What's new

The evolution of synthetic hair in shaving brushes

There are many variations of synthetic brushes on the market.
The world is progressing, everything is progressing, shaving brushes are not left out. This text is an attempt to understand
to qualify, to find the difference in certain generations of synthetic fiber.
Question 1. Is the pile the same in all synthetic shaving brushes? The fibers from company A are exactly the same as those from company B. There is no difference.
Answer: This is incorrect. Generations of synthetics are categorized based on the development of fibers and the complexity of production technology. One or another synthetic pile has a given set of parameters, such as the feeling of this very fiber on wet / dry skin, elasticity, moisture retention, soap suds, wear resistance, etc.
Question 2: Do companies A and B produce their own synthetic fibers?
Answer: All manufacturers of synthetic shaving brushes purchase fibers from large fiber companies that supply fibers to the cosmetics industry.
Fiber production is a very capital intensive business requiring large chemical plants that small shaving brush companies would not be able to handle due to scale and technical challenges.
Question 3. What distinguishes each class of generations of synthetic pile from each other?
Answer: Today, there are four generations of synthetic fiber, which are mainly determined by the feeling of this very fiber on the skin. The best way to tell the difference between generations is with a dry fiber skin test so you can feel the fiber and not the foam.
First generation. 1940-1990s.
They were made on the basis of nylon fibers. Used for over 50 years (in early toothbrushes and fishing line)
Usually the color was white. The feeling on dry skin was very hard, on wet skin it was sharp and prickly.
Feels more like a wire brush than a shaving brush.
Still available in cheap disposable travel brushes and Omega White Syntex.

Second generation. Early 2000s.
Borrowed from the cosmetics industry, the fibers have been cut more at the ends for greater softness. Had some elemental structures and channels cut at the micro level to hold water. The tips were softer than the 1st generation shaving brushes, but the fibers were still quite stiff when tested on dry skin. You can draw a similarity with a mixture of horse and wild boar pile. These fibers were brittle and tended to cling to each other as moisture increased. Used in early versions of MenU, Body Shop and Parker.
Third generation. Mid 2000s.
The fibers for these brushes were still made in the cosmetic fiber industry, but were among the highest quality linear fibers available in the industry. The difference between these fibers is that they are very flexible and soft, both wet and dry. When wet, the fibers have improved channels and micro-patterns to retain more water, but not as much as natural bristles.
Painted for a more natural look. Feels closer to a badger. Due to the thinner fibers in the knots, the packing increased. Introduced in Omega S, TGN Nylon, early Frank Shaving.
Over time, the later generation 3 fibers were improved to be softer and allowed for more knot variation. Three Band TGN, Kent Silvertex, Simpsons, Razorock, Omega Hi, Stirling Soap, Plisson Synthetic and many other brands use this class of fiber to create high performance synthetic brushes.It is more than likely that they are using a knot maker, which is basically a source from Yaqi, Oumo, and Alibaba and AliExpress in general... (Most repetitive and common version) Each manufacturer/seller/artizan prefers to name their fiber type in my own way. The end user is unlikely to recognize the manufacturer of the node. Fortunately, this is a completely different topic for investigation.
Half a step ahead of the third generation was Muehle (generation 3.5)
Muehle took Generation 3 fibers as a base and began to crimp and adjust the length of the fibers, creating a brush that looks and feels as close to natural shaving brushes as possible. Released as version 1 of the Silvertip fiber: Muhle STF V1, Muehle Black Fiber V1.
The Generation 3 and 3.5 fiber classes have really allowed synthetic brushes to become more popular and accepted in the traditional shaving community.
Fourth generation. Early 2010.
A distinctive feature from the 3rd generation is the high definition of the tips. Generation 4 fibers are more blunt at the end for a more velvety feel. This velvety feel can be found both dry and wet and provides a super soft feel, almost like a velvet blanket, as opposed to the crisper feel of 3rd generation fibers.Thus, the hallmarks of 4th generation fibers are fibers that mimic natural hair much more than 1st or 2nd generation in terms of suppleness, better moisture control, but much more velvety or super-soft feel at the tips than 3rd generation.
Representatives: the H.I.S. brush, Omega EVO, Muhle Silvertip V2, Frank Shaving Pur-Tech, Shavemac, Alpha Synthetic, Marfin Italian Handmade, etc. (c)
 
I think I started using with generation 1 and those were miserable brushes. Generation 2 wasn't much better. I haven't bought a lot recently as I tend to enjoy the natural hair a bit more, but really like the some of the newer ones.
 
This is interesting information, but can you say more about where it is sourced from?

I must say I have difficulty drawing a connection between Mühle Silvertip Fibre and Omega Evo fibres, though you classify them the same. They seem extremely different to me and while the Mühle is very much to my taste, the Omega Evo is very springy and rather nasty to use for me. Others may love the Omega of course, but they are surely not similar.
 

Phoenixkh

I shaved a fortune
I have three synths models left... two 26mm G4s from Alpha Shaving via ESC, a Rudy Vey with Muhle 25mm STF and an Omega Evo Original. They have more in common for me than differences. I've heard the Evo 2 is a bit more springy due the the waves in the fibers. All three are very soft, a bit more soft than I prefer. I do plan to take my two ESC Ultimate G4 brushes with me to Bali for our 6 week trip. I took two SOC Misturas last time. I was very glad to get back to my SV 2.0 Manchurian badgers when we got home.
 
Synth fibres are continually evolving but for me, the Muhle STF v2 still remains king of synthetics!

The Evo brush I disliked but that was due to knot/loft ratio.
I got an Evo knot only and set it myself, I really like it!!
 
This is interesting information, but can you say more about where it is sourced from?

I must say I have difficulty drawing a connection between Mühle Silvertip Fibre and Omega Evo fibres, though you classify them the same. They seem extremely different to me and while the Mühle is very much to my taste, the Omega Evo is very springy and rather nasty to use for me. Others may love the Omega of course, but they are surely not similar.
Article from the Ukrainian forum. I personally have one badger shaving brush and the usual cheap one with synthetics, which I really like despite the price of about $ 4
I also have two boar shaving brushes. I don't consider myself an expert on shaving brushes as I have used them quite a bit. But I copied the article here to hear the opinion about good synthetics from more experienced members of the forum in this matter.
 
Article from the Ukrainian forum. I personally have one badger shaving brush and the usual cheap one with synthetics, which I really like despite the price of about $ 4
I also have two boar shaving brushes. I don't consider myself an expert on shaving brushes as I have used them quite a bit. But I copied the article here to hear the opinion about good synthetics from more experienced members of the forum in this matter.
Thanks. It seems to make sense to talk about synthetic brushes in terms of generations, and it‘s especially interesting to hear about the technical differences in the fibres that were introduced over time - illustrated by examples of the brushes of each type. I imagine this kind of information is not easy to source and brush manufacturers don’t often say much about the fibres they use, so it’s hard to know how accurate it is unless you’re an industry insider who had the chance to talk to these manufacturers about all their knots.

But it’s B&B and I’m frequently amazed by the knowledge that resides in here. Hopefully there’s somebody who knows more and can endorse or contradict these points. It would be very good to understand more about our synthetic brushes.
 
There are many variations of synthetic brushes on the market.
The world is progressing, everything is progressing, shaving brushes are not left out. This text is an attempt to understand
to qualify, to find the difference in certain generations of synthetic fiber.
Question 1. Is the pile the same in all synthetic shaving brushes? The fibers from company A are exactly the same as those from company B. There is no difference.
Answer: This is incorrect. Generations of synthetics are categorized based on the development of fibers and the complexity of production technology. One or another synthetic pile has a given set of parameters, such as the feeling of this very fiber on wet / dry skin, elasticity, moisture retention, soap suds, wear resistance, etc.
Question 2: Do companies A and B produce their own synthetic fibers?
Answer: All manufacturers of synthetic shaving brushes purchase fibers from large fiber companies that supply fibers to the cosmetics industry.
Fiber production is a very capital intensive business requiring large chemical plants that small shaving brush companies would not be able to handle due to scale and technical challenges.
Question 3. What distinguishes each class of generations of synthetic pile from each other?
Answer: Today, there are four generations of synthetic fiber, which are mainly determined by the feeling of this very fiber on the skin. The best way to tell the difference between generations is with a dry fiber skin test so you can feel the fiber and not the foam.
First generation. 1940-1990s.
They were made on the basis of nylon fibers. Used for over 50 years (in early toothbrushes and fishing line)
Usually the color was white. The feeling on dry skin was very hard, on wet skin it was sharp and prickly.
Feels more like a wire brush than a shaving brush.
Still available in cheap disposable travel brushes and Omega White Syntex.

Second generation. Early 2000s.
Borrowed from the cosmetics industry, the fibers have been cut more at the ends for greater softness. Had some elemental structures and channels cut at the micro level to hold water. The tips were softer than the 1st generation shaving brushes, but the fibers were still quite stiff when tested on dry skin. You can draw a similarity with a mixture of horse and wild boar pile. These fibers were brittle and tended to cling to each other as moisture increased. Used in early versions of MenU, Body Shop and Parker.
Third generation. Mid 2000s.
The fibers for these brushes were still made in the cosmetic fiber industry, but were among the highest quality linear fibers available in the industry. The difference between these fibers is that they are very flexible and soft, both wet and dry. When wet, the fibers have improved channels and micro-patterns to retain more water, but not as much as natural bristles.
Painted for a more natural look. Feels closer to a badger. Due to the thinner fibers in the knots, the packing increased. Introduced in Omega S, TGN Nylon, early Frank Shaving.
Over time, the later generation 3 fibers were improved to be softer and allowed for more knot variation. Three Band TGN, Kent Silvertex, Simpsons, Razorock, Omega Hi, Stirling Soap, Plisson Synthetic and many other brands use this class of fiber to create high performance synthetic brushes.It is more than likely that they are using a knot maker, which is basically a source from Yaqi, Oumo, and Alibaba and AliExpress in general... (Most repetitive and common version) Each manufacturer/seller/artizan prefers to name their fiber type in my own way. The end user is unlikely to recognize the manufacturer of the node. Fortunately, this is a completely different topic for investigation.
Half a step ahead of the third generation was Muehle (generation 3.5)
Muehle took Generation 3 fibers as a base and began to crimp and adjust the length of the fibers, creating a brush that looks and feels as close to natural shaving brushes as possible. Released as version 1 of the Silvertip fiber: Muhle STF V1, Muehle Black Fiber V1.
The Generation 3 and 3.5 fiber classes have really allowed synthetic brushes to become more popular and accepted in the traditional shaving community.
Fourth generation. Early 2010.
A distinctive feature from the 3rd generation is the high definition of the tips. Generation 4 fibers are more blunt at the end for a more velvety feel. This velvety feel can be found both dry and wet and provides a super soft feel, almost like a velvet blanket, as opposed to the crisper feel of 3rd generation fibers.Thus, the hallmarks of 4th generation fibers are fibers that mimic natural hair much more than 1st or 2nd generation in terms of suppleness, better moisture control, but much more velvety or super-soft feel at the tips than 3rd generation.
Representatives: the H.I.S. brush, Omega EVO, Muhle Silvertip V2, Frank Shaving Pur-Tech, Shavemac, Alpha Synthetic, Marfin Italian Handmade, etc. (c)

Great comparison!!

Guess I tried some second/third generation options.
 
Thanks for clearing that up. Hopefully someday Omega agrees to sell the knots to @Rudy Vey so we can all get one with a handle (and loft) we like :)

That would be nice, but I buy their brushes and harvest the knots.

I found the Evo knot to be wonderful, but not at all in the Evo brush. They are setting the knot way too low and it's too restricted in its splay.

I feel it should be set at a minimum loft of 55mm if not 57-58mm.
Even the Muhle STF XL I find to be optimal at around 57mm.
 

Phoenixkh

I shaved a fortune
I just measured my Evo Original. The loft is set at 55mm. I'm not sure what speck they publish but as I said.... mine is at 55mm and it works fine. It's a bit too soft for me because I prefer just a hint of scrub.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nav

Ron R

I survived a lathey foreman
So, my question this far:

1) Is it best to get a synthetic 4th gen?
2) Are all brushes in current production 4th gen?
--> if not, how can you tell?
Nothing wrong with a 4 generation synthetic shave brush. It depends where a person lives to get a good brand name at a reasonable price. I like Yaqi and Razorock synthetic brushes(Plissoft) in the 24-26mm diameters. They will generate a nice lather quickly and are usually nice gentle splay scrubbers and excellent lather painters + they release the lather as needed quite well. A 4th generation to a 7th generation synthetic a person would hardly tell the difference unless you told them IMO.
 
I hope I am not throwing the proverbial wrench into the machinery, but my Noble Otter synthetic brush whips up great Cube 2.0 prep and Noble Otter soap(s) lathers. The knot cleans out nicely, and dries quickly.
 
There are many variations of synthetic brushes on the market.
The world is progressing, everything is progressing, shaving brushes are not left out. This text is an attempt to understand
to qualify, to find the difference in certain generations of synthetic fiber.
Question 1. Is the pile the same in all synthetic shaving brushes? The fibers from company A are exactly the same as those from company B. There is no difference.
Answer: This is incorrect. Generations of synthetics are categorized based on the development of fibers and the complexity of production technology. One or another synthetic pile has a given set of parameters, such as the feeling of this very fiber on wet / dry skin, elasticity, moisture retention, soap suds, wear resistance, etc.
Question 2: Do companies A and B produce their own synthetic fibers?
Answer: All manufacturers of synthetic shaving brushes purchase fibers from large fiber companies that supply fibers to the cosmetics industry.
Fiber production is a very capital intensive business requiring large chemical plants that small shaving brush companies would not be able to handle due to scale and technical challenges.
Question 3. What distinguishes each class of generations of synthetic pile from each other?
Answer: Today, there are four generations of synthetic fiber, which are mainly determined by the feeling of this very fiber on the skin. The best way to tell the difference between generations is with a dry fiber skin test so you can feel the fiber and not the foam.
First generation. 1940-1990s.
They were made on the basis of nylon fibers. Used for over 50 years (in early toothbrushes and fishing line)
Usually the color was white. The feeling on dry skin was very hard, on wet skin it was sharp and prickly.
Feels more like a wire brush than a shaving brush.
Still available in cheap disposable travel brushes and Omega White Syntex.

Second generation. Early 2000s.
Borrowed from the cosmetics industry, the fibers have been cut more at the ends for greater softness. Had some elemental structures and channels cut at the micro level to hold water. The tips were softer than the 1st generation shaving brushes, but the fibers were still quite stiff when tested on dry skin. You can draw a similarity with a mixture of horse and wild boar pile. These fibers were brittle and tended to cling to each other as moisture increased. Used in early versions of MenU, Body Shop and Parker.
Third generation. Mid 2000s.
The fibers for these brushes were still made in the cosmetic fiber industry, but were among the highest quality linear fibers available in the industry. The difference between these fibers is that they are very flexible and soft, both wet and dry. When wet, the fibers have improved channels and micro-patterns to retain more water, but not as much as natural bristles.
Painted for a more natural look. Feels closer to a badger. Due to the thinner fibers in the knots, the packing increased. Introduced in Omega S, TGN Nylon, early Frank Shaving.
Over time, the later generation 3 fibers were improved to be softer and allowed for more knot variation. Three Band TGN, Kent Silvertex, Simpsons, Razorock, Omega Hi, Stirling Soap, Plisson Synthetic and many other brands use this class of fiber to create high performance synthetic brushes.It is more than likely that they are using a knot maker, which is basically a source from Yaqi, Oumo, and Alibaba and AliExpress in general... (Most repetitive and common version) Each manufacturer/seller/artizan prefers to name their fiber type in my own way. The end user is unlikely to recognize the manufacturer of the node. Fortunately, this is a completely different topic for investigation.
Half a step ahead of the third generation was Muehle (generation 3.5)
Muehle took Generation 3 fibers as a base and began to crimp and adjust the length of the fibers, creating a brush that looks and feels as close to natural shaving brushes as possible. Released as version 1 of the Silvertip fiber: Muhle STF V1, Muehle Black Fiber V1.
The Generation 3 and 3.5 fiber classes have really allowed synthetic brushes to become more popular and accepted in the traditional shaving community.
Fourth generation. Early 2010.
A distinctive feature from the 3rd generation is the high definition of the tips. Generation 4 fibers are more blunt at the end for a more velvety feel. This velvety feel can be found both dry and wet and provides a super soft feel, almost like a velvet blanket, as opposed to the crisper feel of 3rd generation fibers.Thus, the hallmarks of 4th generation fibers are fibers that mimic natural hair much more than 1st or 2nd generation in terms of suppleness, better moisture control, but much more velvety or super-soft feel at the tips than 3rd generation.
Representatives: the H.I.S. brush, Omega EVO, Muhle Silvertip V2, Frank Shaving Pur-Tech, Shavemac, Alpha Synthetic, Marfin Italian Handmade, etc. (c)
Great overview of brush fibers. I see you didnt mention the Edwin Jagger synthetic. I have several synthetic brushes (from each generation you cover) and I find the EJ synth is the best among them all.
 
Top Bottom