PAA Meta-4 Review: A Steel Steal

[Teutonblade]

The Meta-4 by Phoenix Artisan Accoutrements is one of the best kept secrets in Wet Shaving. At US$79.95 it punches way above its price, with performance matching razors which are multiple times more expensive. Made by CNC from 100% 316L stainless steel, the Meta-4 has the build quality and finish of an artisan razor, and at 107g and 93mm in length, with super-grippy knurling, it feels like a little tank in your hand.

Where the Meta-4 really shines is blade clamping. It employs a curved head design with a thin top-cap and base plate with narrow blade reveal, a small blade gap, and steep blade angle, all of which make for a satisfying amount of blade feel and a highly efficient shave while still being comfortable and easy to use. The overall design is reminiscent of the Lambda Athena (although as the Meta-4 predates the Athena it might be the other way around). Neither the blade gap or blade exposure are published but if I had to guess I would put them both in the same range as the Athena at around 0.3-0.4mm and neutral to slightly positive.

Athena Reveal

Athena Edge

Meta-4 Reveal

Meta-4 Edge

The curved and thin head makes for easy access below the nose. The optimal shave angle seems a little shallower than the typical 30 degrees, probably somewhere around 20-25. Like the Karve Overlander, the Meta-4 gives the impression that it simply can’t hurt you, allowing for what seems like a nearly unlimited amount of buffing without causing irritation. Importantly, because the blade is clamped firmly at the edge, with little reveal and a steep angle of attack, chatter across the whiskers or skin due to blade wiggle is kept to a minimum making it feel confident and sure-footed, even against the grain in difficult places like below the nose or soul patch.

I tested the Meta-4 with a Wilkinson (DE) and consistently achieved a shave just shy of a perfect BBS, which I rate BBS/BBS-. On a scale of 1-10, it scored 8 for Efficiency, 9 for Comfort, 8 for Consistency, and 9 for Ease-of-Use, giving it a composite score of 34, putting it among the top 3 in my collection, just below the Overlander at 36 and the Athena at 35.

The bottom line is that the ease-of-use and whimsical design of the Meta-4 make it fun to use, and the efficiency and comfort make it an ideal candidate for a daily driver. At the risk of sounding like a snob, the Meta-4 may lack some of the mystique and allure of more expensive artisan razors simply because of their longer lead times and higher price which make them seem more collectible. But to dismiss it out of hand would be a mistake. The Meta-4 is a razor to be taken seriously, and well worth the price.

 

[mikhou]

I had a Meta-4 and I liked it, but I personally found it less efficient than my Henson+ or Karve OL. Super comfortable and super safe, but it took quite a bit (for me) to get a close shave with it. That being said, I've seen others who have found it to be their perfect razor. At the price, I certainly think it's worth a look.

 

[Teutonblade]

I had a Meta-4 and I liked it, but I personally found it less efficient than my Henson+ or Karve OL. Super comfortable and super safe, but it took quite a bit (for me) to get a close shave with it. That being said, I've seen others who have found it to be their perfect razor. At the price, I certainly think it's worth a look.

I think it does well with a sharp blade like the Wilkinson, Permasharp, or Vokhsod.

 

[idjekyll]

Damn you. I don't need another razor!!.

 

[Sweeney_]

The Meta-4 is a refined/updated stainless version of the PAA Prismatic. I had both but prefer the potmetal Prismatic which seems a bit more efficient and easier to keep the angle. Blade tabs are uncovered on the latter. I enjoy using it for something totally different now and again.

Both are based/inspired by the
Kirby Razor

 

[Guido75]

What @Sweeney said, it’s based on the Kirby razor. Similar to all PAA designs which are based on shaving staples from yesteryear. Eclipse Red Ring (Athena has a similar baseplate too by the way) for the Quantum razor, the Grand Shave King for the DOC.

I am glad Sweeney also mentioned the Prismatic as the Meta-4 is a +100 razor for where I live if I include shipping and import fees. Which is a good thing for now, because Lee’s review does make me itch!!

Another razor that comes to mind is the Philite.

 

[emwolf]

Although I really enjoy the Meta 4, I enjoy its cheaper older sibling the Prismatic more. However my first Prismatic is so far the only razor I've had to deal with zamac rot.

 

[megamac]

A close buddy of mine who collects only Vintage razors has the Leresche #77 and a KBC. I have used both those razors extensively and a hand polished Meta-4 which i owned previously. These three razors do share a lot of similarities.

The vintage are beautiful razors but I found the Leresche too mild for my liking. The KBC was very good and the Meta-4 comes close to it.

While using the Meta-4 for the first shave, I was convinced that it would have trouble taking off my three two day growth but it shocked me with its efficiency. I did a comfortable three pass shave and used the razor a lot before passing it on to a mate who was hunting it down when it was out of stock. I owned the Prismatic befor ethat and liked it much but the coating started coming off and that was just annoying. The Meta-4 is SS and it doesn't get better.

I have to agree with @Teutonblade and his analysis of the razor, like the Athena it is deceptively good with minimal blade feel. I enjoyed my time with it and my choice of blade for it was always a Feather, it was a match made in heaven. The only problem is that the Razor does go out of stock often and one has to pull the trigger soon as, when it is available.

A friend on the same forum once advised me, if you want an Athena like experience not the same thing but close to it, get a Brass Overlander or a Meta-4 and that would still leave you with dollars for another razor.

 

[megamac]

Although I really enjoy the Meta 4, I enjoy its cheaper older sibling the Prismatic more. However my first Prismatic is so far the only razor I've had to deal with zamac rot.

I'm so with you on this mate. That happened to my prismatic too. I think the Meta-4 on that count is really good value.

 

[Cafebarian]

The Meta-4 is one of my top razors when high effeminacy isn't needed and I need to have zero irritation for special events and occasions. (normally don't get irritation much anymore with any of my razors)

 

[emwolf]

I'm so with you on this mate. That happened to my prismatic too. I think the Meta-4 on that count is really good value.

Was your rot started on the safety bar? I'm on my second Prismatic, but you are very right, the Meta4 will last forever (plus it covers the blade tabs which I like).

 

[megamac]

Was your rot started on the safety bar? I'm on my second Prismatic, but you are very right, the Meta4 will last forever (plus it covers the blade tabs which I like).

Absolutely mate on the safety bar and the base plate as well. The top cap was fine but a bit of the plating started wearing off. When it was new, loved it.

 

[Ingolfur]

I used to have this razor, and its efficiency and smoothness are similar to the Timeless .68 SB.

What I didn’t like was the excessive blade overhang. I tend to shave sideways under my nose, and the overhang made it hard to reach the area I wanted to shave.

 

[Rico Suave]

The Meta-4 is a refined/updated stainless version of the PAA Prismatic. I had both but prefer the potmetal Prismatic ...

I have both, and I agree. I would have preferred a stainless or brass Prismatic over the M4. On the bright side, I do like the covered tabs on the M4.

 

[Slapo]

To those who find it difficult to keep the razor in its efficient angle range - there's a built-in angle guide.
It's a fairly small area, but look at the base plate's bar from the side and you should be able to see it.

The META-4 is also a razor that I think deserves to be called a closed comb, rather than just a safety bar, because the scallops are pretty beefy. Not quite as beefy as on the Muhle R41, but still pretty sizeable.

I liked the META-4 and Ascension enough that I bought 5 of each, juuust in case.

 

[SaguaroSmart]

@Teutonblade I think your tracking of razor scores in a table is very useful. I'm going to start doing that for myself.

I gotta say, I'm really surprised by your review of the meta 4. It's strange that opinions about the meta 4 are so divergent. For example, you list the blackbird as 10 in efficiency, and this is a pretty widely held opinion by other wet shavers. However you list the meta 4 as 8, which means you found it still in the upper echelon of efficiency but lots of people also describe it as very mild and mild to medium efficiency.

I'm not discrediting your opinion by the way, I've never shaved with the meta 4 and after all, razors do feel different to most people but I'm just very surprised to see someone rank both the meta 4 and blackbird very highly as you often see people who like mild razors dislike the blackbird and vice versa, people who got used to the blackbird efficiency often find other milder razors lacking in efficiency.

I might have to try and see if someone around me can lend me a meta 4 just to try and satisfy my curiosity. The way I've seen it described before I would have imagined a razor more like the GameChanger 68, is it much more efficient than that ?

 

[Teutonblade]

@Teutonblade I think your tracking of razor scores in a table is very useful. I'm going to start doing that for myself.

I gotta say, I'm really surprised by your review of the meta 4. It's strange that opinions about the meta 4 are so divergent. For example, you list the blackbird as 10 in efficiency, and this is a pretty widely held opinion by other wet shavers. However you list the meta 4 as 8, which means you found it still in the upper echelon of efficiency but lots of people also describe it as very mild and mild to medium efficiency.

I'm not discrediting your opinion by the way, I've never shaved with the meta 4 and after all, razors do feel different to most people but I'm just very surprised to see someone rank both the meta 4 and blackbird very highly as you often see people who like mild razors dislike the blackbird and vice versa, people who got used to the blackbird efficiency often find other milder razors lacking in efficiency.

I might have to try and see if someone around me can lend me a meta 4 just to try and satisfy my curiosity. The way I've seen it described before I would have imagined a razor more like the GameChanger 68, is it much more efficient than that ?

I think the confusion may be around definitions. I score razors on 4 metrics: Efficiency, Comfort, Consistency, and Ease-of-Use. For me, terms like "mild" and "aggressive" are adjectives to describe comfort, which is a measure of blade feel and irritation level. Efficiency is simply a measure of how closely the razor shaves (i.e. BBS, DFS, OKFW, SAS), which I usually characterize as either high or low.

I think you're right that usually razors with high comfort have low efficiency. Another way of saying that would be mild razors typically don't shave very closely. It's precisely because the Meta-4 has both high comfort and high efficiency (or in another words feels mild but gives a very close shave) that it's so extraordinary.

As always, YMMV.

 

[VerbaVolant]

To me, the positive blade exposure disqualifies this razor as a daily driver. Not an ideal candidate for a daily driver, in my opinion.

 

[Slapo]

@SaguaroSmart, @Teutonblade

I'd rather disagree that comfortable razors would tend to have low efficiency and apologies for a bit of a ramble.

Unless they have negative blade exposure, they should be as efficient as positive exposure razors (subject to sufficient flow-through, blade rigidity suitable to hair type and growth and perhaps other design elements).

The issue, IMO, is that neutral to low exposure razors tend to have a very narrow range of angles where the blade's cutting edge is at skin level.
This results in a lot of people getting a poor experience, because, particularly with lather on, the ability to see and feel the contact surface is greatly diminished.
I suspect that a lot of people's experience (who complain about them) with mild razors would improve when using a translucent gel, oil or very thin lather after having prepared their facial hair properly.

But I've seen a lot of people posting who clearly don't particularly care to play around like this. They'd just declare a razor inefficient ("unable to deal with trouble spots but otherwise OK", "need too many passes resulting in irritation" or similar is often the reason given) and move on to another one.
And then they up pick up a more aggressive razor, with which they end up taking their time and paying much better attention to managing the angle, unlike with the mild razor, and efficiency is found.
A few years later, they revisit a mild razor, e.g. a Tech, and after a few tries with it, either epiphany presents itself and they realise they can now get good results with it, or they end up using slack technique/prep again ("It's a mild razor, so it should be OK to just swing it around, shouldn't it?") and go back to their old favourites.

My growth is medium on my cheeks and top half of my neck (the area surrounded by the jaw bone), but fairly dense in goatee area, sideburns and actual neck. On my neck, the hair also grows pretty much flat to the skin, and I find it more difficult to reduce than facial hair.
Over the years, I've realised that the denser areas just need more soaking time and perhaps an extra reduction pass, helped by using a variant or two of a Gillette slide (the variants are the same in effect, though not the execution).

Afterwards, pretty much only the flat-growing neck hair remained problematic, also because they grow along something of a curve.
That turned out to be a technique issue, although still not easy to get right.

In any case, I find that razors where the blade isn't rigid aren't generally very efficient for me - it's like the blade keeps bouncing off the hair ATG, and it feels like I'm trying to velcro the hair off.
If flow-through is poor, it seems to me the blade has a tougher time actually getting to the skin and, as such, also hair at skin level.

This is where I think angle guides help a good deal, but I've seen people ignoring them (or perhaps just failing to use them), and then complaining about them being in the way after the fact.

I understand that some people need to feel the blade, because, perhaps, their skin isn't as touch sensitive as others' is, or there are too many curves on the shaves areas and a razor doesn't allow to contour those well, or perhaps somewhat compromised manual dexterity play a role too, as well as lacking technique in some cases, and that it all good.
Just as it is that they don't want to go ATG, so they pick a more aggressive razor, take a little bit of skin off and get a reasonably close shave.

I just don't think that in any of the cases it is the razor at fault, but that it's more of a case of a bad coupling of user and tool, and coupling can be improved with patient practise.

 

[AshleyC]

@SaguaroSmart, @Teutonblade

I'd rather disagree that comfortable razors would tend to have low efficiency and apologies for a bit of a ramble.

Unless they have negative blade exposure, they should be as efficient as positive exposure razors (subject to sufficient flow-through, blade rigidity suitable to hair type and growth and perhaps other design elements).

The issue, IMO, is that neutral to low exposure razors tend to have a very narrow range of angles where the blade's cutting edge is at skin level.
This results in a lot of people getting a poor experience, because, particularly with lather on, the ability to see and feel the contact surface is greatly diminished.
I suspect that a lot of people's experience (who complain about them) with mild razors would improve when using a translucent gel, oil or very thin lather after having prepared their facial hair properly.

But I've seen a lot of people posting who clearly don't particularly care to play around like this. They'd just declare a razor inefficient ("unable to deal with trouble spots but otherwise OK", "need too many passes resulting in irritation" or similar is often the reason given) and move on to another one.
And then they up pick up a more aggressive razor, with which they end up taking their time and paying much better attention to managing the angle, unlike with the mild razor, and efficiency is found.
A few years later, they revisit a mild razor, e.g. a Tech, and after a few tries with it, either epiphany presents itself and they realise they can now get good results with it, or they end up using slack technique/prep again ("It's a mild razor, so it should be OK to just swing it around, shouldn't it?") and go back to their old favourites.

My growth is medium on my cheeks and top half of my neck (the area surrounded by the jaw bone), but fairly dense in goatee area, sideburns and actual neck. On my neck, the hair also grows pretty much flat to the skin, and I find it more difficult to reduce than facial hair.
Over the years, I've realised that the denser areas just need more soaking time and perhaps an extra reduction pass, helped by using a variant or two of a Gillette slide (the variants are the same in effect, though not the execution).

Afterwards, pretty much only the flat-growing neck hair remained problematic, also because they grow along something of a curve.
That turned out to be a technique issue, although still not easy to get right.

In any case, I find that razors where the blade isn't rigid aren't generally very efficient for me - it's like the blade keeps bouncing off the hair ATG, and it feels like I'm trying to velcro the hair off.
If flow-through is poor, it seems to me the blade has a tougher time actually getting to the skin and, as such, also hair at skin level.

This is where I think angle guides help a good deal, but I've seen people ignoring them (or perhaps just failing to use them), and then complaining about them being in the way after the fact.

I understand that some people need to feel the blade, because, perhaps, their skin isn't as touch sensitive as others' is, or there are too many curves on the shaves areas and a razor doesn't allow to contour those well, or perhaps somewhat compromised manual dexterity play a role too, as well as lacking technique in some cases, and that it all good.
Just as it is that they don't want to go ATG, so they pick a more aggressive razor, take a little bit of skin off and get a reasonably close shave.

I just don't think that in any of the cases it is the razor at fault, but that it's more of a case of a bad coupling of user and tool, and coupling can be improved with patient practise.

This in part describes my experience with my Yaqi Bohemia. It is too easy to lose the engagement angle. I spend too much time either riding the cap, or riding the razor's generous comb. It is a shame, because it is a magnificently machined piece of steel. and the handle is easily the most pleasing, tactile experience out of all my razors. It really is a fantastic handle.

But yeah, I prefer a razor with which the blade is "always doing something". It was the same story with my Fatip Piccolo, now happily sent to some poor soul in Michigan, with a tuck of Voskhods included just for spite.

But a blade that is "always doing something" does not necessarily mean "Dracula", my pet name for my Timeless Bronze OC. Or the Yaqi Ultima or Merkur Futur. All of them sanguinary. The Fatboy set to 9 fits the bill too.

I think the effort and time it takes to achieve routine, bloodless shaves with the dangerous razors equals and surpasses the effort and time it takes to master a razor where the blade seems to be actively trying NOT to engage the hair.