How much better are more expensive razors? 0 better. Question presumes more expensive = better, if you allow the assumption the answer is still 0. Some inexpensive (cup of coffee expensive) razors shave as well as the most expensive. It's about geometry, not price.
How much better are razors at a higher price point?
- Thread starter SimpleClean
- Start date
I had a wonderful shave today. An old tarnished razor from 1908 I paid $2 for.
I also had a terrific shave from an artistic beauty I bought last year for around $200.
Then there's one of my favorite modern adjustables with horrible zamak head for $40 and it shave perfectly.
So, yeah. YMMV and all that.
I also had a terrific shave from an artistic beauty I bought last year for around $200.
Then there's one of my favorite modern adjustables with horrible zamak head for $40 and it shave perfectly.
So, yeah. YMMV and all that.
Right, and what makes it more complicated is that sometimes, with time and practice, what seemed like a bad razor at first can be quite effective and comfortable. At one point years ago I thought a 1920s Old Type was the best for me. I used it every day for five weeks and got great shaves, but towards the end of that period my entire face gradually began to turn red and feel irritated. At some point I'll go back to it. Maybe my skills have improved. Or maybe that just isn't an every day razor for me. The one I've been using for the last few months doubtless isn't the very best one in existence, even for me. But it's vastly better than it was the first time I used it.
I've found very little correlation between razor price and shave quality. My favorite overall razors are some of my least expensive - a 60's Schick Krona and a 1913 Gillette Old Type. My President and Toggle look nice, but they're are just average shaves. To me price is more about collectability. The higher the cost, the more likely they are to stay in the display cabinet.
Agree wholeheartedly. Regarding high priced razors staying in the display cabinet, I use every one I own at least once. NIB doesn't mean that much to me. If it is too rare to use I have no use for it.
Think High Price should be better quality, workmanship.
You should be able to see difference in fit, finish, and quality control.
How much BETTER ITEM WORKS, I a personal observation.
You should be able to see difference in fit, finish, and quality control.
How much BETTER ITEM WORKS, I a personal observation.
I hear you. I have a few still in the display cabinet but have sold off many of my collectables. Same with my vintage blades. I have far more than I'll ever use in two lifetimes so I'm finally getting to the point of parting with them.Agree wholeheartedly. Regarding high priced razors staying in the display cabinet, I use every one I own at least once. NIB doesn't mean that much to me. If it is too rare to use I have no use for it.
Yes, and back in the day, Gillette were experts at mass-producing moderately priced DE razors (not really cheap but affordable by millions of Americans) that at the same time would be durable enough to last 10 years or more of daily use, i.e., not necessarily built like a tank, but durable enough. The perfect balance of cost, mass-production capability, quality and durability. Many were used for many years to the end of their useful lives, but many more survive to the present in usable condition.
Today most Americans no longer use DE razors. Young airport security guards know all about today's gadgets but think a Gillette Slim (not loaded with a blade) is a weapon of mass destruction. So the opportunity for economical mass production of DE razors is mostly gone, save for the very cheapest, Chinese-made plastic ones. But the idea of small-production luxury razors with sky-high build quality still makes economic sense. Given all of that, it's amazing what is available for $100 or less in terms of last-a-lifetime razors.
+1! This is true with many consumer items, such as liquor, cars, fishing gear, etc., etc.
IMHO, the main thing is to establish ‘your’ price/performance metric. Then enjoy what makes you happy!
yes sir, a diamond is a diamond, Ben Bridge or Cartier.
Rolex found a way to make a considerably worse product and sell it at a considerably higher price point, to name one obvious example. If the function of a watch is to keep time, there are much, much cheaper watches with very good quartz mechanisms that do a much better job. Heck, Seiko was making a watch way back in the late 1970s that was guaranteed accurate to within 5 seconds per year. A Rolex is pretty likely to go out by 5 seconds or more in a month, some are out by considerably more.
So while I agree with most of your post, there are definitely examples of companies making and selling inferior tools for considerably more money.
Please note that I am not necessarily saying that I would prefer a Seiko to a Rolex. There are other reasons why somebody would choose the more expensive brand. But performing the actual FUNCTION better isn't always the reason.
I'd rather a Seiko or Casio over a Rolex
I suppose it depends on your level of pretentiousness.
Dude I actually laughed so hard I nearly choked on my tea.
The cost quality curve exists with everything...... there comes a point with any product where your price may continue to rise steeply while the bump in quality is small if any. After x point you're often paying for a name, a special finish that doesn't effect overall quality, some other hoodoo.... it's really horrid with guitars but it's there with most everything. Razors and shaving accessories included.
You just gotta find that sweet spot where you getting the most bang for your buck if you're looking at it from a strictly financial perspective.
You just gotta find that sweet spot where you getting the most bang for your buck if you're looking at it from a strictly financial perspective.
I think this just aims at a not-relevant comparison. It stands to reason that people who spend a not insignificant amount of time a day on a forum related to shaving are in it for a little more than a close shave. It has become a hobby. When you place it in that perspective, “value” becomes a lot more subjective than objective.
Is a steak at a fancy steakhouse 10x better than what you make at home? Still, people occasionally go. Is a Mercedes 4x better at doing the job it’s built to do (point A to point B) than a used Honda? Hell, it might be worse. Still…. They’re coveted.
if everything in life is pure value in a monetary sense, I suppose we’d all drive used Honda’s, live off meal replacement shakes and thrift all our clothes.
Is a steak at a fancy steakhouse 10x better than what you make at home? Still, people occasionally go. Is a Mercedes 4x better at doing the job it’s built to do (point A to point B) than a used Honda? Hell, it might be worse. Still…. They’re coveted.
if everything in life is pure value in a monetary sense, I suppose we’d all drive used Honda’s, live off meal replacement shakes and thrift all our clothes.
Hannah's Dad
I Can See Better Than Bigfoot.
Hmmm, I'd rather a Honda then a Mercedes.
So, I've learned in this thread I'm either a practical man or a cheap bastard.
Practical isn’t the correct word.
You simply find more joy (it seems, I don’t know you) in getting the most results in a quantitative sense (shave results with the removal of all emotion) for the lowest dollar value.
Practical is defined as: (of an idea, plan, or method) likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible.
People who drop several hundred on a Wolfman, or whatever else, are likely to succeed if technique and all is equated.
One polar take is not better than the other, which goes to the genesis of the problem. A person who gets great results with a $2 razor and water is not smarter or better in any way than a person who has a $500 razor and half a dozen or more fancy accompanying products.
They simply value different things.and value, by its very nature, is perceived. It can’t be factual by definition because that would require a completely agreed upon definition. Well, I define a meal as something more than providing enough calories to continue living… as I assume the vast majority of people on this forum do.
You simply find more joy (it seems, I don’t know you) in getting the most results in a quantitative sense (shave results with the removal of all emotion) for the lowest dollar value.
Practical is defined as: (of an idea, plan, or method) likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible.
People who drop several hundred on a Wolfman, or whatever else, are likely to succeed if technique and all is equated.
One polar take is not better than the other, which goes to the genesis of the problem. A person who gets great results with a $2 razor and water is not smarter or better in any way than a person who has a $500 razor and half a dozen or more fancy accompanying products.
They simply value different things.and value, by its very nature, is perceived. It can’t be factual by definition because that would require a completely agreed upon definition. Well, I define a meal as something more than providing enough calories to continue living… as I assume the vast majority of people on this forum do.
Similar threads
