What's new

Best Gillette Tech

My brand new Gillette Super Blue razor just arrived from China. £4.99 + VAT with free shipping and one Chinese GSB blade.

First shave was very good. It's hard to discern much difference between my three Techs; the GSB, my EFB and my 60's aluminium handle. The GSB is a marvel of low cost manufacture, with an aluminium baseplate and a hollow plastic handle. This makes it incredibly light. They've even pared down the Zamak cap, which weighs a couple of grams less than the post '62 cap.

This would make a fantastic travel razor. Maybe not the best Tech, but certainly the best value, until my Indian 7 o'clock razor arrives, anyway.


20220218_164915.jpg
 
I won a gold Gillette Tech Fat Handle on this forum, along with some other things. When I got it, I saw that the razor was mostly bare brass and had little of the original gold plating left. Dating it by the head and plate shows it was made after WW2 sometime between 1946-49, or so. Well, I sterilized it and popped in an Astra blade and wow! I got a great shave. Looking at the razor I could see that it bends the blade like a Henson (which I love), though not quite as much, and there is no blade chatter that I can determine. So, I sent it over to an electro plating shop and had it re-plated. It turned out magnificently. When I got it, I sterilized it, and popped in a Shark blade. Wowza! I got such a fantastic shave. It was BBS in two passes with light touch ups and I wasn't even trying.

Why in the world would Gillette quit making this razor? They monkeyed with it until it stopped production, but I can't imagine a razor being any better than this. It shaves between my Henson mild and my Henson medium, but is smooth like glass on a sheet of ice. I shaved with a much later model and it was really good, but this one was just right for me.

Gold Tech 1.JPG
Gold Tech 2.JPG
Gold Tech 3.JPG
 
I had no idea the Tech was being made in China. I've never seen one made other than USA, CAN, Eng, or Arg. China should not surprise me. They can make a lot of junk, but some of their stuff is as good as anywhere in the world, too.
 
The upgrades and product variations strategy proved to be a marketing pot of gold. The following article is interesting if you follow Gillette history. Strangely enough the whole strategy was based on the sale of cheap replaceable blades, not the razors, which at the start were considered no more than blade holders.

Gillette’s Strange History with the Razor and Blade Strategy

by
September 23, 2010

110-randy-picker.jpg


In 1904, King Gillette — who names their kid King? — received two patents on razors, blades, and the combination of the two. As the patents make clear, Gillette had a clear vision of the markets that he would create: “Hence,” stated the patent application, “I am able to produce and sell my blades so cheaply that the user may buy them in quantities and throw them away when dull without making the expense … as great as that of keeping the prior blades sharp.”

But Gillette did more than invent a new razor and a new blade. As Chris Anderson notes in his recent business bestseller, Free, Gillette invented an entire business strategy, one that’s still invoked in business schools and implemented today across many industries — from VCRs and DVD players to video game systems like the Xbox and now ebook readers. It’s pretty simple: invest in an installed base by selling a product at low prices or even giving them away, then sell a related product at high prices to recoup the prior investment. King Gillette launched us down this road.

Or did he? In a recent draft paper, I have looked at the early days of Gillette, and the actual facts from the dawn of the disposable razor blades market are quite confounding. Gillette’s 1904 patents gave it the power to block entry into the installed base of handles that it would create. While other firms could and did enter the replaceable-blade market with their own handles and blades, no one could produce Gillette-style handles or blades during the life of the patents.

From 1904 through 1921, Gillette could have played razors-and-blades — low-price or free handles and expensive blades — but didn’t. Instead, Gillette set a high price for its handle and fought to maintain those high prices during the life of the patents. The firm understood to have invented razors-and-blades as a business strategy did not play that strategy at the point that it was best situated to do so.

It was only in 1921, when the 1904 patents expired, that Gillette started to play something like razors-and-blades, though the actual facts are much more interesting. Before the expiration of the Gillette patents, the replaceable-blade market was segmented, with Gillette occupying the high end with razor sets listing at $5.00 and other brands such as Ever-Ready and Gem Junior occupying the low-end with sets listing at $1.00.

Given Gillette’s high prices for its handle, it had cause to fear duplicative entries into the handles market when its patents expired, but it had a solution: in 1921, it dropped its old handle prices to match those of its replaceable-blade competitors. And Gillette simultaneously introduced a new patented razor handle sold at its traditional high price point. Gillette was now selling a product line, with the old-style Gillette priced to compete at the low-end and the new Gillette occupying the high end. Gillette foreclosed low-end entry by doing it itself and also offered an upgrade path with the new handle.

Gillette’s pricing strategy for its replacement blades showed a remarkable stickiness. By 1909, the Gillette list price for a dozen blades was $1 and Gillette maintained that price until 1924, though there clearly was discounting off of list. In 1924, Gillette reduced the number of blades in a pack from 12 to 10 but maintained the $1.00 list price — a real price jump if not a nominal one.

If Gillette had finally understood razors-and-blades they might have coupled their new low-end razor with higher blade prices, and the two changes do roughly coincide. But the other event, of course, was the expiration of the 1904 blade patents and eventual entry of Gillette blade competitors. That should have pushed blade prices down and made it difficult for Gillette to play razors-and-blades.

With the expiration of the patents, Gillette no longer had a way to tie the blades to the handles and thus, at least on paper, seemed to have no good way to play razors-and-blades. With the expiration of the patents, other companies could now make cheaper blades for Gillette’s handles, undercutting Gillette’s prices and therefore the strategy. So how did Gillette remain profitable, given that it missed its apparent dominant strategy? With sale of razor sets to the U.S. government during World War I and the jump in handle sales with the introduction of the low-price old-style handle, Gillette’s installed based jumped rapidly and the profits followed.

So it was exactly at that point — when it seemed no longer possible — that Gillette played something like razors-and-blades. That was also, incongruously, when it made the most money. Razors-and-blades seems to have worked at the point where the theory suggests that it shouldn’t have.

What should we take away from this? Did Gillette just miss a better strategy or was Gillette investing in a high-quality brand, which required high prices for the razor handles? Are psychological ties — habit and the like — more important than the legal ties that could have come with the patents? In 1904, knowing what you know about razors-and-blades today, what strategy would you have advised King Gillette to play?


Randy Picker is a professor at The University of Chicago Law School.
 
Is that one 1963 or 1966 and later? I would have thought 1966, but I am just learning. What mades it a '63? There are no cutouts on the plate.
 
Is that one 1963 or 1966 and later? I would have thought 1966, but I am just learning. What mades it a '63? There are no cutouts on the plate.
Someone more knowledgeable than I will have to answer that. Mr. Razor resource site is accurate. I can't recall ever seeing an error, not that I would catch it anyway. :)
 
Is that one 1963 or 1966 and later? I would have thought 1966, but I am just learning. What makes it a '63? There are no cutouts on the plate.
The Tech baseplates were not date marked at that time. The date is taken from the marking on the blade which accompanied the razor — in that case I4 which is 1963 (I), 4th quarter (4). See the Gillette Dating Information page on the B&B Wiki, HERE.
 
I know that different styles of base plates and heads were used in different decades. That much I am sure of. I think they can be dated to a time, but not exact years. I might be wrong. I am not sure when they stopped having the cut outs for the blade holding bars on the base plate.
 
I know that different styles of base plates and heads were used in different decades. That much I am sure of.
Indeed.
Tech-Spotting-Guide-mr-razor.jpg

I think they can be dated to a time, but not exact years. I might be wrong.
I would agree, barring specialist Gillette historians maybe.
I am not sure when they stopped having the cut outs for the blade holding bars on the base plate.
The baseplates with cut outs (which accept the cap locating fins) appear only to have been made in England. I am guessing that this was originally a 7 o'clock design:
1933-FBOC-A1_2021-12-13.jpg

7 o'clock were taken over by Gillette.

From @mr-razor's excellent website and information, I would guess that the Gillette London Factory changed over to the American style Tech baseplate (with its typical diamond shaped reinforcement) around 1950.

Do bear in mind that I'm no expert, just an interested hobbyist.
 
I have personally never seen anyone (who has actually used one) denigrate the Hybrid Tech. It is universally loved by all who possess one. You really owe it to yourself to find one. It shaves ‘like buttah.’
Well, you're seeing it now :)...
Got my hands on one, and loaded with a new Astra as is my SOP with all new to me razors for benchmarking.
The result? One of the worst shaves of my life... It tore my neck up something fierce, nothing "tech like" about the HT in the least, imo.
I've been DE shaving for 30+ years, own ~100 Gillette DE's, and the only comparable shaves (bloody weeper results wise) for me are the Rex Envoy, and the New Improved SC.
It was so bad that I didn't shave for days, and have used it once since... with better results.
Chalk the bad experience up to operator error, as my approach was "whip it around carelessly like any tech...if it's so amazing, well, it'll be amazing". Lol, it was not amazing.
Anyone wants it, $1,000 takes it, and I'll clean the blood off of it too. LOFL!
As likely demanded, here are some pics:
16485481245692425229116242138352.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 16485481858667736866005699585538.jpg
    16485481858667736866005699585538.jpg
    3.1 MB · Views: 19
  • 1648548235137339513059766247071.jpg
    1648548235137339513059766247071.jpg
    2.7 MB · Views: 19

Hannah's Dad

I Can See Better Than Bigfoot.
Well, you're seeing it now :)...
Got my hands on one, and loaded with a new Astra as is my SOP with all new to me razors for benchmarking.
The result? One of the worst shaves of my life... It tore my neck up something fierce, nothing "tech like" about the HT in the least, imo.
I've been DE shaving for 30+ years, own ~100 Gillette DE's, and the only comparable shaves (bloody weeper results wise) for me are the Rex Envoy, and the New Improved SC.
It was so bad that I didn't shave for days, and have used it once since... with better results.
Chalk the bad experience up to operator error, as my approach was "whip it around carelessly like any tech...if it's so amazing, well, it'll be amazing". Lol, it was not amazing.
Anyone wants it, $1,000 takes it, and I'll clean the blood off of it too. LOFL!
As likely demanded, here are some pics:
View attachment 1430966
1648556959518.gif
 
Well, you're seeing it now :)...
Got my hands on one, and loaded with a new Astra as is my SOP with all new to me razors for benchmarking.
The result? One of the worst shaves of my life... It tore my neck up something fierce, nothing "tech like" about the HT in the least, imo.
I've been DE shaving for 30+ years, own ~100 Gillette DE's, and the only comparable shaves (bloody weeper results wise) for me are the Rex Envoy, and the New Improved SC.
It was so bad that I didn't shave for days, and have used it once since... with better results.
Chalk the bad experience up to operator error, as my approach was "whip it around carelessly like any tech...if it's so amazing, well, it'll be amazing". Lol, it was not amazing.
Anyone wants it, $1,000 takes it, and I'll clean the blood off of it too. LOFL!
As likely demanded, here are some pics:
View attachment 1430966

That sounds scary. I've managed to buy one recently at a reasonable price, but mine doesn't have a case and it doesn't really look very pristine. The other thing is that the razor won't arrive any time soon, since i've bought it from England and the seller (like most sellers these days, especially those in the US) refused to send it oversea and I had to send it to a good friend of mine who lives in the area and since he's planning to visit me in May, i've decided to wait instead of paying for shipping and wait at least a month anyway.

I honestly don't have huge expectations from the Hybrid, but I hope that at the very least is a decent shaver and much better than any Tech that i've used so far. At least I can sell it at any time if I decide to get rid of it, since the Hybrid Tech is one of the most sought after vintage Gillette razors and many folks are curious about its legendary performance.
 
The result? One of the worst shaves of my life... It tore my neck up something fierce, nothing "tech like" about the HT in the least, imo.
(...)

That sounds scary. (...)

It might come from the head heavy balance the Hybrid has... I know that some people cannot stand razors which have this type of balance.
Personally, i'm not very fond of either, especially for shaving a short beard growth... (1-2 days)
 
Top Bottom