chubbys are great i have ch3 and ch2 now i need a ch1 or maybe something like it hmmmmm
Dark Holler Design Works preview
- Thread starter ChiefBroom
- Start date
This is IMHO one of the most interesting pictures on B&B for many years. The effort behind this result is just mindboggling. Even Gary Young would appreciate the acknowledgement of the source of the inspiration...
I can feel your frustration about the process Ken, but remember that although the ox is slow, the earth will in the end prove to be even more patient. This effort of yours seems to be turning into a game changer for us brush geeks and the results of the effort will certainly be worth waiting for!
Tread lightly on your path of choice.
Looks fantastic Ken. I like the raised waist and wouldn't want to see the flared circumference above the base lowered anymore. Can't wait to purchase one.
Those handles look great and that faux ivory is probably the best version that I've seen! A question @ChiefBroom if you have time to answer...
How does the un-polished handle feel as opposed to the polished handle? Also have you thought about offering a non-polished handle? or perhaps a handle polished from the band to base to create a gloss/flat two tone look?
I know that I'm probably thinking in terms that are far far down the road, but curiosity is what has gotten us all thus far and will continue to feed these hobbies of ours.
Thanks for your effort ... By the time all is done, you may just have to engrave an ox on the bottom of the handles instead of a name...
How does the un-polished handle feel as opposed to the polished handle? Also have you thought about offering a non-polished handle? or perhaps a handle polished from the band to base to create a gloss/flat two tone look?
I know that I'm probably thinking in terms that are far far down the road, but curiosity is what has gotten us all thus far and will continue to feed these hobbies of ours.
Thanks for your effort ... By the time all is done, you may just have to engrave an ox on the bottom of the handles instead of a name...
Your ticking my boxes Ken! The Somerset chubby is such a beauty of a design!
This is IMHO one of the most interesting pictures on B&B for many years. The effort behind this result is just mindboggling. Even Gary Young would appreciate the acknowledgement of the source of the inspiration...
I can feel your frustration about the process Ken, but remember that although the ox is slow, the earth will in the end prove to be even more patient. This effort of yours seems to be turning into a game changer for us brush geeks and the results of the effort will certainly be worth waiting for!
Tread lightly on your path of choice.
Yup.
Thanks for the update, Ken... Not sure if it calms us down... but... appreciate....
As for the new Chubby... well, just exquisite! Well done!
Very nice looking good luck with everything
Those look amazing!
This is IMHO one of the most interesting pictures on B&B for many years. The effort behind this result is just mindboggling. Even Gary Young would appreciate the acknowledgement of the source of the inspiration...
I can feel your frustration about the process Ken, but remember that although the ox is slow, the earth will in the end prove to be even more patient. This effort of yours seems to be turning into a game changer for us brush geeks and the results of the effort will certainly be worth waiting for!
Tread lightly on your path of choice.
+1, big time.
Take all the time you need. Those designs, as well as all of your designs, are beautiful. I haven't been this excited about shaving hardware since I started this whole hobby.
Stunningly beautiful!
- Thread starter
- #251
Thanks to all for the kind comments.
Good question and interesting idea.
Polishing brings out the texture and yields a very nice result, but I think my son (Cody) and I may both actually prefer the look and feel of unpolished alternative ivory. Anyhow, it's close, and we've had discussions about offering unpolished handles turned from that material. We'll probably experiment with light sanding using micro-mesh.
I like the engraving idea.
Thanks, Bosse! Cody took all the photos, contributed significantly to the design, and did the finishing.
As for what lies behind the result, I have to confess it doesn't take much to boggle my mind these days. Nonetheless, it's true that more goes into producing a handle than I could have imagined before I actually made one.
Someone on another shaving site once posted to the effect "anyone can draw a handle". That comment was in response to praise the M&F Group Buy Brush (aka Chief) design had received. The point was that it takes a great deal more talent, skill, and effort to turn a handle by hand than it does to knock one out on a CNC lathe.
I took issue with the remark based on the ridiculous amount of time I knew I had sunk into drawing the design. But that seemed to me to constitute all of the hard part. I sent a CAD file off to Lee, had prototypes back in a couple weeks, and assumed there wasn't much to it. I was wrong about that.
I've since gained a more appreciative sense of what goes into making many things I'd largely taken for granted before learning that generation and execution of a CNC program involves more than just a few keystrokes. It both saddens and sobers me now to reflect on how much of that work has moved to China (along with the jobs of those who did the work). Making shaving brush handles is a small thing, but it's something, and we're proud to be doing it.
FWIW, none of the equipment we currently use was made in China, and we're doing our best to keep it that way. I scan Craigslist and eBay for things we might be able to use in the shop. Now when I see old lathes and mills and benches and tooling, I think about the workers who used them and the kind (and quality) of things they made. Last week I picked up a mid-50s Craftsman drill-press and a vintage Mastercraft (made in Hollywood, CA) crossfeed X Y table-vise, both of which we took apart, cleaned, put back together, and placed in service drilling sockets. We used them for the Chubby prototypes. That was fun.
There might be a twinge of frustration now and then, but the issues have mostly to do with economics, oversight, and risk management. I got into this based solely on enthusiasm for shaving brushes. But for it to work out so we can continue to design and make them, we need to use reasonably sound business judgment. The logistics and related costs tied to shipping back and forth across the Atlantic pose a significant burden. First, we pay for carriage and duties on rod we obtain from England. Then we incur shipping costs and duties when we send handles back to England to be polished, labeled, and knotted. Finally, we stand for the expense of carriage back to the US and any duties on account of importation of the finished brushes. Drawbacks are potentially available, but they'll require time and expense. The system is dauntingly complex for a small start-up venture to navigate. On top of all that, there's the sunk time and exposure we alone bear to risk of loss or damage in transit. Last but not least, we relinquish our ability to personally monitor, let alone manage, progress, QA/QC, etc. over a period of weeks, possibly months.
Lee understands and agrees. Installing knots is non-trivial to do and extremely important to have done right. But we'll make sure that happens.
Just the same, I hear you. Your counsel is sage. However, I'll offer the observation that treading lightly is sometimes ineffective when trying to make headway on steep terrain. And although patience is a virtue, an may Ox now and then require encouragement.
Enough on that subject.
In case anyone following this thread is interested to know more about what goes into designing and making handles the way we go at it, here's a bit of color.
First below is from a screenshot of a draft CAD drawing with the image we used inserted on a transparent layer. It's scaled to a 26mm socket, which was the size we used for initial prototyping. There is some blurring around the edges, probably due to the distance at which the shot was taken in order to minimize perspective distortion. This was, I think, the seventeenth saved draft. The first four aimed at capturing an exact copy of the model, and the next seven explored different variations. Four more minor revisions focused on specific refinements. The draft shown here is the fourth version of the seventh version of the fourth version. We then did two more on top of that to play with scaling, but ended up sticking to the original overall proportions.
Note the slightly concave base, which is a design element we're now using on all the handles we turn. The inspiration for it came from another Somerset-era Simpson. It reflects vintage lathe techniques, looks cool, feels nice (kinda like a worry stone), and serves the purpose of helping handles stand without sliding on wet counter-tops.
Next is a photo of some printouts we compared. We batted these around for at least a couple hours.
Once we select a CAD drawing to prototype, the file is imported into CNC simulation software that enables G-code editing and backplotting. The G-code is ultimately run on a Linux-based CAM application that controls the lathes. The design we settled on resulted in a G-code program that comprises about 390 lines, most of which individually specify a pair of Cartesian coordinates on the lathe's X-Z plane. The CAD program generates those coordinates, but there are always interpolation errors/anomalies.
I can enlarge a G-code plot to about the size at which .04" x .02" of tool-path fits on my screen. I dial it back from there and then scroll slowly, back and forth, from one end of the plot to the other. For our Chubby design, I manually re-wrote about 50 lines of code to smooth segments that wouldn't have been off enough to survive polishing or otherwise be noticeable without aid of a microscope, but I do it anyhow.
This past Sunday I was about two hours into that stage of the process when something caused a scripting error that froze the program. I could move the cursor and scroll, but neither copy nor save. At the time I was working on a subset of the G-code that composed the upper half of the handle, so probably about 200 lines of code were at risk of loss. I was within just a couple tweaks of being done. There was no way I could exactly replicate the changes I'd made by starting over. So I started hand-copying the code onto a legal pad (see below). When I got to the bottom of the first page, it occurred to me that since I could scroll, I might be able to capture images of the G-code with my iPhone and then OCR it. Capture worked fine; OCR did not. I ended up shutting down and then manually keying in all of the code with the screen shots opened in PhotoShop next to the backplotter. That took 2-3 hours.
So yes, some aspects of the process were mind-boggling.
Here's printout of the final G-code plot (I manually write the roughing cycles), followed by a shot of the hand-copied page of code.
This last image focuses in on the areas of design modification (other than scaling). Note the raised (by 1mm) waist, which dictated either modifying the angle formed where the upper half of the handle runs into the bead in order to preserve the circumference at that point, or enlarging the circumference at the expense of the bead's dimensions. We opted for the former, which yielded slightly more curvature.
Also note the modified bead profile. The top of the Simpson's bead forms more of a shelf as compared to ours, which rolls off. And we made it even chubbier, which seemed fitting.
Our modifications were fairly subtle. We sought to preserve the superb aesthetics of the original. What we gained ergonomically, however, was worth the trade-off in our opinion. Of course, that's something everyone can judge for himself.
Good question and interesting idea.
Polishing brings out the texture and yields a very nice result, but I think my son (Cody) and I may both actually prefer the look and feel of unpolished alternative ivory. Anyhow, it's close, and we've had discussions about offering unpolished handles turned from that material. We'll probably experiment with light sanding using micro-mesh.
I like the engraving idea.
Thanks, Bosse! Cody took all the photos, contributed significantly to the design, and did the finishing.
As for what lies behind the result, I have to confess it doesn't take much to boggle my mind these days. Nonetheless, it's true that more goes into producing a handle than I could have imagined before I actually made one.
Someone on another shaving site once posted to the effect "anyone can draw a handle". That comment was in response to praise the M&F Group Buy Brush (aka Chief) design had received. The point was that it takes a great deal more talent, skill, and effort to turn a handle by hand than it does to knock one out on a CNC lathe.
I took issue with the remark based on the ridiculous amount of time I knew I had sunk into drawing the design. But that seemed to me to constitute all of the hard part. I sent a CAD file off to Lee, had prototypes back in a couple weeks, and assumed there wasn't much to it. I was wrong about that.
I've since gained a more appreciative sense of what goes into making many things I'd largely taken for granted before learning that generation and execution of a CNC program involves more than just a few keystrokes. It both saddens and sobers me now to reflect on how much of that work has moved to China (along with the jobs of those who did the work). Making shaving brush handles is a small thing, but it's something, and we're proud to be doing it.
FWIW, none of the equipment we currently use was made in China, and we're doing our best to keep it that way. I scan Craigslist and eBay for things we might be able to use in the shop. Now when I see old lathes and mills and benches and tooling, I think about the workers who used them and the kind (and quality) of things they made. Last week I picked up a mid-50s Craftsman drill-press and a vintage Mastercraft (made in Hollywood, CA) crossfeed X Y table-vise, both of which we took apart, cleaned, put back together, and placed in service drilling sockets. We used them for the Chubby prototypes. That was fun.
There might be a twinge of frustration now and then, but the issues have mostly to do with economics, oversight, and risk management. I got into this based solely on enthusiasm for shaving brushes. But for it to work out so we can continue to design and make them, we need to use reasonably sound business judgment. The logistics and related costs tied to shipping back and forth across the Atlantic pose a significant burden. First, we pay for carriage and duties on rod we obtain from England. Then we incur shipping costs and duties when we send handles back to England to be polished, labeled, and knotted. Finally, we stand for the expense of carriage back to the US and any duties on account of importation of the finished brushes. Drawbacks are potentially available, but they'll require time and expense. The system is dauntingly complex for a small start-up venture to navigate. On top of all that, there's the sunk time and exposure we alone bear to risk of loss or damage in transit. Last but not least, we relinquish our ability to personally monitor, let alone manage, progress, QA/QC, etc. over a period of weeks, possibly months.
Lee understands and agrees. Installing knots is non-trivial to do and extremely important to have done right. But we'll make sure that happens.
Just the same, I hear you. Your counsel is sage. However, I'll offer the observation that treading lightly is sometimes ineffective when trying to make headway on steep terrain. And although patience is a virtue, an may Ox now and then require encouragement.
Enough on that subject.
In case anyone following this thread is interested to know more about what goes into designing and making handles the way we go at it, here's a bit of color.
First below is from a screenshot of a draft CAD drawing with the image we used inserted on a transparent layer. It's scaled to a 26mm socket, which was the size we used for initial prototyping. There is some blurring around the edges, probably due to the distance at which the shot was taken in order to minimize perspective distortion. This was, I think, the seventeenth saved draft. The first four aimed at capturing an exact copy of the model, and the next seven explored different variations. Four more minor revisions focused on specific refinements. The draft shown here is the fourth version of the seventh version of the fourth version. We then did two more on top of that to play with scaling, but ended up sticking to the original overall proportions.
Note the slightly concave base, which is a design element we're now using on all the handles we turn. The inspiration for it came from another Somerset-era Simpson. It reflects vintage lathe techniques, looks cool, feels nice (kinda like a worry stone), and serves the purpose of helping handles stand without sliding on wet counter-tops.
Next is a photo of some printouts we compared. We batted these around for at least a couple hours.
Once we select a CAD drawing to prototype, the file is imported into CNC simulation software that enables G-code editing and backplotting. The G-code is ultimately run on a Linux-based CAM application that controls the lathes. The design we settled on resulted in a G-code program that comprises about 390 lines, most of which individually specify a pair of Cartesian coordinates on the lathe's X-Z plane. The CAD program generates those coordinates, but there are always interpolation errors/anomalies.
I can enlarge a G-code plot to about the size at which .04" x .02" of tool-path fits on my screen. I dial it back from there and then scroll slowly, back and forth, from one end of the plot to the other. For our Chubby design, I manually re-wrote about 50 lines of code to smooth segments that wouldn't have been off enough to survive polishing or otherwise be noticeable without aid of a microscope, but I do it anyhow.
This past Sunday I was about two hours into that stage of the process when something caused a scripting error that froze the program. I could move the cursor and scroll, but neither copy nor save. At the time I was working on a subset of the G-code that composed the upper half of the handle, so probably about 200 lines of code were at risk of loss. I was within just a couple tweaks of being done. There was no way I could exactly replicate the changes I'd made by starting over. So I started hand-copying the code onto a legal pad (see below). When I got to the bottom of the first page, it occurred to me that since I could scroll, I might be able to capture images of the G-code with my iPhone and then OCR it. Capture worked fine; OCR did not. I ended up shutting down and then manually keying in all of the code with the screen shots opened in PhotoShop next to the backplotter. That took 2-3 hours.
So yes, some aspects of the process were mind-boggling.
Here's printout of the final G-code plot (I manually write the roughing cycles), followed by a shot of the hand-copied page of code.
This last image focuses in on the areas of design modification (other than scaling). Note the raised (by 1mm) waist, which dictated either modifying the angle formed where the upper half of the handle runs into the bead in order to preserve the circumference at that point, or enlarging the circumference at the expense of the bead's dimensions. We opted for the former, which yielded slightly more curvature.
Also note the modified bead profile. The top of the Simpson's bead forms more of a shelf as compared to ours, which rolls off. And we made it even chubbier, which seemed fitting.
Our modifications were fairly subtle. We sought to preserve the superb aesthetics of the original. What we gained ergonomically, however, was worth the trade-off in our opinion. Of course, that's something everyone can judge for himself.
Last edited:
Love this thread.....I had no idea the work and details that go into a brush. Thanks for sharing.
Ken, have you had a chance to actually use a brush with an ebonite handle? If so how well is it working out as a handle material? Intrigued minds want to know. 
- Thread starter
- #254
Ken, have you had a chance to actually use a brush with an ebonite handle? If so how well is it working out as a handle material? Intrigued minds want to know.
Not yet. There first ones I sent to Lee are presently en route back with knots, so barring the unexpected, I will very soon.
Will be sure to let you know.
Wow nice work. How much will these beauties be?
Ken - I check this thread infrequently but am always amazed by your work. Really something to behold.
Ken, you are generally a bright guy, but I can't believe you missed such an obvious solution to this problem.
We take up a collection here on B&B and buy Lee a place in Kansas.
C'mon man! I can't be the only one thinking outside the box here!
- Thread starter
- #258
It's not like we'd be breaking up. He just needs to ship us knots and make sure we're lined out to install them. He's good with that. And for ex-US sales, we'll send him handles, which he can finish and label or we can, as he sees fit. I'm OK with extending the current arrangement until we're set. It just isn't viable for the longer term.
Last edited:
That's great to hear you will have the concave base. I was thinking this yesterday but I've never had a cnc brush with one so just assumed it wasn't possible.
It just keeps getting better!
It just keeps getting better!
I think you are right in this, in the long term production can't be on separate places. At least not on separate continents. The quality of the production and the development of new products will certainly suffer in this scenario.
If we look at how it's done there are some distinct methods to observe. You can make the product from scratch in house and source the materials from reliable sources, like Shavemac does. You can source the knot or make it yourself in a standardised manner and fit it into a handle of your own design and manufacture, like Kent or Simpsons does. Or you can pick parts from everywhere and fit them in your workshop, like Ian Tang (a banned vendor on B&B operating from China) does.
The significant difference between these methods is the developability of the products and the customization possible for the customer. For an entrepreneur who wishes to develop and sell high quality products it seems that the concentrated production facility model is the only one to go with.
On the other hand it is up to the guys running the show to make all of this happen. We others are just idle bypassers and possible customers. Even the infamous Ian Tang had some interesting thoughts at the beginning as you can see in this picture:
Ian Tang (30,5/53 mm Pur Tech prototype), Simpsons Chubby 2 in best and Shavemac 25/50 mm D01 silvertip
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
