Thread: Cotis v Japanese Naturals v. Guangxi: A single-blind, repeated measures experiment

I really like your observations pcbo1 and am anticipating more!

I am very new to J-Nat honing. I do have a question and that is from my observations a J-Natural honed razor has a different feel to it when shaving. One can apply a little more pressure and still get a superlative shave with no irritation at all. I don't think that the edge is quite as keen as coming off a 0.1 micron film but it doesn't matter because one can change technique a tad and probably get a better shave.

Waiting for more.

Thanks,
Richard

Defenatly going to be an interesting read

It's almost 1AM, and I'll post the results tomorrow. But I want to make sure no one misinterprets the nature of this post.

A better title might have been MY Cotis v. MY J-nats v. MY Guangxi. This is not meant to be a "which is best" experiment. Although I've tried to eliminate as many variables as I could, there are two things I could not control for.

First, all these stones are natural, not man-made. I'm convinced that individual variations exist among Cotis, J-Nats, and even the People's Hone. Maybe the examples I have are not the best finishers of their type; the odds that I have the superlative Coti, the finest J-Nat, and God's Own Guangxi are one in several billion.

Secondly, I could not control for me. I believe I was able to impartially rate the closeness and comfort of the edges produced. But I've always been partial to Cotis, and J-Nats are relatively new to me. Maybe my honing skills leaned toward one stone rather than another. I tried to use the same strokes, the same pressure, etc., but I recognize the results might have been different with a different hand on the blade.

In short, I think that the results should not be generalized across all stones of these types, or across all honing skill levels. I wanted to know which of MY stones, in MY hands, currently gave me the best edges, so that I could produce the best possible shaves FOR ME. Maybe the only real contribution I'm making here is providing a template that others might use to determine what is THEIR best hone to produce THEIR best edges on THEIR razors.

BTW, Hot Tub Time Machine is pretty gross, but also funny. Anyone offended by the F-bomb should leave it alone.

Here let me summarize it for you,,,,

No matters the steps you might take to make it as scientific as possible, it actually never can be...

So in the venerable words of the Founder of this forum "Have Fun"

I also look forward to your results... all these types of experimentations help the overall knowledge base...

Shave On !!!!

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Here let me summarize it for you,,,,

No matters the steps you might take to make it as scientific as possible, it actually never can be...

So in the venerable words of the Founder of this forum "Have Fun"

I also look forward to your results... all these types of experimentations help the overall knowledge base...

Shave On !!!!

Well said.

I was intrigued when pcb01 mentioned his knowledge of experimental design but, no offense intended, disappointed at the described strategy. However, I absolutely appreciated his point of the two things for which he couldn't control. I think part of the fun of naturals is that each of us can cling to the certain knowledge that our own rock is much better than anyone else's rock!

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Here let me summarize it for you,,,,

No matters the steps you might take to make it as scientific as possible, it actually never can be...

So in the venerable words of the Founder of this forum "Have Fun"

I also look forward to your results... all these types of experimentations help the overall knowledge base...

Shave On !!!!

Agreed. A true experiment would be reproducible across different observers and, as I noted above, different observers might have different observations.

And it WAS fun!

This is one that RayG and I did last month that was a kick

http://straightrazorpalace.com/honin...aving-fun.html

And still as good as we tried, it had predictable results once the "givens" were known...

Given that RayG hones his own razors on a Coticule
Given that I use a Coticule for finishing on Sheffield steel

He chose the one with the Coticule as the best for his face..

But it was still fun

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Here let me summarize it for you,,,,

No matters the steps you might take to make it as scientific as possible, it actually never can be...

So in the venerable words of the Founder of this forum "Have Fun"

I also look forward to your results... all these types of experimentations help the overall knowledge base...

Shave On !!!!

Since shaving is so subjective and personal this method
seems as fine a way to systematically explore honing
as one can devise. Yes there are others....

As far as "scientific" goes the scientific method mandates that
others be able to reproduce the results. That is problematic.
Subjective and personal combined with natural hones
is not an easy context to reproduce results in.

However a quantitative/ qualitative approach where an individual
can reproduce results has great value in a subjective
and personal sport like shaving.

A statistic text I once read talked about the challenge
of ordering a preference list like this. This approach
is a good one.

You're quite right. This is not a rigorous experiment because results from such should be reproducible by others, and in some sense universal to the variable being controlled for. I would not expect my results to automatically be reproduced by another shaver; the results I did get cannot be applied to all cotis, J-Nats, etc.; and there were critical variables I could not control.

Having said all that, even the most rigorous trials have limitations and can be proved wrong. Drug testing by the FDA is thorough -- even burdensome, according to some Pharma companies. Thousands of patients, multiple studies, etc. Yet how often do we find out that all this rigorous safety and efficacy data is just plain wrong.

When I was in med school, we were taught to correct certain arrhythmias (irregular heartbeats) with medication. We thought it saved lives. Years later, when someone bothered to look at longitudinal data, it became evident we were killing more people than we were saving.

Unfortunately, there is more of this that goes in in medicine than most people suspect.

Originally Posted by pcb01

You're quite right. This is not a rigorous experiment because results from such should be reproducible by others,
...snip...
Unfortunately, there is more of this that goes in in medicine than most people suspect.

Yet it is worth doing!

Such experiments i.e. quality notes
do set the stage for more rigorous
efforts.

It is the deliberate note keeping that makes it work, shaving or medicine.