Thread: For Better or For Worse, a Psychological Honing Experiment

I'm defining sharper as "thinner edged". That's actually what it means (one could argue that other variables related to cutting ability may also be considered, but edge thickness is overwhelmingly the dominant variable to the extent where it is the most commonly used definition of sharpness, so it's good enough for me). I think people need to realize that shave performance and sharpness are not necessarily directly correlated. Sharpness is measurable, shave performance is entirely subjective (unless the razor is really bad... and I mean really, really bad).

Some of us shave without high grit synthetic stones or paste, but if your back in the day time-line is brief enough they had those.

Reading A Treatise on Razors (searchable here) it seems they had the same questions and problems we read about today on the forums. Considering all the "miracle" strops and hones I have seen advertisements for I would say there were quite a few BITD with maintenance problems, who struggled to get a good shave.

With the info and access we have to day I think we can more readily do what the best did back then. The average guy today uses a disposable or electric and most likely does not enjoy his shave. BITD it was likely the same; the average guy did not particularly enjoy the process, and had some problems with edges.

If we compare our work with the best those who had the better tools, and knew how to use them; then, I say no: we are not sharper. There is still that same threshold of bevel angle and edge thinness we cannot cross without edge failure. Steel remains steel; stone=stone; skill/skill. Without those we are left to the various shapes and forms of beard and mustache.