Thread: Douglas cutlery

1. No one really knew what a razors edge looked like or how they dulled before 1933.
The fact is in 1879 they were looking at razors edge with a microscope http://straightrazorpalace.com/honin...-use-hone.html Read the article! 54 years before your magazine came out!

"Of course many attempts have been made to photograph razor blades. Most of these pictures have, however, been taken with a magnification of only a few hundred diameters and the true cutting edge has escaped the camera"

Now I suppose we're going to discuss the difference between evidence and better evidence. That way we can continue to evade the point ad-nauseam. I did not write the above article in 1931, I was ask on what I based my conclusions, here's part 1. If you think this article is incorrect I would suggest you take that up with Popular Science.

https://www.google.fr/search?q=razor+blade+sem

Interesting photos in the picture search.

Originally Posted by Martin103

The fact is in 1879 they were looking at razors edge with a microscope http://straightrazorpalace.com/honin...-use-hone.html Read the article! 54 years before your magazine came out!

Read the post before replying to one particular sentence.

Originally Posted by the techno mumbo jumbo man (just kidding mate :D)

You probably have heard that a razor removes your beard by virtue of its “saw tooth edge.” and you have undoubtedly seen photomicrographs in which the “saw tooth edge” of razors apparently was plainly visible.
Pratt’s investigation proves definitely that the “saw tooth edge” is a myth, an optical illusion.

Originally Posted by Martin103

The fact is in 1879 they were looking at razors edge with a microscope http://straightrazorpalace.com/honin...-use-hone.html Read the article! 54 years before your magazine came out!

Actually I did read the 1879 article. The 1931 article said the 1879 article was wrong and its conclusions no better than myth. It actually refers to the conclusions of the 1879 article.

"Pratt’s investigation proves definitely that the “saw tooth edge” is a myth, an optical illusion."

In fact the 1879 article was saying the assumptions by the razor makers about their edges were false and not based in science (sound familiar?).

The 1931 article said the razor makers were right to start with, and that science had been wrong for 54 years.

Of course neither article directly mentions the razor makers assumptions, but I feel safe making these jumps in logic. Besides it helps me make my point.

I'm one of the few members who was around in 1879 and has flown a SR-71 Blackbird. Sharp blade make whisker go away. This thread almost made me want to go to church....but....nah, I'll keep my 48 year record intact.

Originally Posted by bishpick1

Here are some of the conclusions I made from this article.

1. No one really knew what a razors edge looked like or how they dulled before 1931 and the greatest razors in history where made on false assumptions not based in science.

Uhm, I don't know about 'greatest', 'made on false assumptions', and 'not based in science'. There is scientific knowledge from 19th century and we've had and continue to have quite a number of threads finding interesting facts about how it was used when making razors. Few years ago a new razor manufacturer decided that some of this 19th century science didn't apply to them (or more likely didn't bother to do their homework to find out what's important and how important it is in razor making) and produced razors that wouldn't last through a shave. It was a trivial thing in the design and easily corrected, but the fact is they put out a product that wasn't working and had to find out from their dissatisfied customers on this and similar sites what they were doing wrong.

Originally Posted by bishpick1

By the way, science is just the current understanding and not “truth” science changes almost every day. Example. Pre 1998/2006 “the universe will stop expanding and collapse.” Post 1998/2006 “The universe is expanding at an ever faster rate and will never collapse because there is not enough matter to halt the expansion.” Which one is “TRUTH”

That's a rather incorrect representation of what science is and how it works - you are presenting a false dichotomy.

Originally Posted by bishpick1

2. The edge, when dulled by use, is chipped, bent, and broken by the contact with the beard, even to an extreme amount after just four uses. (This does not apply to dulling due to storage). Carbon-Chromium will resist this kind of damage.

3. Stropping “bends” the edge back into place. Conclusion, that it further weakens the bent edges. I think this part is just common sense as any child who has played with a paper clip will attest.

4. Dulling due to storage is from corrosion, a corrosion resistant steel such as Carbon-Chromium will reduce this type of damage.

See, how easy it was to invalidate your arguments from post 16. Of course, your analogy between paper and steel is entirely superficial because the two processes are completely different.

Originally Posted by gugi

Uhm, I don't know about 'greatest', 'made on false assumptions', and 'not based in science'. There is scientific knowledge from 19th century and we've had and continue to have quite a number of threads finding interesting facts about how it was used when making razors. Few years ago a new razor manufacturer decided that some of this 19th century science didn't apply to them (or more likely didn't bother to do their homework to find out what's important and how important it is in razor making) and produced razors that wouldn't last through a shave. It was a trivial thing in the design and easily corrected, but the fact is they put out a product that wasn't working and had to find out from their dissatisfied customers on this and similar sites what they were doing wrong.

Well at least I'll have you to fall back on IF there is ever a complaint...... none yet.

Originally Posted by gugi

That's a rather incorrect representation of what science is and how it works - you are presenting a false dichotomy.

I'm not the only one who holds this "incorrect representation" here's a few others.

If you thought that science was certain -- well, that is just an error on your part.

Richard P. Feynman (1918 - 1988)

Science is a way of thinking much more then it is a body of knowledge.

Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

Science is as corruptible a human activity as any other.

Michael Crichton (1942 - 2008)

Scientific knowledge is human knowledge and scientists are human beings. They are not gods, and science is not infallible. Yet, the general public often thinks of scientific claims as absolutely certain truths. They think that if something is not certain, it is not scientific and if it is not scientific, then any other non-scientific view is its equal. This misconception seems to be, at least in part, behind the general lack of understanding about the nature of scientific theories.

From The Skeptic's Dictionary

Originally Posted by gugi

your analogy between paper and steel is entirely superficial because the two processes are completely different.

ah...... paper CLIP.... do I really need to present scientific evidence that metal bent back and forth will break?

Originally Posted by gugi

See, how easy it was to invalidate your arguments from post 16

I don't feel invalidated.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

I would be asking myself why the bevel is so freaking huge on a new "custom" razor...

Originally Posted by bishpick1

This is an article from Popular Science Oct 1931 I’ve included photos of the original article at the end of the text. All photos referenced in the article are visible and reasonable discernible. I’ve highlighted some appropriate passages. Here are some of the conclusions I made from this article.

1. No one really knew what a razors edge looked like or how they dulled before 1931 and the greatest razors in history where made on false assumptions not based in science. By the way, science is just the current understanding and not “truth” science changes almost every day. Example. Pre 1998/2006 “the universe will stop expanding and collapse.” Post 1998/2006 “The universe is expanding at an ever faster rate and will never collapse because there is not enough matter to halt the expansion.” Which one is “TRUTH”

2. The edge, when dulled by use, is chipped, bent, and broken by the contact with the beard, even to an extreme amount after just four uses. (This does not apply to dulling due to storage). Carbon-Chromium will resist this kind of damage.

3. Stropping “bends” the edge back into place. Conclusion, that it further weakens the bent edges. I think this part is just common sense as any child who has played with a paper clip will attest.
4. Dulling due to storage is from corrosion, a corrosion resistant steel such as Carbon-Chromium will reduce this type of damage.

5. Cutsomer reviews do matter.

Originally Posted by bishpick1

I hope I can finally lay an issue to rest. The bevel is a product of the edge angle and the thickness of the steel where the line between the spine and the edge intersect. It will naturally be wider on a near wedge, in fact a true wedge is all bevel. Depending on the blade design some of these razors have heavier blades, as much as .007 not the .002 to .004 of vintage high carbon steel blade. This allows for a much stiffer edge allowing for what has been described as “a blade that plows through the beard”. It also allows for 8/8 or 9/8 shoulder-less designs without an increased risk of blade cracks. When a carbon steel blade is described as “singing” what is happening is the edge is flexing toward the face as it comes in contact with a hair and then snapping back in shape as it cuts through. The thinner blade is an advantage to high carbon steel, it allows the shock to be absorbed by the blade reducing micro fractures. There’s no need for this with carbon-chromium alloys, these are spring steels that are designed to flex. Neither is honing an issue, honing a wide bevel is exactly the same as a narrow one. In the end it comes down to a type of steel that will support a thicker blade profile allowing for a smoother cut through thicker beard, oh, and esthetics. On blades of the same thickness (.007 as an example) the wider bevel will be on the near wedge and the bevels get progressively narrower as you move toward full hollow. By the same token, the bevel will be narrower on a blade which is .006 narrower still on .005 etc. That’s it, there is no boogie man hiding in a wide bevel.

Originally Posted by bishpick1

I think you missed this line. "Depending on the blade design some of these razors have heavier blades, as much as .007 not the .002 to .004 of vintage high carbon steel blade." or maybe it was this one, "In the end it comes down to a type of steel that will support a thicker blade profile allowing for a smoother cut through thicker beard, oh, and esthetics." I did not say these blades profile designs was based on vintage blades, quite the opposite. As I pointed out the steel is different and allows for design features that would have been a problem for the vintage blades. That problem would not have been honing it would have been edge chipping (dulling), this is why the worn out quarter hollows you mentioned dull so quickly and why you want to chunk them into the display case instead of using them. As far as the resistance to forward motion (the stiction) during the hone, I haven't really noticed a .030" (less than a 1/32") bevel sticking to the hone with undo force. Neither those who own them nor I seem to have had much difficulty maintaining them, and that in the end is the point. If you don't like the design that's fine my effort here was not to change your mind on that point but rather to point out the wide bevel was by design and not an error as some have maintained. Because I have no desire to simply argue I'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by bishpick1

The razors come already beveled and shave ready I would not expect anyone to have to set a bevel on a new blade. As far as the eventual dulling issue that is another advantage to carbon-chromium steels they resists dulling because the thinnest part of the edge can flex without chipping or bending longer than high carbon steel can. Again, it’s spring steel. This is why the thicker blade profile is used, it’s a stiffer spring. Think “band saw” if you make a band saw blade from high carbon steel it will break very quickly, it can’t flex. However if you use carbon-chromium (what they are made of by the way) it will work for a long time because it can flex. It’s not as hard as tool steel but it is more forgiving of damage. The thinner blades made of this steel work just as well as high carbon, and they sing just like high carbon, but the thicker blade profile works smoother, with less flex. The high carbon blades were made thinner and thinner to spread the shock of the edge flexing and reduce edge damage. They became so thin they added the shoulder to prevent horizontal cracking. It was a compromise. With carbon-chromium there is no need for compromise, just make a thicker blade, no vertical crack, no horizontal cracks just a stiff long lasting edge.

Back in my Nightclub days we used to basically bet on anything, we would sit around early in the evening waiting for the night to get rolling and just make up games to bet on
One of the popular ones was played with dollar bills and the numbers on them (a simple version of Liar's Poker)... Basically the object of the game was to use everyone's numbers and to keep making claims about what you had for numbers, added to what they all had, the claims would get more and more outrageous until somebody called BS, the bills would be shown and depending on the claims the money would change hands.. Tons of fun really, and a great way to pass the time..

So with that in mind, even though I have really tried not to post in this thread, after those 4 posts, I am finally having to call "BS" ...

You have some serious, shall I say politely "Mis-Conceptions" of the why's and how's of Vintage Straight Razors, rather than continue this "discussion" with somebody that is only aware of their own opinion. I would highly suggest that you take the time and initiative to take advantage of the vast resources that SRP offers to study and research why the razor makers have done things certain ways over the last 300 years... You might want to seriously study the grinds that have been done over the years and might want to learn the term Shoulderless and look at a Full Hollow Grind with that design as it blows your theory about shoulders and cracks out of the water ...

"Bevel size" is a direct equation of angle, it has nothing to do with blade thickness, trust me on this I am holding a near wedge in my hand right now a set of Calipers and a Micrometer... On the desk in front of me is one of your razors, interesting outcome of the measurements... (Note the small even bevel on the 150+ year old JR)




Could you tell me what angle yours are even designed for ???

Taking into account your grind and steel theories and even setting aside the inaccuracies of your statements, I could almost accept a "Wide" bevel, but on a new custom razor the thought of a wide and uneven bevel just does nothing for me... You can talk all the circles you want about Spring steel vs High Carbon steel and argue Scientific process, but what you can't hide is the uneven grinds...

You might try simply stating what steel you are using that would tell everyone here much more then the ambiguous "Carbon Chromium" you keep mentioning

The 1931 article is only one side of the stropping argument you might try reading the other papers also to get a fuller understanding of all the theories.. (note the word theories, there is NO proof)

BTW before you say I should try your razors, please don't.... I have honed and shaved a razor(s) from just about every custom maker out there, including 5 of yours...


My final advice:

Originally Posted by bishpick1

I'm not the only one who holds this "incorrect representation" here's a few others.

If you thought that science was certain -- well, that is just an error on your part.

The problem is that you simply can not transfer the uncertainty of cutting edge unresolved scientific problems to well established facts in their domain. Relativity and quantum mechanics did not invalidate newton's laws for slow macroscopic objects. For example no human being has yet experienced spontaneous quantum teleportation, and neither has any car, or airplane, or fast runner shrunk in any significant way due to their high speed. But your cell phone and your GPS are able to function only because the quantum and relativistic effects have been properly accounted for.
So, no cop out from being wrong because of 'scientific uncertainty'.

Originally Posted by bishpick1

Originally Posted by gugi

See, how easy it was to invalidate your arguments from post 16

I don't feel invalidated.

Your argument is, though. Reread that article, as well as others and pay close attention to the numbers. The processes that are described there are happening on a scale many orders of magnitude smaller than the width of your bevels. All that steel on your huge bevels has absolutely nothing to do with what is occurring at the edge. The only thing it does is making your razors unnecessarily hard to maintain. As I said, a customer may consider this as the cost of having the aesthetics of wide bevel if they like that, but your argument was about functionality.
And that is by far not the only functional issue on your razors, regardless of whether you have heard about it from your customers.