Thread: Faux Frameback

Originally Posted by ChopperDave

I said Faux!

Repeat of post 7? Merely trying to point out that your razor differs from a frameback, faux and otherwise.
If you wanted advise pertaining to the honing of a frameback razor, it should be a frameback razor which is displayed for discussion. No offence intended. Was not my intention. However if you are offended, please concur.

Fine then. I will hone my 'Shoulderless' Erik Anton on my Faux Jnats.

Originally Posted by ChopperDave

Fine then. I will hone my 'Shoulderless' Erik Anton on my Faux Jnats.

I think it will shave most excellent, Dave!

Originally Posted by sharptonn

Repeat of post 7? Merely trying to point out that your razor differs from a frameback, faux and otherwise.
If you wanted advise pertaining to the honing of a frameback razor, it should be a frameback razor which is displayed for discussion. No offence intended. Was not my intention. However if you are offended, please concur.

I don't know why you're getting snippy at him; I have the same razor, and if you look at the blade tip-on you can see that the grind is an exact match for the example of a faux-frameback given in the SRP wiki, reproduced here for your convenience:

Originally Posted by sharptonn

Yes! My position is that 'faux frameback' has been too liberally applied. Proper terms should be used to relate to a razor so there is no confusion. In the picture on post #9, the bottom blade has a frame which constitutes the tang and spine (or back). the blade is another piece. Hence 'Frameback'.
The top razor is one-piece in the blade and tang department with a 'false' spine slipped on top. Hence 'Faux frameback'

A two piece affair should be the only ones which use the 'frameback' moniker, faux or not.

The rattler grind is unique to it'self. So how about the 'half-rattlers'?

I didn't want to delve into half rattlers, where would we stop?

Originally Posted by Substance

yes this is my understanding of a rattler with the larger lancet type spine

And now you bring up lancets which I also wasn't going to mention

Originally Posted by 174Grain

I don't know why you're getting snippy at him; I have the same razor, and if you look at the blade tip-on you can see that the grind is an exact match for the example of a faux-frameback given in the SRP wiki, reproduced here for your convenience:

Noone has been snippy until now Mr 2 post. That chart is representative of a fraction of the grinds in existence.
Also, the wayward misuse of the terminology concerning frameback razors is staring you wholly in your face here.
Besides, even the Henckels grind chart is much more complete.

If you fellows want to interpret grinds and types of razors suited to your imagination, go right ahead!
The problem lies in that those with less experience will go all glam over nonsense.
They (The razors as well)will be what they are regardless.

I mean really? look at what they are calling a concave!!

Originally Posted by sharptonn

Noone has been snippy until now Mr 2 post. That chart is representative of a fraction of the grinds in existence.
Also, the wayward misuse of the terminology concerning frameback razors is staring you wholly in your face here.
Besides, even the Henckels grind chart is much more complete.

If you fellows want to interpret grinds and types of razors suited to your imagination, go right ahead!
The problem lies in that those with less experience will go all glam over nonsense.
They (The razors as well)will be what they are regardless.

I mean really? look at what they are calling a concave!!

Chart doesn't show a Ratter grind razor, guess they don't exist, a lot of this thread was for naught then.....

Originally Posted by Phrank

Chart doesn't show a Ratter grind razor, guess they don't exist, a lot of this thread was for naught then.....

Exactly, Phrank! Exactly!

Yep... I learned on this SRP wiki figure.