Differences in the Techs?

[Kel Varnsen]

So for a few years I have had a Canadian made 4 piece Tech that was made during WWII. It's a pretty awesome razor. I use it when I travel since it is super mild which means that even with a crappy can of travel sized shave gel it will do a decent job and I won't cut myself. Plus if I forget to pack aftershave, no big deal. Sure it might not get super close, but if I am on vacation I don't care.

Recently I bought a few razors from some guy and it included two other techs and I am wondering how different they will be. One has a ball end handle and is made in England probably around 1949 (no date code, oval slots, logo on top). The other is a Canadian made fat Handle tech with a '51 date code.

I have seen a bunch of threads talking about differences between British/US/Canadian models and pre/post war so I was wondering what I can expect with these two.

 

[HazMat Shaver]

Going with American I can say I find the oval holed razor smoother than the triangle. But this is just me. I think the oval is the newer of the two styles but I've been wrong before. A tech is a fine shaver and I have many. Its a low cost way to start a Gillette collection.

 

[NorthernSoul]

Interestingly, there's no consensus on what is the best Tech. I really like my Canadian pre-war model, for instance. Somebody else insists the English Techs are the best and shave a little closer. Clearly, we aren't talking about a night/day difference.

If you compare the geometry of the oval-slot to the triangle-slot, you will find the oval-slot has moved the fulcrum point where the blade rests on the base plate further out towards the edge. Also, the base plate has a bit more curvature. This suggests the blade is more firmly supported at the edge with the oval-slot design. Subjectively, the oval-slot feels slightly milder to me, but results are pretty similar to the triangle-slot.

The different handle designs effect the balance point and the feel of the razor. You'll notice the later English Tech use an aluminum handle which gives a lightweight feel. The heaviest handle is the solid ball-end handle.

The Techs share the same basic designs, just made in different factories with different tooling. Perhaps that accounts for the differences between them. There might be minor differences in blade gap, etc.

 

[brucered]

I have 5 or 6 versions. If someone told me they all shaved the same, I'd believe them.

 

[Alum Ladd]

So for a few years I have had a Canadian made 4 piece Tech that was made during WWII. It's a pretty awesome razor. I use it when I travel since it is super mild which means that even with a crappy can of travel sized shave gel it will do a decent job and I won't cut myself. Plus if I forget to pack aftershave, no big deal. Sure it might not get super close, but if I am on vacation I don't care.

Recently I bought a few razors from some guy and it included two other techs and I am wondering how different they will be. One has a ball end handle and is made in England probably around 1949 (no date code, oval slots, logo on top). The other is a Canadian made fat Handle tech with a '51 date code.

I have seen a bunch of threads talking about differences between British/US/Canadian models and pre/post war so I was wondering what I can expect with these two.

Is it this?

I have one but slightly later without the triangle holes. One part of the handle was missing. I got it for the head. Canadian Techs are rare here. Shaves excellent. I also got a US Pre-war with the triangle drain holes. A couple of english Flat Bottoms (weird but superb English variant, great shave) and a couple of others, a US 61 Ball end and and English late 50's Alu-Tech.

The early Techs are highly efficient. As good as a Gamechanger 68.

 

[brucered]

Is it this?

I have one but slightly later without the oval holes. One part of the handle was missing. I got it for the head. Canadian Techs are rare here. Shaves excellent. I also got a US Pre-war with the oval drain holes.

The early Techs are highly efficient. As good as a Gamechanger 68.

I have a couple of those 4 piece travel Techs. They are ultra cool how the handle can conceal itself into a tiny nubby handle

Far left x 2

 

[BradWorld]

I find the 1932 labeled Canadian Tech to be quite high on the efficiency scale relative to other Techs. Up there with the British Flat Bottoms, and better than the Hybrid Tech. It’s a good one. But all Techs are quite mild when compared to a Gillette adjustable on 9, or an Aristocrat, or certainly a highly efficient modern razor like a Blackbird or Wolfman. But shaving with a Tech is more about smoothness, comfort, nostalgia, history, and shave enjoyment. Getting the most mega close result isn’t always the goal.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Is it this?

I have one but slightly later without the triangle holes. One part of the handle was missing. I got it for the head. Canadian Techs are rare here. Shaves excellent. I also got a US Pre-war with the triangle drain holes. A couple of english Flat Bottoms (weird but superb English variant, great shave) and a couple of others, a US 61 Ball end and and English late 50's Alu-Tech.

The early Techs are highly efficient. As good as a Gamechanger 68.

Yep it's that one. I bought it off someone from either Kijiji or FB Marketplace. I didn't know what it was at the time was just looking for something different from my Edwin Jagger 89 (which broke last year). There were a few different razors people were selling (some modern some old) and this ended up being the first one available.

 

[DesertIguana]

Well my Tech Guru Expert question is simple, at some point Gillette Went from Brass that was plated Gold, or Nickel to Aluminum. What era did this happen?

 

[LuckyGlenn]

Well my Tech Guru Expert question is simple, at some point Gillette Went from Brass that was plated Gold, or Nickel to Aluminum. What era did this happen?

In the early 60's Gillette started using zamak heads.

 

[RAD patient]

Are there any visible differences between a brass and a zamak top cap? Or is there a difference in weight that sets them apart?
Asking because I have only English techs and apart from the zamak top caps I have that are broken and you can see, there is no way to tell which is brass or zamak.
Help appreciated.

 

[Umma2gumma]

I have a 1960 “post-war” and a pre-war with triangular slots. The difference is very noticeable. The pre-war is more aggressive, the post-war is very mild.

 

[NorthernSoul]

Are there any visible differences between a brass and a zamak top cap? Or is there a difference in weight that sets them apart?
Asking because I have only English techs and apart from the zamak top caps I have that are broken and you can see, there is no way to tell which is brass or zamak.
Help appreciated.

Once you have seen a few they are pretty easy to tell apart. The brass caps are thinner. Zamak caps are thicker and have beveled edges. Brass caps often have an etched Gillette diamond logo. Zamak caps usually have the Gillette name embossed on them. Brass caps make a ringing sound when dropped on the counter. Zamak caps make a higher pitched sound.

Brass cap:

Zamak cap: