Opinions on Mach3 variants

Mach-III turbo packets still come with "nano-thin" title. But yes, HD blades seems to be a new way of defining these.

 

I used to think so, but the latest marketing for original M3 carts claims they also have nano-thin blades.

 

Oh, I see. Thanks for the info Mr. Nathan.

 

No problem.

 

Not really a helpful comment but, why not give this little piece, an honest try? In Pakistan, there is only Schick exacta now (quattro, no longer) so I can't try the hydro 3 and upload my review on it. They claim, it is better than Mach-III in shaving performance and price.

 

I have the Hydro 3. I like it alright, but I prefer the Mach3.

 

LOL, case closed.

 

I prefer the Hydro-3 over a 4 or 5 blade monstrosity. given the choice I'll almost always reach for my Atra if I'm traveling on a short trip where I only have carry on luggage otherwise I'm using an SE or DE.

 

I'd love to see a base vs turbo vs Sensitive shave-off

 

There is one point to brainstorm on :

Wouldn't it be cost prohibitive for Gillette to manufacture three kind of blades for a single razor? Plus, wouldn't it present more problems for Gillette in promoting Proglide, if they really do make three kind of blades for mach 3? Finally, I can't find any extension to the patent number "US 6295734" (the original mach-3 cartridge). Doesn't it suggest that Gillette never actually looked into making a better coating, other than DLC?

 

Actually, you list several points.

It would seem so. However, at the time the M3 was the flagship, and the Turbo was the only tweak on the original, it may have been less prohibitive. The relationship was similar to what we currently see between the original Fusion and the ProGlide. Gillette claims to actually use thinner blades in the ProGlide than in the Fusion, so they are evidently willing to bear the extra cost of manufacturing different blades for variations of the same model when it's their flagship. The same could have been true for the M3 back when it was the flagship, especially if the only difference in the blades was the coatings.

Now it might, yes, but I suspect either there were never really three different types of blades, or Gillette has winnowed out their M3 offerings over the years.

Interesting point. I would be interested in seeing the original marketing for the Turbo when it came out, since I'm now having to rely on memory. I recall Gillette touting the anti-friction coating on the Turbo blades, but I'm not sure they ever said the base model didn't have the same coatings; they just didn't say it did. It's possible people have assumed the coatings were unique to the Turbo, thanks to Gillette's canny marketing. (If I'm remembering correctly, and I may not be.)

 

I'm going to do base vs. Turbo shave-off, but I'll leave it to someone else to bother with the Sensitive.

 

Woops, sorry about that. I added more questions in there but didn't edit the original number. It happens a lot with me. I think of one question, it derives another one and instead of asking just one, I end up asking a couple more. I am still patiently waiting on your review on Mach-3 original vs. turbo.

 

Update: Just came back from market and saw the blue colored mach-3 turbo pack. Interestingly, on the back of the pack, "Made in Poland" was written.

 

I did a head-to-head today, using an M3T on the right side of my face, base M3 on the left. I used the same handle (Art of Shaving engraved nickel) switching out the cartridge each time I switched sides. (Side note: this proves what a complete geek I am, since this is very time consuming, and makes for a much longer shave time.)

I wish I had more conclusive results to report, but honestly, I'm really not clear on what I felt. There were times when the Turbo felt like it might be gliding a bit more smoothly than the base M3; other times, they felt about the same. I can say that at no time did I get the impression the base M3 was smoother than the Turbo. However, the variables are mixed, since the growth direction and certain features are different on each side of my face. Also, this is hardly a blind test. I'm well aware of which cartridge is which, and that awareness could be affecting my perception. When the differences are huge, I'm not worried about placebo effect. However, when I'm trying to determine whether I even notice a difference, placebo could be a factor. Additionally, there are only so many strokes before the shave is done, so I only have a limited time in which to gather my impressions.

From here on out, I'm going to trade off the cartridges every other shave. I will do complete shaves with each cart, and get a sense over the life of the carts whether one seems better than the other. Right now, I can say whatever differences there may have been were slight, so I don't think the Turbo is a slam dunk over the base M3, or vice versa. Also, the final results with both carts were the same. From a purely functional standpoint, I think I could use either and be content, even if I end up having a slight preference for one model over the other. And there's no doubt the base M3 wins on aesthetic grounds, per my preferences.

 

A very nice review, Mr. Nathan. I liked the part where you mentioned using same handle for both cartridges, trying to keep every variable same in order to obtain the best set of observations. I once performed the same experiment on fusion proglide carts. For me it is safe to say, both carts (manual and power) have same blades. Only differences are the microcomb and lubrastrip.

By the bye, Mr. Nathan, how many shaves can you get on a single M-3 cart (turbo, original or sensitive)?

 

Good question. Because I switch up so often, I lose count. I do get pretty good mileage out of them, but I'm hard-pressed to give an actual number. I'm logging my current M3 and M3T shaves, though, so I'll have a better idea of how long each lasts.

 

The first link in the following linked post might interest you. Especially the shave time vs. coating analysis performed on mach-3. . You might find it helpful when judging the wear of DLC coating between Mach-3 and Mach-3T.

http://theshaveden.com/forums/threads/are-you-into-shaving-science.47164/page-7#post-912286

Edit: According to the first experiment, most of the coating comes off during 2-4 shaves. I believe at this number of shaves bracket, you will be able to judge much better, the differences in M3 and M3T.

 

It is an interesting article, but it is also rife with methodological problems. To name just a couple, the author cites his own previous study as the sole support for his claim that the third blade of the M3 offers no benefit over the two-bladed Excel. Then, for this study, he uses a sample size of one person, comprised of himself, to supply subjective data for his metrics. I can't say that's terribly good science. Rather, it seems to amount to a very carefully constructed forum post.

 

I understand your concern. Frankly speaking, I also thought about the equilibrium which Gillette tried to achieve between addition of edges and better weight distribution of those edges on the skin, in order to maximize the comfort. But then again, such articles are strictly reviewed by Science societies (in this case : American Ceramic Society). Whatever may be the case, one thing is for sure that most of the coating will come off during/after your 4th or 5th shave. Once that happens, you might be able to observe pure differences in these two cartridges. If performance degrade and mileage on both cartridges remain same, we can safely say that coating on both blades is the same. Am I right here?