What's new

Thin Cap Gillette Old Type - most technically correct design ever?

Another option could be to pay known manufacturers of CNC made razors for producing a number of razors and giving them the right to sell the razor under their brand...
 
View attachment 1290447
There would be a number of different ways to implement the alignment rib design into the Old Type, depending upon manufacturing methodology/operations. Here's the simplest, design wise. Adding corner alignment taps would probably require extra operations on the base plate and cap, depending on the manufacturing method.

After thinking about it I would like to 3d print it. Would you send me the file for sending it to a 3d printing service?
 
After thinking about it I would like to 3d print it. Would you send me the file for sending it to a 3d printing service?
The issue you will have with plastic 3D printing is that the processes which use materials robust enough to make the razor useable probably won’t be accurate or detailed enough. And the processes which are capable of providing the accuracy and detail, don’t use materials that are robust enough. The metal 3D printing process could do it, but the finish won’t be to expected consumer standards I wouldn’t think, and the thread action would not be very smooth. But I could be wrong.
Thinking about it properly now, even CNC machining of the Gillette Old Type might not be easy, and may require micro-milling. If so mass production techniques would be required to replicate the design cheaply, with large tooling costs then being the issue.
I will have to check the open comb dimensions, and if required, put on my thinking cap and see what can be done to make the design more inexpensively feasible, without compromising the intent of the design too much. Something to do next week.
 
Last edited:
Putting aside user technique, and personal preferences, which can ultimately be adjusted to match a razors geometry/weight/balance/etc, is there another double edge safety razor design that can compare with the minimalistic and simplistic design theory of the thin cap Gillette Old Type with regards to all of the following?

Smoothness: Blade being rigidly clamped between the cap and base plate along its entire length, as close to the blade cutting edge as possible, which minimises blade flex and allows for shaving in all grain directions with equal ease.

Efficiency: Sufficient blade exposure to easily, and without clogging, remove a number of days beard growth, without being excessively aggressive to the point of frequent blood loss involving anything less than perfect shaving form.

Manoeuvrability: The thinnest cap and base plate combination possible, which provides the easiest of access to all of the trickiest areas that have to be dealt with.

Many razors, past and present, may be able to match, or better, the thin cap Gillette Old Type in some of these areas, but can any of them do it all?

It’s only natural, and understandable, that razor companies over the years have produced designs to meet the differing personal preferences of the shaving public. But the thin cap Gillette Old Type design seems to have fallen completely off the table. Is there no room left, or interest in, possibly the “purest” of all of the double edge safety razor designs, which admittedly might require more user adjustment, but offers great versatility once mastered? The safest straight razor ever made, or is that pure hyperbole? Does anyone currently make a true representation of it?

I know that many may disagree with some of the analysis here, as I’ve read that some find this design harsh, and aggressive. But I’m speaking purely objectively about the technical aspects of the design, and the performance that should result from these.

My Canadian Thin Cap is sure sweet. :001_wub:
 
Once I've adjusted the design to suit CNC machining, whilst still keeping everything as "minimal" as possible, this is what we end up with.

The only remaining revision that could make things easier would be a tri-planar cap, instead of a curved one.

GILLETTE NEW OLD TYPE FOR CNC 1.jpg

GILLETTE NEW OLD TYPE FOR CNC 2.jpg

GILLETTE NEW OLD TYPE FOR CNC 3.jpg
 
Once I've adjusted the design to suit CNC machining, whilst still keeping everything as "minimal" as possible, this is what we end up with.

The only remaining revision that could make things easier would be a tri-planar cap, instead of a curved one.

View attachment 1291892
View attachment 1291893
View attachment 1291894
A non-curved cap seems to me to be a pretty substantial variance from the original. What's the point then?

Sent from my Google Chromebook Pixel (2015) using Tapatalk
 
A non-curved cap seems to me to be a pretty substantial variance from the original. What's the point then?

Sent from my Google Chromebook Pixel (2015) using Tapatalk
Visually yes, but dimensionally, or performance-wise, maybe not. It should make it cheaper to machine, with less finishing.

Although I would need someone with more CNC production machining experience to confirm what is easiest and cheapest.
 

Attachments

  • GILLETTE NEW OLD TYPE FOR CNC 4.jpg
    GILLETTE NEW OLD TYPE FOR CNC 4.jpg
    423.4 KB · Views: 11
Visually yes, but dimensionally, or performance-wise, maybe not. It should make it cheaper to machine, with less finishing.

Although I would need someone with more CNC production machining experience to confirm what is easiest and cheapest.
I get the cheaper part, but it obviously alters blade clamping/rigidity. Guess I misunderstood the point of the project.

Sent from my Google Chromebook Pixel (2015) using Tapatalk
 
I get the cheaper part, but it obviously alters blade clamping/rigidity. Guess I misunderstood the point of the project.

Sent from my Google Chromebook Pixel (2015) using Tapatalk
The project is morphing that's true. I'm now just exploring how I would need to adjust the design to make it suitable for easy CNC manufacture, rather than mass production, whilst still keeping it as close to the original in terms of design principles.
It's still "minimal" in dimensions, being very, very close to the Thin Cap Gillette Old Type, has the same zero blade gap, and identical blade exposure. The blade is fully clamped along the centreline, and as close as the original design along the cutting edge of the blade. My Thin Cap Gillette Old Type has a larger gap in the middle between the cap and base plate, so it doesn't fully sandwich clamp the blade anyway.
The reason I'm interested in adjusting things to suit CNC machining is that this would probably be the only possibility for getting a design like this made these days, as tooling up to produce an exact copy of the original would be very expensive, and very unlikely.
 
A Gillette Adjustable blade exposure chart I found lists the blade exposure for the numbered settings as follows.

Setting 1: 0.001mm
Setting 5: 0.005mm
Setting 9: 0.009mm

So the blade exposure for a Gillette Adjustable supposedly moves in increments of 0.001mm.

I've read that a Gillette Old Type has been compared to a Gillette Adjustable on a setting of 9, but I'm not sure if this is to be trusted, given that blade gap will make a difference to the aggressiveness as well, due to the slight deformation of the skin, and face curvature, that will push more into a larger blade gap. The Old Type has zero blade gap.

It's very difficult to physically measure blade exposure of a razor head, so I'm wondering what the actual designed blade exposure dimension is for the Old Type. From what I've constructed I'm looking at somewhere between 0.003mm and 0.007mm.
 
A Gillette Adjustable blade exposure chart I found lists the blade exposure for the numbered settings as follows.

Setting 1: 0.001mm
Setting 5: 0.005mm
Setting 9: 0.009mm

So the blade exposure for a Gillette Adjustable supposedly moves in increments of 0.001mm.

I've read that a Gillette Old Type has been compared to a Gillette Adjustable on a setting of 9, but I'm not sure if this is to be trusted, given that blade gap will make a difference to the aggressiveness as well, due to the slight deformation of the skin, and face curvature, that will push more into a larger blade gap. The Old Type has zero blade gap.

It's very difficult to physically measure blade exposure of a razor head, so I'm wondering what the actual designed blade exposure dimension is for the Old Type. From what I've constructed I'm looking at somewhere between 0.003mm and 0.007mm.

I don't know what you are talking about, though maybe you do.

But I do know how wide 0.001mm is. It is just barely big enough for one wavelength of light to pass through.

I do know that 0.009mm is wide enough to allow a strand of spider silk through.

I'm pretty sure that most people's whiskers are wider than a spider web, though I could be wrong. I often am. (However, if a spiderweb strand were as thick as a human's whisker, would we be able to cut it with a razor blade?)

I also know that 0.1mm = 1/10th of a millimeter.

0.01mm = 1/100th of a millimeter.

0.001 = 1/1000th of a millimeter.

What, you don't believe me? You say, that's just your opinion. I am entitled to my own facts.

Perhaps this will be helpful:

hairs in microns b.jpg


Or maybe not. I just found it on the Web in a set of images, so I cannot attest to its veracity.

I don't mean to look like a know-it-all, but I also know that 1/1000th of a millimeter is called a "micron," aka "micrometer." (Some birdbrain with the metric standards nomenclature "If it ain't broke, let's fix it" committee came up with the brilliant idea of changing the name of a "micron" to a "micrometer." What else is called a "micrometer"? That little caliper screw thingy that measures very small distances.

If "meter" means measure, and "micro" means very small, what's the Latin or Greek word for "thingy"? According to Google Translate, thingy in Latin is thingy. However, in Greek it is σκατά, pronounced skatá, which it so happens is a primary four-letter expletive in Greek, so I don't think the Metric Standards NIIABLFI committee will go for it. (However, if you want to curse in public without repercussions, remember: skatá! Not recommended if you are actually in Greece.) "However, "thing" in Latin is "rem." So perhaps they could rename the micrometer thing, micrometerrem, to distinguish it from the unit of measurement, micrometer, that used to be called micron. Or not. I can figure out which is which, probably because I am a human. But I'm afraid this is going to confuse online search engines, which are not.

But what really puzzles me is why, if, like the original, your Gillette Old Type Mk II will have no blade gap, are you talking about blade gaps on a Gillette adjustable? I can't think of two more completely different razors.

Now, if you could make an "adjustable" that looks and shaves like an Old Type, you might be on to something. Of course, one way would be to allow the user to slide the blade from side to side to customize the blade exposure. Or you could come up with a vernier dial screw adjustment to do it with the absolute precision, down to 0.01 nanometers, that B&B members demand from a $50 razor. Just be sure to plate it in rhodium.
 
Last edited:
The Tech is perfect. I agree.

I have a Tech, a very nice gold plated Tech. My first razor was a Tech. I know how a Tech shaves. I don't like Techs. But this morning, as it happens, I put a fresh blade in my Tech, mostly out of curiosity, and tried shaving with it. I gave up and moved the blade to an Old Type. It was like night and day, like shaving with a butter knife vs. a scalpel. Same blade. It was not one of my super-sharp blades, but rather my more average testing brand.

My opinion of the Ambassador TTO, Milord, Slim and the adjustables (including an Ambassador in mint condition) is not much better. I didn't like the Gillette razors of the Sixties when I shaved with them then, back before the invention of cartridge razors. But I decided try them again, after reading the constant hammering of recommendations on this site. I sill don't like them. In fact, my opinion of them is far lower now, now that I have had a chance to shave with good razors. It was a complete waste of money.

I, like the vast majority of American males shaving in the early 1970s, couldn't switch fast enough to cartridges like the Wilkinson Bonded Blade or Trak II because Gillette DE razors of that era were not good. Aside from considering a Hoffritz slant in a store, I never looked back. And the fact is the modern incarnation of the Wilkinson Bonded Blade, the 25 cent BIC Sensitive single blade razor, provides a far better shave than any Gillette razor made from the 1940s, on. It's closer, faster and smoother. That BIC's only competition is the Old Type. (I do not use any other cartridge razor.)

If Gillette razors had been better designed, cartridge razors never would have caught on.

Apparently, your definition of "perfect," when it comes to shaving, is different from mine. In this post-truth 21st century you are free to define words and facts any way you feel like, especially when you do so jointly as a group. There is no reality anymore. Only nostalgia.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what you are talking about, though maybe you do.

But I do know how wide 0.001mm is. It is just barely big enough for one wavelength of light to pass through.

I do know that 0.009mm is wide enough to allow a strand of spider silk through.

I'm pretty sure that most people's whiskers are wider than a spider web, though I could be wrong. I often am. (However, if a spiderweb strand were as thick as a human's whisker, would we be able to cut it with a razor blade?)

I also know that 0.1mm = 1/10th of a millimeter.

0.01mm = 1/100th of a millimeter.

0.001 = 1/1000th of a millimeter.

What, you don't believe me? You say, that's just your opinion. I am entitled to my own facts.

Perhaps this will be helpful:

View attachment 1292036

Or maybe not. I just found it on the Web in a set of images, so I cannot attest to its veracity.

I don't mean to look like a know-it-all, but I also know that 1/1000th of a millimeter is called a "micron," aka "micrometer." (Some birdbrain with the metric standards nomenclature "If it ain't broke, let's fix it" committee came up with the brilliant idea of changing the name of a "micron" to a "micrometer." What else is called a "micrometer"? That little caliper screw thingy that measures very small distances.

If "meter" means measure, and "micro" means very small, what's the Latin or Greek word for "thingy"? According to Google Translate, thingy in Latin is thingy. However, in Greek it is σκατά, pronounced skatá, which it so happens is a primary four-letter expletive in Greek, so I don't think the Metric Standards NIIABLFI committee will go for it. (However, if you want to curse in public without repercussions, remember: skatá! Not recommended if you are actually in Greece.) "However, "thing" in Latin is "rem." So perhaps they could rename the micrometer thing, micrometerrem, to distinguish it from the unit of measurement, micrometer, that used to be called micron. Or not. I can figure out which is which, probably because I am a human. But I'm afraid this is going to confuse online search engines, which are not.

But what really puzzles me is why, if, like the original, your Gillette Old Type Mk II will have no blade gap, are you talking about blade gaps on a Gillette adjustable? I can't think of two more completely different razors.

Now, if you could make an "adjustable" that looks and shaves like an Old Type, you might be on to something. Of course, one way would be to allow the user to slide the blade from side to side to customize the blade exposure. Or you could come up with a vernier dial screw adjustment to do it with the absolute precision, down to 0.01 nanometers, that B&B members demand from a $50 razor. Just be sure to plate it in rhodium.
Correct you are sir. I think we might be dealing with measurements in inches rather than millimetres. I’m so used to metric I just default to it.
Here’s where I got my numbers from. But even in inches it’s pretty small. Maybe they’re “Gillemetres”. I’m getting between 0.03mm (not 0.003mm) and 0.07mm (not 0.007mm) - sorry, decimal place disease.
 
Last edited:
Correct you are sir. I think we might be dealing with measurements in inches rather than millimetres. I’m so used to metric I just default to it.
Here’s where I got my numbers from. But even in inches it’s pretty small. Maybe they’re “Gillemetres”.


That would do it.

In the U.S. we've been using both metric and Imperial units since about the 1970s. I measure and brew coffee in metric units because it is more convenient, but most cooking is still done here in Imperial units of cups, teaspoons, etc. Did you know that one teaspoon of tea equals 2 grams, the same weight as the tea in a teabag? So the teaspoon was used to measure tea, by the British. But I could be wrong, as I often am.

What I dislike is trying to use air conditioners in metric. Fahrenheit set the unit of 1 degree F as the smallest difference in temperature a person could detect. If you use an air conditioner set in Fahrenheit, you will quickly see that you can tell the difference between 69 degrees and 68 degrees. But if you use an air conditioner in Celsius, you will soon wish you could set it between 20 and 21 degrees. The one I had allowed this if you pressed the right combination of keys on the remote, but you had to do it each time you wanted change the temperature, which was perplexing if you were trying to sleep. If you read more about the Fahrenheit scale, you might understand its rationale.

I've been using this site for decades now. Perhaps it will be helpful:


Always, always, always double check, triple check numbers. Never take anyone's word for them, no matter how sure they seem to be. Sometimes, believe it or not, people make mistakes.

If you don't believe me, just listen to this song:


BTW, thanks for the good laugh.

-=-0
 
This would now suggest the following.
Setting 1: 0.025mm
Setting 5: 0.13mm
Setting 9: 0.23mm
Sound better?


Sure, if you're shaving spider webs.

Are you asking me? I sure hope not.

I haven't a clue what you are doing.

Remind me again, how are you going to put settings on an Old Type?

I wonder if spiders shave?

Perhaps someone else can help you.

Have a nice day.

I'm outta here.


-=-

A footnote to an earlier post:

For those who missed the Sixties and Seventies, cartridges caught on like wildfire in the U.S. in part because cartridges had top-notch sharp blades back then. The Wilkinson was fantastic, the blades lasted for weeks, and you never cut yourself. And they were cheap, being imported from England.

Nowadays, if someone quits cartridges for DE razors, it is often because of the poor quality of many moderately priced name brand cartridge razors and the excessive price of good ones. A lot of guys just give up and quit shaving, either growing a beard or shaving twice a month. That's what you get when you let an oligopoly mostly control an industry. But Gillette was nearly a monopoly in the U.S. back in the Fifties and Sixties.

Yes, the Old Type really is a great razor. Perfect, I'm not so sure. The New Standard flat bottom and the British OC flat bottom are excellent, too. But there are some fine closed comb razors not named Gillette, including ones that are not expensive.

Do try the BIC Sensitive. It is edifying. You might want to analyze the angles, blade gap and exposure, and compare it to the Old Type. It sure shaves a lot like an old type. (I wonder what would happen if I cut off part of the guard and made it open comb?) And you wouldn't believe how long the blade lasts.

There's more than one way to shave a face.
 
Last edited:
Given that I know that the edge to edge and thickness measurements of my Gillette Old Type are pretty accurate, I can only get to a maximum of around 0.12mm blade exposure by adding the largest radii I can fit on the corresponding cap and base plate edges (these are pretty much impossible to measure manually). This would correspond to a Gillette Adjustable on around setting 5. I must admit I’ve not found my Gillette Old Type particularly aggresive. Maybe this is the correct figure.
All I’m trying to do is make sure the blade exposure my design produces is a sensible number dimensionally. I’m merely using the Gillette Adjustable blade exposure measurements as a reference check to make sure I’m at least within a factorial of being correct.
 
Last edited:
Three things:

1) We could and probably should stick with the word micron to avoid confusion in print, but spoken the two words do not sound alike. The instrument is pronounced my-KROM-muh-ter while the distance is pronounced MY-kroh-me-ter. (By the way, kilometer, while often mispronounced, is actually pronounced KILL-oh-me-ter. The incorrect pronunciation is from falsely equating the word with instruments like the common speedometer that is also spelled with an 'o' right before the 'meter.' We don't say mill-LIM-uh-ter or cen-TIM-uh-ter; similarly, there is no reason we should say kill-AHM-uh-ter.)

2) The discussion of blade gaps in Gillette adjustables is interesting, but it should be noted that the gaps of the various razors is not the same. For example, setting 3 on a standard D4 Toggle has approximately the same gap as setting 6 on a standard Fatboy from the same year.

3) Yes, the British flat-bottom New is a fantastic shaver.
 
Top Bottom