Another Lemon from Simpson/Vulfix

[Rudy Vey]

I really wonder why this company has absolutely no Quality Control. I have seen some very weird looking PJ3's at The Superior Shave, not one looked like the other, huge differences in shape, loft etc. Kudos to Superior to show the brushes, so one can avoid a big disappointment.
Other companies can make a knot to specs and also to a certain shape. That's why I always recommend Shavemac, sorry, but Simpson's is off my brush list for now until they figure out how to make a consistent product.
I hope Gary will chime in here as well.

 

[Crixus]

I hope Gary will chime in here as well.

Rudy, I'm not sure this is a very good spot for Gary to chime in, although I am sure he will be following it with interest.

 

[Ignatius]

I think that contacting both, as you're doing, is the right thing to do. This brush never should have made it past quality control, AND the vendor should never have mailed it out. Either the vendor or the Simpsons should pay return shipping on this -- you should not need to spend a penny (or pence) to have the brush replaced. I will be sorely dissapointed with any other outcome.

Dave,
I don't expect that as the brush a/ is technically functional and b/ has been lathered. But I did communicate my disappointment with both vendor and manufacturer and included pics to illustrate the difference between a 45mm DUKE and the Berkeley (the knot looks about half the size when it should be the same height). Will be sure to let you guys know what they think.

 

[Hodari D.]

Interesting, and very dissapointing to hear. I received a Berkeley '46' from westcoastshaving yeseterday annd it is a nice hybrid fan/bulb shape. but i did ask john for a more fan shaped loft so mine may not be representative of the rest. it is certainly a gamble buying Simpsons shaving brushes sight unseen, and from what i gather it always has been. not to say that's the way it should be, however.

 

[JPDyson]

Disappointing that one has to rely on actual stock images of a brush to select one; it should be reasonable to assume that when you list a spec, that each item would adhere to it within a tolerance that doesn't dramatically affect performance.

A 50mm loft being set at 48-52, no problem. A 50mm loft at 45mm, however, is a 10% discrepancy, and we can all attest that it significantly changes how that brush will behave. Naturally, reviews/opinions of this brush become completely unusable, as what I comment about my brush with a 52mm loft being floppy or large on the face wouldn't apply at all to yours with a 45mm loft (here ignoring the discrepancies in SHAPE of the knot as well).

This isn't how Simpsons earned the reputation it had, but it's how it's losing it quickly.

 

[Nom de Plume]

I'd be interested to try and establish whether this problem is entirely inherent to Simpson and their brushes?

Whilst it's clear there are significant issues there and they are rightly being lambasted for unacceptable QC, do we have a definitive brush dimensioning guide for other manufacturers products?

Does anyone have a Rooney, Muhle, Plisson or Shavemac inventory detailing individual brush specifications that they can post up?

It's all very well targeting Simpson, who rightly deserve the flak incoming, but in the interests of a level playing field we need to know if this is a company specific problem or an issue throughout the industry?

 

[Montecristo #2]

I really wonder why this company has absolutely no Quality Control. I have seen some very weird looking PJ3's at The Superior Shave, not one looked like the other, huge differences in shape, loft etc. Kudos to Superior to show the brushes, so one can avoid a big disappointment.
Other companies can make a knot to specs and also to a certain shape. That's why I always recommend Shavemac, sorry, but Simpson's is off my brush list for now until they figure out how to make a consistent product.
I hope Gary will chime in here as well.

I too check out the brush selection at Superior regularly (I know it's a sickness) and have noticed that some, aside from the identical handles, could be entirely different brushes. And I'm pretty sure Jared is kicking out the bad ones he receives from Simpson, so if these are the good ones, then count me out.

 

[mblakele]

Dave,
I don't expect that as the brush a/ is technically functional and b/ has been lathered. But I did communicate my disappointment with both vendor and manufacturer and included pics to illustrate the difference between a 45mm DUKE and the Berkeley (the knot looks about half the size when it should be the same height). Will be sure to let you guys know what they think.

You might also PM Mark about it. He seems to care about the brand's reputation.

 

[john parker]

You might also PM Mark about it. He seems to care about the brand's reputation.

Agree; Mark was most gracious in helping me.

 

[Hex]

I bought my Duke 3 at thesuperiorshave.com. You should check out their website, the owner has taken photos of the actual brushes in stock (like 5 Duke 3s side by side). The price might vary slightly from brush to brush. When you order you get to choose exactly which brush you want. That is pretty labor intensive on the dealer's part, but it eliminates the kind of problem you experienced.

+1

This is an outstanding effort by the merchant.

 

[wsfarrell]

+1 on the TGN reknot. They're the best.

 

[nole1]

+1

This is an outstanding effort by the merchant.

I agree that this is an outstanding feat of customer services by thesuperiorshave but it should not be necessary. A vendor should not have to go through this much extra effort to avoid customer complaints due to lack of consistency by a manufacturer. I understand that these are hand-made and there will be some slight variations. However, it seems as though many issues get chalked up to being hand-made as opposed to owning up to inconsistent production. I feel that progress/vulfix might be losing many customer and/or vendors because, in the words of Forrest Gump, you never know what you gonna get.

 

[bassopotamus]

This is disappointing. I have had several people recommend me a simpson for a second brush, but this makes me very hesitant.

 

[kooshman7]

All I know is that this isn't just a thing with Simpson. You can find brushes across the range of manufacturers that aren't spot on with the measurements. For me 2mm is a big difference in a brush, but I'd give leeway to 4mm as I'm extremely picky.

I've seen knots from other members that just don't float my boat at all, but they're happy with it, and that's what matters. I've seen some posted that I couldn't see why they got past QC, and I have some brushes myself, while minor things, if it were my product I wouldn't want it let out.

I wouldn't be happy with the loft dimension on the brush. That is a significant difference from 45mm to 37mm. I'm not much of one for asymmetrical knots either, but I do have some that I enjoy. I think it would be interesting to know from the various manufacturer's what variances in their eyes flat out passes as unacceptable.

 

[tvldatsi]

that is a mess, best to go with tgn from the get go

 

[TAP119]

You know, even Volvo has made a really bad car-the 1968 model.

 

[Nom de Plume]

That's the thing Joe. Simpson have been on the ropes for some time over this but I'm hearing nothing in regard to discrepancies from other brands? Do we have specs, by that I mean manufacturer numbers, to compare apples with apples? I've trawled various sites but all I'm coming across is vendor dimensions that can't be compared to anything but other vendors?

We have differences over hair grading, dimensioning, bleaching, point of manufacture etc etc It's a minefield.

The truth is out there.

All I know is that this isn't just a thing with Simpson. You can find brushes across the range of manufacturers that aren't spot on with the measurements. For me 2mm is a big difference in a brush, but I'd give leeway to 4mm as I'm extremely picky.

I've seen knots from other members that just don't float my boat at all, but they're happy with it, and that's what matters. I've seen some posted that I couldn't see why they got past QC, and I have some brushes myself, while minor things, if it were my product I wouldn't want it let out.

I wouldn't be happy with the loft dimension on the brush. That is a significant difference from 45mm to 37mm. I'm not much of one for asymmetrical knots either, but I do have some that I enjoy. I think it would be interesting to know from the various manufacturer's what variances in their eyes flat out passes as unacceptable.

 

[Gary Young]

Guys, I know Rudy has posted saying perhaps I should comment on this thread, so here goes.
I have chatted with Mark at Vulfix and know the effort that him and his team are putting in to getting the Simpson name and brushes back to where they were in the original days. You guys need to remember that the company has gone through changes of ownership since 1989/90. Each ownership change has seen a dilution of original family trained staff. Our best shaving brush maker didn't transfer over from our ownership to David Carter's ownership - I know this resulted in issues with brush finishings. Likewise when David Carter sold to Vulfix the last original staff member, Marjorie, retired. Simpson knots were (I hope you all agree!) well known for their density - this was down to the way we formed the knots - different to the majority of other manufacturers (the depth of drilled holes that knots sat in were deep in comparison to other brushes available).
Personally, and speaking on behalf of the family (the remainder of THE Simpson family I might add) we are all impressed with the effort and passion that Mark is putting in to making the business great again. It is still early days for Vulifix making Simpson brushes. They are not Vulfix designs but designs and styles that, in some cases, are over 90 years old and did not become 'great' over night. when Great Uncle Alex designed and made brushes it was a process of getting everything in place and everything right. We owned and ran the company from day one and it took more than 2 years (i.e. Mark is at this point in time now!) to get the quality right each time.
Simpson brushes are unique, in their style and the depth of the range. Mark's staff have a lot of history and knowledge of the 'Simpson brush' to learn in a reasonably short period of time (if you look at the whole timeline of Simpson the company).
I have kindly been invited by Mark to pop across to the Isle of Man to meet up and see round their factory - hopefully, work permitting, this will occur Easter time.
I hope you guys stick with Vulifix and what they are trying to achieve. They will get there, I am certain of it. Top quality brush making is a labour of love, I know because I have lived the business, and I know that Mark is more than keen and more than able to see this through.
It is heart warming to know that so many of you hold the Simpson name in such high esteem and quite rightly have such high expectations of the brushes made under the name - from my point of view it shows that we really knew how to make great brushes! Our designs aren't easy to replicate. Mark has staff who have for years made Vulfix brushes and who are now learning how to make a Simpson brush. Just keep the faith guys, please! I can assure you I would not publically praise if I did not wholeheartedly believe that great days and a good new era of Simpson Brushes is close on the horizon.

Gary

 

[kooshman7]

Vulfix lists some brushes that they sell and they give a definitive handle size, but no loft. You get the loft from overall brush height, so they don't say a specific height, but subtract the handle from the overall and you'll get the loft.

Plisson has a list on their site you can look at of the size, diameter of knot, and brush loft.

Shavemac lists all their heights and lofts for the individual brushes. On the Traditional line, click on the picture, and the second one will show you the measurements for each size up.

Those are three manufacturer's you can look at directly to get sizes. Plisson and Shavemac's are easier to view, but I've contacted Simpsons on what they spec brushes at and have always gotten a reply. I mentioned like others they should get the specs on their website, and they said it was a work in progress, likely to happen at the beginning of the New Year.

The vendors use what they are provided with from the manufacturers from what I've seen for the most part. TSS is a notable exception in that they list the actual specs along with baseline, and the pics. They all choose differences in the lofts for their brushes so they have to be compared within their own range.

 

[luvmysuper]

I'd be interested to try and establish whether this problem is entirely inherent to Simpson and their brushes?

Whilst it's clear there are significant issues there and they are rightly being lambasted for unacceptable QC, do we have a definitive brush dimensioning guide for other manufacturers products?

Does anyone have a Rooney, Muhle, Plisson or Shavemac inventory detailing individual brush specifications that they can post up?

It's all very well targeting Simpson, who rightly deserve the flak incoming, but in the interests of a level playing field we need to know if this is a company specific problem or an issue throughout the industry?

This is a thread about Simpson brushes.

If you believe there are problems with other brush manufacturers, I'd suggest you make a separate thread about a specific problem you have with that manufacturer.

This thread is about a problem reported by a member regarding Simpson. Other brush manufacturers do not have to prove their quality control as a means of justifying a problem that Simpson has.

That's like saying "Well sure I robbed the bank Judge, but so did that guy".

The playing field is level;
Is there, or is there not an issue with Simpson Brushes?

Trying to call other manufacturers in does nothing to answer that question, and is just a red herring.