I'm thinking of getting either a Simpson Colonex X2L or Rooney 3/1. I use both creams and soaps, and I face lather. I imagine both brushes would do quite well. If I understand correctly, they both have approximately 22mm knots and 50mm lofts. I'm guessing the Rooney is more densely packed? Any thoughts on comparing/contrasting these two brushes? Thanks, -Andy
Well, not having either of these two brushes, I can tell you that Msandoval, a serious SBADder, said the X2L is the best value brush on the market, and he recommended it heartily. I believe he also uses Rooneys...
Never tried the X2L, but I do have a PJ 2 in super, it's nowhere near as dense or stiff as any of my rooney's. The Simpsons, like shavemacs seen to have less backbone and are more luxurious than Rooneys which are more densely packed and stiffer, and more scrubby feeling. Depends on what you are going for. Also if you are strictly face lathering have you considered the 1/1 or 2/1 vs the 3/1? The longer handle of the 3/1 seems to make more sense to me if you were looking to bowl lather.
I have used both and would say the the Rooney was my favorite. Performance was outstanding. I didn't care for the Simvue. Wasn't as dense as I like and had a bad haircut. JMHO
Why 3/1 for face lathering The reason for the 3/1 rather than style 1 is that I prefer a slightly taller handle than the 1 series has. I haven't heard anyone say anything negative about Rooneys. Then again, what I've heard about the X2L has also been good. But I'm not in a position to purchase both. I have a Shavemac 177 with 50mm loft that I bought one year ago. Yesterday it lost its first hair. Now that's great quality. This time I'm interested in an English brush, so I'm thinking Rooney or Simpson. Under $100.
I have a 177 also. Do you like the softness/floppyness of the brush? the simpson will be more like your SM. the Rooney is a completely different animal. Stiffer/denser. I could type all day, but to find out you need face time with them, just a question of which one do you want to try first. :rofl
Here's a pic of the two. Please note that this Rooney 3/1 is a Finest grade hair. I have owned a 3/1 in Super as well . . .liked it enough to upgrade to the Finest. The Simpson is a nice brush that performs well, but I prefer the Rooney. The Rooney knot is denser but works well with soaps and creams. The Simpson is a nice brush but I agree with the previous post that it has a bit of a bad "haircut." The back part of mine has an area that is slightly higher than the front. This doesn't affect performance but doesn't look great. I'm not sure of the price of the Simpson when purchased new. I picked mine up on B/S/T for a good price and am pleased with the brush's performance. However, if I was buying one new, I would probably go with the Rooney.
Definitely the 3/1 Many thanks for the picture of the two brushes. I'm thinking I like the looks of the Rooney better than the Simpson. I do like my SM 177. I believe it typically comes with a 60mm loft, but I ordered a 50mm loft as I face lather. I find the brush to be quite firm, and definitely dense enough. I also find that sometimes it doesn't want to give up lather as easily as my C&E BBB, which is nowhere near as dense. A trade-off, I guess.
Sometimes very dense brushes have that problem. The only one I have ever had that really wanted to hold the lather was a Rooney Stubby 3. It was a large, dense brush. Even holding lather, it could still whip up enough for the shave. I haven't had a problem with the Rooney 3/1 or the Colonel holding lather.
Great brushes, I have them both and would get the Rooney first.......the Colonel is nice too, but the Rooney is superb at face lathering
My 3/1 arrived on Tuesday I've used the 3/1 two mornings, with a number of other practice lathers. It's an impressive brush, no question. Very dense, stunning handle. Makes plenty of lather considering the short loft. Definitely a keeper. Been wetshaving for two years. I now have: Shavemac 177 with 50mm loft Rooney 3/1 C&E BBB Omega pure badger Several Omega boars And I like all of them.
