Old-Type is difficult to shave with but the best post-shave BBS experience.

Do you think the Kai made a difference to the shave?

 

Last time I shaved with the Old Type was probably a few years ago. I doubt it was a Kai and I do remember getting a bit ripped up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yup....beautiful!!! Thsnk you for the pictures!!

 

Maybe it's just beginners luck, but two shaves in and I have no issues with this razor. This morning's shave was 2.5 passes(half pass is on my neck) of shaving excellence. The OLD/GSB combo slayed my weekday stubble no problem. Though I love all my vintage stuff, I could see an OLD, NEW rotation no sweat.

 

I love the old type. Mine was filched by an ex girlfriend. Apparently it's an amazing razor for body shaving as well. I used mine with GSBs and sharp stars.

 

As stated above I'm getting great shaves from my OLD, with no issues. I've got the cap torqued all the way down. When I first loaded up, I did not tighten all the way down. The blade shimmy'd some, so I torqued that baby down. BBS today. I never chase, but the razor/blade had other ideas. I'll take it!

 

I reckon I have alligator skin. I'm four days into using my 1911 OLD with a GSB(my baseline blade). Zero irritation. I have the cap torqued all the way down. When I first loaded up, I left it a couple of turns loose, but did not like the looks of the blade dancing like a hootchy cootchy girl. I've got more blades to audition, so I'm looking forward to that. Shark Super Chrome is next.

 

I'm pretty certain that loosening the cap on the OLDs is a bad idea. The original blades were 1/3 thicker, and carbon steel rather than stainless, so they were both thicker and more rigid. Even the Kai, which are the same thickness, won't be as 'springy' to be able to hold the razor still when slightly loose.

 

To be clear on the Kai blade mythology, although commonly claimed otherwise, among modern blades they don't measure at all as outliers in terms of thickness (nor does Kai make any such claim in their specs), if they are particularly rigid there are other factors involved.

On one of the other forums someone measured a Personna Blue as being as thick as the old blades, but I believe that to be measurement error as others have found them to be consistent with the modern standard for blade thickness (.004") and Personna specs.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for the information - I'll have to order some and use a micrometer to confirm.

 

Yup.

Micrometer measurements:

https://www.badgerandblade.com/forum/wiki/Double-Edge_DE_Razor_Blade_Dimensions_Table

Kai specs:



Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

Ergh. Why do people do that. The original measurements are all based on thousandths of an inch. Why do people insist on screwing around with metric? For the newer blades, that they started making _in_ metric, sure. That's the reason that the French managed to slam a Mars rover into a mountain. "Metres and feet are the same, oui?"

Let's see. I'm assuming that 'T' is thickness.

That means the Kai DE blade is probably
1 11/16ths of an inch wide. Possibly 1 2/3" depending on the person measuring.
7/8" wide
.00393 thousandths of an inch thick. (I suspect someone was rounding for the sake of metric, rather than using the actual thickness - so I'll call this a 'needs to be checked' number. )

edit - I just noticed that the Kai DE blades are noted on that chart as being Carbon Steel. That means they're almost certain to be more rigid than the stainless. (edit edit. Apologize. Missed the stainless DE blades as well)

 

There are about a dozen threads on this topic, though only one person I've seen has measured the Kais. Background here to the B&B project:

https://www.badgerandblade.com/foru...-and-homemade-cardstock-fixture.499240/page-3

https://www.badgerandblade.com/foru...or-blade-dimensions-for-b-b-shavewiki.509238/

Since every manufacturer and steel supplier on the planet, with the lone exception of Personna, uses metric, I think it's safe to say the .10mm is the standard, notwithstanding whatever Gillette did in the 1930s. Actual micrometer measurements are in the .0036-.0043" range, with micrometer error obviously needed to be taken into account.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

Having lived with and around engineers my entire life, I believe I can safely say that when you're making products to fit an existing standard, you use the existing sizes - no matter how old that size might be. Converting it to a new measurement system isn't unheard of, it's just that when you try rounding the numbers, you're altering the standard. So, that .10 mm is likely 0.1016 mm. _Fractions don't always decimalise properly_. 1/3, for example, is best written as a fraction, because '.333333333333' repeating gives problems Unfortunately for those who adore decimals, the world doesn't always fit them neatly.

Possibly the easiest example of how the metric folks just can't stand the idea that an Imperial measurement is just how things are - cargo containers.

A standard 48 foot cargo container is 9.5' H x 8.5' W x 48' L, and is usually referred to, even in metric countries, as a 'high 48'. Yet many people insist on trying to wedge that into a metric length.

A standard 40 foot container is 8.5' H x 8' W x 40' L. It's not a metric designation. Every one of those insanely huge cargo ships chartered out of Greece and miscellaneous countries is built around _Imperial_ measurement containers. However, the various countries constantly try to deny it. _Nobody_ makes a 3m x 2.5m x 14m container. Not even in those countries.

Pallets, however, do come in various sizes, both Imperial and Metric. It can make for some interesting shuffling in the containers. (Several of my customers work in the shipping/warehousing and customs industries)

So - DE blades are Imperial measurement, and no matter how you design the machines, they have to remain those same measurements to fit the tools. Pretending to use another system doesn't change the measurements _necessary_ to make things work. (in fact, hasn't it been suggested that Gillette's old razor manufacturing equipment went overseas and continued to be used? That equipment would have been entirely in Imperial)

 

Having lived with and around accountants overruling engineers my entire life, I can safely question who is driving the spec train but point taken. The data clusters fairly close to .004" so it still may be the case. Derby is one who clearly did change spec as folks did measure a change around 2010.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

I can believe it. Thickness would be the easiest thing to change. The original ribbon would have been in 'gauge', and I wouldn't expect a steel plant built with German and Italian parts to be really configured around gauge. (Swedish, maybe, but they've been used for steel by everyone in the razor industry, apparently)

 

Stability is not part of the aggressiveness calculation.


Aggressiveness is determined solely by geometric factors. Increased gap absolutely means increased aggressiveness, assuming all other geometry is constant.

Factors in razor aggressiveness:

Gap
Exposure outside of the curve
radius of the top cap (determines attack angle)
Inner radius of the cap (affects blade orientation)

What you are discussing is modifying an obsolete razor handle to utilize modern blades. It's not about "aggressiveness" in any shape form or fashion. Any instability in a blade is a design flaw by definition, the flaw in the Old being that it wasn't designed for modern thin blades.

 

My point was that blade gap's contribution to aggressive feel is dependent on the angle being used. You could drive a bus through the blade gap on the Futur but it doesn't feel particularly aggressive shaving normally with it, (compared with the Ikon Tech for example). I understand that's because of the exposure on the Tech.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk