So why are most new razors made with Zamak? Is Brass that much more expensive? Is it easier to pour Zamak into molds than to press Brass into them? (I figure that's how they use the different metals - I could be wrong) It seems that Zamak gets a bad rap - Why not just make them like they used to? Thanks for your thoughts and insights.
Rather more complex. Remember that Gillette and it's competition (ASRC) also sold blades to generate their profit. And that $5 in 1920, for example (the cost of the New Improved) is $62.50 in today's dollars. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
It seems to me the change from Brass to Zamac really occurred in the 60's with the changes to the Tech and the use of Aluminum and Plastic in razors like the Super Adjustable and Knack. That said... what changed back then? Was Brass again in short supply due to the Vietnam War?
I read that Techs switched to Zamak in 64, Vietnam would not have figured at that date. Perhaps the costs associated with the move to stainless steel blades (which Wilkinson had already introduced) figured into that decision making. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
Zamak is dirt cheap and it has a very low melting point, making it easy to cast. It has light weight and fairly good strength. Its main shortcoming is that it corrodes very easily and quickly so any use in which it is exposed to water must be plated. A Zamak razor (or anything else) is only as good as its plating. Once the plating is compromised the item quickly disintegrates. --Bob
It occurs to me that, by bringing up 1960's Gillette, I may be muddling the discussion a bit. From a societal standpoint, there seems to have come a time when either Brass became elevated to the status of a material used for "luxury" items or a razor ceased to be a durable good made in a premium manner and instead became "disposable" and made in the lowest-cost manner. This is probably just part of a larger societal shift. (Any Anthropologists in the house?) I suspect it's only people like us who (still) see a razor as a durable good. As for Gillette in the 1960's... it occurs to me, upon reflection, that the move to materials such as Zamac, Aluminum, and Plastic was probably based on cost savings rather than material shortages. In 1964, when Gillette switched the Tech to Zamac, they would have been deep into the development and roll-out for the Techmatic. This would be their first "modern" shaving system and, to Gillette, probably heralded the future of shaving. As such, the obvious message to the DE side of the house would be to expect loss of market share and to plan accordingly. The best way to do this? Find a way to make the razors less expensively, either to bolster profits or allow for lower price points.
Another way of looking at is Gillette's business is making money selling razors and blades. If a razor lasts a lifetime, then where's the profit for Gillette? Make razors obsolete every few years and you're sellin both the razors and blades. If a razor doesn't have to last a lifetime, then why build it to last that long. Using zamak cuts costs over brass. Cheaper tooling and cheaper raw material means higher profit margins. Also, if the customer doesn't demand a razor that will last a lifetime, why build it? The throw away society that we now have really started taking hold in the 1950s.
the fact is, zamak is easy to make. its in essence, plastic that doesn't come from crude oil. and the short life is beneficial. its not that the companies like jager or muhle or merkur have us spending 80 dolalrs on a razor,but have us spending 80 dolalrs on a razor that wont last 5 years of normal use.
Fatip still makes brass razors and many of them are very inexpensive. I don't work in the industry but that fact alone leads me to believe that brass isn't all that more expensive to use. However, even if zinc alloy is only a few cents cheaper, that's still more attractive for the average mass manufacturer. As it was already stated, the cost of the classic brass Gillette razors was heavily subsidized by blade sales and by their mass outreach. Modern manufacturers are not only catering to a very niche market now, but many of them do not produce their own blades in order to help offset the costs of razor production. As exemplified by Fatip, I'm sure that they could easily switch to brass without incurring much of a loss but the average consumer probably wouldn't know the difference or even care, so even if Zamak only affords an extra two cents per razor sold, that still adds up very quickly if they sell a decent number of razors. It's a shame really because even though I don't anticipate seeing my Zamak razors fail any time soon, it still feels good to know that the razor I'm using is made from quality materials when I pick up a vintage Gillette - purely psychological but it's still a factor for me.
Very few companies make mainstream all brass razors, there are 2-3 companies in India that their tto's are all brass and the fatip in Italy is the other one that makes 3 piece all brass. That being said I have 2 tto open comb and closed comb from pearl - India and I have the fatip grande and gentile from italy. Also weishi from China makes their tto's all brass, very decent quality and mild shaver. If they would make mid and aggressive shavers more people would get them
I never heard of Pearl but I love TTO razors and I love brass razors so I'd be interested in checking them out. I see very few models for sale on Indian websites after doing a quick search and a few models on eBay. It would be great to see more of these for sale directly in the western market, especially since they could easily displace the popular Zamak razors and make brass mainstream again.
their was a societal shift that was not good. And at the same time, modern people have put a sick twist onto things. For example, the soap encrusted razors we see on ebay all day long. We know its just a razor that got put away wet and dirty. But to a lot of sociologists, they'll say, and I quote "this is the result of a disposable world. it gets to dirty to work properly, they toss it under the bathroom sinke and buy a new one because its easier to buy a new one then clean the old one"
part of my love for vintage gillettes was the all brass factor.anything with zamak has been eliminated from my collection, except my merkur 34hd.i will always associate pot metal and plastic as cheap and nasty,bad for landfills,.prices should reflect quality,not feed ceo s.my $200 dollars worth(in todays money)....
Yeah, I dropped my DE89 and the head snapped off after bouncing off the toilet. Saddened me. There is a difference between making a newer model, with the new gadget or self shave feature, and making stuff cheap for the almighty dollar. I mean look at anything these days to include major appliances, nothing is made to last and nothing is made to be fixed. Washer goes out? Often times it will be just as cheap to replace it completely as fix it. I'd say this is probably also the time that customer service seemed to go out the window.
i agree.i sold de 89 because of that fault. my tube stereo stuff works great.with maintenance. now we are being forced to use new cheap stuff.new technology is great but it should be built to last.customer service? whats that ?.buy it and get out...
