What's new

The Art & Science of Relative Razor Value (RRV) Analysis

There is an entrenched cultural tendency to take the mantra that your mileage may vary to its absurd extreme. The truth is that there is an important subjective component, and an important objective component.

I see it the most with blades, where many seem to think that every blade is equal to every other blade, except for subjective personal experience. Yes, you should only consider buying 1000 of the one you actually tried and like, and many people will prefer something else. At the end of the day, you want to have the things that you like.

That doesn't mean evey blade has equal merits, or is equally worth trying. It doesnt mean a new shaver looking to find a favorite should start with the Samah and Lord catalogs since they can be had at the lowest prices. If one company tends to make balanced blades and another tends to make blades with one edge 20% sharper than the other, blades from company A are better. Some for making blades near your own nominal specification.

Sure you might like a mild blade when most prefer something sharper. Sure, you might like a tuggy blade when most prefer a smooth one. But blades with poor balance, poor lot consistently, duds, improper alloys, bad heat treatment, edges with dead spots from stray abrasives or sloppy grinding belts, everyone should try to avoid these things. There is no upside. They are inferior and a waste of your money and time unless you just want to be amused.

With an inconsistent blade, maybe you like it and I don't, not because it is subjective, but because you got a good one and I got a bad one. When people disagree about a Lord blade, I would just expect this to be a factor.

I think it is easier to get a razor right than a blade, so there aren't many terrible ones and the subjective component is a relatively bigger piece of the picture. There are elusive great ones, but it is pretty easy to find a good one.

I have even seen people describe objective criteria as if they were subjective, like saying a blade "was sharp for me." An absurd belief. Whether the blade is sharp is not subjective. Perhaps yours was sharp and mine wasn't, but if yours was sharp, then it was just sharp, and if mine was dull, it was just dull. You and I aren't making them sharp or dull through our tinted glasses.
 
“Your Mileage May Vary” is the mantra of the wet shaving community. Simply put, what works for you may not work for me. Other interpretations could include “one person’s treasure is another person’s trash”, “to each his own”, or even “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. The point is razor value is primarily subjective.

Yet razor enthusiasts love data, and love to compare razors. So, to tease out some of the empirical differences between razors I’ve developed a system for scoring razors based on four metrics: efficiency, comfort, consistency, and ease-of-use. Usually, efficiency is most prized. But the other attributes can be just as important to the overall enjoyment of the razor and are equally weighted in a Composite Score which exhibits the total strength of the razor. The four attributes are defined as follows:
  • Efficiency: the closeness of the shave, which I rate between DFS- and BBS+ in 1/8th steps (DFS, DFS+/DFS, DFS+, BBS-/DFS+, BBS-, BBS/BBS-, BBS, etc).
  • Comfort: also known as aggression (the inverse). This means different things to different people. To me, it’s a combination of blade feel, irritation, and risk of nicks and weepers.
  • Consistency: the level of confidence that a shaver has that they know what the outcome of the shave will be beforehand. Exactly what causes consistency to vary is a bit nebulous but is likely to be a combination of blade flex (chatter) and design elements which can lead to variation in outcomes such as optimal cutting angle.
  • Ease-of-use: how much concentration and effort are needed during shaving, and how much practice is required to achieve the desired result.
I also assign each razor an Efficiency Rating, which is the maximum closeness which can be achieved with the optimal blade pairing, for which I tend to use either a Wilkinson (Germany), which I consider a high-sharpness blade, or a Wizamet, a medium-sharpness blade. Over time, I’ve come to learn that high-efficiency razors (TiBird, GC2.0, Nodachi) will score a higher Efficiency Rating with a medium vs. a high-sharpness blade as it allows for more buffing and higher maneuverability, exhibiting the interplay of efficiency with other attributes. Sometimes less is more. Within Efficiency Ratings I rank the razors based on composite scores. In general, I view any razor with an Efficiency Rating above BBS as “High Efficiency”, at BBS/BBS- as “Med-High Efficiency”, and at BBS- as “Medium Efficiency”. Everything else, I lump together as “Low Efficiency”.

View attachment 1950344
View attachment 1950346

The above rankings are based purely on “performance”. Another dimension to analyze and rank razors is “value”, which is an attempt to understand the price differences between razors and see if the cost is justified. To do this, I’ve developed four relative metrics described below:
  • Price-to-Composite Score (P/C): the number of dollars paid per each point of composite score. Used as a measure of price over total value delivered.
  • Price-to-Efficiency (P/E): the number of dollars paid for each point of efficiency.
  • Comfort-to-Efficiency (C/E): a ratio of the Comfort score vs. the Efficiency Score. The idea is to exhibit a simple view of which of these two defining attributes is more pronounced.
  • Efficiency-to-Composite Score (E/C): this shows the percentage of Efficiency points among the aggregate points of the Composite Score. The idea is to show how much of the value of the razor comes from efficiency vs. the other attributes.
View attachment 1950347

To iron out any of the distortions which can come from very low-priced razors I’ve limited the comparison to razors with a price >US$100. By doing so, I’ve eliminated razors which are die-cast and user cheaper materials (zamak) and focused on CNC-ed razors which tend to be the most topical in the B&B community.

Based simply on P/C, the best value is the GC2.II, whose class leading efficiency and incredible build quality is a bargain at US$110. Conversely, the WR2 (Ti) is by far the worst value considering its high price and middling overall performance. However, sometimes P/C alone doesn’t tell the whole story, as in the case with the TiBird. Although the TiBird’s P/C is very high at 10.3x, nearly double the Overlander, on a Price/Efficiency basis it’s only 26% higher than the Overlander. In literal terms, this means whereas for the Overlander you pay US$27 for each point of efficiency you pay US$34 for each point with the Blackbird. But while the Overlander’s Efficiency Rating maxes out at BBS-, the TiBird can deliver a BBS+. Looking at the Efficiency/Composite Score, only 19.4% of the Overlander’s overall performance comes from efficiency, where for the TiBird it’s 30.3%. Therefore, for the shaver who values high efficiency razors that deliver the closest possible shave an argument can be made that the TiBird’s premium is justified (an argument with which I agree!).

All of this is meant to be mainly food for thought, and hopefully fun to consider. As always, YMMV!
Hi, Just saw your analysis for the first time. Appreciate how you have worked to develop a well structured evaluation framework.

Some observations on your framework and analysis:
  • This appears to be a well structured approach to breaking down the elements that make up our overall YMMV perception of how well different razors work. The effort is much appreciated.
  • A challenge with this type of analysis is that each of us values the various features and benefits differently. For some it can be all about efficiency while for others a low risk shave (limited chance of weepers/cuts) are the top priority. As a result, while a valid analysis base on your preferences the results may not be as relevant for other shavers with different preferences
  • While the breakdown of the elements helps, in the end each rating is still based on the individual shavers YMMV perception of results. As these ratings are solely based on your perceptions they should only be considered as a detailed analysis of your views on performance. One would need additional ratings from a variety of different shavers to establish overall market perceptions. It would be interesting to set up a poll or survey among B&B members and collect the various ratings of our different razors to deliver a much more broadly valid analysis.
  • I'm not sure your trade off between efficiency and comfort is valid. I've found that any razor, even my mildest King C. Gillette, can deliver BBS shaves with the right technique and time (number of passes). A more valid outcome based alternative structure may be:
    • Shave Quality - Shave quality after a fixed number of passes (likely two passes) with a fresh blade. This would get at blade aggressiveness, exposure etc. One could ask respondents to do a shave based on a single ATG pass followed by a WTG pass and then evaluate results.
    • Safety - Likelihood of getting cut or weepers. This is important, it was the most important research finding that led to the creation of the Gillette guard for example. I suspect your Ease Of Use metric is really trying to get to this area.
    • Shave Speed - How many passes and how much time is required to achieve the desired shave. One can get the same BBS shave with a mild razor as with an aggressive one. I just takes an extra pass or two and special techniques like "riding the cap". Real trade-off is time for shave quality.
    • Construction & Design Quality - Do you have to check for blade alignment or is it always perfect? Are blade tabs exposed? This can include elements for the materials used and the qualitative design. This is a key element that separates out premium CNC razors from moderate/lower cost mass market options like Weishi or Baili. Could also incorporate a convenience element for TTO.
    • Razor Value - You get at this with your price to score ratios. I agree with @nemo that your analysis is incomplete without the inclusion of low cost razors such as vintage Gillettes, Merkur, King C. Gillette and some Weishi or Baili products. Another way to do this is to include a cost scale in the methodology.
Rating each of these equally would provide a valid evaluation criteria where razor cost would not unduly distort results. An adde advantage would be that each B&B user could weight the criteria per their own personal preferences to determine their own ideal result. Newbies may want to double weight safety for example while collectors may decide to double weight Construction & Design quality.

Shave consistency, in your evaluation methodology, sounds like something more related to the skills or the user and abiltiy to tailor technique to the razor. Don't see how it would result from the razor itself and is a flawed metric that would downgrade any adjustable razor unfairly.

Leaving out the low cost razors is a major flaw in this analysis as, while they may not be talked about as much here, they are used by many. There is a lot less to say about a basic Weishi 9306 TTO superspeed clone than there is about a higher end CNC razor with unique design elements. If low cost razors are causing a distortion it is likely due to a flaw in the methodology - the suggested outcome based parameters above would remedy that. Should a low cost razor top a list per a more valid methodology that is not a distortion, it's just a reality that fellow B&Bers can take into account against there personal preferences.

An ideal analysis would also include popular brands such as Rockwell, Merkur, Parker, etc.

You've demostrated excellent analytic skills in how you structured your evaluation. If you decide to structure a new version and collect results from other B&B members the end result could be an excellent evalutation of the various razors available to us today.

P.S. It looks like you have an amazing collection of razors based on the list in your analysis. Which one is your favorite?
 
Top Bottom