Feather Blades: Hype and Longevity

[TheVez2]

Frankly, I do not understand why anyone would want to get so many shaves out of a blade.

To get the most utility for my dollar. Many of us started this journey to save money. So, why not use the blades to their full potential.

Yes, I could go 3 or 4 days, or even possibly 10 days on the same blade before it begins to tug. But, why bother?

If a blade was tugging, I'd toss it too. But so far the only thing that has really dropped off is a lack of smootheness. And I don't mind that because I like the added feel it has. No tugging, and the shave quality has not dropped off. That is how I judge a shave and when a blade needs to go. When 3PM rolls around and I feel my face, if I feel a lot of stubble, then I know that the morning's shave was not close enough. That's when the blade gets tossed. So far, the blade is still going strong.

They cost about 87.5 cents per week at the rate I go through them.

So far, that feather blade has cost me 4 cents per week. 2 Packs could last me a year instead of a whole carton.

 

[something better]

Very impressed you've got so far! I love Feathers in my DE89, of all the blades I've tried they're the sharpest, smoothest of all. However, despite trying a few times, even with my sparse stubble by the time I hit 3 shaves I'm starting to feel some tugging.

interesting i have a de89 and use feather blades and have the same experience after 3 shaves i notice the blade does not shave the hair as easily. i get 7 shaves out of them, but its a real push.

 

[TheVez2]

Today was Shave #55. I love this freaking blade!

 

[poikkeus]

Feather isn't my absolute favorite blade, but it's really quite good. Of course, they're amazingly sharp, and gives me six to seven solid shaves - when other blades usually give me four.

However, for me, the Gillette Silver Blue offers a consistently smoother shave that lasts eight shaves - as good as any blade I've found so far.

 

[bandito]

I've recently started using Feather's after getting some as part of a sample pack. I was pretty afraid of them being a relative newbie, but there's every chance I'll stick with them. I get a good 3-4 shaves with them, with the latter shaves being the best.

 

[TheVez2]

Shave #66

 

[jamesspo]

Nice video, Vez. Thank you for your service.

 

[Major Guns]

Frankly, I do not understand why anyone would want to get so many shaves out of a blade. I buy feathers (all I ever use) at about $50 / 200. I use each blade 2 days and then throw it out. Why? Why not? 200 blades will last over a year. Why not have the sharpest shave possible? Yes, I could go 3 or 4 days, or even possibly 10 days on the same blade before it begins to tug. But, why bother? They cost about 87.5 cents per week at the rate I go through them.

Why throw away a perfectly good blade if it's still working? If I can use a Feather for 4 comfortable shaves, I'll use that blade for 4 comfortable shaves. Just throwing away stuff for the hell of it is not in my DNA.

 

[chongo gordo]

When I first started with safety razors I purchased a pack of Feathers and found them unforgiving, prone to giving weepers, and incapable of lasting more than three shaves. In the two years since I've been using Sharks and Astras exclusively.

Just got some Feathers this week to revisit. New evaluation:
1. Very smooth, I'm used to a little resistance and find it helps me keep track of the blade. I couldn't feel the feather at all, had to go by sight rather than feel.
2. The first shave took a chunk of skin (painlessly) off my cheek that an Astra would have slid over. A couple weepers, the first blood in ages. Got it under control by the 2nd shave.
3. Four shaves in it's still delivering.

I think its reputation is somewhat deserved. I'm going to buy more, it's a great blade.

 

[TheVez2]

It is definitely unforgiving of technique. I'd never recommend it for a beginner. But once you've got a solid technique down, it's a great blade.

 

[mswofford]

It is definitely unforgiving of technique. I'd never recommend it for a beginner. But once you've got a solid technique down, it's a great blade.

Agreed. I've been SE shaving for three months. The last time I used a Feather, I got 7 three pass shaves easily. When I revisit my Weber or Gillette NEW long comb I'll see if I can get more than 7 two pass WTG&ATG shaves.

 

[Useless shaver]

It is definitely unforgiving of technique. I'd never recommend it for a beginner. But once you've got a solid technique down, it's a great blade.

Yup.

I use them every day; a new blade every seven shaves (that's it, every week). Sharp and smooth, I LIKE them (not the glue, though...).

 

[zeppelin55]

Has anyone looked at the electron microscope pictures of the feather blade? It looks radically different than all other blades.

 

[Mr_Fuggles]

I really like Feathers because if I use any real amount of pressure when using them, especially on my neck, I *will* get weepers and razor burn, so Feathers force me to really pay attention and perfect my technique using no pressure.

As a result (also due to their sharpness) I get a great shave everytime (as long as I remember NO PRESSURE, otherwise I pay!)

 

[TheVez2]

I took a break with this razor and blade, due to some travel and getting a new razor I wanted to try out. But I'm back using it and am now up to shave #72 on this blade.

 

[Stubblefield]

Feathers are my fave blade. By the 7th day they begin to pull noticeably so I got into the habit of changing blades after 6 days.

Two shaves max, for me.

 

[Limekiln]

I use an R41 and I find no significant difference between Feather and (say) Derby or Astra. Yet seeing such passionate defense of Feather from one person and denunciation of Feather from others, I'm scratching my head.
So let's try a different tack on this topic, from the engineering perspective. I am very happy to be challenged on any of this, but I wanted to see if we can view these often conflicting blade-to-blade comparisons in another way.
My contention: with decent technique and a good razor, modern blade manufacture makes the differences between brands miniscule. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the machinery used to make all of the blades discussed here comes from just a couple of German, Japanese or Italy equipment vendors. Regardless, all that matters *really* is whether the manufacturer is operating and maintaining the machines correctly. And the quality procedure being used (see below).
History
The DE blade has been around since 1904. We'd been sharpening metal for centuries before then, but the Gillette company adapted sharpening techniques such that two sides of a thin sliver of steel could be sharpened. They protected their invention under patent, and then blade design and manufacture became commoditized with plenty of competitors further refining the processes. And they surely had figured out most of what needed to be figured out regarding blade manufacture by the 20s, 30s, 40s? I would contend that the only really significant innovation from King Gillette's day was the introduction of Stainless Steel by Wilkinson Sword in 1965. After a couple of decades you run up against the laws of diminishing returns. You can only improve a well-understood process that's made billions and billions of units *so* much after more than 100 years (for comparison, look at the incandescent light bulb, a useful comparison I think since it is a commodity made in very large volume over about the same lifespan. Almost no innovation there in many decades).
Current blade production
If most of the innovation is already done, and if the machinery is operated and maintained correctly, surely all that’s left is assuring that good Quality Control procedures are in place. How would we know this? Well, if one packet of blades from Brand X is the same as any other from Brand X, then it’s quite likely that the factory is run well with decent QC. Really, the remaining difference from brand-to-brand these days is coatings. Derbys seem to be lavished with at least 3. Most Feathers and Rapira seem to have fewer. Do these coatings make a difference? I’m sure they do, but I’m also quite convinced that that are really minor for most people. Kind-of like whether 5 blades in a cartridge is *really* any better than 4? Or 3?
Conclusion
Buy the cheapest blades which show lot-to-lot consistency, and focus instead on everything else except blade choice (razor type, technique, preparation, soap/cream that’s best suited to you, brush etc.etc.).

Like I said, I wanted to see if I could stir some debate and I’m perfectly ready to be shot down by reasoned opposing argument.

 

[Old Sure Hand]

I am looking on this matter much more simpler:

"Here are the blades worth the money, and here are the blades not worth the money."

As an example the Feather blades, for me, are not worth the money, Polsilver SI blades are worth the money.

 

[jamesspo]

I use an R41 and I find no significant difference between Feather and (say) Derby or Astra. Yet seeing such passionate defense of Feather from one person and denunciation of Feather from others, I'm scratching my head.
So let's try a different tack on this topic, from the engineering perspective. I am very happy to be challenged on any of this, but I wanted to see if we can view these often conflicting blade-to-blade comparisons in another way.
My contention: with decent technique and a good razor, modern blade manufacture makes the differences between brands miniscule. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the machinery used to make all of the blades discussed here comes from just a couple of German, Japanese or Italy equipment vendors. Regardless, all that matters *really* is whether the manufacturer is operating and maintaining the machines correctly. And the quality procedure being used (see below).
History
The DE blade has been around since 1904. We'd been sharpening metal for centuries before then, but the Gillette company adapted sharpening techniques such that two sides of a thin sliver of steel could be sharpened. They protected their invention under patent, and then blade design and manufacture became commoditized with plenty of competitors further refining the processes. And they surely had figured out most of what needed to be figured out regarding blade manufacture by the 20s, 30s, 40s? I would contend that the only really significant innovation from King Gillette's day was the introduction of Stainless Steel by Wilkinson Sword in 1965. After a couple of decades you run up against the laws of diminishing returns. You can only improve a well-understood process that's made billions and billions of units *so* much after more than 100 years (for comparison, look at the incandescent light bulb, a useful comparison I think since it is a commodity made in very large volume over about the same lifespan. Almost no innovation there in many decades).
Current blade production
If most of the innovation is already done, and if the machinery is operated and maintained correctly, surely all that’s left is assuring that good Quality Control procedures are in place. How would we know this? Well, if one packet of blades from Brand X is the same as any other from Brand X, then it’s quite likely that the factory is run well with decent QC. Really, the remaining difference from brand-to-brand these days is coatings. Derbys seem to be lavished with at least 3. Most Feathers and Rapira seem to have fewer. Do these coatings make a difference? I’m sure they do, but I’m also quite convinced that that are really minor for most people. Kind-of like whether 5 blades in a cartridge is *really* any better than 4? Or 3?
Conclusion
Buy the cheapest blades which show lot-to-lot consistency, and focus instead on everything else except blade choice (razor type, technique, preparation, soap/cream that’s best suited to you, brush etc.etc.).

Like I said, I wanted to see if I could stir some debate and I’m perfectly ready to be shot down by reasoned opposing argument.

You have some well reasoned arguments, and for the most part, I agree. The differences between blades are certainly exaggerated. I don't agree that there are no differences - I notice a difference in the sharpness (in the form of slightly less cutting force required) between some blades and others. However, these are very subtle differences. This is particularly true once a blade has a few shaves on it. For me, most blades tend to settle into a very similar plateau of sharpness and stay there for some time.

With regard to manufacturing differences, the argument you make is certainly reasonable, but I think it ignores the possibility of a brand putting a strong focus on quality and improved processes. It's true that sharpening blades is not a terribly complicated process. However, there is plenty of room for improvement. Sharpening at the level required in razor blades requires good electro-mechanical control for the grinding system, and there is a lot there that can be improved by modern control systems (I'm speaking of the actual electronic control here - not the abstract notion of control). Improving the basic control system toward tighter and tighter tolerances could certainly improve the sharpness, by ensuring the grind is perfectly symmetrical side to side. I have no idea if any of the key vendors really do anything different here or not. Heat treating and blade steel composition is also an area of possible differentiation that could significantly affect sharpenablity as well as durability of the edge.

With regard to the "human factor" - the reports of really significant differences between blades (both performance and longevity) - this is probably due to the well known lack of reliability in human observation. It's just horrifically bad. Just have a group of ten people look at a photo for a few seconds, then ask them to describe even simple aspects of the photo. You'll get lots of different answers. Reliably describing and comparing shaving events (especially over significant spans of time) is just as complicated, as there are so many variables. One can always try to just compare the overall outcome - say, the number of weepers that result in a given shave. But of course even under reasonable control (razor, soap, etc), there are plenty of random factors that creep in to muddy up the significance of the outcome. In the absence of blind trials (and lots of them)..it's all just anecdote.

 

[Limekiln]

I think we're mostly in violent agreement.
What we're talking about here is the variables that affect the shave. My belief is that blade brand is close to the bottom in terms of its effect on the overall performance and experience. Blade angle, locked wrist or not, direction of cut, buffing, adequate lubrication etc.etc. have a far greater effect; yet they are far harder to observe reliably. Blade brand is the easy way out - it's the variable that's easiest to observe.
"With regard to the "human factor" - the reports of really significant differences between blades (both performance and longevity) - this is probably due to the well known lack of reliability in human observation"
Enough said.