Every once in a while, a newbie posts a question along the lines of "why don't you just shave against the grain on the first pass?"

The discussions tend to focus on reducing the stubble, etc. Somebody asks why it's easier to shave shorter hair against the grain--you're still cutting hair that's just as thick, right?

I have a theory about that. I'm still getting this shaving thing down on my chin, and sometimes I have a little stubble left over. One day I noticed that this stubble looked blond, which is odd, since I have dark brown hair. As I looked closer, it looked like the whiskers were sheared off at an angle, and the thinner ends looked lighter.

Now, this is mainly because I'm still learning. But I'm thinking that this always happens, albeit on a smaller scale.

My theory is that the first pass bends the hairs a bit before cutting them, and then what's left over is stubble that's actually much thinner than it was originally. It's trimmed at an angle. Subsequent passes then cut the hair down to skin level, squaring off the whisker with the surface of your skin.

This could also explain why even a mediocre straight shave still feels better to me at the end of the day than my best Mach 3 shave ever did. The same thing happens with the Mach 3--you can see it in the clips National Geographic used in their shaving special. So my Mach 3 was lifting the hairs out of my skin (their three-blade, pull-and-cut approach) which in theory should have left the hairs cut below skin level. Maybe they were, but the ends were trimmed at an angle, so when the stubble came back it had pointy ends and felt rougher.

Does this make any sense? I guess I'm thinking that the Mach 3 cut my beard closer but the straight cuts it cleaner, so the shave lasts longer.

Just a thought.

Josh