it took me a few shaves with this razor to get the efficiency I like, it’s a very easy razor to use and I personally don’t use any pressure with it and I get a very good shave, DFS/near BBS. What I really love about this razor is it leaves my skin completely untouched and my neck later in the day doesn’t get irritated from the hair growing back. I love the Voskhods blades as I find them sharp, smooth, comfortable and forgiving. I can’t recommend this razor enough to people.
Timeless Bronze .38 Review and Analysis
- Thread starter TheKman
- Start date
I'm reading as many reviews on this razor - it's getting to me.
I've the ATT bronze and thinking of adding another bronze razor.
Are you going to allow a patina to develop on this razor or are you going to keep it shiny?
In fact, I'd like to see some pics on how the (patina) finish is coming along from other Timeless bronze owners.
I've the ATT bronze and thinking of adding another bronze razor.
Are you going to allow a patina to develop on this razor or are you going to keep it shiny?
In fact, I'd like to see some pics on how the (patina) finish is coming along from other Timeless bronze owners.
- Thread starter
- #23
I've tried Voskhod in other razors before and found them quite tuggy.
I'm not going to go out of my way to keep it shiny, no. Though I will treat it with the same care as the rest; clean and dry it after use, oil the threads occasionally, etc.
Oh, hell, I didn't let that stop me. I have a plastic surgeon friend who lives near by - after I shave with the straight razor, I just have him come over the house, smear Bacitracin antibiotic ointment all over my face as an after shave balm and then wrap the lower half of my head and my neck up with gauze like a mummy.
A week later I'm fine and ready for my next straight razor shave!
I want my Bronze Timeless to eventually turn chocolate brown like my vintage old K cymbals. But I'm not so impatient that I'll expose the thing to hard boiled eggs, etc.!
Anyway I doubt that anybody's Bronze Timeless is showing patina - the razor hasn't been distributed to the public for that long yet!!
I think the eggs would result in a green color. Chlorine should have the same result. If you are after the black color a warm most environment will take care of that. You could search for ways to accelerate that color on an internet, if you have one of those.
I wonder if popping it in a steamer for a bit would do something?
I wonder if popping it in a steamer for a bit would do something?
Sulfur in the eggs should turn it brown and if left longer then to black.
- Thread starter
- #27
I'd recommend therapy, but it's not working for me either.... then wrap the lower half of my head and my neck up with gauze like a mummy.
A week later I'm fine and ready for my next straight razor shave!
Shave Report 3#: Timeless Bronze, Feather Hi-Stainless, Simpson Chubby 1 Supper, Fat 'as soap, warm shower and cool shave water.
It's clear the bronze does it's best work with a sharper blade, the Feather is a pretty good match. I usually have a few minor nicks to show for any outing with a Feather blade and today was no different, though I only have one today which is a pleasant surprise.
Knowing how the Feather can cut me up I treated this shave with the same respect I would any shave with this blade, regardless of the razor. First pass XTG was very much as expected, fast and efficient. Second pass ATG I tread lightly and was rewarded with a near BBS shave all around. During the final clean up pass I decided to push it a little and see how far I could go. Result was a better shave than the first, all but one or two of the lower neck whiskers are gone and with no more alum sting than the first shave, which was quite low. Colour me impressed.
Conclusions:
There's no doubt this will be considered a mild razor by the great majority of users. If my own preference plays into that perception then perhaps it's 'very mild'? It does occur to me that a very small blade gap could mean that only a finite quantity of stubble can be removed in one pass, which may account for the number of users returning these. However, at this early stage it appears to be well suited to someone who enjoys a mild, daily shave as I do.
The good? Aesthetics are nice, quality of manufacture is as high as we'd come to expect from Timeless, I note no anomalies in geometry that can be seen with the naked eye and the shave is excellent. @UserNameTaken made the comment the it leaves his skin 'untouched' which I don't quite agreed with, however, there certainly seems to be a finite limit to the amount of damage you can do with conventional technique, unlike any other razor I've tried.
The bad? I've mentioned that I'm not actually a fan of bronze, I bought it with a mind to assess the geometry more than anything, so I'd be happier if it were in stainless. Other than that nothing to speak of.
One final note on maintenance, I cleaned and lubricated the threads today, which I do whenever I change blades, and found a definite green residue released from the inside of the handle. I've never worked with bronze in this context before, so perhaps it's a good idea to start this practice if you don't already.
Next up I'll be taking some photos and posting some specs.
Just don't buy anything else, OK? The wife is asking question I don't like answering.
Shave Report #2: Timeless Bronze, Perma-Sharp Super, Simpson Chubby 1 Supper, Fat 'as soap, tepid shower and cool shave water.
We had the first really warm night of spring in Melbourne last night, 28C in the house (~82F) so it was a less than warm shower, but whiskers were ready all the same.
Rather than change blades this morning I decided to experiment with pressure and angle, just to see how wide the range of acceptable parameters is. No great surprise then the range of pressure and angle is very wide while still achieving a great shave. Like the Rockwell it's very forgiving of too much pressure, though it does still reward a light touch. I don't think I'm getting the best out of this razor with the Perm-Sharp Super though, the combo gets me a very comfortable and close shave in short order, but a really close shave requires just a bit too much effort.
End result was not quite as good as yesterday because the blade had reached the end of it's life with four shaves on it, but BBS mostly. I'll definitely try some different blades next as I feel there's untapped potential here. My instincts tell me sharper is best, so Feather up next.
I used several blades, the last was a new Feather. I was unable to achieve a BBS even after the 3rd ATG pass. My Timeless SS .9x was able to provide a BBS with only 2 passes. A beautiful Razor, but I need a more aggressive Bronze. I'll purchase again when it's available
- Thread starter
- #29
So, I'm still working out how to get a decent macro shot of the razor with any depth of field, but this one has at least sufficed to take some measurements. Unfortunately a full frame DSLR isn't ideal for this sort of work. The shadow you can see between the base plate and the blade is the lather slots out of focus in the background and the blade installed is a Feather Hi-Stainless.
Cap Span: 1.63mm
Guard Span: 1.01mm
Blade Angle: 29.5 degrees
Free End Length: 1.59mm
Clamp Length: 2.12mm
Blade Exposure: 0mm (too small to make a meaningful measurement)
I'll attempt to make some shots of other razors to get a comparison point. Please pardon the debris in the image, I was so 'focused' on the shot I didn't even notice the intruders. :S
The surprise for me was the zero blade exposure. This is the only razor I've tried that has this feature which might go some way to explaining why it has a finite limit to the damage it can do. Otherwise this configuration bears a remarkable resemblance to the Rockwell 6S plate #2 with the exception of the wider safety bar and positive blade exposure.
Observations:
1) I confirmed that the blade gap is accurate to +-0.02mm, so the measurements definitely differ from the stated blade gap of 0.38mm.
2) Measured blade gap was consistent to +-0.06mm across the length and both sides.
3) I took several other measurements which I haven't listed here to confirm that surfaces were flat and straight and on every count the tolerance was less than 0.04mm. None of them is notable in the context of the shaving experience, but it was reassuring to confirm that all were very tight at less than half the thickness of a blade.
4) Play between the cap/blade and between the cap/base were so low that I wasn't able to reliably measure them, save to say that they appear to be less that 0.08mm
In essence, everything about this razor so far screams of quality manufacturing. I believe the reason for Timeless' relative lack of polish on this razor is because they don't want to screw around with the various tolerances by removing unnecessary material from the control surfaces. A loaded buffing wheel could easily remove 50um of material in short order.
I'll keep trying to get better shots, but this will have to do until I find a better means.
Cap Span: 1.63mm
Guard Span: 1.01mm
Blade Angle: 29.5 degrees
Free End Length: 1.59mm
Clamp Length: 2.12mm
Blade Exposure: 0mm (too small to make a meaningful measurement)
I'll attempt to make some shots of other razors to get a comparison point. Please pardon the debris in the image, I was so 'focused' on the shot I didn't even notice the intruders. :S
The surprise for me was the zero blade exposure. This is the only razor I've tried that has this feature which might go some way to explaining why it has a finite limit to the damage it can do. Otherwise this configuration bears a remarkable resemblance to the Rockwell 6S plate #2 with the exception of the wider safety bar and positive blade exposure.
Observations:
1) I confirmed that the blade gap is accurate to +-0.02mm, so the measurements definitely differ from the stated blade gap of 0.38mm.
2) Measured blade gap was consistent to +-0.06mm across the length and both sides.
3) I took several other measurements which I haven't listed here to confirm that surfaces were flat and straight and on every count the tolerance was less than 0.04mm. None of them is notable in the context of the shaving experience, but it was reassuring to confirm that all were very tight at less than half the thickness of a blade.
4) Play between the cap/blade and between the cap/base were so low that I wasn't able to reliably measure them, save to say that they appear to be less that 0.08mm
In essence, everything about this razor so far screams of quality manufacturing. I believe the reason for Timeless' relative lack of polish on this razor is because they don't want to screw around with the various tolerances by removing unnecessary material from the control surfaces. A loaded buffing wheel could easily remove 50um of material in short order.
I'll keep trying to get better shots, but this will have to do until I find a better means.
I love technology. Thanks.
Great review! Enjoy the razor.
Love my Timeless bronze. I prefer a mild, yet efficient razor ant the bronze really shines for me here. I really like the weight as I believe this helps with shave efficiency. I've been using mine now for about 3 weeks off and on and it's becoming my favorite for close, irritation free shaves. My face feels great after using this razor. I have some razors that no matter how careful I am leave my face with a bit of discomfort....not the bronze.....nice smooth shaves every time.
Yes! Excellent! Great job, Dave!
You know that I love your picture, right? 
Given what you've written about the razor, and given my measurements and experience with other razors, I'm not surprised at all by the measurements. The guard span of about 1 mm, the neutral blade exposure, and the 30 degree blade angle make a lot of sense. I love it! 
I have a few questions that are coming to mind:
1. How did you scale the photo to accurately measure distances?
2. About blade exposure being fairly neutral, did you physically check it with a small flat piece of something against the guard and cap? Fairly neutral blade exposure would basically make the piece touch both the guard and cap, but it will generally catch on the small flat piece if the piece is made of plastic. The reason that I ask is because I've generally found that close-up photographs undercut blade exposure a little because, in part, capturing the blade edge is tricky. If the photo shows neutral blade exposure, then the blade exposure is probably a little positive but still fairly neutral as you determined.
3. I'm glad that you measured blade gap. It looks like you did it digitally. Did you try physically measuring it with a feeler gauge along the blade edge? My physical blade gap measurements take precedence over my digital measurements, but they have been similar. It's interesting that your measurement (0.47 mm) is significantly different from the reported blade gap (0.38 mm). Assuming that you've done your photography, scaling, and physical examination of the razor right, I'd trust your measurement over the reported one. Is it possible, though, that the razor is not made consistently? (I have no idea how it's made.)
Thanks for considering my questions. You did a fantastic job!
- Thread starter
- #34
Agreed. I'm only a few shaves in but I noticed my skin just looks and feels nicer, not in a quantifiable way, just altogether good.
For @ShavingByTheNumbers:
1) I took several shots at a set distance from the lens, this is only one. This crop is from a full frame that covers the entire head with the blade edge at dead centre. I spent about 30 minutes finding the focal length that gave me the flattest image plane as even a very small margin at this focus distance (less the 30mm from lens to subject) can distort the image and give false measurements. The focal length used for this shot was 48mm using a Canon 5d MkIII, Canon 24-70L MkII and a 25mm macro tube. Once I had a reliable image I measured the width of the head at 22.50mm +- 0.05mm with a vernier and compared the pixel width of the reference shots to ensure they were consistent. Once I was happy with that it was a simple matter of converting to pixels per millimetre. With so many possible locations for error it would be folly to try and estimate what that error really is, but I verified a number of visual parameters in the shot to physical measurements and they're accurate to less than the error of the micrometer which is +-0.02mm.
2) I hear you on that point and I'd considered the same problem in fact. The reason it took so long to setup the shot is because the blade edge has to be exactly in the centre of the image to remove any possible distortion. I also made sure that the edge is perpendicular to the image plane using the depth of field preview feature of the camera at f/22. In this way I could ensure that the shave plane is also perpendicular to the image plane.
When I initially analysed the images to see if there was evidence of out-of-focus surfaces to the lower right of the shave plane (i.e. between the shave plane and the cap and plate) I was troubled to note that they appeared to be missing, indicating I had the alignment wrong. I later realised this was because the light reflecting from these surfaces was the same colour and intensity as the background. However, I do still hold concerns that the vanishing point is not on the blade edge as it should be which is why I still want to get a better shot. At least one of the test shots showed a negative blade exposure, but I soon realised I'd bumped the tripod and the alignment was off. Of the four images I got which could be used all of them showed practically neutral blade exposure. I say 'practically' because ultimately it will be something other than zero that I can't reasonably measure.
I did visually verify the neutral blade exposure with a steel straight edge, but my eyesight is no longer good enough to determine anything other than the fact it looked just like the picture. I'll give the plastic edge thing a go, this will at least tell me how good the shot it.
3) I did measure the blade gap with feelers at six points, three on each side. The one in the shot was accurate to within 0.01mm or less that the error of the micrometer, I measured 0.46mm +- 0.02mm at this point in the shot. Across all six measurements there was a variation of 0.06mm +-0.02mm. I consider this quite good and well withing the realms of difference which could be caused by blade inconsistency (width variance and warp are quite large on some blades) or very small debris (like a stray whisker!) caught between the cap and blade.
As I'm sure you'll agree, blade gap is inherently flawed as a measurement. Two people can measure it quite differently and I have no doubt this will have contributed to the variance. If there is a difference razor to razor, I'm at least reassured that my particular razor has very close tolerances.
Thanks for the praise! Until you started asking question I didn't really notice just how much mental effort goes into doing this work. I'm exhausted.
Agreed. I'm only a few shaves in but I noticed my skin just looks and feels nicer, not in a quantifiable way, just altogether good.
For @ShavingByTheNumbers:
1) I took several shots at a set distance from the lens, this is only one. This crop is from a full frame that covers the entire head with the blade edge at dead centre. I spent about 30 minutes finding the focal length that gave me the flattest image plane as even a very small margin at this focus distance (less the 30mm from lens to subject) can distort the image and give false measurements. The focal length used for this shot was 48mm using a Canon 5d MkIII, Canon 24-70L MkII and a 25mm macro tube. Once I had a reliable image I measured the width of the head at 22.50mm +- 0.05mm with a vernier and compared the pixel width of the reference shots to ensure they were consistent. Once I was happy with that it was a simple matter of converting to pixels per millimetre. With so many possible locations for error it would be folly to try and estimate what that error really is, but I verified a number of visual parameters in the shot to physical measurements and they're accurate to less than the error of the micrometer which is +-0.02mm.
2) I hear you on that point and I'd considered the same problem in fact. The reason it took so long to setup the shot is because the blade edge has to be exactly in the centre of the image to remove any possible distortion. I also made sure that the edge is perpendicular to the image plane using the depth of field preview feature of the camera at f/22. In this way I could ensure that the shave plane is also perpendicular to the image plane.
When I initially analysed the images to see if there was evidence of out-of-focus surfaces to the lower right of the shave plane (i.e. between the shave plane and the cap and plate) I was troubled to note that they appeared to be missing, indicating I had the alignment wrong. I later realised this was because the light reflecting from these surfaces was the same colour and intensity as the background. However, I do still hold concerns that the vanishing point is not on the blade edge as it should be which is why I still want to get a better shot. At least one of the test shots showed a negative blade exposure, but I soon realised I'd bumped the tripod and the alignment was off. Of the four images I got which could be used all of them showed practically neutral blade exposure. I say 'practically' because ultimately it will be something other than zero that I can't reasonably measure.
I did visually verify the neutral blade exposure with a steel straight edge, but my eyesight is no longer good enough to determine anything other than the fact it looked just like the picture. I'll give the plastic edge thing a go, this will at least tell me how good the shot it.
3) I did measure the blade gap with feelers at six points, three on each side. The one in the shot was accurate to within 0.01mm or less that the error of the micrometer, I measured 0.46mm +- 0.02mm at this point in the shot. Across all six measurements there was a variation of 0.06mm +-0.02mm. I consider this quite good and well withing the realms of difference which could be caused by blade inconsistency (width variance and warp are quite large on some blades) or very small debris (like a stray whisker!) caught between the cap and blade.
As I'm sure you'll agree, blade gap is inherently flawed as a measurement. Two people can measure it quite differently and I have no doubt this will have contributed to the variance. If there is a difference razor to razor, I'm at least reassured that my particular razor has very close tolerances.
Thanks for the praise! Until you started asking question I didn't really notice just how much mental effort goes into doing this work. I'm exhausted.
Now you know how I feel!
The details of your setup are so similar to mine. What you went through is so similar to what I go through in setting up shots. There is so much parallel in what you wrote that I'd almost think it uncanny, but it's what one naturally has to go through to do this stuff. It's refreshing, Dave, to hear someone else go through the process. 
At the similar distances or focal lengths that you and I are using, there is an issue, based on my experience, of taking a large distance away from the center of the image and comparing that to a physical measurement in order to get the scale. Distances get distorted and straight lines become curved in the image the farther you get from the center. I'm sure that your scale is good, though. It sure sounds like it.
It's great that you physically checked blade exposure and blade gap. Excellent! It's reassuring, I know, when digital measurements match very well to physical ones.
What you said about blade gap is very true. Two different people will get different measurements, probably more so than when making photo analysis measurements.Keep up the great analysis, Dave!
- Thread starter
- #36
Not uncanny at all, it's simply being scientific about the excersice idnit? I'm sure there are plenty of flaws in my system, but I've attempted to control for everything I can, you do the same I'm certain. Painful though it is.
Very true indeed. I suppose this is where having a good DSLR and professional lenses pays a dividend as I have the skills and the tools to control for that problem. The 48mm focal length of this particular lens - incidentally this is also why I chose a zoom rather than a fixed focal length, I have a 50mm which is sharper but distorts the image - projects an extremely flat image plane across the entire frame.
A reference image is used to select the 48mm focal length, but there is another problem with that as the focus distance also has a hand in distortion... how to control for that then? Simple actually, fixed manual focus and fixed focal length for both image types. The reference image for choosing the focal length is shot without the macro tube, the razor is shot with the macro tube.
The close-focus reference shots where of the razor at 29mm from the lens (2mm from glass to lens hood plus 27mm ruler width), one at dead centre of the blade edge, one at dead centre of the head at the same height. They showed identical widths to within 0.3%. I don't remember the pixel count now but I think it was around ten pixels difference. These shots had a slightly different subject distance as I was measuring the head, not the blade, so they don't really show us anything else meaningful beyond the fact that the reference images where very flat.
The shot pictured was taken at 27mm from the lens (2mm from glass to hood plus 25mm wide ruler) which puts the blade at the correct focus distance to get sharp measurements. Painstaking, no?
Off topic a little I guess, but I've learned the hard way over the years that very little in life just falls into place. Most things need to be placed carefully, sometimes with gaffer tape (read that any way you like
) or things invariably don't go to plan. I've made enough mistakes to know how to avoid some of them. Not uncanny at all, it's simply being scientific about the excersice idnit? I'm sure there are plenty of flaws in my system, but I've attempted to control for everything I can, you do the same I'm certain. Painful though it is.
Yep! Anyone who goes through a similar process can feel the pain.
You definitely know way more about cameras than I do. I am no photographer, that's for sure. I didn't know that you could do what you wrote about to compensate or correct for perspective. Getting a 0.3 % difference is amazing!
Off topic a little I guess, but I've learned the hard way over the years that very little in life just falls into place. Most things need to be placed carefully, sometimes with gaffer tape (read that any way you like
There's a lot of truth in what you said, Dave. The difficulty in measuring razors is why there are so few of us out there doing it.
- Thread starter
- #38
It's making me twitchy just thinking about it. I bought the ninth edition of "The Manual of Photography" which has a vast array of topics in depth to draw on. I say bought, because I've not been able to digest most of it.
Look it up and you'll know what I mean.I can read it in fits and starts for about an hour at a stretch before the twitching starts. Started in 2013 and last time I read for a solid two hours and nearly went insane. That was 2016.
I tell you what, when I last raised the idea of analysing razor geometry on another forum earlier this year the silence was deafening. Now we have the BOSC.
It's making me twitchy just thinking about it. I bought the ninth edition of "The Manual of Photography" which has a vast array of topics in depth to draw on. I say bought, because I've not been able to digest most of it.
I can read it in fits and starts for about an hour at a stretch before the twitching starts. Started in 2013 and last time I read for a solid two hours and nearly went insane. That was 2016.
Well, you must be doing something right. The quality of your photo is better than what I can do. Thankfully, the more that I advance my measurement techniques, the less important it is to capture close-up photographs. You'll see what I mean when my analysis of the Bevel razor comes around in the future.I tell you what, when I last raised the idea of analysing razor geometry on another forum earlier this year the silence was deafening. Now we have the BOSC.
I've been doing this since I started DE shaving and first started posting about it last year---see my first post from July 8, 2016---so I'm well acquainted with the reactions of others on this, some very receptive and some not so pleasant. Actually, I'd say that the resistance and skepticism that I used to get last year has significantly dropped. I can't say that I really see it much anymore. Maybe I just block it out.
Agreed. I'm only a few shaves in but I noticed my skin just looks and feels nicer, not in a quantifiable way, just altogether good.
For @ShavingByTheNumbers:
1) I took several shots at a set distance from the lens, this is only one. This crop is from a full frame that covers the entire head with the blade edge at dead centre. I spent about 30 minutes finding the focal length that gave me the flattest image plane as even a very small margin at this focus distance (less the 30mm from lens to subject) can distort the image and give false measurements. The focal length used for this shot was 48mm using a Canon 5d MkIII, Canon 24-70L MkII and a 25mm macro tube. Once I had a reliable image I measured the width of the head at 22.50mm +- 0.05mm with a vernier and compared the pixel width of the reference shots to ensure they were consistent. Once I was happy with that it was a simple matter of converting to pixels per millimetre. With so many possible locations for error it would be folly to try and estimate what that error really is, but I verified a number of visual parameters in the shot to physical measurements and they're accurate to less than the error of the micrometer which is +-0.02mm.
2) I hear you on that point and I'd considered the same problem in fact. The reason it took so long to setup the shot is because the blade edge has to be exactly in the centre of the image to remove any possible distortion. I also made sure that the edge is perpendicular to the image plane using the depth of field preview feature of the camera at f/22. In this way I could ensure that the shave plane is also perpendicular to the image plane.
When I initially analysed the images to see if there was evidence of out-of-focus surfaces to the lower right of the shave plane (i.e. between the shave plane and the cap and plate) I was troubled to note that they appeared to be missing, indicating I had the alignment wrong. I later realised this was because the light reflecting from these surfaces was the same colour and intensity as the background. However, I do still hold concerns that the vanishing point is not on the blade edge as it should be which is why I still want to get a better shot. At least one of the test shots showed a negative blade exposure, but I soon realised I'd bumped the tripod and the alignment was off. Of the four images I got which could be used all of them showed practically neutral blade exposure. I say 'practically' because ultimately it will be something other than zero that I can't reasonably measure.
I did visually verify the neutral blade exposure with a steel straight edge, but my eyesight is no longer good enough to determine anything other than the fact it looked just like the picture. I'll give the plastic edge thing a go, this will at least tell me how good the shot it.
3) I did measure the blade gap with feelers at six points, three on each side. The one in the shot was accurate to within 0.01mm or less that the error of the micrometer, I measured 0.46mm +- 0.02mm at this point in the shot. Across all six measurements there was a variation of 0.06mm +-0.02mm. I consider this quite good and well withing the realms of difference which could be caused by blade inconsistency (width variance and warp are quite large on some blades) or very small debris (like a stray whisker!) caught between the cap and blade.
As I'm sure you'll agree, blade gap is inherently flawed as a measurement. Two people can measure it quite differently and I have no doubt this will have contributed to the variance. If there is a difference razor to razor, I'm at least reassured that my particular razor has very close tolerances.
Thanks for the praise! Until you started asking question I didn't really notice just how much mental effort goes into doing this work. I'm exhausted.
Just wondering if you have any more updates/thoughts on the Bronze.
Still liking it?
Thanks
