The Great Rigid Blade Experiment

[JWK1]

Shave #2 with two day growth.

Without shim - all other factors the same.

Not a very good shave. First pass was fine WTG (when is it not?), but I ran into trouble right away in second pass when I go cross and almost ATG in places. I was being as careful as I could, but by the end of the second pass I has some minor weepers and significant irritation. I tried going in some places in what would be the third pass, but I could tell it just wasn't going to work. The end result was that I had a shave that was not nearly as close as shave #1 with more irritation. Shave #3 is scheduled for Friday.

 

[Esox]

Rigidity makes a difference. The more rigid the edge the smoother the shave.

 

[JWK1]

Rigidity makes a difference. The more rigid the edge the smoother the shave.

It would seem that way so far.

 

[Johnnynroy]

It would be interesting hearing how the shim effects your DE89. I'm going to be shimming mine soon, as well.

It didn't go super well for me. Don't want to derail this fine gentleman's thread, so you can see my comments about it here: The Quest: DFS + 0 Irritation or Ingrown Hairs. See Post #5 in that thread.

 

[JWK1]

Shave #3 with shim with two day growth

Almost a repeat of shave #1 with shim. Near BBS with a bit more irritation due to my carelessness on the neck area during second pass. After I paid attention, no increase of irritation. Great shave. So much better than shave #2 without the shim.

Again - all other parameters the same. Shower, Arko, brush, the way I shaved, etc. I have made sure all factors are the same except for the razor having a shim or not. Oh, and the shim is always between the blade and baseplate.

 

[Esox]

So much better than shave #2 without the shim.

 

[Quink]

Rigidity makes a difference. The more rigid the edge the smoother the shave.

Part of the reason that IMHO the Torque Slant came about... Thinner stock blades came into play (this is in the early days of DE's) to offer sharper edges... but the Old Types were designed to clamp down on a fairly rigid and thick blade... the thinner blades chattered(?) and weren't as smooth anymore(?). Hence the torquing of the blade to stiffen the edge... what are your thoughts on that?? Sorry for bumping in like this... but I'm interested in the outcome... also what would be interesting if its actually the rigidity that brings the good results or a change in the curving of the blade resulting in a smoother shave due to less exposure. On the gentleman with the Variant... since it has a different way of adjusting, by changing the blade gap only and the angle of the blade not changing its position within the confines of the top cap to base clamping surface..how would that be influenced??

Just for my better understanding... when a shim is placed under the blade... the angle/curvature of the blade doesn't change. Just basically increased gap.

But when placing the shim on top... that changes the blade geometry because now it should sit in there flatter. How does that effect rigidity?? Doesn't that automatically require the use of a different angle to the face to (over dramatizing here) avoid "scraping" the blade instead of cutting/slicing/chopping across the stubble??

Sorry... just having a bit of a hard time getting my geometry right and understanding the concept. Apologies for the rather dumb question.... sounds VERY interesting. Funny enough... I typically get a better shave off the LC... compared to the SC due to the SC being a touch more aggressive. Then again... I need to run more blades through it too. I just got my SC two weeks ago.

Thank you ...and interested in the results of the test!!!

 

[psfred]

I would note that the original Gillette blade was 0.006" and modern ones are 0.004" thick -- the difference in location between the edge on the original and modern is 0.001", probably well within manufacturing tolerance of the razors, not accounting for wear. Some modern blades are 0.005" I think, as well, and I've seen a Personna Lab Blue measured at 0.006". No need to shim the blade to restore original location or stiffness.

Make sure your razor clamps the blade properly -- doesn't take much of a bump or bit of grit to leave the blade free to vibrate, and I've found every single one of my OLD style razors has at least one corner of the cap dented from being dropped. The resulting "lip" from the deformation of the corner is much higher than the blade is thick, and will result in leaving the blade free to vibrate quite a bit!.

The angle the blade hits the hairs makes a difference too -- when the cutting force is very far from directly into the blade, cutting the hair will cause the blade to vibrate as it cuts, wearing the blade and irritating the skin.

There is a reason OLD types always have worn plating on the cap.....

Shims will only change the location of the edge in relation to the baseplate and cap, unless there is a long distance between the clamping point and the edge, in which case some dampening of vibration will occur. Not an issue in Gillette razors except the NEW LC ones. All the others clamp the blade close to the edge unless damaged or defective.

 

[Quink]

I would note that the original Gillette blade was 0.006" and modern ones are 0.004" thick -- the difference in location between the edge on the original and modern is 0.001", probably well within manufacturing tolerance of the razors, not accounting for wear. Some modern blades are 0.005" I think, as well, and I've seen a Personna Lab Blue measured at 0.006". No need to shim the blade to restore original location or stiffness.

Make sure your razor clamps the blade properly -- doesn't take much of a bump or bit of grit to leave the blade free to vibrate, and I've found every single one of my OLD style razors has at least one corner of the cap dented from being dropped. The resulting "lip" from the deformation of the corner is much higher than the blade is thick, and will result in leaving the blade free to vibrate quite a bit!.

The angle the blade hits the hairs makes a difference too -- when the cutting force is very far from directly into the blade, cutting the hair will cause the blade to vibrate as it cuts, wearing the blade and irritating the skin.

There is a reason OLD types always have worn plating on the cap.....

Shims will only change the location of the edge in relation to the baseplate and cap, unless there is a long distance between the clamping point and the edge, in which case some dampening of vibration will occur. Not an issue in Gillette razors except the NEW LC ones. All the others clamp the blade close to the edge unless damaged or defective.

First of all... Thank you!!
I'll have to do the math there. My knowledge of the imperial system is not the best ;-)

0.006 = 0.15mm
0.005 = 0.12mm
0.004 = 0.10mm
0.003 = 0.08mm
0.002 = 0.06mm

I hope that's right...

Now... I know for a fact that most blades go for a 0.08mm blade thickness (according to the packaging). Some blades (even in the past) advertising a 0.06mm thickness... being held in a razor that was made for a 0.15mm blade. Just scratching my head... that's quite a difference. The blades would have to be clamped directly on the leading edge to avoid any chatter...

I've noticed the mentioned wear on the Old Types but also on the NEW SC that I just got... indicating that the angle used is turned more towards the head plate. I'll have to look where exactly the bearing forces from the base plate actually meet the blade and where the ones from the top cap hits... this could be interesting. I hope I can figure it out without having to blue off the razors. You've got some great points... thank you. Lets see where this goes...

Please don't take this wrong. I enjoy a good discussion... . Please don't be offended!!! I'm taking this all in and its making a mess inside my head. Loving it!! lol...a bit weird... I know...

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

Based on my measuring of many different modern blades with a calibrated digital micrometer, thickness varies from about 0.09 mm to about 0.10 mm. If there is a modern blade with a 0.15 mm thickness, I'd like to see the proof.

 

[psfred]

I've seen a photograph on this site, don't remember the thread, showing a micrometer reading 0.006" with an original blade and a Lab Blue. Have no other information. I do have some blades, will measure them when I get a chance. The Lab Blues are stiffer, at least in the package. I have some old three hole blades, they aren't that much different in feel to the modern ones other than the stiffness from not having a slot down the center. End to end they aren't a huge amount stiffer. I was surprised, I thought they would be much thicker than they are, but the original patents call for a blade 0.006" thick.

And, remember, the edge is in the middle of the blade, so the location of the edge will be 0.025mm different between a 0.15mm thick blade and a 0.10 mm thick blade. I don't think it would be very easy to tell the difference, that's not a large distance! Sure, there is a 50% difference in the thickness, but in real rather than relative terms, both are thinner than a typical sheet of paper and the absolute difference in edge location is near the limit of what you could measure with hand tools.

There is a significant difference in the resistant to bending between the two thicknesses, but with the blade properly installed in a good condition OLD, I doubt you would feel it shaving. It will be more of a problem in things like a NEW LC where there is four mm between the clamping point and the edge. Some modern razors are worse in this regard, with a thin clamping surface a long way away from the edge.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

I've seen a photograph on this site, don't remember the thread, showing a micrometer reading 0.006" with an original blade and a Lab Blue. Have no other information. I do have some blades, will measure them when I get a chance. The Lab Blues are stiffer, at least in the package. I have some old three hole blades, they aren't that much different in feel to the modern ones other than the stiffness from not having a slot down the center. End to end they aren't a huge amount stiffer. I was surprised, I thought they would be much thicker than they are, but the original patents call for a blade 0.006" thick.

My micrometer measurements of eight (8) modern (purchased in July 2016 and January 2017) Personna Lab Blue samples yielded thicknesses ranging from 0.099 mm to 0.102 mm with an average thickness of 0.101 mm.

There is a significant difference in the resistant to bending between the two thicknesses, but with the blade properly installed in a good condition OLD, I doubt you would feel it shaving. It will be more of a problem in things like a NEW LC where there is four mm between the clamping point and the edge. Some modern razors are worse in this regard, with a thin clamping surface a long way away from the edge.

The free-end and clamp distances (pictured here) definitely affect blade edge deflection. In general, I'd say that the variations in these parameters affect modern blade deflection more than the variations in modern blade thickness.

 

[Johnnynroy]

Part of the reason that IMHO the Torque Slant came about... Thinner stock blades came into play (this is in the early days of DE's) to offer sharper edges... but the Old Types were designed to clamp down on a fairly rigid and thick blade... the thinner blades chattered(?) and weren't as smooth anymore(?). Hence the torquing of the blade to stiffen the edge... what are your thoughts on that?? Sorry for bumping in like this... but I'm interested in the outcome... also what would be interesting if its actually the rigidity that brings the good results or a change in the curving of the blade resulting in a smoother shave due to less exposure. On the gentleman with the Variant... since it has a different way of adjusting, by changing the blade gap only and the angle of the blade not changing its position within the confines of the top cap to base clamping surface..how would that be influenced??

Just for my better understanding... when a shim is placed under the blade... the angle/curvature of the blade doesn't change. Just basically increased gap.

But when placing the shim on top... that changes the blade geometry because now it should sit in there flatter. How does that effect rigidity?? Doesn't that automatically require the use of a different angle to the face to (over dramatizing here) avoid "scraping" the blade instead of cutting/slicing/chopping across the stubble??

Sorry... just having a bit of a hard time getting my geometry right and understanding the concept. Apologies for the rather dumb question.... sounds VERY interesting. Funny enough... I typically get a better shave off the LC... compared to the SC due to the SC being a touch more aggressive. Then again... I need to run more blades through it too. I just got my SC two weeks ago.

Thank you ...and interested in the results of the test!!!

I think I'm the guy with the Variant you were referring to. I honed in on that paragraph so that is what I'm responding too. So adding the shim under the blade does increase the gap, but also adds thickness to the blade, double give or take depending on blade and tolerances. This added thickness should, in theory, improve the rigidity of the blade. The Variant (or Progress or insert any adjustable razor) would be ideal for testing shims for rigidity if you have one, because you can compensate for the increased gap. Adding in a blade increases the lowest setting on my Variant from the + to the 1 setting. Adding a shim changed it from the 1 to the 2. So a blade is about 1 setting worth of gap on my Variant, give or take a little. As long as you don't prefer shaving under a 2 for your gap, you can test out rigidity alone in it without having a change in gap by setting it at 2 each time. I do not have a micrometer to double check myself regarding the accuracy of adding blades/shims to the razor and resulting gap, but this is what makes sense to me in my personal experience.

As to changing the curvature of the blade itself: I have no idea of the geometry is changed much. It is possible that it is considerably different. My one and only shave with the shimmed Variant had significantly more blade feel than I am used to from it. It is possible that the blade exposure became more positive when before it was neutral or negative. I think that the improvement in shave was, however, the improved rigidity. I have started using my SE razors exclusively for the past week to ten days and I am enjoying them immensely.

 

[Quink]

I think I'm the guy with the Variant you were referring to. I honed in on that paragraph so that is what I'm responding too. So adding the shim under the blade does increase the gap, but also adds thickness to the blade, double give or take depending on blade and tolerances. This added thickness should, in theory, improve the rigidity of the blade. The Variant (or Progress or insert any adjustable razor) would be ideal for testing shims for rigidity if you have one, because you can compensate for the increased gap. Adding in a blade increases the lowest setting on my Variant from the + to the 1 setting. Adding a shim changed it from the 1 to the 2. So a blade is about 1 setting worth of gap on my Variant, give or take a little. As long as you don't prefer shaving under a 2 for your gap, you can test out rigidity alone in it without having a change in gap by setting it at 2 each time. I do not have a micrometer to double check myself regarding the accuracy of adding blades/shims to the razor and resulting gap, but this is what makes sense to me in my personal experience.

As to changing the curvature of the blade itself: I have no idea of the geometry is changed much. It is possible that it is considerably different. My one and only shave with the shimmed Variant had significantly more blade feel than I am used to from it. It is possible that the blade exposure became more positive when before it was neutral or negative. I think that the improvement in shave was, however, the improved rigidity. I have started using my SE razors exclusively for the past week to ten days and I am enjoying them immensely.

Thank you so much... that's great information. I didn't mean to refer to you as "that guy". I'm sorry. I couldn't find the section,to reference you properly, right quick before I lost my train of thought... so sorry. Looking at my Progress... that makes sense... the perfect tool to test rigidity. As long as its mounted on the bottom of the blade... Interesting that it did change the feel, although you have the ability to adjust. Something I need to try!!! Thank you for the great response.

 

[Johnnynroy]

Thank you so much... that's great information. I didn't mean to refer to you as "that guy". I'm sorry. I couldn't find the section,to reference you properly, right quick before I lost my train of thought... so sorry. Looking at my Progress... that makes sense... the perfect tool to test rigidity. As long as its mounted on the bottom of the blade... Interesting that it did change the feel, although you have the ability to adjust. Something I need to try!!! Thank you for the great response.

Haha no worries at all good sir. I didn’t take the time to run through the whole thread to make sure it was me, but my guess based on the thread and my recent posts that it was. Glad it was helpful.

@OP, how goes the experiment? It seemed from the first few shaves that the rigidity was welcomed by your skin, but I could be wrong on that.

 

[rabidus]

But when placing the shim on top... that changes the blade geometry because now it should sit in there flatter. How does that effect rigidity?? Doesn't that automatically require the use of a different angle to the face to (over dramatizing here) avoid "scraping" the blade instead of cutting/slicing/chopping across the stubble??

Depends on how or narrow you cut the shim! A narrow cut shim typically increases blade exposure when placed between the cap and blade. If you cut the shim as wide as the cap, then the blade shouldn't change original blade angle, but may actually decrease blade exposure.

 

[Esox]

Part of the reason that IMHO the Torque Slant came about... Thinner stock blades came into play (this is in the early days of DE's) to offer sharper edges... but the Old Types were designed to clamp down on a fairly rigid and thick blade... the thinner blades chattered(?) and weren't as smooth anymore(?). Hence the torquing of the blade to stiffen the edge... what are your thoughts on that?? Sorry for bumping in like this... but I'm interested in the outcome... also what would be interesting if its actually the rigidity that brings the good results or a change in the curving of the blade resulting in a smoother shave due to less exposure. On the gentleman with the Variant... since it has a different way of adjusting, by changing the blade gap only and the angle of the blade not changing its position within the confines of the top cap to base clamping surface..how would that be influenced??

Just for my better understanding... when a shim is placed under the blade... the angle/curvature of the blade doesn't change. Just basically increased gap.

But when placing the shim on top... that changes the blade geometry because now it should sit in there flatter. How does that effect rigidity?? Doesn't that automatically require the use of a different angle to the face to (over dramatizing here) avoid "scraping" the blade instead of cutting/slicing/chopping across the stubble??

Sorry... just having a bit of a hard time getting my geometry right and understanding the concept. Apologies for the rather dumb question.... sounds VERY interesting. Funny enough... I typically get a better shave off the LC... compared to the SC due to the SC being a touch more aggressive. Then again... I need to run more blades through it too. I just got my SC two weeks ago.

Thank you ...and interested in the results of the test!!!

The Gillette OLD types are very rigid designs and among the most rigid of all I believe. No blade should chatter in one unless something is bent or otherwise forcing the blade into a nonrigid state, no matter the blade thickness.

I do believe that a torqued blade from a slant design will help with rigidity, but a slant design doesnt constitute a rigid design just because it is torquing the blade.

I'm not sure how you define a "better" shave with a NEW LC over a shave with a NEW SC.

I dont think of the NEW SC as aggressive at all. It is extremely rigid and highly effective because of that. The blade edge cannot flex at all. The NEW LC is a different design not being as rigid.

NEW SC base on the left, NEW LC base on the right.



When the blade in a NEW LC contacts the stubble it can flex and that tiny amount of flex can act like, for lack of a better term, a spring or a shock absorber like in a car giving the impression of a smoother shave. Think of a NEW LC working like the suspension does in a typical car. Now think of the NEW SC being a much more rigid design acting like the suspension in a race car. Much less forgiving and letting you feel the surface of the road much more than you normally would.

The other thing I'm finding affects my shave quite a lot is blade gap. Several samples of NEW SC base plates were measured by rabidus, all measured the same .023"/.58mm. When several samples of NEW LC bases were measured by him, he found they varied between I believe .015"/.38mm to over .030"/.76mm. Thats a considerable difference.

To the best of my knowledge, the Gillette NEW SC base plate was the only one made by Gillette to the exact same specs. No others I've read about of have been.

I've found in the last 2 - 3 weeks of shaving with my Fatip Grande, that the less gap a razor has, given its a rigid design as every razor I own is a rigid design now, the more comfortable the shave.

I've put down my thoughts on that here:

Irritation is something that I've always battled because I think, I have sensitive skin. I can get irritation from either dull blades and needing to apply more pressure forcing them to cut more effectively, or from sharp blades that just shave me too close. The latter however being a weakness in technique more than anything, or perhaps, a side effect of a sharp blade combined with gap in a razors design.

One thing I've noticed is, this Grande is a more comfortable razor for me to use than my NEW SC. As much as I do like that razor, its very rigid and a very good design, I'm learning that I dont like the gap it has and I'm beginning to think I really dont like any gap.

Its my thinking that with the gap my NEW SC has, the wave of skin ahead of the blade, for lack of a better term, can get slightly pinched between the comb and the blade, essentially forcing that tiny amount of skin against the blade edge increasing friction on my skin. Think of a Gillette adjustable and turning the dial up. That adjusts the gap, and makes the razor more aggressive while at the same time, making that pinch point larger to cut a broader area more aggressively.

That also may be one reason why the NEW SC is so effective. That very slight pinch is helping to force the hairs too be cut. This is why I learned with that razor that 2 1/2 pass shaves were good, 3 passes still being okay. The more passes I'd use, the more irritation I would end up with because it would accumulate with the number of extra passes. With my NEW SC, smoothness of a blade was more important than sharpness of a blade.

The Fatip razors, being an extremely rigid design with no gap whatsoever to speak of give me a more comfortable shave because theres less friction against my skin. As long as I get the angle right, with a sharp blade, the stubble has no escape. The razor cant skip because of the rigidity, and with a sharp blade, the stubble cant bend or flex. Combined with the exposure, these razors are the ultimate in efficiency in my mind. I just need a sharp blade to cut my coarse dense growth as easily as possible, and at the same time I appreciate the smoothness from certain blades.

See the pictures below of the blade gap between my Fatip Grande, NEW SC and Gillette post war Tech.



Now blade exposure and angle of the edge for each of the same razors.



My shaves with the NEW SC I keep to under 3 passes, and because of its rigidity, I can have a BBS shave in 2 1/2 passes consistently. If I use more than 3 passes, I start getting irritation that builds and compounds with each consecutive pass. I believe that a result of the gap combined with my skin type.

With my Tech I usually need 6 passes, even with a Feather blade because its such a mild, but extremely rigid razor. With that many passes, my skin gets irritated even though it is such a mild razor. Its not effective or efficient enough for me.

With my Fatip Grande, being another extremely rigid design, with virtually no gap at all, I've had the same BBS shave with a single ATG pass and at best so far, one very light clean up. It can do in one quick ATG pass, what takes my Tech five passes to accomplish.

At the same time my use of a Kai blade in my Fatip Grande, took me four ATG passes for the same BBS finish, and yet I had no irritation at all. I feel if I had used that blade in a razor with as much gap as my NEW SC has, after than many passes I would have been peeling skin because of the gap.

In my Fatip because it has such little gap combined with generous exposure of a very rigid blade edge, as long as I maintain the correct angle, which for me is shallow, with a very sharp blade like Gillette Yellow I feel nothing, at all, and only hear the stubble being cut.

 

[slybrewguy]

I have to agree with pretty much everything esox said above.

Regarding heavily torqued slants adding to rigidity... Take a look at the paa bocs w/blade loaded. That is a really torqued head but has so much blade exposure that the blade can chatter and flex like no other razor I've used.

 

[Chan Eil Whiskers]

I have to agree with pretty much everything esox said above.

Regarding heavily torqued slants adding to rigidity... Take a look at the paa bocs w/blade loaded. That is a really torqued head but has so much blade exposure that the blade can chatter and flex like no other razor I've used.

The blade is far more rigid than that. However, to make the blade in the P-BOCS as rigid as it should be the handle has to be quite tight.

 

[Quink]

The Gillette OLD types are very rigid designs and among the most rigid of all I believe. No blade should chatter in one unless something is bent or otherwise forcing the blade into a nonrigid state, no matter the blade thickness.

I do believe that a torqued blade from a slant design will help with rigidity, but a slant design doesnt constitute a rigid design just because it is torquing the blade.

I'm not sure how you define a "better" shave with a NEW LC over a shave with a NEW SC.

I dont think of the NEW SC as aggressive at all. It is extremely rigid and highly effective because of that. The blade edge cannot flex at all. The NEW LC is a different design not being as rigid.

NEW SC base on the left, NEW LC base on the right.

View attachment 832913 View attachment 832914

When the blade in a NEW LC contacts the stubble it can flex and that tiny amount of flex can act like, for lack of a better term, a spring or a shock absorber like in a car giving the impression of a smoother shave. Think of a NEW LC working like the suspension does in a typical car. Now think of the NEW SC being a much more rigid design acting like the suspension in a race car. Much less forgiving and letting you feel the surface of the road much more than you normally would.

The other thing I'm finding affects my shave quite a lot is blade gap. Several samples of NEW SC base plates were measured by rabidus, all measured the same .023"/.58mm. When several samples of NEW LC bases were measured by him, he found they varied between I believe .015"/.38mm to over .030"/.76mm. Thats a considerable difference.

To the best of my knowledge, the Gillette NEW SC base plate was the only one made by Gillette to the exact same specs. No others I've read about of have been.

I've found in the last 2 - 3 weeks of shaving with my Fatip Grande, that the less gap a razor has, given its a rigid design as every razor I own is a rigid design now, the more comfortable the shave.

I've put down my thoughts on that here:



See the pictures below of the blade gap between my Fatip Grande, NEW SC and Gillette post war Tech.

View attachment 832907 View attachment 832908 View attachment 832909

Now blade exposure and angle of the edge for each of the same razors.

View attachment 832911 View attachment 832912 View attachment 832910

My shaves with the NEW SC I keep to under 3 passes, and because of its rigidity, I can have a BBS shave in 2 1/2 passes consistently. If I use more than 3 passes, I start getting irritation that builds and compounds with each consecutive pass. I believe that a result of the gap combined with my skin type.

With my Tech I usually need 6 passes, even with a Feather blade because its such a mild, but extremely rigid razor. With that many passes, my skin gets irritated even though it is such a mild razor. Its not effective or efficient enough for me.

With my Fatip Grande, being another extremely rigid design, with virtually no gap at all, I've had the same BBS shave with a single ATG pass and at best so far, one very light clean up. It can do in one quick ATG pass, what takes my Tech five passes to accomplish.

At the same time my use of a Kai blade in my Fatip Grande, took me four ATG passes for the same BBS finish, and yet I had no irritation at all. I feel if I had used that blade in a razor with as much gap as my NEW SC has, after than many passes I would have been peeling skin because of the gap.

In my Fatip because it has such little gap combined with generous exposure of a very rigid blade edge, as long as I maintain the correct angle, which for me is shallow, with a very sharp blade like Gillette Yellow I feel nothing, at all, and only hear the stubble being cut.

Wow... thank you so much for the explanation. That's one heck of a write up... very interesting. It looks like I will have to get that Fatip now

The part where you explained it with the suspension. Made perfect sense... its probably why I get a more comfortable shave... and its interesting that there are differences between the LC razors... but not the SC. I guess its luck of the draw what you get on an LC... that would explain why my Canadian LC shaves me just a touch better than the US made one... Its all starting to make more sense now!!! Brilliant!! Thank you so much for taking the time and explaining it...

I agree with the PAA OCSlant... thats a lot of blade edge showing.. and that it flexes makes sense. One of the guys that has that razor has actually mentioned that with some of the thinner blades it can throw a wrinkle/curve into the blade. He went for a different blade (probably thicker stock) and it didn't throw the wrinkle. Just to verify he went back to the first blade... did it again. So it goes to show that the slant is the solution to the rigidity issue. It depends on the design of the razor. I wonder if there is a sticky to list the razors according to rigidity... would be interesting.

Thank you again!!! It was extremely helpful!!!

PS: was that the MK1 or MK2 Fatip used??