That is some really interesting information. My guess is that it's pretty accurate as well since a dulled razor blade can easily serve as a handy feeler gauge.
Very interesting, so it Retains the same amount of Blade angle just increases the gap between the safety bar and blade. Thank you for posting that!
For some reason, I always thought the angle changed with the blade adjustment. I definitely learned something from that clip.
The blade angle does change. It's just so subtle it doesn't photograph well. The shaving angle definitely changes. Here's some German Slim instructions that show the shaving angle with regard to aggressiveness setting. Photo credit goes to Achim's Mr. Razor website. @mr-razor
Don't agree; the OP's story makes perfect sense to me. That is how the Gillette designers would be thinking back then.
So then this basically means that the adjustments aren't consistent from model to model? Meaning that a comparison from Slim to Fatboy or SA isn't possible? I.e. Slim on 5 vs Fatboy on 5 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The differences between the Fatboy and Slim are mostly in the head geometry (the Slim has a flatter, narrower head) weight, and overall length. Most people who have shaved with both have a pronounced liking for one over the other. That being said, the blade gaps are fairly consistent between the two models. The Super Adjustable is the most different of the three models of commonly available adjustable Gillette's, being both lighter and more adjustable. My personal preference is Fatboy>Slim>Super Adjustable. I can get a good shave with all, but the Fatboy feels better in the hand than the other two models. More solid and weighty.
Interesting theory. I wonder how accurate it might be. I would think that the number limit of 9 might be just by design rather than any limitations of machining at that time. By the mid 50's we certainly had the technology to make very fine threads on metal. Could spacing have had an effect? I've seen a few copies of various patents for these and they are very interesting reading if you have an interest in both shaving and machine manufacturing.
Speaking of which... Anybody have a copy of the relevant patent numbers? I kind of want to snag copies of some of the artwork. Keyword searches seem to get me the Toggle and the Bottom-Dial Fatboy, but I'm personally interested in the one for the Slim. (Saw it once on eBay, but didn't grab the number at the time.)
It's pretty accurate regarding the blade gap information. The gentleman in question was part of the team who developed the Gillette adjustables. The threading was the size it was to move the gap a precise (by the standards of the time) distance. In order to have more movement, the dial would have had to be longer. There is enough room to add an extra adjustment and a half, but barely, and that only with a CNC machine. A person could add thinner threads, and get less adjustment per turn, but the better solution is to add more detents, and get more clicks per turn, enabling the shave to be dialed in more precisely. It's what I would do, in any case. It's something I've looked into quite a bit over the last few months. I'm always interested in seeing how the old designs could have been made even better. Gillette tended to always leave an upgrade path for their razors, though they rather shot themselves in the foot with the "more blades = better shave," thing. After a certain point, more blades are just counter productive.
It is certainly possible that it happened the way that your contact explained the situation. My thoughts are that Gillette certainly had engineers on the design team. From an Engineering standpoint, they would have known the circumference of the shaft and calculating the threads per inch to determine the travel and spacing of the notches used. That would have given them the number of stops available, thus 9. They could, of course, used finer threads however that also would have been engineered into the design for strength. Although using blades as a spacer guide suggests these razors were reverse engineered and that is certainly possible however Gillette was and is a big company and a leader in their field. The technology and engineering was available and quite rudimentary for the time period. I doubt we'll ever really know the exact details of the design team but it makes for great speculation.
