What's new

Brush handle shapes- Please add pics of your favourites!

I really hope someone posts the dimensions of the Semogue Barbear Classico's. I love that handle!!!!!

I'm really interested in this thread and hope it catches on. I've been thinking of a good/systematic way to classify and document the handle shapes. My personal bias is on a system that would allow someone to closely recreate one of these handles with only the posted info. Let me know if you think either of these ideas would work well:

System A - more universal:

I think 5 dimensions, and 1 good picture could do the trick.
Dimensions (of just the handle, not the whole brush):
1) Overall height
2a) Largest diameter
2b) Location of largest diameter, measured from the base
3a) Smallest diameter
3b) Location of smallest diameter, measured from the base

Then, if the 1 picture was taken straight on, not at a downward angle, it would be fairly decent to use to find the appropriate proportions - just print it and measure with a ruler, i.e. if on the picture the base is 90% of the largest diameter, it can easily be calculated from (2a).

Pros: straight forward, easy to set up a template so everyone uses the same measurements
Cons: this doesn't help someone find the shape they like based on other brushes they are familiar with.


System B - classify into broad groups, then take specific measurements:

I'm not sure how many or what all the categories would need to be to cover all brushes, but say there's about 5 broad 'families'
a) concave (e.g. persian jar)
b) convex (e.g. beehive)
c) straight walled
d) pedestal (e.g. Kent brushes)
e) non-turned (e.g. octagonal)

Then take mostly the same dimensions as System A, but add some where needed, e.g. for "pedestal" brushes, add the proportion of the lower grip compared to the upper bulk, e.g. for a Rubberset barber type handle, the grip might be 70% of the total length, but in a Kent BK4 the grip may be about 40% of total length.

Pros: more detail; can figure out which 'family' you prefer and then discover new brushes in that family and be confident you'll like the handle.

Cons: more difficult to set up and think of all categories; some people may classify in different families, e.g. are the octagonal based ones shown earlier in this thread a 'non-turned' or a 'pedestal'.

Let me know your thoughts. I'm hoping this is something we can build on and come up with a good system.
You've articulated well what I was trying to express in my previous post. I favor your System A, but only slightly; I think System B has merit as well. If we can arrive at a consensus on the measurements and terminology, I believe the product could become a very useful resource. In the meantime, I'm eager for others to weigh in.

Thanks!
 
This is a really interesting idea. I'd go with option A personally. While option B, in theory, might be more useful, I think it's going to be a nightmare trying to get everyone to use it in a standardized, accurate way. I think that option A, while more simplistic, would serve the purpose adequately enough. Option A also is easy enough that it's likely many more people would participate, thereby building a better library of brushes. But this is just my opinion.
 
You've articulated well what I was trying to express in my previous post. I favor your System A, but only slightly; I think System B has merit as well. If we can arrive at a consensus on the measurements and terminology, I believe the product could become a very useful resource. In the meantime, I'm eager for others to weigh in.

Thanks!
This is a really interesting idea. I'd go with option A personally. While option B, in theory, might be more useful, I think it's going to be a nightmare trying to get everyone to use it in a standardized, accurate way. I think that option A, while more simplistic, would serve the purpose adequately enough. Option A also is easy enough that it's likely many more people would participate, thereby building a better library of brushes. But this is just my opinion.
I think I agree - the simpler system would probably be applied more consistently. What about adding some "keywords" to the post then, i.e. persian jar, beehive, brand names (not sure if these should be from a fixed list of options or just a free-form field)? You could add as many as you want or none at all. Then if you knew you liked beehives, a simple search within the thread should narrow it down for you. This keeps it simple but gives a nice search tool.
 
Yea I think that's a good idea. Unlike your option B, if someone chooses the wrong "keywords", it actually doesn't really matter that much - the rest of the data is still standardized and accurate.
 
^^^ Thanks, I've been pretty busy lately and haven't even started, I was figuring I would just use Excell, but I'm not picky
 
I think I agree - the simpler system would probably be applied more consistently. What about adding some "keywords" to the post then, i.e. persian jar, beehive, brand names (not sure if these should be from a fixed list of options or just a free-form field)? You could add as many as you want or none at all. Then if you knew you liked beehives, a simple search within the thread should narrow it down for you. This keeps it simple but gives a nice search tool.
I like your keyword idea. I'm ready to begin cataloging my brushes once we have a consensus on the data elements to capture.

Edit: I just did a quick test run using four vintage brushes. First, I assumed that the measurements would be in millimeters-- what's everyone's thinking on that? Second, we're going to need a convention for the location measurements. I measured from the bottom of the handle, but it occurred to me that it could be done from the top. Once again, then, what's everyone's thoughts on that?

Thanks, all.
 
Last edited:
Keywords plus free form dimentions gets my vote. If free form those with the tools could add extra information, such as angles.

Measure from the base or "floor level" would be the correct way as per the original post.

I knew i needed a reason to buy a pair of vernier calipers, saw a nice set in yellow (or was it butterscotch?)
My headshell angle finder just got a new use!
 
@Jim:

I dont' think it matters whether it's from the top or bottom, as long as everyone all agrees on the same convention. As far as measurement units go, I'd highly encourage everyone to use mm. Since brush lofts and diameters are already measured in mm's, i think this makes the most logical sense. It would be very strange to have to competing units for different aspects of a brush.
 
I'm all on board for mm!

Also I think measuring from the base is advantageous as you can set the brush on a table and then measure to the table or "floor level" as a reference. If you tried to measure from the top, you'll have to get your ruler/calipers to line up with the top edge, and as the handle may be tapered in, it could be a bit of a pain.
 
This is the 1st brush i had custom made out of african blackwood and it is still my favorite shape, extremely nice in hand and great weight. $IMG_0562.jpg
 
I will throw up an offering from the Semogue 2013 LE batch. I think they pip the SOC handles when face-lathering due to the way the butt of the handle sits in the palm.



Fear not for those who think they have missed out on this wonderful handle, you might stillo be able to find a Semogue 208 (if you are v lucky), more likely though Semogue might be releasing a brush or two with the same handle in non-LE form.



$SOTD 2013-12-29.jpg
 
If your asking me about the hand i believe the knot is 24 or 26 but the handle is in use. The pic was before i added the knot and honestly considering how had and expensive it is to get African black wood i dont know if id be able to get another of that size. It was made from a 2x2x6 piece but some sort of special piece of the tree or something cause it was a bit more expensive the other pieces of the same size.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom