Why did we start using the confusing term "aggressive" to describe blade exposure?

[Ron Scott]

I don't believe Gillette did for their razors...

It almost seems backwards to me. I can usually shave well with any razor but if I try for BBS with a Super Speed or low setting on an adjustable I can overplay it with too many cleanup passes and get razor burn. So non-aggressive/"mild", is the most dangerous razor for me.

How did this label start, and why does it stick???

 

[SiBurning]

I think it's a helpful, if over simplified, way to describe things for newbies. More aggressive means it digs in more, whether because of the gap, angle, or how far the blade sticks out. Either way, it'll dig into the skin more for someone that hasn't mastered technique.

The rest of us can discuss the merits of more complicated descriptions, but some of the distinctions might be lost on newbies.

BTW, I totally agree that "aggressive" doesn't translate at all into a closer shave, even if I can't do a BBS on my least aggressive razors. Others certainly can.

 

[The Dean]

You might be interested in this article, on the same topic, from Sharpologist:

http://sharpologist.com/2013/05/mild-or-comfortable-aggressive-or-efficient.html

 

[Ron Scott]

Good article.

"Aggressive" seems like 21st century terminology however. And overused to the point where that article is necessary for a reasonable explanation, i.e., not a helpful descriptor in itself.

 

[The Dean]

Good article.

"Aggressive" seems like 21st century terminology however. And overused to the point where that article is necessary for a reasonable explanation, i.e., not a helpful descriptor in itself.

It's not really that confusing to me. When a razor is described as aggressive, I assume it is probably more efficient and likely to be a bit more dangerous in the hands of a noob, or someone with poor technique, than a milder/more forgiving razor. There seems to be general agreement on which razors fit the description.

Is it the best descriptor? Probably not, but it seems to get the job done around here. With blades, not so much,

The descriptor I have the biggest issue with is "natural"--but that's a discussion for a different thread.

 

[SpEe1113]

It's not really that confusing to me. When a razor is described as aggressive, I assume it is probably more efficient and likely to be a bit more dangerous in the hands of a noob, or someone with poor technique, than a milder/more forgiving razor. There seems to be general agreement on which razors fit the description.

Is it the best descriptor? Probably not, but it seems to get the job done around here.

+1, great point. I'm not a huge fan of the term but this makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Ron Scott]

Well then I guess it's me.

But damn if those "mild" razors aren't the only ones that are ruining my BBS batting average...

 

[MrLara]

It's not really that confusing to me. When a razor is described as aggressive, I assume it is probably more efficient and likely to be a bit more dangerous in the hands of a noob, or someone with poor technique, than a milder/more forgiving razor. There seems to be general agreement on which razors fit the description.

Is it the best descriptor? Probably not, but it seems to get the job done around here. With blades, not so much,

I agree with all of that.

To Ron Scott, i understand what you mean about the mild razors. In the beginning i started to have that problem, that i would "overshave". But once my technique got better, the problem was solved.

 

[TallyShave]

It's not the razor.

 

[Ron Scott]

It's not the razor.

No it's not. It's technique.

90% of the time I use a razor that exposes a good deal of blade. So when I do use what some would call a mild razor and try to get BBS I sometimes try to overcompensate and get some razor burn.

That's why to me the mild razor is the most aggressive…

 

[Haggises]

Sorry, but using the term aggressive because you need to buff more to get a close shave makes no sense to me.
If you buffed the same way with a "large blade gap" razor you'd really be feeling it.

 

[The Dean]

Sorry, but using the term aggressive because you need to buff more to get a close shave makes no sense to me.
If you buffed the same way with a "large blade gap" razor you'd really be feeling it.

I hate speaking for other people, but I've been trying to figure out what he's getting at here. I have an idea:

When using a more efficient razor (one that might be dubbed "aggressive" by many) he gets a great shave with a minimum of effort and his face is clean, smooth and irritation free. But in order to get the same close shave when he uses a so-called "mild" razor, he has to work harder, buff more (likely more passes and perhaps more unintentional pressure) and he ends up getting irritation. ergo the "aggressive" razor is very kind to his face while the exact opposite is true of the "mild" razor.

The aggressiveness in this case really isn't due to the razor though. Rather it is in his use of the razor.

IMOs and YMMVs all around.

 

[rajagra]

Let's not abandon one euphemism and adopt an even worse one.
"Efficient" is not a good way to describe a razor with large blade exposure or big gap between the blade and safety bar or forced steep blade angle.
I get efficiency from safe razors. Minimal exposure, small gaps, and shallow blade angles all work efficiently for some of us.*

"Unsafe" would be a more accurate way to describe a razor where the safety features have been compromised. I'm not proposing this wording, just pointing out some truth.

Spoiler

* Yes, even some of us with "really-tough-beard syndrome."

 

[The Dean]

Let's not abandon one euphemism and adopt an even worse one.
"Efficient" is not a good way to describe a razor with large blade exposure or big gap between the blade and safety bar or forced steep blade angle.
I get efficiency from safe razors. Minimal exposure, small gaps, and shallow blade angles all work efficiently for some of us.*

"Unsafe" would be a more accurate way to describe a razor where the safety features have been compromised. I'm not proposing this wording, just pointing out some truth.

Spoiler

* Yes, even some of us with "really-tough-beard syndrome."

I'm sure YMMV with all this. But by "efficient", I believe they mean the amount of beard reduction capable in one pass (as an example). It would seem to me that the angle and blade exposure play into the maximum amount of beard reduction capable by the razor (in the right hands, of course).

Some of the old pros here (turtle is an example) claim to get an equally fine shave with an "aggressive" (large blade exposure( razor or a mild razor. The difference being the mild razor took an extra pass to achieve the same results. By done definition, that would make it less efficient than the aggressive razor.

I'm not contesting nor supporting Leisurguy's terminology (from the Sharpologist article) and/or the use of "aggressive" for razors. I just think it's a bit of much ado about very little. I think most understand what it means when someone here describes a razor as "aggressive" or "efficient". But perhaps I am wrong.

 

[Haggises]

I hate speaking for other people, but I've been trying to figure out what he's getting at here. I have an idea:

When using a more efficient razor (one that might be dubbed "aggressive" by many) he gets a great shave with a minimum of effort and his face is clean, smooth and irritation free. But in order to get the same close shave when he uses a so-called "mild" razor, he has to work harder, buff more (likely more passes and perhaps more unintentional pressure) and he ends up getting irritation. ergo the "aggressive" razor is very kind to his face while the exact opposite is true of the "mild" razor.

The aggressiveness in this case really isn't due to the razor though. Rather it is in his use of the razor.

IMOs and YMMVs all around.

Yes - aggressive use of a mild razor

I agree with Ray on effeciency though. Not = blade gap/aggressive.

My Blue Tip Superspeed is milder, but more efficient than my Black Beauty. At least in my hands.

 

[Okla1911]

Well my buddy calls it the "danger" level.....

 

[gus1942]

It's not really that confusing to me. When a razor is described as aggressive, I assume it is probably more efficient and likely to be a bit more dangerous in the hands of a noob, or someone with poor technique, than a milder/more forgiving razor. There seems to be general agreement on which razors fit the description.

Is it the best descriptor? Probably not, but it seems to get the job done around here. With blades, not so much,

The descriptor I have the biggest issue with is "natural"--but that's a discussion for a different thread.

I agree with The Dean. I think most members understand the implication of the term, but if anyone would like to coin a new descriptive term, then go for it. I always classify my razors, simply, as smooth or rough, and effective or noneffective.

 

[gus1942]

I don't believe Gillette did for their razors...

It almost seems backwards to me. I can usually shave well with any razor but if I try for BBS with a Super Speed or low setting on an adjustable I can overplay it with too many cleanup passes and get razor burn. So non-aggressive/"mild", is the most dangerous razor for me.

How did this label start, and why does it stick???

The Gillette Super Speed is not the danger; technique is the issue.

 

[edgerunner]

You're all right! BUT I want to throw in another reason I don't find the term 'aggressive' very descriptive. It's often used to describe 'forgiving' and 'unforgiving' razors which is confusing. For example, Merkur heads are often described as more aggressive than R89 heads. If I want to state my personal opinion on both, I have to distinguish say that Merkur is more efficient BUT more forgiving than R89. What I mean by that is that to me finding the angle on the Merks is easier and more intuitive, and there is wider selection of blades that work well in it. So aggressive can't explain what I want to say.

 

[Ron Scott]

I guess my milage varies. Won't be the first time!

A razor that exposes a good deal of blade like a Hoffritz slant or a Gillette adjustable set to a higher number gives me a nice smooth shave with no irritation in 2 passes + a quick neck clean up. That's aggressive? OK.

Not sure who first applied the term "aggressive" to such razors but it wasn't what Gillette or other makers used in the day from what I can tell.