Thread: Coti vs Escher

I have both and I don't use my thuris much. The thuri or escher if you will. is a little easier to finish on and edges off of it shaves a little closer. But to me the coticule is smoother.

So must of the time I don't bother with the thuri. But they are excellent finishers. I just happens to like my coticules a little better.

It is about finding what you like. Once you do, and you're satisfied, it is just curiosity, or acquisition disorder after that. I like both, but give the edge to the Escher (pun intended)

From A.B. Moler's Barber Manual, circa 1929 ;

I figure from all of this old literature that 100 years ago, barbers never used a hone to do anything other than limit the width of the bevel, and that the hone was never worked to the edge.

Not that such a thing is a real revelation, but almost nobody hones that way now. We all blast the edge off.

Originally Posted by DaveW

I figure from all of this old literature that 100 years ago, barbers never used a hone to do anything other than limit the width of the bevel, and that the hone was never worked to the edge.

I really don't understand this. The hone would be used until the razor shaved well, and it wouldn't shave well till the hone "worked to the edge."

Originally Posted by Utopian

I really don't understand this. The hone would be used until the razor shaved well, and it wouldn't shave well till the hone "worked to the edge."

I've seen numerous old accounts where even with a coticule, barbers suggested that one should be careful not to remove the edge.

There would be an initial period with any razor, where a subpar hone would create a coarse edge, at least coarse compared to what we're used to. The linen would even the edge out gradually, and then the maintenance hone would be used sparingly to keep the width of the bevel from increasing much, but without removing the conditioned edge the linen made.

I am 100% sure that is what "overhone" meant in old literature, and it's completely different than what we use the term overhone for. You see in old literature that the escher is described as a stone where overhoning is not possible (that's because it's fine enough that the shave with the stone created edge is excellent). The literature doesn't say the same for carborundum, aluminum oxide and sometimes coticules. The benefit to using a coticules to keep the bevel thin is that it can do so without leaving deep grooves, which means it can work closer to the edge without damaging it. But if you work all the way to the edge, it will not be as keen as a thuri edge, except for a very few coticules.

The art of maintaining the edge without removing it is lost, and I think that such an edge (because it's what I strive to keep) is superior to an edge right off of a stone or used with oxides. It is exceedingly sharp, but it has a smoothness that the linen creates that no stone can match for sharpness and no oxide can match for comfort. It's also a very durable edge, and one that has a very constant feeling in sharpness through the week until the linen is used again.

I don't believe it's ever necessary to remove the very edge again once the razor has been set up initially.

What's interesting is that the text that jimmy has suggests that many barbers prefer a faster hone than a thuringian, because of the ability of those hones (the synthetics, etc) to quickly touch up a razor. We know from experience that nobody is taking those maintenance stones and shaving directly off of them, most are not that fine, and even the ones on the fine side (like the swaty) are pretty brash under a scope.

Leaving the edge would allow a barber to adjust a razor that's starting to pull in about 30 seconds, vs. our routines of stones removing the edge that take minutes at least.

I've had several Eschers (and Droeschers and unlabeled thuris), and many, many cotis. They all provide a great edge.

I've never tried shaving off a hone without stropping on linen and leather first, so I cannot comment on that. In my hands, the coti edge lasted longer, but that's subjective as I never really kept tabs on them that closely.

Anyway, in my opinion, it comes down to preferences - some people will like them both equally, others will prefer one or the other. Doing a 'hone-off' with Escher vs. coti as the OP has done, will answer which is preferable for only the OP. Other people will have different experiences.

I should have been clearer I stropped on leather only. No linen. And yes it is absolutely subjektive which edge you like the best.

as you I have multiple of both. Well I never owned a labeled escher but I'm certain that the two I have at the moment are thuringian. And some days I like thuris and some days I like coticules. All a matter of preferences

Also the handling of the razor after the endfinishing on hones could be essential for the shave experience. Whereas for me personally stropping on Linen is a must for most coticule edges, it could sensible degrade a Thuri edge. Try the thuri edge only stropped with leather.

Originally Posted by hatzicho

Also the handling of the razor after the endfinishing on hones could be essential for the shave experience. Whereas for me personally stropping on Linen is a must for most coticule edges, it could sensible degrade a Thuri edge. Try the thuri edge only stropped with leather.

Agree. I can get along with any stone, but I wouldn't want to give up a genuine linen. Cotis need it right off the stone on the first edge, other stones don't so much, but after a week of shaving off of any stone, a linen can bring the edge to a point better than it was on the stone to begin with and condition it to something better than any hone will make.

Originally Posted by hatzicho

Also the handling of the razor after the endfinishing on hones could be essential for the shave experience. Whereas for me personally stropping on Linen is a must for most coticule edges, it could sensible degrade a Thuri edge. Try the thuri edge only stropped with leather.

This is interesting. Never thought of it. I'll try it tomorrow