What's new
  • Welcome back Guest!
    If you have been away from our site you may have to request a new password. Simply click on the link for "lost" password in the log in page.
    Thank you.
  • Guest
    The BST is now open, please note the changes in our guidelines to address the recent fraudulent activity. Ensure you read the guidelines prior to creating a sale thread in the Buy-Sell-Trade forum with special attention to the new photo and payment requirements.
    Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Brush Acquisition Thread

Maybe, from Paladin:
BRUSHOLOGY: ANATOMY AND NOMENCLATURE
Brushology: On Glue and Glue Bumps

You could just pinch the knot were it meets the handle, if there's a glue bump the center of the knot is unforgiving, hard. It's not a bad thing unless it detracts from the performance of the brush.
Those are interesting links, thank you. Perhaps you can clear up some confusion on my part - I have read speculation that some Simpson brushes have a glue bump. Given that Simpson turn their handles, then apply a layer of glue into the base of the hole, and finally insert the knot, which is tied with string and which has no fixed glue plug, then I wonder how any domed glue bump especially above the top of the handle is possible. It seems particularly unlikely given the depth at which Simpson set their knots in their handles, sometimes as much as a third of the handle height. Surely Simpson brushes cannot have a glue bump or do I misunderstand? Thank you.
 

SharpieB

Contributor
Those are interesting links, thank you. Perhaps you can clear up some confusion on my part - I have read speculation that some Simpson brushes have a glue bump. Given that Simpson turn their handles, then apply a layer of glue into the base of the hole, and finally insert the knot, which is tied with string and which has no fixed glue plug, then I wonder how any domed glue bump especially above the top of the handle is possible. It seems particularly unlikely given the depth at which Simpson set their knots in their handles, sometimes as much as a third of the handle height. Surely Simpson brushes cannot have a glue bump or do I misunderstand? Thank you.
I have almost 20 Simpsons and only one has a glue bump. My Emperor 3 Super. Not sure why or how but it definitely has one.
 
3 Omegas unknown to me arrived. Well, actually more than 3, because there is a 4th model I didn't photograph yet, and some of these I bought 2 pcs of each. So here we go.

View attachment 1280104

Omega 10072. It is not the most widely available model. At least 2 Internet sources give the wrong knot length for this brush as 50mm. I measured it at 48mm, so it is pretty small. Might make it as a travel brush.

View attachment 1280106

10810. Again a few Internet sources give the wrong knot length as 55mm. My measurements show 50mm. If I knew, I wouldn't buy that model. It has the handle like the 10081, but is shorter by 6mm.

View attachment 1280108

And finally the 11148. It is not very popular obviously. Mostly because of the cylindrycal handle design. I remember reading a review by a user last year, where he complained about the handle sliding out of his hand when wet. The moment I holded it in my hand it felt wrong. We'll see. 56mm knot. At least this one turned out to be the described length. :biggrin1:
So many rabbits and holes in the Omega warren! I admire your commitment.

I'm not sure that Omega tries to hit tight tolerances on loft. Whatever, I like their boars best among the Omega/Semogue/Zenith trinity. I have a Mixed Midget and a Bigger Bambino on my travel manifest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNR
...I have read speculation that some Simpson brushes have a glue bump. Given that Simpson turn their handles, then apply a layer of glue into the base of the hole, and finally insert the knot, which is tied with string and which has no fixed glue plug, then I wonder how any domed glue bump especially above the top of the handle is possible. It seems particularly unlikely given the depth at which Simpson set their knots in their handles, sometimes as much as a third of the handle height. Surely Simpson brushes cannot have a glue bump or do I misunderstand? Thank you.
Oh I wouldn't call it speculation, I have one and would tend to believe other folks that say they have one.

Missed an important step in the process;

Maybe the source of the occasional rumored shedder as well.
 
Last edited:
So many rabbits and holes in the Omega warren! I admire your commitment.

I'm not sure that Omega tries to hit tight tolerances on loft. Whatever, I like their boars best among the Omega/Semogue/Zenith trinity. I have a Mixed Midget and a Bigger Bambino on my travel manifest.
We are not talking tight tolerances here. My experience with many of their models shows there is sometimes + or - 1mm. But we are talking 5mm in the case of 10810, so I'd rather have vendors not writing info about knot length.
Those monikers you mention were just invented by a US vendor, right? They don't say anything to me. I can remember he had even something like Baby Pro (which is an oxymoron if you think about it) and whatnot.
 
More research is in order, if I can get funding. £300 would cover it nicely, but I'll settle for something in the range $2-$7 if any of you brush plutocrats can open your wallets for SCIENCE!
I gotta admit your brush plutocrats made my day! I am 100% with you here.
 
Last edited:
3 Omegas unknown to me arrived. Well, actually more than 3, because there is a 4th model I didn't photograph yet, and some of these I bought 2 pcs of each. So here we go.

View attachment 1280104

Omega 10072. It is not the most widely available model. At least 2 Internet sources give the wrong knot length for this brush as 50mm. I measured it at 48mm, so it is pretty small. Might make it as a travel brush.

View attachment 1280106

10810. Again a few Internet sources give the wrong knot length as 55mm. My measurements show 50mm. If I knew, I wouldn't buy that model. It has the handle like the 10081, but is shorter by 6mm.

View attachment 1280108

And finally the 11148. It is not very popular obviously. Mostly because of the cylindrycal handle design. I remember reading a review by a user last year, where he complained about the handle sliding out of his hand when wet. The moment I holded it in my hand it felt wrong. We'll see. 56mm knot. At least this one turned out to be the described length. :biggrin1:
A nice haul of brushes Ivan. It looks like the top 2 are unbleached, whilst the black one might be bleached a little at least.

I think the 10072 might have the same knot as my 10075, which is 23mm/48mm, which even after it's broken in it doesn't really splay much, but it is a scrubby little monster for creating a lather, it's not my favourite knot but one I still enjoy using occasionally nonetheless.

I was thinking of adding a 10290, do you have one of those? If you do, could you share the actual measurements of the knot?
 
A nice haul of brushes Ivan. It looks like the top 2 are unbleached, whilst the black one might be bleached a little at least.

I think the 10072 might have the same knot as my 10075, which is 23mm/48mm, which even after it's broken in it doesn't really splay much, but it is a scrubby little monster for creating a lather, it's not my favourite knot but one I still enjoy using occasionally nonetheless.

I was thinking of adding a 10290, do you have one of those? If you do, could you share the actual measurements of the knot?
All three brushes are unbleached. It is just that the top two are in the transparent plastic, which changes the light.
My 10075 measures 49.3mm. The 10072 is 48mm. But both look pretty much the same to me functionally. We are splitting hairs here, literally, right? :302:
During the last 15 years I have had 3 10029. Their measurements were 49 or 50, depending on the particular brush. This is the roughest Omega boar I have used. All 3 of them. Very strong backbone, hard bristles. Terribly scratchy. Even after 50-60 shaves almost no splits. And I am a face latherer, so go figure. I will never buy a 10029 any more.
My advice: when you see a 10029 in a store, just move along.
 
Those monikers you mention were just invented by a US vendor, right? They don't say anything to me. I can remember he had even something like Baby Pro (which is an oxymoron if you think about it) and whatnot.
I just picked those Omega brush names up here on B&B. Vendor naming/promoting sounds likely to me.

Checked my notes: 11047 (mixed knot) and 10087 (boar). My non-travel Omegas are a 10066, a couple 10065s, and a 10005.

During the last 15 years I have had 3 10029. Their measurements were 49 or 50, depending on the particular brush. This is the roughest Omega boar I have used. All 3 of them. Very strong backbone, hard bristles. Terribly scratchy. Even after 50-60 shaves almost no splits. And I am a face latherer, so go figure. I will never buy a 10029 any more.
My advice: when you see a 10029 in a store, just move along.
This almost sounds like a back-handed compliment to me! My bleached Zenith knots are just too soft. Did your 10029s look like the bristles had been trimmed?
 
All three brushes are unbleached. It is just that the top two are in the transparent plastic, which changes the light.
My 10075 measures 49.3mm. The 10072 is 48mm. But both look pretty much the same to me functionally. We are splitting hairs here, literally, right? :302:
During the last 15 years I have had 3 10029. Their measurements were 49 or 50, depending on the particular brush. This is the roughest Omega boar I have used. All 3 of them. Very strong backbone, hard bristles. Terribly scratchy. Even after 50-60 shaves almost no splits. And I am a face latherer, so go figure. I will never buy a 10029 any more.
My advice: when you see a 10029 in a store, just move along.
Thanks for the info Ivan.

From the outside it seems there is some consistency but the more I delve into the world of Omega boar brushes, the more it seems there is a huge amount of variation across the models.

I was considering adding a 10290 (same knot different handle to the 10029?) but I may just go for the time tested classic of the 10066.
 
Thanks for the info Ivan.

From the outside it seems there is some consistency but the more I delve into the world of Omega boar brushes, the more it seems there is a huge amount of variation across the models.

I was considering adding a 10290 (same knot different handle to the 10029?) but I may just go for the time tested classic of the 10066.
That's what I thought as well, when I have only tried 9-10 models. But the more models I try, the picture becomes clearer to me.
I have never tried a 10290. But seeing it is the same form factor as the 10029, I am not willing to buy it.
I received today a 80265 and the logical next step is to buy a 80266 to compare (which I did an hour ago). So far my theories I have been trying to build are confirmed. But at least at the current stage I can tell you one thing for sure. If a brush has the same form factor, but different model number, then most probably it is not the same bristles. The classic example is the 10066 and the 10065. People see different handle colours and even here on the forum quite a few users have claimed they are the same, but they are not. Same if they see an unbanded and a banded model. They are never the same. The difference is not only that brown band on on the bristles.
 
That's what I thought as well, when I have only tried 9-10 models. But the more models I try, the picture becomes clearer to me.
I have never tried a 10290. But seeing it is the same form factor as the 10029, I am not willing to buy it.
I received today a 80265 and the logical next step is to buy a 80266 to compare (which I did an hour ago). So far my theories I have been trying to build are confirmed. But at least at the current stage I can tell you one thing for sure. If a brush has the same form factor, but different model number, then most probably it is not the same bristles. The classic example is the 10066 and the 10065. People see different handle colours and even here on the forum quite a few users have claimed they are the same, but they are not. Same if they see an unbanded and a banded model. They are never the same. The difference is not only that brown band on on the bristles.
Yes some very interesting theories and observations there, I have enjoyed reading these and your other accounts of your recent Omega boar acquisitions.

The bleached knot from the 10065 looked to be very similar to my 11819.

I'd be intrigued in how you fare with the 80265. I had two green ones and the banded knot performed completely differently to the other plain Omega knots I had. I had one 80265 with a dense knot that was a lather eater, the other one was thinner but was a very pleasant brush to use.
 
The bleached knot from the 10065 looked to be very similar to my 11819.
Yes, they look quite similar to me. Only handle difference. Since 11819 is one of the models released in the last years, I think they were just trying to appeal to the younger buyers, who would prefer more modern shapes than the classic 10065 handle design.
 
Top Bottom