"Scritch" revisited

[ChiefBroom]

The first time I encountered the term "scritch" (in this Forum about a year ago), I had some intuitive sense of what it might mean, but wasn't at all sure. So I searched and found this most excellent post on the subject of terminology commonly used in describing knot characteristics and/or qualities. (For purposes of this discussion, let's use "characteristics" with reference to objective properties, such as stiffness, springiness, floppiness, density, etc.; and "qualities" with reference to subjective properties like itchy, prickly, moppy, etc. "Soft" is a hard case -- no pun intended -- in that it can arguably be either or both.)

Scritchnscrub's definitions made pretty good sense to me, although I had very little experience with brushes at the time. I soon discovered, however, that "scritch" is used both more broadly and variously than he describes, such that it's very difficult to know what anyone specifically has in mind when he/she employs the term in a particular context. This is compounded by the fact that different users may (and undoubtedly do) experience very similar brushes differently even under nearly identical, for practical purposes, objective conditions. And then, to add further dimensions of complexity, virtually identical hair will exhibit different objective characteristics that translate into different subjectively experienced qualities. For example, a specific hair, say Rooney Finest, might be experienced by an individual user (me, for instance) as scritchy at one density/loft combination but not another. All of this can make it very hard to know 1) what anyone means in describing a particular brush as "scritchy" and/or 2) what the predictive value of that user's experience might be with respect to other brushes made with the same or similar hair.

Following are some comments and suggested clarifications:

• I think scritchnscrub came close to nailing how "scritch" should be distinguished from "scrub".
• I don't regard "scritch" as existing in the absence of qualities of both scratchiness and itchiness. One scratches with the objective to eliminate an itch, so it doesn't make best sense to use the two terms in a definition as though they mean approximately the same thing. A scratchy brush is scratchy; an itchy brush is itchy. A brush that is both scratchy and itchy is scritchy. That the term may be accurately applied by one user, however, doesn't necessarily mean that it is or will make a true statement for another. In fact, I have brushes that are scritchy to me on some days and not others. The difference, then, must be in my prep and/or the condition of my face, and, ultimately, in my head, but not the brush.
• I mostly agree with scritchnscrub's suggestion to permit substitution of "prickly" for "scratchy" as a necessary but not sufficient definitional criterion of "scritchy", although one might split hairs (pun intended). For example, I think of a hedgehog as being prickly whether or not it comes in contact with anyone who might get scratched in a brush-up. Of course, in a direct collision with a hedgehog, one's experience is more likely to be more that of getting poked (if not impaled) than scratched.

As an example of what strikes me as both confused and confusing usage (no disrespect intended), see this post, in which B&B Brother Foyle states: "To me a scritchy badger brush is totally unusable. Boar scritch is like a nice vigorous exfoliating scrub--totally non-irritating." I know lots of brush users refer to scritch as a quality they like in a brush, but it's hard for me to think of something that is both scratchy and itchy to some degree as being entirely enjoyable and/or non-irritating. On the other hand, a scrubby brush that isn't scritchy in the least might nonetheless produce skin irritation when used immoderately, just as a wash cloth can.

I have one floppy brush with a TGN knot that would have to be pressed and twisted like a mop to effect any scrub. I have two Vie-Long horse hair brushes that I really like in spite of the fact they're so scritchy (at least so far) I can hardly stand to use them. I have an Omega boar brush that is stiff and scrubby as hell, but without a hint of any element of scritch (either scratch or itch). I have some two-band brushes that are mostly soft-tipped, but with a very small subset of hairs I swear I can feel individually and which impart "hints" of scritch that I suspect are inseparably connected to those brushes' best qualities. And then I have brushes, both 2-band and 3-band, in which hairs seem to form somewhat pointy clumps that I can feel scrubbing, particularly in circular motions, without any associated scritch.

I remember from a course I took in college (anthropology, I think) about 40 years ago that Plains Indians had something like 7 words for snow (or maybe it was more). I think it would be helpful if we had more words than "scritch" and "scrub" to use in describing what we sense when using brushes.

This is meant to be a serious and not a smart-*** post. It's purpose is to stimulate discussion, not to press my opinions. I'm hoping scritchnscrub will dive in and lead mediation to a better resolution of the terminology.

 

[Johnny_Ludlow]

Being a philosopher by trade, analyzing concepts is my kind of thing. I would love to participate, but can't really grasp all the fine nuances of a foreign language.

As a side note, here in Finland we have easily more than ten words for snow.

 

[Intrigued]

I really appreciate what you and Scritchnscrub have tried to do to clarify the terms and words we use here when trying to describe a particular brush's characteristics. That said, I don't think we will ever be able to tell someone with total clarity what a particular brush really "feels" like with mere words. I've tried at times in my own reviews to work around this by comparing the brush under review to other brushes that the readers might have experience with.

Comparisons will only take you so far though. When I reviewed the Simpson Manchurian badger hair, I said that it had less scritch than Simpson's two-banded. This was/is true only so far as it compared to "my Simpson 2-banded". It seemed from reviews that followed that some of Simpson's two-banded has less scritch than the Manchurian. The comparisons at this point only served to further confuse the reader. I well remember my growing frustration in pm after pm trying to find the "words" to tell someone exactly how Manchurian feels when in truth you will only know when you've tried it yourself.

My sense of frustration in the ability of anyone to tell someone else exactly how something "feels" led me at one point to send three of my high end brushes to another member to try out for himself for a couple of weeks. Even then, when this member decided based on his experience with my brushes that he would purchase a Rooney 2XL, I couldn't feel certain that his 2XL would end up feeling exactly the same as mine.....

 

[ajc347]

Great thread Ken.

I've always struggled a bit with terms such as 'scritch' because using a made-up word can tend to make the whole issue of the feel of a brush somewhat more nebulous.

One of the main factors for me is how the sensitivity of my face can change over the course of a few days (especially if I've shaved with an aggressive razor for a couple of days in a row). This means that at the start of the week a brush can feel soft and prickle free on my face and a few days later the same brush can still feel soft but much more prickly than it did before. I've even noticed this between passes from time to time.

Another factor to take into account is that unless you've experienced a wide variety of brushes it is sometimes difficult to tell how scritchy a particular brush can be in absolute terms - there always needs to be some referential brushes which can be used to determine whether a particular brush, for that particular user, exhibits a greater or lesser sense of scritchiness than another. I guess the same can be said about aggressiveness of razors also.

I wholeheartedly agree that other factors such as density and backbone are easier to measure as they are far less subjective in nature.

In terms of language I also struggle with terms like 'scratch' and 'itchy' as they have never struck me as terms that I would necessarily equate with a brush.

Prickliness is, however, a term I can equate to a brush and it is my favoured term in comparing knots as it seems to sum up what I am experiencing with brushes when I use them and does give me a meaningful way a comparing brushes using a few favourites as reference points.

Scrubbiness is a term I've never really got on with either - I guess that this could be because I only ever bowl later and always use a brush in a paint-stroke type motion.

I'm not sure how much my thoughts will help to address the points you raise; I am, though, looking forward to see how this thread develops over time.

 

[mistercitizen]

Very interesting Chief. Thank you for your thought.... and also for taking the time to put it down for us to read. I read the thread on Scritchnscrub's definitions about a week ago or so. I found it very helpful for me since I am currently embarqing into the world of boar hair brushes (Semogue SOC and 830) after having pretty much used nothing but the softest tipped and most densly packed badger brushes available (Rooney Heritage Stubby 1XL and Simpson Emperor 3 Two Band). I do not feel that I have nearly enough first hand experience with all the different grades and types of brush hair to make too much of a contribution to the discussion here.... but I will watch this thread and contribute with what I can and I'm sure I'll learn quite a bit. The idea of using a boar brush never appealed to me much in the beginning.... and I have fair skin that is mildly sensitive so a brush with too much "scritch" or even "scrub" were qualities in a brush that I originally thought of as being undesireable. My recent fascination with soaps however, and more specifically my desire to try many different kinds of soaps, lead me to boar brushes. I found that there are just certain hard soaps that require way too much effort for me to get a good lather with using a badger brush.... and that the job can be done better with the proper tool..... enter the boar brush. Oddly enough, with my very limited experience with these two Semogue boar brushes (they are not broken in yet mind you), I am surprised to discover that I don't find them to be particularly "scritchy", which I would've thought I would've percieved them to be for sure, but rather more "scrubby". I think that the density (or lack thereof) in these two brushes.... as well as the relative high loft (55 mm) does not offer the backbone to provide what I would percieve as "scritch". I don't find either one to be terribly "floppy" either mind you.

It seems that for a brush to be characterized as "scritchy", it must possess the right combination of 1) hair type/grade 2) density of the knot 3) loft height. Backbone is sort of the same way.... except you're measuring a different characteristic of the brush.... but I think it still is dependent on all of those variables. This is starting to sound a bit like my Calculus courses from college.

Ben

 

[edgerunner]

The level of softness is the most impostant quality of a brush to me. I've had difficulties describing and understanding descriptions of brushes as well using the terms scratch, scritch, scrub. It's been even more difficult to me as English is not my first language. Scritchandscrub's post has been very helpful so far.

Scratch has the trickiest meaning to me. Let's talk about scratching one's back for easy understanding the levels of scratch. I scratch my back for soothing my skin and for itch relief.

The first level is when I rub my back using my hand, just the tips of my fingers, or a towel. It's not much of scratch. I relate this to using my softest brushes which we call 'softest', 'pillow soft', 'cloud soft', 'gel-like soft'. Here are some (not complete) examples to understand what this level means to me - old Rooney 2-band, Thater, Shavemac Silvertip, some TGNs, and some recent Simpsons 2-band knots.

Now, if I use my nails or a big comb, or a hair brush with plastic tips, or any other wooden tool made for the job, and gently scratch my back, the sensation is very pleasant and soothing for my skin. This is why I scratch my back on the first place. Related to shaving brushes, this is what I refer to as scrub.

This is where it gets trickier. If I don't change the conditions and tools but just the used pressure, the scrub transforms into unpleasant scratch which can be painful, irritating, and I can get scratches or scratch marks on my skin. This is what scratchy brushes mean to me. To make things even more difficult, what if my comb teeth flex differently, or each of my nails apply different pressure, or some of the plastic pins of my hair brush are more resilient than the rest. Then the level of unpleasant scratch won't be uniform, consistent, and it can also change with the motion I use - circular or painting.

You see where my problem with the word scratch is - it's used to describe an activity (scratching my back) with completely different effects, one of which is called also scratch. To finish 'scratching' the meaning of scratch, the point at which a pleasant scrub transfroms into unpleasant scratch is different for all of us, even different for the same person depending on the skin conditions and sensitivity at the moment. Furthermore, it can easily change by using the brush differently - different pressure and different motion. And we all use our brushes with different pressure and motion, don't we? Also, I haven't mentioned anything about itch yet because, remember by definition, I scratch my back to relief and sooth my skin from the itch. So, pleasant scrub, or unpleasant scratch, or even irritation, scratching my back has nothing to do with causing itch. It's the opposite - it removes it.

Now, let's make the things even tougher. Imagine I'm still scratching my back and enjoying a nice scrub, or suffer from unpleasant scratch because I'm angry and can't get rid of the itch. Also imagine that one or more of my nails are sharp and pointy, or that the comb has a sharp tooth or two, or that my hair brush has some deffective pins with sharp tips, or that SWMBO is so angry with my shaving purchases that she's using a paper clip tip to pock my skin randomly whereever I'm scratching my back. You get the point. All those things feel prickly, cause itch and irritation, and are quite annoying. Furthermore, the prickly sensation is felt only when applying certain pressure, and at extremes can cause scratch marks. Different people perceive it with defferent intensity, similar to the personal sensitivity to scratch described above.

As you see, I accept that itch can be caused only by prickly tips pocking my skin. It's separate from the softness or scratch level of the brush. This ***** can go together with scrub or with scratch as described above. It means that brushes can be relatively soft and scrubby with or without itch. Examples of such brushes are a few Vie-Long and Simpsons Best brushes I've used. Naturally, brushes can be unpleasantly scratchy with or without caused itch due to prickly tips.

The bottom line is scritch is the combination of two separate negative qualities - scratchy sensation and pocking prickly tips. I don't have a word for scrubitch.

 

[global_dev]

as of late, i think i have been using scritch as a scrub-scratch (without itchy). Don't know if I have an itchy brush.

Current brushes that i's use the term scritch

Rooney's finest 3/3 for me is scrubby with minimal scratch (dense knot)
Plisson EW 16 - less scrubby than Rooney 3/3, a tiny bit more scratch (not a lot more though) less dense knot

maybe i haven't been paying attention well enough..

 

[brucered]

I still don't know what scritch, scratch and scrub are and don't think I ever will, but I'm fine with that.

I for one like NO scritch, No Scratch, No Scrub. I prefer my brushes to be described as Pillowy Soft, Scritchless, Scrubless, Gel Like Tips etc.

Could be why the brushes I have been using as of late are my Thater, Kent, SR and Shavemac Silvertip.

Some guys like some exfoliation, prickly, scratching etc, not me.

 

[Harry Snider]

I like brushes that have some 'scritch' to them, but only a hint of it. I have a super soft brush and don't really care too much for it. Although this may be a backbone issue....
I don't like soft and and I don't like scratch, so scritch seems to be my thing, of course my experience is limited, but, I do have some brushes that other members have found too
harsh.

 

[ChiefBroom]

 

[Foyle]

You know, when I said, "Boar scritch is like a nice vigorous exfoliating scrub--totally non-irritating," I was doing my best to describe the sensation I was getting from the brush in question. Let me try to clarify. You know that stabby, pokey feeling you get from a scritchy pure badger brush? That's the sensation I was getting from the boar I was describing as the brush is first put to my face. The brush feels like it's going to be scritchy, but as the brush is worked on the face, the sensation is a vigorous scrub, and while I feel some stabby tips rubbing on my face, my face doesn't get irritated.

 

[ChiefBroom]

You know, when I said, "Boar scritch is like a nice vigorous exfoliating scrub--totally non-irritating," I was doing my best to describe the sensation I was getting from the brush in question. Let me try to clarify. You know that stabby, pokey feeling you get from a scritchy pure badger brush? That's the sensation I was getting from the boar I was describing as the brush is first put to my face. The brush feels like it's going to be scritchy, but as the brush is worked on the face, the sensation is a vigorous scrub, and while I feel some stabby tips rubbing on my face, my face doesn't get irritated.

I actually knew what you meant. My impression was you were struggling to find a clear way to express it, but not satisfied with the commonly used terms. So you made a good example. Absolutely no insult intended.

 

[ajc347]

I think the problem in this case isn't so much a result of making up a new word as not having resolved its meaning through consistent common usage. But then consistent usage is rendered difficult by the subjective nature of the word's referent and the various and variable factors that bear on producing the sensation different people have in mind when applying the term "scritch".

I actually think "scritch" is a great word. But its employment here has reminded me of an observation someone once made with regard to the phrase "strategic planning": "[it] has been used so much and so variously that it's at risk of devolving into emotive noise."

But we either have to make up new words, and deal with the attending issues, or import words most often used and, consequently, understood in relation to in other contexts.

You make three really good points there Ken.

I wonder if the term scritch will develop multiple meanings over time and will become so over-used that it will almost become a term of derision and we will then need to think of other terms to describe the sensation we experience when using brushes.

Part of the issue might well be that because much discussion is undertaken on the experience of a brush on-line that we are tending, as a society, to move away from the way in which labels have been traditionally assigned to characteristics of objects of everyday life (i.e. mainly via face-to-face contact) and that this is making it more difficult to pin down and describe accurately enough (in order to facilitate a shared understanding) the properties that brushes have.

I used three new brushes for the first time tonight - a M&F 1/1 Super Silvertip, a Vulfix 2234 Silvertip and a M&F 2-Band L7. The L7 felt very soft on my face with the slightest hint of prickliness (or scritch or whatever term best describes the sensation I felt). As this is the first 2-band I've been able to get working well in a bowl (I really struggled to get Simpsons 2-band, Manchurian, TGN 2-Band and New Forest 2-Band knots to work well in a bowl when I tried them in the past), I decided to have a go at face lathering and I think I can truly say that I understand the experience people have described when experiencing itchiness on their face and it felt very uncomfortable.

I guess point in relation to this is that the depth of understanding of a term used to describe others experience with a given brush, can be changed through the use of a single brush / knot one has not used before. I'm really looking forward to playing with the two M&F's further on Christmas Day (as they have now been packaged up as they are Xmas presents from my wife and mother respectively) and will certainly try face lathering with the L7 again in order to see if I get the same sensation (hopefully I won't as it was very uncomfortable).

Maybe another experience with a different brush will enable me to finally get my head around the term scritch - I've used around 35 to 40 different brushes and I still struggle to feel that it is a word that best describes the experiences I have felt.

+1! And yet, of course, the brush remains the same. So is it scritchy or not scritchy? The answer is "it depends", and the questions for helpful discussion become "depends on what and how?" This takes more effort, but what else are we here for? Oh, I know; to discuss whether "anybody else get the urge to watch Spider-Man or read a comic book after using a Semogue brush?" (See this thread for illumination on that topic.)

Lol - I read that thread yesterday and it freaked me out so much that I have given all of my remaining Semogues to my wife to do her legs with - she is phobic of spiders and it will be interesting to see if the Semogues have the same effect.

It has crossed my mind to wonder whether someone here (or some us comprising thoughtful, experienced, and respected posters in this forum) ought to come up with a comparative matrix for use in gathering and presenting observations/impressions of a number of representative , more-or-less iconic brushes to which many if not most member could relate their own experience. Something like that (if it doesn't already exist) could be made available for all members to use, but I think it would be useful to preserve as separate the values, and their averages, as entered by a select panel of reviewed, which might be added to over time.

That's a great idea mate and if it is possible to pull it off then I think it would be a really useful resource to dip into.

 

[German]

Way too many words for something that is truly subjective...

 

[ChiefBroom]

Way too many words for something that is truly subjective...

OK.

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.“

 

[German]

Dann schweige...

OK.

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.“

 

[Intrigued]

Dann schweige...

 

[German]

 

[vocalistbob]

I think it's a hopeless task to try to rate certain brush brands, models and types within models in any objective way and here's why:

I love my Chubby 3 in Super 3-band. About 6 weeks ago, I bought one in "Best" and was surprised at how closely they resembled each other. Although the super's tips were a bit softer, the overall feel was very close. I remember thinking to myself that if I had known how good the Best was, I probably would not have bought the Super, BUT - a couple of weeks ago, I made an impulse purchase of another (used) Chubby 3 in super 3-band. I was very surprised to find that the newer one was clearly superior brush to my original Super. I had been told by "experts" that there is more variation from "Best" to "Best" than there is from "Super" to "Super", but obviously there is a good deal of difference between Supers as well. Ultimately, I sold my original Super and the Best because the new Super was so much better than both.

So how can we possibly create, with any level of certainty, descriptors that would have genuine value in helping someone make an educated choice between different brushes?

I myself can give two very accurate and yet significantly different descriptions of the differences between a Super and a Best. I could make a case for the "fact" that there's as much difference from Super to Super as there is from a Best to a Super - and I could also make a case for the "fact" that the Super & Best are almost identical.

And I think that's why so many people buy and sell so many brushes.

 

[gus1942]

Way too many words for something that is truly subjective...

+1. I think you gentleman have pounded the scritch out of this subject. However, I do love to face lather with my slightly scritchy Semogue boars.