"Aggressive"

[Ron Scott]

A long time ago I bought 200 Personna Med blades, 100 Feathers and a few vintage and modern razors. I also inherited a Hoffritz slant and I now have a lot of experience with my small collection.

Regardless of the blade, razor, or blade-razor combination I get BBS or damn close to it in 3 passes.

The Feathers always seem more coarse to me, like they're scraping instead of shaving my skin. They don't save me time, passes, or give me a closer shave. I find no difference in razors.

What's "aggressive" and is it really a useful term?

 

[zygalski]

Aggressive = same result in less passes.

 

[Ron Scott]

Aggressive = same result in less passes.

Wouldn't everyone just automatically want this? Any downsides? Are Feathers not "aggressive" blades?

 

[Cumberland Sausage]

I'd apply the term "aggressive" to razors rather than blades. Blades I judge by how sharp and smooth they are, with maybe a nod to durability.
As for razors, I'd say describing a razor as "aggressive" is a useful shorthand way of saying it will give you a close shave without your having to pay minute attention to blade angle, as you do with some "mild" razors. However, the implication is also there that it can do you some damage if you're too enthusiastic.

 

[Rockminer]

Just my opinion, but I think "aggressive" is just a term that roughly equates to blade exposure. If we were to hand someone a Tech and a 2011 r41, one would certainly be more "aggressive" than the other. I don't subscribe to the more aggressive equals less passes crowd however. I had a 2011 R41 and didn't notice any difference in the number of passes needed to achieve a BBS. I'm not saying it's like that for everyone, I just didn't experience it.

As for the Feathers, I didn't particularly get along with them either. Much like "aggressiveness" I thing we all need to find our sweet spot between aggressive and sharpness.

I also agree with you on the " I can try about anything I want, and get a good shave", although I think that phenomenon comes with a lot of time with a DE and somewhat mastering the technique involved with this type of shaving.

 

[nuclearblast]

I'd apply the term "aggressive" to razors rather than blades. Blades I judge by how sharp and smooth they are, with maybe a nod to durability.
As for razors, I'd say describing a razor as "aggressive" is a useful shorthand way of saying it will give you a close shave without your having to pay minute attention to blade angle, as you do with some "mild" razors. However, the implication is also there that it can do you some damage if you're too enthusiastic.

Just my opinion, but I think "aggressive" is just a term that roughly equates to blade exposure. If we were to hand someone a Tech and a 2011 r41, one would certainly be more "aggressive" than the other. I don't subscribe to the more aggressive equals less passes crowd however. I had a 2011 R41 and didn't notice any difference in the number of passes needed to achieve a BBS. I'm not saying it's like that for everyone, I just didn't experience it.

As for the Feathers, I didn't particularly get along with them either. Much like "aggressiveness" I thing we all need to find our sweet spot between aggressive and sharpness.

I also agree with you on the " I can try about anything I want, and get a good shave", although I think that phenomenon comes with a lot of time with a DE and somewhat mastering the technique involved with this type of shaving.

What these Gents said.

 

[DickWhitman]

Totally subjective. Some of my smoothest, most efficient shaves have come from the Feather/R41 combo. Some of my worst have come from Superspeeds with astras. Go figure

 

[CaptainRaven40]

Well aggressive with me and my razors is a bit odd... We have a safe word. Things can get pretty strange. Let's just say the fat boy and I can't even look at one another anymore...

 

[shave/brush]

The Feather blades seem to have more flex than most other blades. They are sharper and thinner. This can cause the feel of being more aggressive. I love Feather blades in a mild razor but if I put it in an aggressive razor it can irritate my skin.
..

 

[Niles]

Just my opinion, but I think "aggressive" is just a term that roughly equates to blade exposure. If we were to hand someone a Tech and a 2011 r41, one would certainly be more "aggressive" than the other. I don't subscribe to the more aggressive equals less passes crowd however. I had a 2011 R41 and didn't notice any difference in the number of passes needed to achieve a BBS. I'm not saying it's like that for everyone, I just didn't experience it.

As for the Feathers, I didn't particularly get along with them either. Much like "aggressiveness" I thing we all need to find our sweet spot between aggressive and sharpness.

I also agree with you on the " I can try about anything I want, and get a good shave", although I think that phenomenon comes with a lot of time with a DE and somewhat mastering the technique involved with this type of shaving.

+2

 

[Kravocks]

"Aggressive" is a subjective term. In regard to blades it means that the blades is more agressive with the skin, meaning it irritates more or that you need a lighter touch. In regard to razors, it means that the razor head has more blade exposure, giving the blade more contact with the skin.

 

[tm3]

to me, an "aggro" razor shaves closer with a single stroke, is more likely to nick and cut, and provides a slightly longer lasting shave.

as far as blades, given modern manufacturing techniques it is really hard for me to believe that any blade or blades are "sharper." i do find it easier, however, to nick and cut with a Feather than with anything else i have ever used.

 

[shave/brush]

Just a little off topic but this thread reminds me of a comment 'turtle' (another B&B member) made when a newbie asked "do I need a lot of different razors?" Turtle reply something like, "just pick one that looks cool to you and learn how to use it."
They all get the job done.
..

 

[BSAGuy]

More aggressive = more shaving in same or less time/passes. Typically comes from more blade gap and exposure. An aggressive razor takes more attention to avoid cuts and nicks.

 

[Badger Bill]

This is a really good thread because I know that the term "aggressive" gets thrown around so much and it's probably very confusing for new shavers. I think what people have already said above is totally on point.

To me, I actually prefer thinking about razors in terms of their efficiency. I really don't care how aggressive a razor is… that's not necessarily a good thing. Very aggressive razors can be smooth and comfortable, but they also can be harsh and painful. Instead, I try to find razors that give me the most efficient shave possible. To me, efficiency means a razor that gives me as close and comfortable a shave as possible in the fewest number of passes. This is the mark of a fantastic razor, IMO. (Of course, I still enjoy doing 3 pass shaves all the time too, but my very efficient razors can give me great shaves in 2 passes and I love it).

 

[SDCyclist]

My thoughts are that "aggression" is really a term that is likely most closely associated with blade exposure. The more blade that is "visible" to the skin between the top cap and plate, the less precise one's angle of attack needs to be in order to remove at least some whiskers with every stroke. With my EJ I have to keep it at precisely the right angle (without using pressure) in order for it to cut at all. Keeping this angle perfect while traversing all the contours of my face is impossible. With a lot of practice, the margin of error gets a lot closer and a good shave can be certainly be obtained with a "milder" razor.

With a more aggressive razor, traversing those contours while still keeping the blade in contact with the skin and "mowing whiskers" is much easier because of the larger margin of error. The downside of course is that the blade has more opportunity to take some skin cells along with it when the angle becomes less than "optimal" (or a little pressure is accidentally applied). This can obviously cause nicks, scrapes, and skin irritation.

I definitely believe that it is a useful term when properly understood and used. I think it can become a bit ambiguous at times because while I feel blade exposure is the primary component of "aggression", other factors such as blade angle, balance, weight, and blade gap (in as much as it influences blade flex...) also affect how easy or difficult it is to keep the blade in contact with the skin. I think maybe creating a formula based on all these factors by measuring them empirically might actually be more helpful. I would imagine the challenge would be in deciding how much each factor should contribute, and would changes in them be fairly linear?

Anyway... my 2 cents on the topic...

 

[shave/brush]

My thoughts are that "aggression" is really a term that is likely most closely associated with blade exposure. The more blade that is "visible" to the skin between the top cap and plate, the less precise one's angle of attack needs to be in order to remove at least some whiskers with every stroke.
.

The blade "gap" is just as important as blade "exposure" in rating aggressiveness. It gives you more angles to cut with.
..

 

[nuclearblast]

The blade "gap" is just as important as blade "exposure" in rating aggressiveness. It gives you more angles to cut with.
..

What gives you a wider range of angles is blade exposure, not blade gap. If you look at the several razor designs and head geometry, blade gap is what matters the least. The Old Type is a great example of just that, with its very small blade gap, yet it is the most aggressive Gillette, and the one that allows you to use the widest shaving angle range.

On the other hand, you have razors, like some of the Merkur, with a big blade gap, but nearly no blade exposure. That limits considerably their angle range, and makes them pretty mild too.

The two factors that matter the most are blade exposure and head geometry, which determines the cutting angle.
It doesn't really matter how big the blade gap is, if the blade is hiding behind the guard ( no exposure).

Here's two examples. Looking at the blade gap, one would think the NEW is the more aggressive razor. It isn't, not in most people's opinion at least. It lacks the blade exposure.





The NEW Deluxe on the other hand, has blade exposure and blade gap, and IMO that makes is considerably more aggressive than the other NEWs.

 

[Rockminer]

What gives you a wider range of angles is blade exposure, not blade gap. If you look at the several razor designs and head geometry, blade gap is what matters the least. The Old Type is a great example of just that, with its very small blade gap, yet it is the most aggressive Gillette, and the one that allows you to use the widest shaving angle range.

On the other hand, you have razors, like some of the Merkur, with a big blade gap, but nearly no blade exposure. That limits considerably their angle range, and makes them pretty mild too.

The two factors that matter the most are blade exposure and head geometry, which determines the cutting angle.
It doesn't really matter how big the blade gap is, if the blade is hiding behind the guard ( no exposure).

Well said

 

[nuclearblast]

Well said

I added the pics now, makes it easier to understand.