't think we could link random thread reviews, but we could link to the B&B wiki reviews! I really like that idea. It could probably help to generate more reviews too.

Yeah, that's what I meant. The Wiki reviews. I always read the reviews before I purchase any shave related item, then after buying and trying I judge for my self.

 

[BobbyB]

Shaw, and excellent idea. When links are established would it be possible to have photograph(s) of the razor(s)?

 

[Keljian]

After the recent weber threads on aggressiveness, I'd rank it higher than you have it in the chart.

 

[Jinx18]

That seems like a great chart, but I would strongly advocate moving away from the aggressive vs. mild single axis for razor performance. Instead I would advocate the two axis system of efficient vs. not and forgiving vs. not. This system was proposed by Leisureguy in this Sharpologist article a while ago, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

http://sharpologist.com/2013/05/mild-or-comfortable-aggressive-or-efficient.html

I will apologize in advance if this comes off as a bit anal. I am a scientist, and a stickler for precise, prescriptive language.

start rant;
Here's why I think it is a good idea:

• Let's say we have a razor that would generally be considered mild. OK, but what does that mean? It's ambiguous. Mild could mean that it is absolutely terrible at removing hair (inefficient), or it could mean that it will never cut your face no matter how bad your technique (forgiving).
• Similarly, if we have a razor that we call aggressive. It could mean that the razor will leave great big gashes all over your face if you don't have perfect technique (unforgiving), or it could mean that it will mow down the thickest most coarse beard possible without any trouble (efficient).
• Either of those ambiguities have possible interpretations that tell me I don't want that razor, so mild vs. aggressive doesn't definitively tell me anything about the razor. I need more information.
• Ideally, I would want a razor that is extremely forgiving, and equally efficient so that I could get a great shave in fewer passes and not worry about cutting myself in the process. The trouble is that a razor meeting that description would most likely just be called "mild" because it doesn't eat your face when you let it off the leash.

I will agree that efficient razors tend to be unforgiving, thus the term agressive. Also, forgiving razors tend to be inefficient, thus the term mild. However, I do believe there is a certain amount of deviation from that 45 degree line which provides us with some truly awesome razors like the RR Stealth Slant, and some truly terrible razors like so many poorly made Chinese Gillette knock-offs.
end rant;

As an engineer who tells scientists they are too precise and real world experiences are not the same as lab results, here is my input: (just kidding)

While I understand the importance of exact descriptions differentiating mild to rough face feel as well as efficiency in removing hair, that adds extreme complexity to the chart. Also the fact is everyone wants the most efficient razor whereas aggressiveness and feel is the data that needs to be described as the amount is a variable that people have different preferences for. On top of that the aggressiveness to efficiency ratio is probably pretty linear. I highly doubt that any razor is much more efficient without adding a certain level of aggressiveness.

I think for simplicity sake and how people have been voting, is for the chart to be focused strictly on face feel. To get into further detail of efficiency adds unnecessary data that makes it exponentially more complicated when the data is realistically based on anecdotal experiences and "feel" with no real quantitative data. If the chart can simply guide you to a razor that will feel good on your face based on other razor experiences, and all you have to do is try the couple that fall in your range to decide on efficiency I still think that is extremely valuable.

 

[Jinx18]

After the recent weber threads on aggressiveness, I'd rank it higher than you have it in the chart.

While I agree as the Weber ripped my face to shreds I think that is because of quality control issues with wavy blades leading to inconsistent razors.

 

[Jinx18]

1. Any inaccuracies? If so, feel free to reply back with a correction (or make the correction yourself in the Wiki)

Thanks!
Shawn

I went through all the charts and polls and the only thing I can see is the Merkur Solid Bar being listed more aggressive then the EJ DE89.

I looked through a poll and didnt see that one or any that corresponded to both.

As I have tried a bunch of mild razors it seems like my experiences line up with the polls except that one. For the razors I have tried I would rank from least aggressive to most aggressive like this. Trying to keep consistent with your current numbers. Bold is different then your ranking.

Merkur Open Comb 2.5
Merkur Closed Comb 3.5
Edwin Jagger DE89/Muhle 89 4.0
RazoRock Mission 4.0
Weber Polished Head 7.0 (I found it similar to the RazoRock Open Comb)
RazoRock Open Comb 7.5

 

[shawnsel]

That seems like a great chart, but I would strongly advocate moving away from the aggressive vs. mild single axis for razor performance. Instead I would advocate the two axis system of efficient vs. not and forgiving vs. not. This system was proposed by Leisureguy in this Sharpologist article a while ago, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

http://sharpologist.com/2013/05/mild-or-comfortable-aggressive-or-efficient.html

I will apologize in advance if this comes off as a bit anal. I am a scientist, and a stickler for precise, prescriptive language.

start rant;
Here's why I think it is a good idea:

• Let's say we have a razor that would generally be considered mild. OK, but what does that mean? It's ambiguous. Mild could mean that it is absolutely terrible at removing hair (inefficient), or it could mean that it will never cut your face no matter how bad your technique (forgiving).
• Similarly, if we have a razor that we call aggressive. It could mean that the razor will leave great big gashes all over your face if you don't have perfect technique (unforgiving), or it could mean that it will mow down the thickest most coarse beard possible without any trouble (efficient).
• Either of those ambiguities have possible interpretations that tell me I don't want that razor, so mild vs. aggressive doesn't definitively tell me anything about the razor. I need more information.
• Ideally, I would want a razor that is extremely forgiving, and equally efficient so that I could get a great shave in fewer passes and not worry about cutting myself in the process. The trouble is that a razor meeting that description would most likely just be called "mild" because it doesn't eat your face when you let it off the leash.

I will agree that efficient razors tend to be unforgiving, thus the term agressive. Also, forgiving razors tend to be inefficient, thus the term mild. However, I do believe there is a certain amount of deviation from that 45 degree line which provides us with some truly awesome razors like the RR Stealth Slant, and some truly terrible razors like so many poorly made Chinese Gillette knock-offs.
end rant;

This is actually more of a can of worms topic than I would have previously guessed. Some members (including me) like the two axis approach to aggressiveness. Others however seem rather passionate in their dislike for the two axis approach.

For me, and the initial creation of the Modern Razor Aggressiveness List, I decided to go with the single axis approach for a few reasons:

1. It was simpler to implement and simpler for voters to understand

2. Even with its debated weaknesses, the resulting list would be (at this point is) I think more useful than any other such list of modern razors on the Internet. The go-to reference linked to most often before this list was the B&B Blade Gap list ... which is great in its objective precision, but sometimes misleading since of the three most important factors of razor aggression (blade gap, blade exposure, and blade angle), blade gap is likely the least siignificant ... and definitely no where close to a complete picture of aggressiveness.

3. Many suggested that any project such as this would be doomed to failure and/or uselessness, and I felt they just didn't have the same picture in their mind that I did ... so I wanted to get a proof of concept up quickly, which could then optionally be improved upon with further iterations.

4. Getting enough members to vote in the 40+ polls for just the one axis has been like herding cats ... I fear doing 80+ polls for two axis (without already having an initial version up) would have had even fewer participants and thus less confidence in the poll results. As is I'm calling 5 or more votes as significant enough to include in the list ... which is a lot lower than I would prefer

5. I'm hoping to improve the current list with a few followup polls for "Which mild razors are more efficient than their rating suggests?" and "Which aggressive razors are more comfortable than their rating suggests?" ... and the the razors which hit a certain threshold would then get some sort of designation


Sounds good?


Cheers,
Shawn

 

[Haegar]

1. No, No, No
2. No
3. Inaccurate as personal opinions usually are

 

[mikelz777]

I'd like to see the major/well known/popular vintage razors included in the chart. I've tried more vintage razors than modern razors so I don't really have much of a point of reference if all I have to compare to is other modern razors. I think it would be much more useful and informative if vintage razors were also included. Vintage razors may no longer be manufactured but there are a lot out there, they remain plentiful and a lot of people own them and continue to actively seek them out.

 

[shawnsel]

While I agree as the Weber ripped my face to shreds I think that is because of quality control issues with wavy blades leading to inconsistent razors.

I personally wonder if a lot of razor harshness can be attributed to bad quality control from a manufacturer. And I worry as to how a relatively new DE shaver is supposed to even know if the fault lies with them or with the razor....

 

[Jinx18]

I personally wonder if a lot of razor harshness can be attributed to bad quality control from a manufacturer. And I worry as to how a relatively new DE shaver is supposed to even know if the fault lies with them or with the razor....

After my weber it made me go back and look at all my razors because it's something I never considered. I will say they were all good but the weber was noticeable by eye.

 

[shawnsel]

I went through all the charts and polls and the only thing I can see is the Merkur Solid Bar being listed more aggressive then the EJ DE89.

I looked through a poll and didnt see that one or any that corresponded to both.

With 40+ polls it is hard to find the right ones. Plus, at that time I was referring to the Merkur SBs by model number:
http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showth...oll-Muhle-or-Edwin-Jagger-89-vs-Merkur-34-38C

Ffinal results: 4 said EJ89 was more aggressive (like you), 11 said the Merkur SB, and 4 said they were equal

 

[shawnsel]

Weber Polished Head 7.0 (I found it similar to the RazoRock Open Comb)

Weber is currently 7 out of 10 placed below the Merkur Slant from this poll:
http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showth...)-razor-heads-vs-Weber-Polished-SB-razor-head

And 2 out of 7 so far find the Merkur SB's equal or even more aggressive than the Weber:
http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showth...)-razor-heads-vs-Weber-Polished-SB-razor-head

The Cadet OC however is a bit more of an unknown as relatively few have voted in its polls.

 

[shawnsel]

A clarification on this whole thread:

I was really more asking if the buyers guide columns (material, price index, and country) were helpful, well-placed, and accurate.

The feedback on the Aggressiveness List is helpful too, but this thread was more the newly added columns in the chart.

 

[shawnsel]

I'd like to see the major/well known/popular vintage razors included in the chart. I've tried more vintage razors than modern razors so I don't really have much of a point of reference if all I have to compare to is other modern razors. I think it would be much more useful and informative if vintage razors were also included. Vintage razors may no longer be manufactured but there are a lot out there, they remain plentiful and a lot of people own them and continue to actively seek them out.

I would like to see a vintage list too, but I don't know the vintages, and I don't really have the time. Perhaps somebody else would like to add vintages to the list once the Modern List is complete (probably in September)? Once we have established reference points for the 1 through 10 scale, adding new razors should be relatively easy (I'll even be creating something of a template for doing so once I create polls for the Merkur adjustables, the Merkur Bakelite, and the "Standard Razor").