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.