What's new

I Love the GC .68-P. Talk me Out of Buying a GC .84-P.

Ron R

I survived a lathey foreman
Good choice @Dovo1695, very happy with my RR Lupo .72 2nd Generation.
Used this great Lupo this morning for a great shave.
DE SOTD, Wed, May 26th 2021

Razor: Razorock Lupo.72 2nd Gen-Mfg 2021> Excellent mid range razor, well designed for a Stainless steel razor, easy going shave, daily driver for some folks IMO.
Blade: Rapira lux (4) excellent blade, Sharp & smooth with some longevity.
Soap: Tabac, mild flowery clean scent with excellent lather properties. Triple milled for long lasting!
Brush: Yaqi barber pole 24mm 2 band, 1st use with a 2band badger. Had mild scent of badger funk but did it perform very well.
Excellent lather generator, soft tips with excellent scrub + great lather painter. Nice brush for little cost(sale).
Pre shave: Brush wash whole face with CeraVe hand bar cleanser + a dollop of clear Aloe Vera gel on the cleaned beard area.
Prep: cold water rinse after each pass of 2 + pickups. WTG + ATG + pickups.
Post shave: Razorock American barber with witch hazel + a dollop of Nivea balm.
Results: 9.5/10 or CCS,DFS,BBS, + no irritation + no weepers = :a17: excellent shave with my RR Lupo.72 with a Rapira Platinum Lux.


DE SOTD , May 26th 2021.jpg



Have some great shaves!
 

Chan Eil Whiskers

Fumbling about.
I think this experiment is going to work. Here are some close-up shots of the GC .68-P and GC .84-P compliments of @Rosseforp. I think the Shim-Kai GC .78-P is going slightly more efficient than the GC .84! The GC .68 has roughly -.05mm negative exposure, and the GC 84 has neutral exposure. The KAI blade is adding .11mm in width, so adding it to the GC .68 should result in roughly .06mm positive exposure. 😃

GC .68-P: Note the negative blade exposure.

proxy.php


GC .84: Note the neutral blade exposure

proxy.php

I see your pictures, but RR publishes "positive" blade exposure with the Game Changer and Lupo razors (at least they did when I checked a few minutes ago).
 
I see your pictures, but RR publishes "positive" blade exposure with the Game Changer and Lupo razors (at least they did when I checked a few minutes ago).

The key question is "positive exposure relative to what???". My guess is a 22mm blade. There is nothing else it could be. The problem is that there aren't any blades that are 22 mm. Not only do blade widths vary between brands (from Derby at 21.89mm all the way to Kai at 22.18mm) but even the exact same brand has variation of a few thousandths of a mm. I'd guess the average blade is 21.95mm.

So if a razor is designed to have 0.001mm exposure (positive) with a 22mm blade, on average, it's blade exposure is -0.04mm (negative) in real life use.

Here is the blade width wiki:

proxy.php


Henson razor is the only company I've seen to date that addresses the fact that different razor brands have different widths, which will affect blade exposure and therefore efficiency.

Source: (your shave journal is becoming encyclopedic at this point...) :w00t:

 
Last edited:
I also stand with all that have mentioned the Lupo's in this post. I had the Gamechanger .84 and loved it, still do, but ever since the release of the SS Lupo's, there is no comparison to me. I love both the .72 and .95 Lupo's, have never had a better shave with any other DE compared to these.

My favorite of them all is the .95 Lupo.
 
I also stand with all that have mentioned the Lupo's in this post. I had the Gamechanger .84 and loved it, still do, but ever since the release of the SS Lupo's, there is no comparison to me. I love both the .72 and .95 Lupo's, have never had a better shave with any other DE compared to these.

My favorite of them all is the .95 Lupo.
i don't have any of those, but i think lupo 95 is very aggressive for me.
 
i don't have any of those, but i think lupo 95 is very aggressive for me.

I've got the Lupo .95 baseplate on the way. I'm dubious that it's materially more efficient than the Lupo .72, but there is only one way to find out.

My theory is that once blade exposure becomes positive, marginal increases in blade exposure become increasingly irrelevant. Increasing gap serves only to reduce predictability (i.e. the razor is more prone to bite, but does change the shaving efficiency if the blade exposure is already positive.)
 
I get a lot of nicks under the nose with my Lupo double comb. It's probably about the same as the 95 I think. I think I'll get a 72 next.
 
Not only do blade widths vary between brands (from Derby at 21.89mm all the way to Kai at 22.18mm) but even the exact same brand has variation of a few thousandths of a mm. I'd guess the average blade is 21.95mm.

Not massively important correction, but going by the linked resource it's the BIC that's 21.89, the Derby being 21.97.

It's a very good point generally though, and why when talking such fine margins it's important to have all the data when analysing, else there's no point running the numbers at all!
 

JCarr

More Deep Thoughts than Jack Handy
I've got the Lupo .95 baseplate on the way. I'm dubious that it's materially more efficient than the Lupo .72, but there is only one way to find out.

My theory is that once blade exposure becomes positive, marginal increases in blade exposure become increasingly irrelevant. Increasing gap serves only to reduce predictability (i.e. the razor is more prone to bite, but does change the shaving efficiency if the blade exposure is already positive.)

I like both, but prefer the .72. I see a lot of members prefer the .95. I have it and use it and like it, but I prefer the .72.
 
I like both, but prefer the .72. I see a lot of members prefer the .95. I have it and use it and like it, but I prefer the .72.

I've been shaving with both for a few weeks now and they're both excellent razors. I find the .72 to be a bit more aggressive and maybe the slightest bit more efficient, but less comfortable. The Lupo .72 has double the blade exposure of the Lupo .95, but the Lupo .95 is more responsive to pressure than the .72. Hard to pick a winner.

I haven't used either long enough to decide, but I'm inclined to give the nod to the Lupo .95 because I prize comfort above efficiency. You can't go wrong with either razor though; they're both absolutely top notch.
 
The only reason I could think of on not buying the GC 0.84-P is the Lupo SS 95 simply because it gives me a smoother and more efficient shave but that's me it might be different for you
 
I am currently in trials with both the .68P and .84P and would offer some observations.

My intention was to start with the .68P and possibly order the .84P bottom plate some time down the road, but due to a snafu at the Italian Barber (the box was labelled correctly but the wrong razor was in it) I ended up starting with the .84P. I have since gotten the .68P plate but I'm only a couple shaves in. I found the .84P really great for the first, with the growth pass, but toward the end of the second pass (across) I began to feel the blade. The third pass quickly became uncomfortable and touch ups left me quite tender. In subsequent uses the blade feel tempered a bit, and I felt that it became much more manageable. I think I could get used to how the .84 shaves it over time, though it seems to work best with more pronounced stubble growth, perhaps a couple days worth.

My hope all along was to find a mild razor that I could use every day without removing a layer of skin each time. I already have more aggressive razors (vintage) if I feel I need that. Thus far it's too early to tell if the .68P is what I am looking for. I'll do a few more shaves before switching back to the .84P. All the while as I observe these razors I'm trying to note subtle variances in my technique that may be helping or hindering their performance for me.

I would encourage anybody to go ahead and get the other plate to test drive to see for yourself. It's certainly an affordable option for trying what amounts to a different razor. Given the .84P's popularity (it always seems to be sold out) you'd surely be able to recoup your money by selling it here.
 
Top Bottom