Are Vulfix Super Badgers and Simpsons super badger hair the same hair? I notice some of the Vulfix are cheaper.
Vulfix and Simpsons Super Badger.
- Thread starter Miketorrge
- Start date
Traditionally Vulfix brushes were pretty floppy. They did not have as much hair stuffed in and the name was not as lauded as Simpson so the brushes were cheaper. At one point several years ago Vulfix bought Simpsons. Vulfix brushes continued to be floppy after that. No idea how they are right this minute, but probably the same. V also makes brushes for different UK brands. If you want a dense brush, V would be the last brand I'd suggest unless they pulled a 180 in the last few years. Doubt it though.
I tried one Vulfix super and it was a totally different animal than the Simpsons supers. Like @cvac said above, very floppy and not dense. I really only found it suitable for bowl lathering with creams, didn’t work well for soaps.
Unless things have changed significantly I don’t think you’d find it to be a close substitute for the Simpson brush.
Unless things have changed significantly I don’t think you’d find it to be a close substitute for the Simpson brush.
AimlessWanderer
Remember to forget me!
Well, it seems to me that there's dense scrubby lather hogs at one end of the badger brush spectrum, and high flow lather mops at the other. Pick your poison. However, where your brush falls on the spectrum seems to depend as much on the beasties the hair was harvested from, as it does on who tied it all together and stuck it in a handle.
In this picture, there are two Vulfix super badgers. The black handled one (660S) and the so all one with the Vulfix pictorial logo (2273). Notice the difference in loft between the two. On paper, they're supposed to be the same loft. I think the 2273 was set lower than normal due to being particularly soft hair, and the 660S was set higher than normal due to coming from a stiffer batch. The higher lofted one still has more backbone than the lower lofted one.
(I wish I'd received the knot off the 660S in the handle of the 2273)
Animal hair is a variable, not a constant. That said, and going back to my initial comment on the overall spectrum, I think Vulfix brushes typically favoured flow over scrub. I have not heard mention of any lather hogging Vulfix badger brushes. Simpson seem to be denser generally. However, I am really enjoying using my Simpson Beaufort B1 and B2, which fall more towards the Vulfix style flow side of things, just as much as I enjoy my denser scrubbier Simpsons. Also, the Vulfix Picadilly in that same pic, is quite a dense scrubby brush too...
I don't have any Super Badgers from Simpson, all though my (supposedly Best Badger) Wee Scot might as well be, considering the softness and lack of backbone. That one is on a par with the Vulfix 2273, and all you can feel when lathering with either of them, is the lather itself.
In this picture, there are two Vulfix super badgers. The black handled one (660S) and the so all one with the Vulfix pictorial logo (2273). Notice the difference in loft between the two. On paper, they're supposed to be the same loft. I think the 2273 was set lower than normal due to being particularly soft hair, and the 660S was set higher than normal due to coming from a stiffer batch. The higher lofted one still has more backbone than the lower lofted one.
(I wish I'd received the knot off the 660S in the handle of the 2273)
Animal hair is a variable, not a constant. That said, and going back to my initial comment on the overall spectrum, I think Vulfix brushes typically favoured flow over scrub. I have not heard mention of any lather hogging Vulfix badger brushes. Simpson seem to be denser generally. However, I am really enjoying using my Simpson Beaufort B1 and B2, which fall more towards the Vulfix style flow side of things, just as much as I enjoy my denser scrubbier Simpsons. Also, the Vulfix Picadilly in that same pic, is quite a dense scrubby brush too...
I don't have any Super Badgers from Simpson, all though my (supposedly Best Badger) Wee Scot might as well be, considering the softness and lack of backbone. That one is on a par with the Vulfix 2273, and all you can feel when lathering with either of them, is the lather itself.
Since you asked, Simpsons would be my choice! I prefer denser brushes for face-lathering.
I have a Simpsons tulip 2 and tulip 3 in super and really enjoy both!!
I have a Simpsons tulip 2 and tulip 3 in super and really enjoy both!!
The hair is the same. I've seen it confirmed straight from Mark. Using it in person, they're the same. Vulfix Super just isn't packed as densely as Simpson brushes. An oddball in the equation is Vulfix Silvertip, which is still Super, just better sorted and more packed. Only place I ever saw to have Vulfix Silvertips was The Superior Shave. The Vulfix Silvertips still aren't packed as densely, but an excellent step up without getting too dense. The worst Supers I tried were the 223x series. The only brushes I would call a mop. Vulfix 41 in Super and Silvertip, and the Vulfix 40 in Super, 377 in Silvertip have no such problems.
AimlessWanderer
Remember to forget me!
When I see comments like this, I get very confused.
To make a knot, they get a clump of animal hair, and put it tip down in a shaping pot to set the bulb/fan, and vibrate it to jostle all the tips down to the die. Then they tie a string tightly around it, chop off the excess at the base, and set it in glue.
The perception of density in primarily due to the hair thickness. Finer hairs nesting together tighter than thicker hairs. There's no "let's add some more" or "let's take some out" decision. They don't tie some looser, or it would fall apart as they're finishing it. The same grade hair will all snug up to the same number of hairs per square centimeter. Loft might change the perception. bulb or fan might change the perception, but the density will remain the same if the hair is all the same.
If there's something I'm missing, please do enlighten me.
It isn't merely perception. I'm sorry if you believe that, but it is patently false. Of course they don't tie some looser and others tighter. As far as to adding more or taking some out, I'm sorry but again you are wrong. Many makers have detailed their thoughts behind a brush being made and detailed doing just what you described. Changing the density of the brush. That's in beta. Once they are happy, they keep it the same as humanly possible. Such model of brushes where they made it in an extra density won't have the same number of hairs per square centimeter if you compare the standard density to the extra density. The difference between two of the same should be so small as to not matter. A change of lost changes the brush. A change of knot shape changes the brush. It will change the density of the brush even with the same hair type. I'm sorry if you feel differently on the matter, but I can't agree with you, and won't say we have a difference of opinion, because again, it is patently false.
AimlessWanderer
Remember to forget me!
Then the only way to change density is changing hair thicknesses. Blending some finer hair in there, or leaving it all at the coarser grade.
If you were to remove some, it wouldn't be tied as tight, and there's no room to add more, as all the hair is already touching. What could be done, is blend in 20% finer hair to the mix before it is tied. That would make it denser. 40% would be denser still, with the coarser hair still adding some stiffness. But then you can't say that the hair grade is exactly the same between brush A and brush B.
Maybe I am wrong, but I do not see how. I have explained my thinking as best I can, to give other the best chance to see and point out to me, the flaw in my logic.
