Are the bulb and fan shapes of brushes just aesthetics, or are there certain benefits of having one over the other? Is one more beneficial than the other in certain cirmstances?
But if you are a face latherer, you build lather in the brush for passes two and three by using those circular motions (at least I do). So if you are lathering with a bulb in long sweeping motion, you aren't pushing lather into the knot to develop.I do notice a difference though in lather application.The fan shape is excellent for lathering in small circular motion.The bulb shape is excellent for lathering in long sweeping motion.
But if you are a face latherer, you build lather in the brush for passes two and three by using those circular motions (at least I do). So if you are lathering with a bulb in long sweeping motion, you aren't pushing lather into the knot to develop.
So, folks getting the soft but scrubby short loft bulb shapes specifically to do a lot of face lathering may have a harder time building lather for successive passes. Is that what's happening?
+1, Great postA fan shaped bulb has support hairs that build up to the peak of the bulb. These support hairs can in theory supplement backbone. You can get quality backbone with a minimum amount of density. However if a bulb is to peaky it can feel sharp to the face going from "one side of the mountain to the other". Bulb shaped bulbs tend to create large breaches too. This can be important as soap is harder to load with a pronounced breach.
A fan does not have the support that a fan does, so to gain backbone fans have to be set at a short loft, or stuffed extra dense. Both will keep a brush from being floppy, but its important to remember that even a medium density flan can feel floppy. Fans do however load soaps better as more bristles are kept in contact with the soap. Plus the flatter the knot the less it should breach. In the same way that more bristles keep in contact with the soap more bristles will also come in contact with your face as you apply your lather, making the brush feel bigger. As less bristles are in contact with your face a bulb will feel smaller. This might be the most important factor for me between them. Personal taste will dictate brush size, but you can cheat these numbers by choosing one or the other. You could save yourself some money by purchasing a 24mm fan over the 26mm bulb as both will feel of a similar size on your face.
You could make the argument that fans are better for soaps, but with so many other factors affecting how a brush performs its not a hard and fast rule. Loft, density, knot size, hair quality, etc, etc, all play a big part in how a brush performs.
So, folks getting the soft but scrubby short loft bulb shapes specifically to do a lot of face lathering may have a harder time building lather for successive passes. Is that what's happening?
What exactly is behind the move by manufacturers to a more bulbous shape of brush? Most notable to me is by the very popular Simpson brushes. Is it just a "different model", such as auto designers are apt to do, or is it strategic in its design?
Does Simpson feel they are assisting shavers by offering scrubbier brushes at a time when more and more men are apt to call themselves face latherers, or is the brush company actually able to use LESS longer hairs in a bulbous brush? Simpson brushes are quite dense, but does the bulb shape let them use up more of the shorter badger hair--could this be what's driving the shape change from the more traditional fan shape?
....Personally, I was fairly disappointed and annoyed at the pronounced bulb shape of the 2-Band Chubby I got. It very much has the tendency to pivot about the bulb peak and flop from side to side that was discussed above. Makes it rather unsatisfying to me for face lathering, given the stiffness....
What exactly is behind the move by manufacturers to a more bulbous shape of brush? Most notable to me is by the very popular Simpson brushes. Is it just a "different model", such as auto designers are apt to do, or is it strategic in its design?
Does Simpson feel they are assisting shavers by offering scrubbier brushes at a time when more and more men are apt to call themselves face latherers, or is the brush company actually able to use LESS longer hairs in a bulbous brush? Simpson brushes are quite dense, but does the bulb shape let them use up more of the shorter badger hair--could this be what's driving the shape change from the more traditional fan shape?
I don't know what's up with the Simpsons brushes' shape, ESPECIALLY in Two-Band. Not saying that they are necessarily bad, but I have purchased and sold three different Simpsons Two-band brushes all because they arrived incredibly pointy! To me, there is no benefit of the bulb shape when the bristles have so much backbone on their own.
What exactly is behind the move by manufacturers to a more bulbous shape of brush? Most notable to me is by the very popular Simpson brushes. Is it just a "different model", such as auto designers are apt to do, or is it strategic in its design?
Does Simpson feel they are assisting shavers by offering scrubbier brushes at a time when more and more men are apt to call themselves face latherers, or is the brush company actually able to use LESS longer hairs in a bulbous brush? Simpson brushes are quite dense, but does the bulb shape let them use up more of the shorter badger hair--could this be what's driving the shape change from the more traditional fan shape?
I have no idea why they do what they do but a thought did occur to me.Maybe it's a marketing design to show off the white tips better.Kinda how Plisson does to theirs.Fan shaped brushes when viewed from the side profile show very little of the tips where as a pronounced bulb shows the tips alot more.If one were to go off the deep end they might think that a bulbous brush is so eager for lather it's reaching out for the nearest cheek.
I had two TGN finest extra stuffed 2 Bands, one a fan & one a bulb. The bulb wins, hands down.