Tatara Noda-mune and Masa-dachi have positive exposure

[spacemonkey42]

With the cardstock test, I use a heavy postcard type piece. Just so it is clear, I run the razor down the edge of the paper, so the paper can't flex.

 

[AndyPanda]

I've been surprised at the mechanical challenges many males in the US face, which is why I mentioned tightening force in the first place. I have one customer who has to chant "lefty-loosey, righty-tighty" to remember which way to turn a screwdriver. I kid you not. I never heard this child's memory trick before.

Yeah ... In a former life I built/rebuilt/repaired musical instruments and I still make some custom bits but just for my own amusement .. and I have a ham-fisted friend who plays saxophone and flute and always turns a simple adjustment into an expensive repair .. I have to tell him "Back Away from the screw driver" "Do it now or you will be tazed!"

 

[Flanders]

I just realized I never tested a razor shaving paper or cardboard. I have only the full Nodachi, so cannot test if the Masamune is neutral or even negative.

What I want to say, a paper or cardboard, one has to do this with a light touch but negative should be negative and not leave a mark indeed.

Instead of trying to shave the edge, with the Nodachi you can gently push the blade in until it stops and actually measure the distance parallel to the edge of the card stock. That might be useful data, I never got around to doing it.

 

[AndyPanda]

I just realized I never tested a razor shaving paper or cardboard. I have only the full Nodachi, so cannot test if the Masamune is neutral or even negative.

What I want to say, a paper or cardboard, one has to do this with a light touch but negative should be negative and not leave a mark indeed.

You can also use a wooden coffee stir stick ... or a plastic blade tuck works well too.

The problem I have with a cardstock on its edge is that many safety bars are scalloped so I like to use something wide enough that it will span a few scallops.

I just tested my early (serial #45) Masamune Dark safety bar using a birch coffee stir stick and a Super Iridium - and that is a blade that if I don't give the tiny little extra twist to the handle I can just barely feel the occasional catch. If I give just a tiny bit of extra twist, the catch disappears.
Now I'm curious so ...

Russian Gillette Platinum (dark blue) even without the extra twist there is no catch at all.

Russian Astra SP is like the super iridium - I need that extra twist or it lightly catches

Feather - no catch even with just a casual tighten

Chinese KCG - catches even with extra tightening

Russian Perma-Sharp doesn't catch even with normal tighten

Lord Super Chrome - barely catches even with extra tightening

Treet Platinum (this is a blade that crunches against the alignment posts when you tighten down) - barely catches until you give the extra little twist

7am Plus (oddball blade that I LOVE!) barely catches even with the extra tightening

USA Personna laser etched comfort coated - the catching almost goes away with the extra tightening

Gillette Wilkinson Sword India Saloon Pack - barely catches even with extra tightening

This may explain why a few blades that I really like (India Wilkinson) rate not very sharp in tests but I find they shave me very close and feel very sharp mowing down my whiskers.

NOTE: These are all used blades, not new blades - using a coffee stir stick to feel it catch, I wouldn't want to shave with the blade after that.

 

[spacemonkey42]

Thanks for that great testing, @AndyPanda! So I think we're finding that even the Masumune is closer to neutral than the specs may have one believe. That is good to know. Of course all that matters is how it actually shaves, not the specs.

 

[AndyPanda]

Thanks for that great testing, @AndyPanda! So I think we're finding that even the Masumune is closer to neutral than the specs may have one believe. That is good to know. Of course all that matters is how it actually shaves, not the specs.

Before you make any conclusions, please remember that I do not know whether or not current Masamune are identical spec to the very early ones (Mine is one of the first 50 made). And when I got mine they shipped with Feather blades and a Feather blade is definitely slightly negative in my Masamune even if I don't tighten it up very tight.

I have a vague memory of reading a post where someone said they relaxed the tolerance due to certain blades not fitting well -- but I have searched and searched and have not been able to find that post so I may have imagined it. And my Treet Platinum blades crunch slightly (like the George Harrison tune "while my treet blade gently crunches")

 

[Iridian]

Instead of trying to shave the edge, with the Nodachi you can gently push the blade in until it stops and actually measure the distance parallel to the edge of the card stock. That might be useful data, I never got around to doing it.

I also wondered if the SCALLOPS on the bar make a difference. That could cause the blade to catch.

 

[Galibier_Numero_Un]

I'm somewhat torn about these attempts to "measure" razors.

On one hand, I can see that over time, we may be able to identify a pattern - even with seemingly outlier razors like the Athena and Tatara family - as far as stated dimensions are concerned. The card stock test seems to be one additional degree of separation from true measurement however, although it's certainly an item of curiosity.

From this perspective, the exercise may be instructive, but we need to keep in mind that both measuring consistency and accuracy should be considered qualitative and not quantitative.

I believe we're all in agreement that the numbers can (at best) predict a general trend. At the same time, we might predict that Henson AL 13+ is milder than an Athena. I believe the same can be said about the relative efficiency of the two razors (no time to check at the moment).

Well, with my face and technique, the Athena shaves more mildly than the "+" (strange as this might seem, but I struggle with the Henson), but the Athena's efficiency is off the charts in comparison with my Henson.

Few of us have any way of quantifying our measurements, but rather are only able to qualitatively assess exposure with variations of the card stock test - descriptors like: none, some, or a lot of exposure.

Considering our measuring techniques all differ (although I'd hope that each individual's technique is consistent to the extent possible), does any of this tell us anything more than a subjective commentary does?

I'm reminded of the "false precision" concept. This is where a manufacturer specifies a dimension like: 7.900mm. The casual reader might infer that 3-digit precision is being held, where in fact, their spec may be 7.9mm +/- 0.1mm (one digit).

So, do we all need to know anything more about the Tatara variants other than perhaps establishing an agreed upon aggressiveness scale: Nodachi > Nodamune > Masadachi > Masamune (from most aggressive to least aggressive)?

By "agreed upon", I mean a general distribution of user comments assessing the four combinations as well as possibly comparing them with other razors.

I keep going back to the idea that "we ain't no stinkin' razor desingers" and we're fooling ourselves if we can dig more deeply to the next level

... Thom

 

[spacemonkey42]

Agreed, @Galibier_Numero_Un. All that really matters is how it shaves. Once you shave with it, the specs don't matter anymore.

 

[Slapo]

I'm somewhat torn about these attempts to "measure" razors.

On one hand, I can see that over time, we may be able to identify a pattern - even with seemingly outlier razors like the Athena and Tatara family - as far as stated dimensions are concerned. The card stock test seems to be one additional degree of separation from true measurement however, although it's certainly an item of curiosity.

From this perspective, the exercise may be instructive, but we need to keep in mind that both measuring consistency and accuracy should be considered qualitative and not quantitative.

I believe we're all in agreement that the numbers can (at best) predict a general trend. At the same time, we might predict that Henson AL 13+ is milder than an Athena. I believe the same can be said about the relative efficiency of the two razors (no time to check at the moment).

Well, with my face and technique, the Athena shaves more mildly than the "+" (strange as this might seem, but I struggle with the Henson), but the Athena's efficiency is off the charts in comparison with my Henson.

Few of us have any way of quantifying our measurements, but rather are only able to qualitatively assess exposure with variations of the card stock test - descriptors like: none, some, or a lot of exposure.

Considering our measuring techniques all differ (although I'd hope that each individual's technique is consistent to the extent possible), does any of this tell us anything more than a subjective commentary does?

I'm reminded of the "false precision" concept. This is where a manufacturer specifies a dimension like: 7.900mm. The casual reader might infer that 3-digit precision is being held, where in fact, their spec may be 7.9mm +/- 0.1mm (one digit).

So, do we all need to know anything more about the Tatara variants other than perhaps establishing an agreed upon aggressiveness scale: Nodachi > Nodamune > Masadachi > Masamune (from most aggressive to least aggressive)?

By "agreed upon", I mean a general distribution of user comments assessing the four combinations as well as possibly comparing them with other razors.

I keep going back to the idea that "we ain't no stinkin' razor desingers" and we're fooling ourselves if we can dig more deeply to the next level

... Thom

IMO, there's nothing wrong with trying to get razor measurements, but as you said, they need to be consistent and accurate. That would mean the methodology likely needs to be standardised as well.

I think there are additional elements to efficiency beyond e.g. blade exposure and blade gap, though.
I also think that when assuming unblemished, fairly taut skin and sufficient ability of the user, a neutral exposure razor with a minimal gap should get a person to BBS, as I strongly doubt anyone needs a blade to dig into their skin and shave a bit of their skin off for good measure. As with all things, however, some people seem to like it.
In the end, it's the blade that does the cutting.

However:

1. I have seen a few people shave (in person and on YouTube), and while they might not be a representative sample, I have observed that people are generally pretty bad at keeping the angle, even when they think they're doing well. This isn't necessarily because they'd have manual dexterity issues, but it's more like they focus on one or two of: blade feel, what they can see, what they can hear, what facets of the razor head they can feel.
   I think that's why some of people like razors with a lot of exposure (wider range of angles) or a large blade gap (helps get the angle right, as the gap ends up acting as a sort of angle guide).
   I've also noticed that a lot of people start with a functional angle, but as they lose visibility, sound or feel of the head of the razor, their ability to trace contours of their skin is compromised and they deviate from a functioning angle to one where the blade is no longer in contact with the skin.
2. It seems like people tend to fall back to a certain comfortably grip and angle on a razor, and I think that's another factor why people lose the angle, especially in challenging spots where they lose their prefered angle indicators.
3. I haven't seen anyone post any numbers on how thick their facial hair actually is, how much water it can absorb or how much cutting force is necessary to cut their hair.
   This is understandable, as few would have access to tooling that could reliably measure them.
   However, I see a lot of people write how thick, coarse, wiry or sandpaper-like their facial hair is, but I doubt anyone's stubble is soft and with no point of reference, they might well be baseless impressions.
4. There are also no reliable measuring mechanisms for growth density that would be easily accessible to most people.
5. Another point is that nobody really measures their lather - surely it would be possible to measure slickness and airiness, but those are, again, beyond reach for most people.
6. I found that a sufficiently dense lather can clog any razor nearly instantly, and lather that's too thin does a poor job at assisting in evicting cut hair through lather slots/channels/holes. IMO, this affects perceived efficiency as well.
7. Yet another is lather flow-through, although it might be minor and depends on speific shape

Maybe I've forgotten something, but I'm well past my bed time, so I'll leave it as it is for now.