I just received a new Merkur Progress but am having some issues with the adjustment. When I do not have a blade loaded the Progress will dial down to 1 or slightly to the left of one. However, with a blade loaded, the lowest setting I can adjust the Progress to (without really cranking) is a 1.5. Is this typical?
I have a fairly new Progress (couple weeks old) and mine is dead on 1 when it has a blade in it and left of one without a blade. There have been many reports of this problem with the razor. However, besides it not being on 1 numerically with a blade in it it is still on the lowest setting. It is more a matter of whether you can live with it or not. Check out Mantic's video on Progress Annyoances and he shows a way to "calibrate" it correctly. Hope this helps.
Thank you Tracy and Yomuppet. I suppose I can live with it. However, it would be nice to have the lowest setting read 1. I'll give Mantic's calibration method a try.
It definitely bugs me but I guess I'll just have to adjust to the new math (I tried to recalibrate without any luck). I sent my 1st Progress back due to plating problems and do not want to go through the process again (unless of course the shave is affected). I guess the rumblings of quality control issues at Merkur are true.
The Progress is a great razor but that's one of the issues with it. The other is the uneven blade exposure you can get all of sudden. Out of the blue, one side is overly aggressive and the other side is overly gentle.
I don't see the issue. The adjusting knob is the same as the tightening knob. With no blade, the top can come down a bit more -- i.e. the knob can be turned a bit more. Thats just the way it works. The WILL be a difference, about 1/2 a notch, between having a blade and not, no two ways around it. I dont THINK blade thickness varies enough from brand to brand to make that offset different. As Mantic pointed out in the video above, you can rotate the handle to chage the position of the dot so it will point to one, or whatever number you want, with a blade. I stumbled upon this idea some time ago and "recalibrated" mine. But I found myself setting it by the center point of the handle instead of the dot. So I set the dot back to the center. Also as Mantic pointed out, this does not change the exposure in any way. It just changes what number the dot is pointing to for a given setting. I suppose one could change the length of the handle to calibrate it as well. This is bit harder and could damage the razor. To lower the number pointed to reduce the number that is under the (centered) dot with a blade, one would need to shroten the handle. This can be difficult to do without the right machine. You could end up with an end that is not flat or straight. If you take off too much, there is no way to fix that. Also, the thread on the cap may bottom out in the adjusting knob before getting to the lowest setting. I just don't know how much, if any, extra thread there is on the screw. One could lenghten the handle by using washers as shims between the top of the handle and the head. But it would have to be thick as to turn the handle almost one whole to get it point to 1 (or zero). This would leave the head loose on the end handle and it could cause ware in the long run. I think Mantic's sloution is the best, if one feels the need to fix this "problem." As to the grip problem mention at the begining of his video, I found a stack of 20 #7 o-rings on the handle makes an excellent grip. And it looks cool, at least I think it does.
The problem is not with the razor, the problem is due to the nature of the design of the knob assembly. The number ring has to be a separate piece so the razor can be calibrated. The proper fix isn't to rotate the handle relative to the head but rotate the number ring on the knob assembly. Wrap the number ring with several layers of masking tap, secure the knob assembly in a padded vise. Grip the number ring with a pair of pliers and rotate the ring to the proper position.