“Your Mileage May Vary” is the mantra of the wet shaving community. Simply put, what works for you may not work for me. Other interpretations could include “one person’s treasure is another person’s trash”, “to each his own”, or even “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. The point is razor value is primarily subjective.
Yet razor enthusiasts love data, and love to compare razors. So, to tease out some of the empirical differences between razors I’ve developed a system for scoring razors based on four metrics: efficiency, comfort, consistency, and ease-of-use. Usually, efficiency is most prized. But the other attributes can be just as important to the overall enjoyment of the razor and are equally weighted in a Composite Score which exhibits the total strength of the razor. The four attributes are defined as follows:
- Efficiency: the closeness of the shave, which I rate between DFS- and BBS+ in 1/8th steps (DFS, DFS+/DFS, DFS+, BBS-/DFS+, BBS-, BBS/BBS-, BBS, etc).
- Comfort: also known as aggression (the inverse). This means different things to different people. To me, it’s a combination of blade feel, irritation, and risk of nicks and weepers.
- Consistency: the level of confidence that a shaver has that they know what the outcome of the shave will be beforehand. Exactly what causes consistency to vary is a bit nebulous but is likely to be a combination of blade flex (chatter) and design elements which can lead to variation in outcomes such as optimal cutting angle.
- Ease-of-use: how much concentration and effort are needed during shaving, and how much practice is required to achieve the desired result.
I also assign each razor an Efficiency Rating, which is the maximum closeness which can be achieved with the optimal blade pairing, for which I tend to use either a Wilkinson (Germany), which I consider a high-sharpness blade, or a Wizamet, a medium-sharpness blade. Over time, I’ve come to learn that high-efficiency razors (TiBird, GC2.0, Nodachi) will score a higher Efficiency Rating with a medium vs. a high-sharpness blade as it allows for more buffing and higher maneuverability, exhibiting the interplay of efficiency with other attributes. Sometimes less is more. Within Efficiency Ratings I rank the razors based on composite scores. In general, I view any razor with an Efficiency Rating above BBS as “High Efficiency”, at BBS/BBS- as “Med-High Efficiency”, and at BBS- as “Medium Efficiency”. Everything else, I lump together as “Low Efficiency”.
The above rankings are based purely on “performance”. Another dimension to analyze and rank razors is “value”, which is an attempt to understand the price differences between razors and see if the cost is justified. To do this, I’ve developed four relative metrics described below:
- Price-to-Composite Score (P/C): the number of dollars paid per each point of composite score. Used as a measure of price over total value delivered.
- Price-to-Efficiency (P/E): the number of dollars paid for each point of efficiency.
- Comfort-to-Efficiency (C/E): a ratio of the Comfort score vs. the Efficiency Score. The idea is to exhibit a simple view of which of these two defining attributes is more pronounced.
- Efficiency-to-Composite Score (E/C): this shows the percentage of Efficiency points among the aggregate points of the Composite Score. The idea is to show how much of the value of the razor comes from efficiency vs. the other attributes.
To iron out any of the distortions which can come from very low-priced razors I’ve limited the comparison to razors with a price >US$100. By doing so, I’ve eliminated razors which are die-cast and user cheaper materials (zamak) and focused on CNC-ed razors which tend to be the most topical in the B&B community.
Based simply on P/C, the best value is the GC2.II, whose class leading efficiency and incredible build quality is a bargain at US$110. Conversely, the WR2 (Ti) is by far the worst value considering its high price and middling overall performance. However, sometimes P/C alone doesn’t tell the whole story, as in the case with the TiBird. Although the TiBird’s P/C is very high at 10.3x, nearly double the Overlander, on a Price/Efficiency basis it’s only 26% higher than the Overlander. In literal terms, this means whereas for the Overlander you pay US$27 for each point of efficiency you pay US$34 for each point with the Blackbird. But while the Overlander’s Efficiency Rating maxes out at BBS-, the TiBird can deliver a BBS+. Looking at the Efficiency/Composite Score, only 19.4% of the Overlander’s overall performance comes from efficiency, where for the TiBird it’s 30.3%. Therefore, for the shaver who values high efficiency razors that deliver the closest possible shave an argument can be made that the TiBird’s premium is justified (an argument with which I agree!).
All of this is meant to be mainly food for thought, and hopefully fun to consider. As always, YMMV!
