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.

Good questions!
My take...
#1. The frame back is no more prone to damage than any other blade. Their flexibility may account for that.
#2. Not fragile at all. Consider that they were often taken to the middle of no-where back in the Empire days. The difference between the ruled and the overlords often being clean shaves. Some FBs' were replaceable because they were light and if dropped did not ruin the razor. Also, as for the fixed framebacks, They were easy to re-hone if chipped.. Think of the metal removal needed to remove a chip from a 8/8ths wedge!! It took me about four hours over a weeks time to rest a bevel on one and correct the geometry. Think of having to carry a set of hones in your back pack...Dr Livingston! Or private Jones.
#3. I think that the rattler grinds were salesmanship and some hype. Lighter also.
#4. Frames were of a cheaper steel than the blade. The Swedes developed the process to make the finest usable carbon steel in a strip form. When making a million blades a year, cost was seriously curtailed. All the best Iron ore for Sheffield and Thiers was originally from Sweden. For the Japanese, with their tradition of small crucible furnace smelted and hand forged"Jewel Steel" Tamahagane (玉鋼), the cost of the steel was really a big thing. They made many western style framebacks.
Just my take...I love the blades!
~Richard

Originally Posted by Amenrab

Thanks, this definitely clears up a few things. I can understand why the frames were made of a cheaper steel, since they wouldn't really have affected the shaving.
As for the fragility, would there have been any difference between these two types of framebacks, or was it just the availability of machinery? One looks like a wedge with a frame attached, while the other is a very thin piece of steel with a frame attached.

I would say, in general that they did, and do, what they consider/ed the best method to use for their clientele.
Please remember that these are my opinions and there are certainly experts out there who know, have researched a heck of a lot more than I.
Any frame back, in my opinion may have a better quality of steel in the blade than others of the same cost. A custom razor is a one-off to accentuate the lines and history of the fixed blade shave tool.
Have fun and keep on a lookin'
~Richard

Flexible? My John Watts true frameback is certainly not flexible. It gives a very odd sensation when shaving of the thinness of an half hollow and the stiffness of a wedge. Somewhat annoying to strop but otherwise it is a joy to shave with.

I had to hone out some small chips on mine but it was easy due to the thinness of the blade. Severe pitting would be an issue; although I'm not sure about cracking, since unlike the full hollow the blade itself isn't actually as thin as you might imagine.

I have read somewhere that they were produced in answer to concerns vis costs or material and labour. Once material and labour costs were lowered, their manufacture faded out, although it is possible that the rattler grind addressed an audience who sought the style and shave characteristics of the true frameback. Many of them were not intended to have removable blades, the design simply allowing a thin piece of steel to be used as the blade and the frame stiffening it - as opposed to a chunk of steel that requires more metal and more skilled labour to produce. Some framebacks do use replaceable blades but these were far from the rule.

I'm unsure whether they used pattern welded steel for framebacks, certainly mine doesn't appear to show any signs of this - the frame seems to be a mild steel.

I have a Joseph Rogers & Sons frameback that I plan to hone up and give a try. Here is a pic. BTW, it is not an interchangeable blade.

I think that most framebacks I've seen are really a fair bit thicker than the drawing. They are more like a thin wedge. I've never seen one that has had a flexible blade.

Mine is very much like the drawing - the frame however makes it very inflexible.





Came a long way since I first bought it. I still need to find a way to polish up the pressed leather scales though!

Thanks for the responses people. Never had a question which wasn't able to be answered on here.