Rooney or Simpson?

[aeonius]

Hello Gents!

I feel it is time to broaden my shaving brush lineup. My current brush rotation consists of a Rooney Style 1 Size 1 in Super and an Omega 10018 Hog bristle (I have other brushes as well, but I keep coming back to these two). I was first using the Rooney and I really liked its denseness and brush size. I then rotated to the Omega and I really liked its ability to scrub without scratching (something I came to miss when I went back to the Rooney recently). What I now am looking for is a sort of combination of the two brushes. I want my next brush to combine the densely packed knot of the Rooney with the scrubbing (but scratch less) abilities of the Omega.

The two brushes I’ve had my gaze on are the Rooney 'EMILLION 2' from the Heritage series in Super and the Simpson Chubby 1 in Best. Size-wise the two knots are almost identical at 24x48 and 23x47 mm respectively (knot x loft).

My question is will the Chubby 1 be too dense for me given my previous reference points (Rooney and Omega)? Am I better of going with the Rooney? I seem to recall Rooney putting out a hair grade that was called Finest. Which of these two brushes is closest to that hair grade/experience? I can’t seem to find anyone selling any Rooneys in Finest.

Also, as I understand, both Rooney and Simpsons get scrubbier when moving up in badger hair grade. Given this, is the Chubby 1 in Super a more desirable option? And in that case, should I go for a 2-band or a 3-band CH1 in Super?

Thanks in advance.

P.S. One more thing. Where does a Simpsons Duke 3 in best end up in terms of density? Is it closer to the Rooney or is it a Chubby 1 with a different style handle? I ask because the knot/loft of the Duke 3 is basically identical to those of the Chubby 1.

 

[Zumkopf]

I think you have it backwards: the brushes (both Simpson and Rooney) get less "scrubby" as you move up in grade.

There are two factors that affect "scrubbiness" -- the qualities of the hair, and its density. All other things being equal, a denser brush will scrub more than a looser one, and the lower grades of badger are stiffer (and hence scrubbier) than the higher ones. Higher line brushes enhance their backbone by more densely packing the hairs, but the hairs themselves are not as stiff.

As a rule, Rooneys are less dense than Simpson. The exception to the rule is the Rooney "Heritage" series, like the Emillion, which are quite dense and hence will provide "scrubbiness" and backbone equal to a densely-packed Simpson. That said, as far as I know, the Chubby is the densest badger brush out there, so based on your stated criteria, a Simpson Chubby in Best Badger would come closest. I believe the Chubby is more dense than the Duke, but I'm more of a Rooney fan these days, so would defer to the Simpson experts.

Rooney "Finest" has not been available in new brushes for several years now. If you want such a brush, you will have to find one used. And be prepared to pay handsomely for the privilege of ownership.

 

[aeonius]

I think you have it backwards: the brushes (both Simpson and Rooney) get less "scrubby" as you move up in grade.

There are two factors that affect "scrubbiness" -- the qualities of the hair, and its density. All other things being equal, a denser brush will scrub more than a looser one, and the lower grades of badger are stiffer (and hence scrubbier) than the higher ones. Higher line brushes enhance their backbone by more densely packing the hairs, but the hairs themselves are not as stiff.

First of all I would like to thank you for your very elaborate answer.

Secondly, I am prepared to agree with you. It is only logical that a lower grade hair would be stiffer and thus provide for more scrubbiness (all other things being equal). But, as I understand it by reading reviews and comparisons, Simpson's Super and Rooney's Finest tend to be scrubbier than the hair grades below them. But up to that point it holds that a higher grade hair gives diminishing returns to scrubbiness.

Again, these are only things I've read on here.

You said further that a Chubby is probably a bit more densely packed that a Duke (which tends to be the consensus on here). I wonder if the Duke is still denser than the Rooney Emillion but less of a lather hog than the Chubby?

Also, is the Rooney Emillion at all comparable to the Chubby 1 in denseness and scrubbiness? If so, I think I would prefer the larger handle of the Rooney if this was the case. If the Chubby 1 is, like, 1% denser but is really stingy about giving up the lather, then that would also be reason enough to go with a Rooney Heritage.

On a side note, is there any boar brush that is as densely packed as a Rooney/Simpson?

Thanks again!

 

[aeonius]

I'm gonna start off by apologizing for my shameless thread bump.

Moving along, I would like to know which of the two brushes mentioned (Chubby 1 in best and Emillion 2 Heritage) has the most backbone. I understand that Simpson brushes are, in general, more densely packed compared with Rooney brushes. But does this also translate to most backbone, particularly when comparing these two brushes?

Also, are Simpson brushes still suffering from unbalanced shedding?

 

[djh]

I no longer own a Rooney brush and haven't bought a Simpson in a number of years, but I would like to toss something else onto your plate. Check the Shavemac website for brushes using their D-01 hair (in either 2 or 3-Band). The 2-Band has more backbone than any other hair which I have encountered and the two which I own have zero scritch whilst the 3-Band is also a very dense knot with ample backbone and scrub.

 

[aeonius]

I no longer own a Rooney brush and haven't bought a Simpson in a number of years, but I would like to toss something else onto your plate. Check the Shavemac website for brushes using their D-01 hair (in either 2 or 3-Band). The 2-Band has more backbone than any other hair which I have encountered and the two which I own have zero scritch whilst the 3-Band is also a very dense knot with ample backbone and scrub.

Now why would you go and do that? As if my SBAD wasn't bad enough. Joking aside though, I thought I might stick to standard issue brushes before venturing into the realm of customization.

I thank you very much for your input though. A brush with D-01 hair is going to end up in my den eventually. Just you wait.

 

[aeonius]

Another shameless bump.

I was just wondering if it's indeed the case that the Simpson Chubby 1 is more densely packed than the Simpson Duke 3? If they are equally dense with the same backbone, I think I would prefer the Duke 3 given its bigger/longer handle. Especially since the knot/loft seems to be identical. Could someone please clarify/confirm this?

Also, my previous question regarding which one of these three brushes (CH1, D3 and Emillion 2) has the most backbone still stands.

EDIT:

It seems indeed to be true that the Chubby is more densely packed than the Duke. Although there are those who argue that that difference is more prominent when looking at the Chubby 2 and 3.

On that note, does anyone know how a Rooney Emillion 2 fares against a Duke 3 in terms of density and backbone?

Oh, and sorry for spamming.

 

[aeonius]

I seem to get further away from making a decision the more I read about the different models. For instance, is it just me or does the Chubby have a more bulb-like shape while the Duke and Emillion is more shaped like a fan?

 

[shevek]

I seem to get further away from making a decision the more I read about the different models. For instance, is it just me or does the Chubby have a more bulb-like shape while the Duke and Emillion is more shaped like a fan?

Rooneys are known for their Fan shaped brushes. It's one of things that attracted me to that brand.
Regarding density, the Chubby line will be much more dense than the current batch of Rooney Heritage 3-bands. I have no experience with the Duke models so can't comment on those.

 

[aeonius]

Rooneys are known for their Fan shaped brushes. It's one of things that attracted me to that brand.
Regarding density, the Chubby line will be much more dense than the current batch of Rooney Heritage 3-bands. I have no experience with the Duke models so can't comment on those.

This is what I gather as well when reading different threads on here.

I know you said that you lacked experience with the Duke models but is there anyone who can tell me if the Duke 3 and the Emillion 2 is essentially the same brush from a different company? Their loft/knot size is virtually identical. Moreover, the Heritage line is supposedly Rooney's most densely packed yet, while the Duke is less dense than the Chubby. Also, both the Emillion and the Duke seem to be fan shaped. Is it a fair assessment to make that these 2 brushes are essentially the same? Are there other aspects that put them apart? Like, the Emillion having softer tips but a better backbone? Or the Duke being scrubbier (without being scratchy)?

Sorry for all the questions, guys. Essentially it boils down to me wanting a brush that provides a nice, good ol' scrubbing without being scratchy. Let's assume that the Chubby 1 is too dense and for that reason tends to be a lather hog. Which of the other two brushes comes closest? The Emillion 2 or the Duke 3? Size wise all three brushes have almost identical loft/knot sizes. The question is which of them will end up blooming the most? Like I mentioned in my OP, my Rooney 1/1 Super almost felt too soft after having used my Omega 10018 for a while. If the Emillion 2 and the Duke 3 are both basically 10% denser than my Rooney 1/1 then maybe the Chubby 1 is more in line with what I'm looking for?

Again, sorry for spamming all these questions.

 

[shevek]

The recent Heritage 3-bands that I've tried are soft and scrubby with a hint of scritch. In terms of density, I don't think you will see a difference as compared to your 1/1 Super. Older Heritage batches were more dense than the current ones.

 

[Royalpar1]

I cannot speak to Rooney, but my Simpson Manchurion Chubby 2 is amazing, i gave my chubby 1, to my son, as i felt it was a little small

 

[Zumkopf]

This is what I gather as well when reading different threads on here.

I know you said that you lacked experience with the Duke models but is there anyone who can tell me if the Duke 3 and the Emillion 2 is essentially the same brush from a different company? Their loft/knot size is virtually identical. Moreover, the Heritage line is supposedly Rooney's most densely packed yet, while the Duke is less dense than the Chubby. Also, both the Emillion and the Duke seem to be fan shaped. Is it a fair assessment to make that these 2 brushes are essentially the same? Are there other aspects that put them apart? Like, the Emillion having softer tips but a better backbone? Or the Duke being scrubbier (without being scratchy)?

Sorry for all the questions, guys. Essentially it boils down to me wanting a brush that provides a nice, good ol' scrubbing without being scratchy. Let's assume that the Chubby 1 is too dense and for that reason tends to be a lather hog. Which of the other two brushes comes closest? The Emillion 2 or the Duke 3? Size wise all three brushes have almost identical loft/knot sizes. The question is which of them will end up blooming the most? Like I mentioned in my OP, my Rooney 1/1 Super almost felt too soft after having used my Omega 10018 for a while. If the Emillion 2 and the Duke 3 are both basically 10% denser than my Rooney 1/1 then maybe the Chubby 1 is more in line with what I'm looking for?

Again, sorry for spamming all these questions.

I think you're getting way far out into the weeds here. First of all, no badger -- none -- is going to be "scrubby" like a boar brush. Even old boar brushes aren't as scrubby as new ones, because the tips split. Brush makers/vendors who weigh in from time to time are adamant that the purpose of a brush is to spread lather, not to exfoliate your skin.

The basic breakdown of qualities is between face latherers and bowl latherers. Face latherers tend to like a shorter handle (easier to palm the brush to"mush" it into your face to build lather); bowl latherers a longer one (easier to hold while whipping the lather in the bowl). Face latherers tend to prefer denser brushes; bowl latherers, somewhat less dense brushes whip up easier in the bowl. The gold standard of bristles would appear to be ones with great backbone and very soft tips, but paying more (or even moving up the escalator in "quality") does not guarantee a better brush experience. For example, it seems generally agreed that the mid-line Simpson "Best Badger" hair provides the sweet spot for usefulness and cost effectiveness. Vulfix and Rooney have similar hair quality ranges and offerings. I would start there with what you seek.

The differences among the various brushes you've mentioned are minor. A Simpson Chubby may be (probably is) more dense than a Rooney Heritage, but either is going to hold up very well to the rigors of face lathering. The Duke is less dense than the Chubby, the Commodore less dense than the Duke, but all of them work fine for face lathering, and none of them are going to "scrub" your face.

You might want to see if you can borrow a few of the brushes you are interested in. Many Board members would be willing to lend you theirs for you to try. Find out what you, yourself, like when actually whipping up the lather and actually putting it on your face. No description or other's experience is going to be as accurate or informative. And you may well find that the mix of qualities you theorized you wanted in a new brush is different from the mix that you prefer in practice.

Final note: there is a reason that the shaving veterans, virtually to a man, end up with huge collections of brushes.

 

[canuckle]

I have both the Chubby 2 and the Duke 3. While the Chubby is indeed crazy dense, the Duke has plenty of backbone without being scritchy. It's a perfect balance of dense, backbone, and soft tips. Just as good with soaps or creams.

 

[Westaway]

I own and enjoy Chubby 1 Best. I cannot imagine life without it as a morning choice.

 

[aeonius]

Thanks for your reply!

I think you're getting way far out into the weeds here. First of all, no badger -- none -- is going to be "scrubby" like a boar brush. Even old boar brushes aren't as scrubby as new ones, because the tips split. Brush makers/vendors who weigh in from time to time are adamant that the purpose of a brush is to spread lather, not to exfoliate your skin.

I agree with you here. I get that a brush is not for exfoliating the skin. It's just that I prefer a brush with a good, stiff backbone over a brush that is soft/floppy (a synthetic comes to mind when I think of a brush I would be dissatisfied with).

The basic breakdown of qualities is between face latherers and bowl latherers. Face latherers tend to like a shorter handle (easier to palm the brush to"mush" it into your face to build lather); bowl latherers a longer one (easier to hold while whipping the lather in the bowl). Face latherers tend to prefer denser brushes; bowl latherers, somewhat less dense brushes whip up easier in the bowl. The gold standard of bristles would appear to be ones with great backbone and very soft tips, but paying more (or even moving up the escalator in "quality") does not guarantee a better brush experience. For example, it seems generally agreed that the mid-line Simpson "Best Badger" hair provides the sweet spot for usefulness and cost effectiveness. Vulfix and Rooney have similar hair quality ranges and offerings. I would start there with what you seek.

I understand these sentiments. Like I said in my OP, I have a Rooney 1/1 which basically has the same length handle as a Chubby 1. To me, that handle is a bit on the small side. The thing is though that this is more noticeable when i try lathering in a bowl. Exactly like you described it. That said, I am prepared to overlook the handle if the knot/loft embody the qualities I'm (theoretically) looking for.

Regarding the denseness. I feel that my Rooney 1/1 is less dense than I would prefer. This could be due to me using my Omega 10018 brush for a while now and then returning to my Rooney 1/1. Maybe the Omega "ruined/spoiled" me with its stiffness. At the same time, I was missing the denseness of my Rooney while using my Omega.

When it comes to mushing the brush into my face during face lathering, maybe I am using excessive force but I feel like I would enjoy a brush that is denser than my Rooney 1/1. Given what user shevek said about current Heritage batches not being denser than my Rooney 1/1, I concluded that my next brush should be a Simpson.

The differences among the various brushes you've mentioned are minor. A Simpson Chubby may be (probably is) more dense than a Rooney Heritage, but either is going to hold up very well to the rigors of face lathering. The Duke is less dense than the Chubby, the Commodore less dense than the Duke, but all of them work fine for face lathering, and none of them are going to "scrub" your face.

I understand this as well. At this price point the differences between the brushes shouldn't be monumental. Given that I want my next brush to be both denser and also a bit bigger than my Rooney 1/1 (up from 22x43 mm to around 24x48 mm in knot/loft), I started looking at the Chubby 1. But then some Gents started pointing out the Duke as a very pleasant all-round brush that works well with both face and bowl. I couldn't however figure out if the Duke (3) is more dense than the Emillion 2. I also couldn't figure out if the hair of one of these brushes (Emilion Heritage Super vs Duke Best) is comparable with each other. Given the same density and loft/knot size, is the Heritage Super stiffer with softer tips?

I might be using the wrong terminology but when I say that I want a brush that can scrub my face, I think of a brush that does not splay too much. A brush that feels like a solid piece/block of hair, like a sponge if you will. I realize that that has to do with backbone.

You might want to see if you can borrow a few of the brushes you are interested in. Many Board members would be willing to lend you theirs for you to try. Find out what you, yourself, like when actually whipping up the lather and actually putting it on your face. No description or other's experience is going to be as accurate or informative. And you may well find that the mix of qualities you theorized you wanted in a new brush is different from the mix that you prefer in practice.

Final note: there is a reason that the shaving veterans, virtually to a man, end up with huge collections of brushes

Regarding borrowing brushes from other members; I live in Europe. From what I gather, the majority of B&B members are living in the US. It would simply be too expensive an endeavor to start borrowing brushes left and right. I have no doubt as to the friendliness and the willingness to help that the B&B members harbor. That's one of the reasons I keep coming back to this forum.

On the note of what I would actually like once I got a chance to test it. I don't know if I would like an all-round brush (Duke 3) or a face-lathering brush with bowl lathering capabilities (Chubby 2). Does that distinction make any sense? I think I would prefer the latter given that i primarily face lather nowadays.

What I think I know I want, is a brush that is (a bit) bigger and with more backbone than my Rooney 1/1 but with none of the sometimes prickliness I get from that brush. My Omega 10018 is actually less prickly, which is odd given that it consists of boar hair as opposed to Rooney's regular Super. I don't think I've used my Omega enough for all of its hairs to be split just yet. I primarily face lather (nowadays at least) because I'm lazy, but I wouldn't mind adding a bowl to my routine if that meant that I got the brush that I wanted. Does that make any sense?

If I'm allowed to philosophize a bit, I think Chubby 1 looses in the face-brush-with-bowl-capabilities category because of its size and denseness. That it is strictly a face-lathering brush. Which is why everybody always points at the Chubby 2 whenever there is talk about Chubby in general. Chubby 2 is also the one brush that most people point out as The Brush when it comes to dense brushes that are awesome for face-lathering but can hold their own in a bowl as well. Am I wrong?

Btw, I am extremely sorry for the gargantuan post.

 

[aeonius]

I have both the Chubby 2 and the Duke 3. While the Chubby is indeed crazy dense, the Duke has plenty of backbone without being scritchy. It's a perfect balance of dense, backbone, and soft tips. Just as good with soaps or creams.

That's actually relevant to my interests. If you could only pick one of those brushes which one would it be and why?

 

[aeonius]

I own and enjoy Chubby 1 Best. I cannot imagine life without it as a morning choice.

Hi Westaway. Do you have any other brushes to compare that Chubby 1 to? What makes the Chubby 1 so superior in your eyes?

 

[aeonius]

Btw, does anyone know what the difference is between Super and Best (all other things being equal)? From what I gather, a Chubby in Super would be denser (more backbone) than one in Best but have softer tips. Did I get it right?

 

[canuckle]

That's actually relevant to my interests. If you could only pick one of those brushes which one would it be and why?

That's like picking between a Ferrari and Aston Martin. If I HAD to pick, it would be the Chubby 2. I got it specifically to face lather, as I have been bowl lathering with a scuttle. It takes getting used to as it holds a TON of water due to the dense knot, you have to squeeze it out well. You should google 'nick shaves chubby' and check out his videos, he has a couple of him using it.