What's new

Trying to convince myself that there is a difference between pre- and post-war Techs

It's pretty much in the title. I have a pre-war ball end Tech that I have put a stainless steel handle on. I like it - a lot. Now I'm trying to convince myself that there is enough of a difference to purchase a post-war fat handle just to try it. I should just do it because I can do so for less than $20 bucks on the auction site. But I'm also cheap, and if there's no difference whatsoever then I don't want to waste $20. FOMO is killing me! (So...enable me if you so desire.)

mikhou
 
I have a fat-handle pre-WW2 Tech and a ball-end handle 1970 Tech. Both were US-made of what seems to be brass with nickel plating. I enjoy both as mild razors that match well with sharp blades like a Feather or a GSB. Less so with less sharp blades like Personnas, Sharks, or Tatras. The difference between the two razors isn't great, but it's noticeable. To me the pre-WW2 is slightly more efficient without giving up smoothness or ease of use. The different handles also result in different balance in the hand, but I use the same shaving angle and other techniques with both. I'm keeping both Techs even if I do a den clearing some day.

If you buy a post-WW2 Tech, and the difference is too small to matter to you, your risk will be the shipping cost.
 
I have a fat-handle pre-WW2 Tech and a ball-end handle 1970 Tech. Both were US-made of what seems to be brass with nickel plating. I enjoy both as mild razors that match well with sharp blades like a Feather or a GSB. Less so with less sharp blades like Personnas, Sharks, or Tatras. The difference between the two razors isn't great, but it's noticeable. To me the pre-WW2 is slightly more efficient without giving up smoothness or ease of use. The different handles also result in different balance in the hand, but I use the same shaving angle and other techniques with both. I'm keeping both Techs even if I do a den clearing some day.

If you buy a post-WW2 Tech, and the difference is too small to matter to you, your risk will be the shipping cost.


Good post and Agree.

I have a pre war fat handle and a post war ball end. I just used both on Sat to determine if i should get rid of one. Currently unsure if there is enough of a difference to keep both.
Prewar - The hollow fat handle is too light for me but the girth is good. The shave feels a bit more aggressive but not by much. The ballend has good weight but handle is thin. If i have to keep 1 i am thinking the prewar tech with the ball end handle but we'll see after i try it. This sounds like what you have. I typically shave every other day and have thicker beard growth. I need to use a sharp blade such as a Nacet to beef up the efficiency.
 

Esox

I didnt know
The difference is in the baseplates and the support they give the blades.

Post war left, pre war right.

Tech-4a.JPG


Much the same as the New SC vs the New LC.

New SC left, New LC right.

IMG_1458.jpg IMG_1459.jpg
 
If there is a difference, it has to be in the construction of the bottom plate, perhaps the larger drain holes? The top plates measure the same for a prewar tech, and early postwar techs (pre date codes). As a matter of fact, my prewar and two postwar techs and Gillette New top caps all have exactly the same measurements (length, width and thickness at top). Some say the top caps are a little different on each, but my calipers don’t support this. (I probably should try similar measurements on the bottom plates.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kix

Esox

I didnt know
If there is a difference, it has to be in the construction of the bottom plate, perhaps the larger drain holes? The top plates measure the same for a prewar tech, and early postwar techs (pre date codes). As a matter of fact, my prewar and two postwar techs and Gillette New top caps all have exactly the same measurements (length, width and thickness at top). Some say the top caps are a little different on each, but my calipers don’t support this. (I probably should try similar measurements on the bottom plates.)

Look at the profiles of the bases. The New SC base, with the proper SC cap, supports the blade even slightly further than the edge of the cap does.

SC left, LC right.

IMG_1447.jpg


Both Techs have similar baseplate patterns and support the blades in different ways.

Tech caps, as well as most if not all New caps, are interchangeable. The one stand out I'm aware of is the New SC cap. The Proper SC cap will only fit the SC base.

Caps. SC left, LC right.

IMG_1468.JPG


IMG_1469.JPG


Dimensionally, they're all much the same. The difference being with the SC cap, are the corner tabs. Notice they're larger and more square, to mate with the machined recesses in the SC base.

When compared to the other caps, the SC cap offers the most blade exposure but for me, it didnt make a lot of difference between using the SC cap, the LC or a post war Tech cap. Using the LC or Tech caps I needed one more light clean up for the same BBS finish.
 
I have a pre-war fat handle, and post-war ball end, both made in Canada. Both are good.

I want to like the pre-war one better, as it belonged to my grandfather, but I prefer the post-war one. I find the shaves smoother and just as close.
 
Dimensionally, they're all much the same. The difference being with the SC cap, are the corner tabs. Notice they're larger and more square, to mate with the machined recesses in the SC base.
Thanks for the helpful info! I should have clarified that my Gillette New is the LC version.
 
Having built up a small collection of Techs from prewar to current production, including Flat Bottoms and a Hybrid I can say that any difference in feel and efficiency between any two Techs is insignificant compared to a Tech vs any other razor.

There's a lot of stuff written about the differences between nickel and rhodium plating or how different handles make the shave closer. I don't subscribe to any of it.
 
Relax. There's nothing wrong with being frugal. Also if you're that worried about "wasting" 20 bucks...then don't do it. Although you could probably sell it here and recoup your money.
 
I have a pre-war fat handle, and post-war ball end, both made in Canada. Both are good.

I want to like the pre-war one better, as it belonged to my grandfather, but I prefer the post-war one. I find the shaves smoother and just as close.
Haha. I take back what I said before. That other huge Tech thread got me curious to compare again. I have been using my postwar Canadian tech for several days and enjoying it a lot. Why not try the same blade (Lord Super Stainless) in my grandfather’s prewar tech, which I have not used for a few months?

It is noticeably more efficient I have to say, and just as smooth. Really nice shave. It could be that I still prefer the postwar tech for other blades, like Feathers. But this combination was superb.
 
So I ordered a post-war Tech, and, yes, to my less-than-one-year-into-DE-shaving face there is a difference. Yes, it's smooth and almost impossible to cut yourself, but the blade exposure is either neutral or negative. There is very little margin for error on the post-war Tech. I'm struggling to find the exact angle to get as close as my pre-war Tech. Don't get me wrong. It's very comfortable, and I love the fat handle, but right now I like the pre-war better. The 2 shaves with the post-war have resulted in remaining stubble that the pre-war would have mown down more easily. I'll give it more shaves to try to gain experience with it, but if I don't fall in love with it, I'll probably BST it.
 
Top Bottom