A few of you know that a Carbon CX arrived a couple of days ago, and I've been thinking about how I'd describe it. I'll share a more detailed review soon, but the upshot is that it's a really excellent version of a more traditional design/geometry. And that got me thinking. Apologies for the lost post, I've got some free time at my in-laws over the holidays 
For those of you into coffee, you might have heard of "third wave" coffee. My understanding of the three waves of coffee is:
First wave: Using a version of the coffee wave framing, I'd say first wave razors would be mid-19th century vintage. Mass-produced products (since there was a mass market for DE razors) with "Goldilocks" geometry that were made of commodity materials for the time. I'm not at all saying these razors were bad. The shave quality was generally quite high (and in some cases excellent), I personally like neutral exposure/moderate gap razors, and plated brass razors can be re-plated and will probably last forever. At the same time, you generally didn't get next-level materials (e.g., stainless steel, titanium) or geometry (more on that below).
Second wave: Second wave would be what I'd call the CNC revolution. CAD/CAM and CNC machining allowed for innovation in materials and small-batch production. The second wave also brought in a democratization of razor production; while not everyone knows how to use CAD/CAM or has access to a CNC shop, it's much more accessible than taking your design to Gillette and hoping they take a new product category to the shelves.
As a result (and more interesting to us as consumers), there started to be more experimentation in design and especially blade gap/exposure. I found this chart a couple of years ago from @Patrice super interesting (Blade gap and exposure - https://www.badgerandblade.com/forum/threads/blade-gap-and-exposure.636078/page-2#post-12129281). It helped me understand why I liked the razors I liked and also suggested other razors with similar gap/exposure.
I'd characterize the second wave as innovation in quality and geometry. Wolfman seems like the pinnacle of the second wave: super high quality, small lot production, and they've got you covered whether you prefer low gap/high exposure (WR1) or high gap/low exposure (WR2).
Third wave: Third wave would be some of the innovation we're starting to see more recently. Examples include the Lambda Athena, Karve Overlander, Blutt BR-1, and (I'd suggest) the Blackland Blackbird. Basically, razors where gap/exposure don't tell the whole story. I know, I know, gap/exposure don't tell the whole story for any DE razor. However, I'd suggest that these third wave razors have "something else" in terms of performance that is hard to explain using typical razor geometry. The Blutt 1.20, for example, seems like it would be quite aggressive due to its significant gap, when in reality it's quite gentle. Once you dial in your technique, the Blackbird is pretty much legendary for its irritation-free efficiency. I absolutely defer to @Teutonblade and @Mr. Shavington who have clearly thought about this quite deeply; it sounds like clamp width, blade bending, and blade rigidity go a long way toward explaining that "something else."
Okay, so what? Even if this framework holds up does that make second wave or first wave razors obsolete? Of course not. For me, this is just a way to organize things, help understand the really broad range of razors that are out there. Coming back to the Carbon CX, I think it's a top-shelf second wave razor; it's basically a modern Tech made to an incredibly high standard with a bit more blade feel. It doesn't have the next-level clamp width and blade rigidity of a third wave razor and it's a little more sensitive to blade selection than, say, a Blutt. But it's still a beautiful tool and a great razor.
Hope others find this useful, and feel free to suggest anything I might've missed. There are of course exceptions to all this, but I think it generally hangs together pretty well.
For those of you into coffee, you might have heard of "third wave" coffee. My understanding of the three waves of coffee is:
- First wave was Folgers, Maxwell House, etc. It was a freeze-dried commodity product with no real differentiation on quality.
- Second wave was ushered in by Starbucks, Peet's, etc. (or at least, how they started out). These was much more emphasis on the quality of the bean/roast/brew to deliver a better product. The beans were still generally a blend and roasts tended to be darker.
- Third wave is happening now: Specialty grade, single-origin coffees. Bean sourcing can be as specific as a single harvest from a single farm. Lighter roasts to highlight the artisanal flavor notes of the beans.
First wave: Using a version of the coffee wave framing, I'd say first wave razors would be mid-19th century vintage. Mass-produced products (since there was a mass market for DE razors) with "Goldilocks" geometry that were made of commodity materials for the time. I'm not at all saying these razors were bad. The shave quality was generally quite high (and in some cases excellent), I personally like neutral exposure/moderate gap razors, and plated brass razors can be re-plated and will probably last forever. At the same time, you generally didn't get next-level materials (e.g., stainless steel, titanium) or geometry (more on that below).
Second wave: Second wave would be what I'd call the CNC revolution. CAD/CAM and CNC machining allowed for innovation in materials and small-batch production. The second wave also brought in a democratization of razor production; while not everyone knows how to use CAD/CAM or has access to a CNC shop, it's much more accessible than taking your design to Gillette and hoping they take a new product category to the shelves.
As a result (and more interesting to us as consumers), there started to be more experimentation in design and especially blade gap/exposure. I found this chart a couple of years ago from @Patrice super interesting (Blade gap and exposure - https://www.badgerandblade.com/forum/threads/blade-gap-and-exposure.636078/page-2#post-12129281). It helped me understand why I liked the razors I liked and also suggested other razors with similar gap/exposure.
I'd characterize the second wave as innovation in quality and geometry. Wolfman seems like the pinnacle of the second wave: super high quality, small lot production, and they've got you covered whether you prefer low gap/high exposure (WR1) or high gap/low exposure (WR2).
Third wave: Third wave would be some of the innovation we're starting to see more recently. Examples include the Lambda Athena, Karve Overlander, Blutt BR-1, and (I'd suggest) the Blackland Blackbird. Basically, razors where gap/exposure don't tell the whole story. I know, I know, gap/exposure don't tell the whole story for any DE razor. However, I'd suggest that these third wave razors have "something else" in terms of performance that is hard to explain using typical razor geometry. The Blutt 1.20, for example, seems like it would be quite aggressive due to its significant gap, when in reality it's quite gentle. Once you dial in your technique, the Blackbird is pretty much legendary for its irritation-free efficiency. I absolutely defer to @Teutonblade and @Mr. Shavington who have clearly thought about this quite deeply; it sounds like clamp width, blade bending, and blade rigidity go a long way toward explaining that "something else."
Okay, so what? Even if this framework holds up does that make second wave or first wave razors obsolete? Of course not. For me, this is just a way to organize things, help understand the really broad range of razors that are out there. Coming back to the Carbon CX, I think it's a top-shelf second wave razor; it's basically a modern Tech made to an incredibly high standard with a bit more blade feel. It doesn't have the next-level clamp width and blade rigidity of a third wave razor and it's a little more sensitive to blade selection than, say, a Blutt. But it's still a beautiful tool and a great razor.
Hope others find this useful, and feel free to suggest anything I might've missed. There are of course exceptions to all this, but I think it generally hangs together pretty well.