Printable View
I see a lot of mention of "hollow" and "full hollow" and "super full hollow"(DDWE)
and on and on.
I came across this some time ago and think it may help clear up some confusion by creating a standard by which to judge your grind.
I would like to see this made a sticky. Change the name, change the content, whatever. Lets just circulate this pic.
I think this is a good idea but wanted to suggest a modification. I have a good eye for detail but seriously cannot se much difference between any of the individual grinds and say the one to it's immediate left and right. I do think every 2 or 3 steps shows an observable change so maybe we can redraw this into 5 or 6 profiles at best. A full hollow singing type as #1 and true flat sided wedge as #5. Maybe a half hollow would then fall at #3 or so leaving a barely concave wedge at #4, etc...
I can already see with such slight difference no one will be able to tell a 10 from a 9 on this chart. Any CAD guys out there care to help?
Tony
The problem I have with this pic is that it fails to show the bi-concave grinds. A new guy would conclude that all grinds are single concave.
I undersstand but it's better than nothing right??
I'll PM Superfly.
A system of nomenclature for various grind types/levels with some numbering used to define it even better isn't exactly what I'd call "nothing."
I'm with Tony and those are really the five grinds or hollows I refer to.
Double = singing
Full = standard
Half = a little heft
Quarter = those blades which read "Hollow Ground" but look and act more like the wedges they are, wedge of convenience
Wedge = slice of pie. ... :hmmm: (strawberry rhubarb W&B please) :D
X
Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
Ahh, Strawberry Rhubarb. When I was in Lancaster last week the Amish bake shops were cranking these pies out like crazy. They make a Strawberry Rhubarb bar, like a soft cookie/cake and had Strawbery Rhubarb jam as well.
Good eats.
Tony
I agree with GW, a reference picture would be great. By the by, my grandfather referred to rhubarb as pie plant and used a straight razor, which really has little to do with the numbering system. Grandma baked the pies and never mixed pie plant with strawberries; the wild strawberries that grew on the farm were much too good to adulterate. That has even less to do with the numbering system, then again the pies and the strawberry sauce were number tens, at least.
Man, do I miss those glorious days of yesteryear, Bruce
Yes, it is better than nothing, thats for sure. I agree that Superfly should be contaced but I would ask that we follow Tony's suggestion for a more limited number of grinds.Quote:
Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr
My second request would be that the "wedge" grind be shown as a single concave and also annotate the AKA's, 1/4 hollow and flat grind. The other should be annotated as a bi-cocave grind with the various AKA's.
OK, what would you guys like to see pictured?
As far as I am concerned, X-s description of things looks somewhat accurate to me.
Double Hollow = extra hollowed, i.e. singing blade, same as below, but done with more precision, and more metal removed
Full Hollow = Double concave (Biconcave) grind, really thin and flexible blade,
Half Hollow = often single concaved blade, but sometimes (rarely) double concave grind with more heft,
Quarter Hollow = single concave, stiff grind, for coarse beard,
Wedge = not exactly slice of pie (or I am yet to see one like that), but very little metal removed, still concave grind
All a straight razor user need to know are these markings. For the more enthusiastic straight razor Connoisseur, there are various web sites, books, referenced images, etc.
cheers,
Nenad
Nenad,
I think you are right on the wedge not being quite a slice of pie. Even my oldest, wedgiest of wedges still only touched on edge and spine so must have the slightest degree of relief on the sides....slightly concave.
Tony
In the 'Types of blades:' drawing provided on this thread by GWH then,
The Double Hollow would look like the image XIV
The Full Hollow would look like XII
The Half Hollow like VIII
Quarter Hollow IV
an Wedge I or II
Is that about right?
What's this about indicating the Double Concave Grind?
How does the provided image not display that?
How could it be shown, or what am I missing? I don't know how you could show that.
X
X,
I think Randy was refering to a grind where the side is not completely a concave from spine to edge. On many the concave section stops just behind the edge resulting in a slight widening which strengthens the edge.
Tony
http://straightrazorpalace.com/image...BFA/grinds.JPGQuote:
Originally Posted by Tony Miller
...are you referring to the 'belly' on the full-hollow shown above?
-whatever
-Lou
Yep, that's it alright.
Tony
I'm sure that the original diagram at the start of this thread is from the 1914 Henckels catalogue as it shows 16 degrees of grind - there were also numerous depths and blade shapes. I agree it's a bit confusing but it has to be remembered that this was the heyday of the straight and makers were selling thousands and thousands a year. Nowadays even Dovo only have 'half-hollow' 'hollow' and 'extra-hollow' (the hilariously named - to english-speakers anyway - 'Klang' blade - conjures up all soirts of mayhem!).
The point is that when dealing with vintage razors there IS this variation of 16 grinds - though to be fair most are between 1-3 (wedge) and 8-10 (full hollow). It's a best-guess with a bit of know-how!:tu
Here's what is being used in the wiki - if we can get a more complete or accurate graphic that would be awesome
http://straightrazorpalace.com/srpwi.../GrindForm.GIF
This is relevant to the razor database. The term "full-hollow" seems to be used quite wrongly by some manufacturers (if not all of them.) So when I added some entries I went by the diagram, not what the razors were sold as.
+1. My DD is a true full hollow, yet my new Dovo (advertised as a full hollow) is definitely beefier and requires a bit of change in technique to get the same level of shave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajagra
In grading razors according to Hencker's scale, I find helpful as a final check the use of a modified chart (see below) that underlines the portion of blade which can be considered very thin and straight. Also, "relative grading" can be a good resource: start comparing blades between them and put them in order (increasing hollow) before going to the chart. Hope this can help! ;)