- Thread starter
- #41
tankerjohn
A little poofier than I prefer
If you want, I've got an extra fat handle pre-war Tech I could pif you, just because ;-)
Shoot me a pm if you are interested.
PM sent. Thank you sir.
If you want, I've got an extra fat handle pre-war Tech I could pif you, just because ;-)
Shoot me a pm if you are interested.
Tony,
Get a Flat Bottom English Tech and you will soon forget about its American cousins! They are by a large margin more smooth, efficient, and face friendly. BBS in two passes if you do your part every time! The contract Tech doesn't shave anywhere near as good as the Enlish Flat Bottom. As always, YMMV! But not by much!
SOTD: May 04: Grudge Match: Pre-War vs Oval Slot Tech
Prep: splash of hot water on face
Lather: RazoRock Son of Zeus
Brush: Simpson Berkeley 46 in Best
Razor #1: Gillette Tech "pre-War"
Razor #2: Gillette Tech "oval-slot" (1946-50)
Blade: Bolzano Superinox [95]
Finish: Fine l'Orange Noir
When @rabidus stated the oval-slot Tech is a better shaver than the pre-War triangle-slot Tech, I was sceptical. Reference: Post #16 in this thread
Basically, it comes down to blade support. Same reason why a NEW SC is a smoother shaver than a NEW LC. The pre-War Tech (and NEW LC) only supports the blade near the center plateau of the base-plate, resulting in lots of blade overhang, while the oval-slot Tech (and NEW SC) have blade supports almost right at the blade's cutting edge. The result is a much stiffer blade, almost like a torqued slant.
So today, I decided to test the theory. I've used both razors many times, but never side-by-side to make a real comparison. Dang! The oval-slot Tech is noticeably smoother than the already smooth pre-War Tech, while only being slightly less efficient.
I shaved my right side with the pre-War Tech (I'm right handed) and the left side with the oval-slot Tech. After the first WTG pass, both sides felt exactly the same, but the second XTG pass revealed the pre-War shaved just a little closer. Both sides still felt the same after the second pass, and the third ATG pass confirmed the equality - there was not much left to shave. Dead even after 3 passes, and still dead even 5 hours later. My shave today almost exactly corresponded to Post #14 by @tankerjohn
Caveat: this was one shave with a one-day stubble and a less-than-new "Excalibur" blade. Had I skipped a shaving day, my guess is that the pre-War Tech would tackle the longer stubble better using seasoned blades like I always do. With a sharp new blade, who knows - I only see new blades a handful of times a year ;-)
The fact that Gillette used the pre-War head for only about 6 years or less and used the oval-slot design for almost 40 years thereafter tells you they knew they got it right.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that it seems that pretty soon somebody's going to have to add yet another Tech (the about to be released "new" Tech from AoS) to the line-up and see how it compares.
Interesting observation. I must try them side by side as well.The pre-War Tech (and NEW LC) only supports the blade near the center plateau of the base-plate, resulting in lots of blade overhang, while the oval-slot Tech (and NEW SC) have blade supports almost right at the blade's cutting edge. The result is a much stiffer blade, almost like a torqued slant.
So today, I decided to test the theory. I've used both razors many times, but never side-by-side to make a real comparison. Dang! The oval-slot Tech is noticeably smoother than the already smooth pre-War Tech, while only being slightly less efficient.
Just measured my US and England made Tech baseplate and they were the same atMy made in England postwar techs have slightly narrower baseplates than the my 46-50 US postwar Techs. I think this makes them more efficient.
Caps have the same width but are thicker on the English ones.
Great read! I need to find me a fat handle tech to try out one of these days.