Thread: A few questions on Frameback razors.

I've never used on yet, but currently waiting on a few in the mail.



Looking at this chart and based on what I've read, the framebacks seem as thin as a full hollow, except the thinness runs all the way to the spine. Because the blade is so thin, wouldn't this make it more prone to chips, cracks and other kinds of damages that can occur through decades of use and storage? If you have a heavy wedge from the 1800s with a lot of pitting, you could sand it down until it's gone, but you wouldn't be able to do that with a frameback. I have seen some old framebacks, but definitely not as many as wedges. Although framebacks were less common than wedges, could this also be because of the fragility and pitting issues?

And could the frameback's fragility have been considered in the design process? The blades were cheaper to make, and designed to be removable. So is it possible that they weren't designed to last as long as other razors? The frame may have been, but the blades were like hone-able shavette blades.

If framebacks are significantly more fragile than wedges or variations of the hollow grind, was the Concave grind an attempt to amend this? The top half has a similar shape to a wedge, but the bottom half is like a frameback. Although the bottom half was still fragile, it reduce the amount of damage done if there was a chip or crack.

And finally, are the frames not made in damascus? Looking at some of the customs and historical pieces, the frames were always made of normal steel, and only the blade was made from folded steel. Why was this? If the blade is fragile but the frame is durable, I would've imagined that the frame would be made of damascus.