Thread: Razor Width Measurement.

Isn't it intuitive to measure the width of the razor's cross-section? That is, from tip of spine to tip of edge. The distance from edge to spine bevel is also an important length to measure, but I would qualify such a measurement anytime I used it to describe a razor's width

Why wouldn't a cross section measurement be appropriate? I don't see the reasoning behind only viewing and making reference to the tip of edge to the hone wear or face of the spine? Maybe I'm understanding the idea of NOT measuring or referring to blade width as end to end (cross section) correctly.

Think of one of the vintage meat chopper monsters that sports some level of hollow grinding (those massive W&Bs come to mind). Cross section it might be 9/8th or at least 8/8ths. Edge to face of spine may only be 7/8 or who knows, maybe even 6/8ths??? I'd never refer to such a razor as such a small width in relation to its overall large size.

Oh, and don't use even a plastic caliper to measure the width of a Wapi. I tried that last year on a new one and BARELY I mean barely made contact on the unhoned edge. Chipped it. Flaked off by almost just looking at that one it did.

Chris L

I agree it is intuitive to measure in the way you say, Lee, but I don't know if it is correct.

I say this because when I bought a new DOVO, the measurement was taken from the spine bevel and not the top of the spine. Incidentally the blade still measured slightly larger than the 5/8" description. I don't know what TI do, I have never owned one.

Looking at all of my other razors that have little hone ware, the measurement always seems to be taken from bevel to razor edge.

I had a Case Red Imp wedge were the top of the spine was effectively the spine bevel and so there was no problem.

This said on many vintage heavy blades, the spine can be quite substantial.

Originally Posted by English

I agree it is intuitive to measure in the way you say, Lee, but I don't know if it is correct.

I say this because when I bought a new DOVO, the measurement was taken from the spine bevel and not the top of the spine. Incidentally the blade still measured slightly larger than the 5/8" description. I don't know what TI do, I have never owned one.

Looking at all of my other razors that have little hone ware, the measurement always seems to be taken from bevel to razor edge.

I had a Case Red Imp wedge were the top of the spine was effectively the spine bevel and so there was no problem.

This said on many vintage heavy blades, the spine can be quite substantial.

Ah - well, I guess like Glen said one of us should call Dovo and TI and find out. I am curious to know, maybe I will call them myself

If it is really important to you then I would recommend asking the seller exactly how he measured that particular razor. I don't think that making people standardize the process for the B/S/T section is realistic.

That's the solution I was coming to.

When this discussion came up previously, I think we concluded that different manufacturers measured differently. There were one or two that seemed to use the spine-to-hone-wear measurement, but most just seemed to measure edge to spine.

I always measure edge to spine, as it's the most straightforward. I've seen 6/8 wedges that would have to be called 2/8s if you used the hone wear approach.

To me the question is, what are you trying to measure? To me, the measurement should convey the heft and width of the razor. Since a significant portion of the weight resides in the spine, why not include that in the measurement? It's not like that extra 1/16" or more of width would go away when you went to shave just because the hollows don't extend that far...

Josh

When I sell the odd razor, I try to generaize and hope the buyer realizes there is a 5/8 ballpark, a 6/8 ballpark, etc. Or, I'll say a big 5/8 is 11/16. I don't see any need to be that specific. Maybe if its a particularly expensive or rare razor....

Jordan

Originally Posted by English

I agree it is intuitive to measure in the way you say, Lee, but I don't know if it is correct.

I say this because when I bought a new DOVO, the measurement was taken from the spine bevel and not the top of the spine. Incidentally the blade still measured slightly larger than the 5/8" description. I don't know what TI do, I have never owned one.

I guess DOVO has changed their methods. I emailed to ask them how they measure straight razor width and received this reply:

"Lee,

It is measured from the tip of cutting edge to the tip of the spine, so it
is the overall height (or width) of the blade.

Best regards,
Anne
DOVO Stahlwaren Bracht GmbH & Co. KG
Boecklinstr. 10
42719 SOLINGEN
GERMANY"

She didn't say why or how they measure their razors this way, but I guess this is their current method.

If one is going to get retentive about one's razors, there are other qualities and quanties which should be given to more completely describe the tool: what is the length of the blade, what is the thickness of the spine, what is the contour of the spine, what is the length of the shank, what is the length and radius of the tang, is the blade shouldered or no, what is the weight of the blade, what is the grind, what is the polish, what is the material of the scales, pins, wedge, from what point to what point are these data being taken, etc, etc etc. And we may have only scratched the surface and hopefully that has not resulted in any micro-chipping.

Now I'm a high stakes retentive and for the life of me can't really figure out why all the worry about how the width of the blade is measured or why we stop at 16ths (on a good day and with a good ruler, I can get really close to a 64th and with my good glasses may even be able to get closer than that). And...one measurement cannot describe the entire length of the blade if there are any deviations from the straight and true. It's a good thing I'm typing rather than speaking as it's really hard to talk with a tongue stuck in one's cheek.

Good measuring, and here's hoping that your next honing doesn't bollix up your data,