Zamak hating seems to be trendy these days
- Thread starter billobob
- Start date
I've never seen a blade rust in one of my razors.
I have read it depends on your water and soap/cream/oil and such. Probably on the blade too. And likely on the heat and humidity where the razor is stored. I imagine many can get by without any special treatment, and if they do notice a speck of rust on an unplated/uncoated stainless steel razor they have only to use a toothbrush and water and it should be like new.
For more rust prone use or environments, I have read (and it makes sense to me) that a normal rinsing in running water followed by a one second swish in 90% rubbing alcohol (even with the razor still fully assembled) is the easiest way to prevent any rusting.
That said, stainless steel will eventually rust if exposed to water or high humidity for too long. And it will rust further and faster if initial spots aren't removed (with a toothbrush). I'm personally a bit compulsive on these things, and blades only seem to be at their best for me for a single shave anyway ... so I do disassemble my razor after each shave, and I swish it in a lidded plastic container with 90% rubbing alcohol, and I dry it off with toilet paper afterwards. Unsurprisingly ... I have not noticed a speck of corrosion anywhere on my ATT with 9 months of continuous use....
NOTE: Weber, Pils, Tradere, and ATT are uncoated/unplated. I Kon (except for the first generation) is reportedly coated (even if it doesn't look like it) with an undisclosed coating. Feather is plated with a thick, high quality chrome ... which as long as it is never deeply scratched or forcefully chipped will never rust.
I have also read that cheap chrome can hasten rust both by microscopic porosity, and by an anodizing effect that will (ironically) actively encourage the underlying steel to "sacrifice" itself in order to protect the chrome. I really don't know much about it personally, but this link explains it pretty well:
http://www.finishing.com/faqs/chrome.html
Last edited:
This is greatly exaggerated IMO. I never take blades out of my Weber until I replace them and have never seen a spot of rust. I often leave the same blade in for more than a month. When I'm done shaving I rinse the razor, slightly loosen the head and blow out the water, and store it with the head slightly loosened so air can circulate. Some water contains rust and will leave rust spots on a razor, whether it's stainless steel or chrome-plated brass, but if your water doesn't contain rust my experience shows that you don't need to worry about your stainless steel Weber rusting, providing you blow out the water and store it in a dry place.
People who are hard on things will hate zamack razors because they aren't durable enough. The bottom line though, is what are you willing and able to pay for. If you are able to pay $80+ for a stainless razor, and are willing to do so, that's great. If you aren't willing to pay that, you can get at least 4 zamack razors for the same price. Individually they will not last as long. But combined they may last a lifetime. And that's probably all you can really ask for.
Razors are like cars and guns to me. My preferences for cars and guns differ from everybody else, just like my preference for razors.
I have never used a Zamac razor, so I have no opinion on them. I've only used vintage Gillettes, Gems, Schick Injectors, and Schick Kronas. I don't know which route to go with Merkur or EJ, or any other type of Zamac razor.
I have never used a Zamac razor, so I have no opinion on them. I've only used vintage Gillettes, Gems, Schick Injectors, and Schick Kronas. I don't know which route to go with Merkur or EJ, or any other type of Zamac razor.
True. Nb. as well that the Weber handle is made from 316L and the head is made from 17-4PH, both of which are relatively low-carbon and high-chromium alloys with very good corrosion resistance (with 316L being a real standout in this regard). While no stainless alloy is truly rust-proof, these two are both superior in corrosion resistance to the cutlery steels that form the baseline of most laymen's understanding of stainless's ability to resist rusting. The heat treat is another variable that factors in to corrosion resistance, but I don't know what Weber or Feather or any of the other manufacturers do in that regard - probably something pretty mild, as higher temp aggressive heat treats are undesirable for razor manufacture for a number of reasons (costs more in and of itself, usually doesn't maximize corrosion resistance, usually introduces dimensional changes, the things it does improve [namely hardness and toughness] aren't critical parameters for a razor head, etc).
I've read through every comment in this thread, and the on factor that seems to (almost) be completely missing is that great many of the designs on modern razors would simply not be possible (or practical) in brass or stainless. I would absolutely love a Mühle R41 in brass or stainless, but you couldn't make that design in either material. It is possible that it might work with sintered stainless, but the manufacturing process would need to be rebuilt from the ground up. Not nearly as simple as swapping out some material. The two processes have absolutely nothing I'm common. I'm sure Mühle expected their investment in the R41 to pay off over many years. It's possible they haven't paid off the original investment yet, how much business sense would it make to release a product that would cannibalize their current product?
I guess it's just the blanket statement that "Zamak is inferior" that strikes a nerve in me. Yes, in some ways, it is inferior. But in other ways, such as design flexibility and implementation cost, it is far superior to brass or stainless.
I guess it's just the blanket statement that "Zamak is inferior" that strikes a nerve in me. Yes, in some ways, it is inferior. But in other ways, such as design flexibility and implementation cost, it is far superior to brass or stainless.
http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php/416737-Merkur-Fail
This just was posted. I love the way some of my zamak razors shave, but this is a situation that it would suck to be in.
This just was posted. I love the way some of my zamak razors shave, but this is a situation that it would suck to be in.
I've seen you make this same argument in some other threads, Chamm, but I'm not sure I buy it. There have been some pretty complicated head designs in brass and in stainless steel. Even the designs Gillette used for its various New and New Improved heads were fairly complex, not to mention some of the open comb and slant designs that have been produced in stainless steel.
I think the most relevant factor is cost. Yes, the molds and the manufacturing costs are no doubt considerably cheaper for zamak than for brass or stainless steel, and yet we find some fairly cheap razors (such as Fatip) made of brass and some fairly inexpensive ones (such as Weber) made of stainless steel. The Weber PH head design is fairly complex IMO, certainly something that can't simply be stamped out. I expect the molds, materials, and manufacturing process all cost considerably more than what Merkur, Muhle, etc. spend on their zamak razors, and yet this small company proves that a stainless steel razor with a fairly complex head can be produced and sold for not much more than a Muhle.
So yes, when it comes to manufacturing cost zamak is superior. When it comes to durability it's inferior. When it comes to design flexibility--well, I've seen some pretty complex and effective designs in brass and stainless steel as well as zamak.
I know I do.
Why I hated Zamak when hating Zamak wasn't cool.
Haven't purchased the first Zamak razor and such razors will continue to be conspicuous by their absence from my shave cabinet.
Why I hated Zamak when hating Zamak wasn't cool.
Haven't purchased the first Zamak razor and such razors will continue to be conspicuous by their absence from my shave cabinet.
I'll get tired of a razor long before it "rots" or at least throw another few into rotation.
My iPhone could be made of indestructible unubtanium but I doubt I'd use it till death.
Lots of more expensive things aren't built or intended to last forever and even if they were they would gather dust eventually.
My iPhone could be made of indestructible unubtanium but I doubt I'd use it till death.
Lots of more expensive things aren't built or intended to last forever and even if they were they would gather dust eventually.
Heh... I don't mean to be argumentative, despite what my wife would tell you. Just trying to impart a little of what I know (and a lot of what I don't) about the manufacturing process. :-D
With the exception of the New Improved, all vintage Gillettes use rolled or pressed brass. They start as a brass plate and are pressed into shape. Old Type, NEW, the doors and baseplates of the TTO razors, techs; all pressed. Machining tooth-combs is easy, as you can just make a device (somewhat like a bread slicer) that machines evenly spaced grooves into a more or less flat piece of brass. All sharp corners, no smooth, rounded, scalloped comb-teeth as in the R41. They might have been complex, but none of them were rounded in multiple dimensions. None of them had multiple thicknesses, except for the New Improved. Gillette found those difficult to make a profit on, and that was in the heyday of razors, because casting brass is an order of magnitude more difficult than casting zinc alloy.
FaTip is made from brass, but again, look at the design. Uniform thickness in the baseplate, rolled to shape, then teeth cut into it. It's a dead simple design, and still, no curves in multiple dimensions.
The Weber is a good counter-example, because it does have all those things. It is produced using a technique called sintering, whereby powdered steel is put into a mold, and a combination of pressure and high heat causes the powder to form a solid. It doesn't actually melt, but rather it fuses together. This technique allows for more complex shapes, and indeed, if you want to make relatively inexpensive razors that exhibit the types of features I'm talking about, this would be probably the best way to do it. I imagine it would be possible to get something akin to an R41 design from sintered stainless. I believe that the Weber PH was actually an attempt to mimic the design of a proven Zamak SB design (R/EJ89, Parker, etc) in stainless. But anyone who has used one will probably tell you that a Weber PH is not the same as this design. That is because the technique of sintering has nothing in common with casting. Each technique has different amounts of shrinkage as the casting cools. They require seams in different areas of the die. One presses the metal into its shape, then heats it up, while the other takes molten metal and cools it in the die. A good engineer could probably account for these differences and produce a similar end result, but it would be a complete re-design from scratch.
I am as hopeful as anyone that Mühle will replicate the design of the R41 in stainless, but I think it would be pretty unlikely. Even if they tried, they could very well fail. The difference between a 2011 and 2013 R41 is fractions of millimeters, yet the quality of the shave is vastly different. Trying to replicate that design in a completely different metal using a completely different process would be costly and risky, two things companies usually try to avoid. And that is only one example of one razor design.
And in the end, your primary assertion is not wrong; it does come down to money. But I don't think that it is companies that are trying to squeeze consumers by making shoddy products. I think it is companies that are trying to make a profitable product that will have appeal in a shrinking market. Merkur, Mühle, Edwin Jagger, et. al. do not have even a fraction of the potential market Gillette had in its prime. All of them combined probably don't sell as many razors in a year as Gillette sold in a week in the 1950's. Designs like the Fatboy cost a fortune to engineer; in today's market, that level of R&D is just impossible. I actually feel grateful that we have large-ish companies like Weber, Mühle and Edwin Jagger, who continue to innovate. There is also room for boutique manufacturers like ATT, but at that price point, they will only ever appeal to weirdos like us. :-D
Last edited:
Nicely said, chamm.
Well said and makes a great deal of sense. Thanks for that chamm. 
What's boutique manufacturing ?
Well, maybe Weber was aiming at something similar, but really the two heads aren't all that similar. The Weber bottom plate is considerably more complex than the EJ89 bottom plate, with a surprising variety of thicknesses and complications, and of course it's made all the more complex by the fact that some surfaces are polished and some matte. In any event, the two heads offer substantially different shaves.
You obviously know more about the sintering process than I do, but I doubt the R41 design is categorically more complicated than, say, the IKon slant or some other stainless designs. But I seriously doubt Muhle or Merkur will ever move to stainless. I think one reason is that labor costs are so high in Germany that neither company will consider the cost of retooling or using more expensive materials. I suspect war shortages were the reason why German companies moved to using cheap zinc alloy in the first place, and labor costs may be why they are unwilling to invest in the machinery needed for brass or stainless.
It all comes down to customer preference, of course. If you love the R41 head, you'll want to buy it whatever it's made from. Some others have said that they don't mind if a razor lasts only five years or so, since the cost isn't all that great. And some others, such as myself, take pleasure in owning razors that were made to last for a century or more. I doubt I'll be around for another century, and I have no idea what will happen to my razors after I'm gone, nor do I care, but I appreciate them more knowing that they're not made of metal that will rot as soon as the plating is compromised.
They manufacture razors for fancy lads.
I see it this way. I bought the razor, for myself, to shave my face, and did it with my money. So, does it really need to be passed down later to anyone? No, they can buy their own. And I'm sure that way back in the day most people wandering down to Woolworth to pick up a Tech or a Super Speed, had absolutely no more thought into it than the average guy now that stops in at Walmart and picks up a Fusion. I'm sure that back then the reasoning for building well made long lasting razors was probably due to the wars and depressions, and people's state of mind in conserving their income to feed kids, buy a car, etc. Money today is just as disposable as the razors we sell. They spent money to save money, we spend money because we like to spend money.[/B][/I][/FONT]
Last edited by a moderator:
