This is a comparison of the six big brushes I use. I believe brushes are better compared than reviewed alone. It is easier for a reviewer to communicate his opinion if he describes the brushes in comparison with other brushes. My comparison is intended for members contemplating what brushes they want to go to.
My other brush comparisons can be read here: (small brushes); http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php/359040-Stick-brushes-shootout (synthetic brushes); http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php/392181-Synthetic-brush-shootout
I have been DE shaving full time for just short of 8 years (and part time since 1980) and tested quite a few brushes along the way, mostly ad hoc. I have finally arrived at this check list on brush properties (which I have shamelessly copied from an ancient B&B post!). This is my strategy for brush comparisons and it is highly subjective. Your mileage will vary!
My way of shaving consists of a shower , face wash with an appropriate soap to exfoliate, brush soaking in cold water during shower, cold water shaving with 2+ passes (XTG, ATG + clean up), cold water rinse and an AS. I pick up the soap from a puck or apply the puck or stick directly to my face. I apply extra moisturizer once a week or daily during cold/dry season. I shave every day and all my shaves for the last five years have been BBS.
Anderson, Shavemac, Morris & Forndran, Kent, Pur Tech and Simpsons loft and height comparison
I use the following bigger brushes: Geoff Anderson custom 24/49 mm WSP 2 band, Shavemac 27/51 mm custom 3 band D01, M&F 25/50 mm ‘Chief’ Blonde Badger, Kent BK8 26/54 mm 3 band , no name Pur Tech 30,5/56 mm STF2 synthetic and finally a Somerset era Simpsons BAC 25/50 mm TGN 2 band.
Since the vendor of the Pur Tech brush is banned on B&B I will not name him out of respect for the members and mods. All measurements are made by me using my calipers. Please also note that the Anderson maybe isn’t totally broken in yet, so it might develop in softness and water retention.
For a brush to qualify into my den I have to consider it my desert island brush and furthermore it has to add something unique to the existing mix. As you might have realized I enjoy diversity in brushes.
The comparison of these brushes inevitably ends up being divided into two bands and others. The practical difference between two bands and other brushes is so huge that this aspect demands this division, as is evident from the face feeling section below!
It is up to the reader to decide which features of a brush are the most important. Here are mine:
Face feeling
of the brush on my face is the most important property to me. I don’t want any scritch! The face feeling of the brush is a determined by its knot. Loft (hi – low), profile (fan – bulb), bristles (2/3 band – synth), backbone and density. The density is the most elusive characteristic of the knot even though a simple amount of grams of used bristles would be very informative for the customer.
The softest tips is on the Pur Tech, hands down. Synthetic fibers in a sparse knot are in a class of their own in this respect. Oddly enough I think that the least soft tips are on the Kent, in spite of its reputation. Please note that this brush is of the newer non floppy batches.
The size (or rather focus) is an aspect of the brush that assists in its intended use on the face. If a brush lacks focus on the skin it is not easy to spread the paste or build the lather.
The biggest feeling on the face is that of the Shavemac. It truly has the ‘wall of badger’ feeling without splaying out from the face. This is of course because of the fan shape of the knot and the density.
The smallest face feeling is that of the Simpsons. In spite of having the same measurements as the ‘Chief’ it has a much more bulbous loft, better backbone and far sparser knot.
The least focus is by far that in the Pur Tech. This is because of the sparse knot and the bristle type.
Face feeling, softness: Pur Tech, Shavemac, M&F, Anderson, Simpsons and Kent
Face feeling, focus: Simpsons, M&F, Anderson, Kent, Shavemac and Pur Tech.
Lathering
For me the lather building and release are the second most important characteristics of a brush. The size, loft, material and density of the knot are important properties in this respect.
For many this must come as a shock but the best lather maker of them all is the Pur Tech. The not so well filled Chubby style knot has an ease in the lather building that none of the others can equal in my usage. The three bands are better at this than the two bands.
The best release of lather (with a very small margin) has the Simpsons. The two bands release better than the three bands by their nature, as does the synthetic.
Lather making: Pur Tech, Shavemac, Kent, M&F, Anderson and Simpsons
Lather release: Simpsons, Pur Tech, M&F, Anderson, Kent and Shavemac
Shavemac, Kent and Pur Tech
Backbone
is dependent on what material the knot is made of and how the loft is set, in height and density. The backbone of a brush is important in assisting to pick up the soap from the puck and spreading it on the face. A weak backbone will result in unintended splaying and potential harming of the brush while building lather.
This is a no brainer: The TGN knot on the Simpsons has the strongest backbone of them all with a considerable margin. What surprises me is that the difference of the backbone between the Anderson and the Kent is so small. Please note that the Anderson might not be properly broken in yet and because of that it might lose some of the backbone still.
Backbone: Simpsons, Shavemac, M&F, Pur Tech, Anderson and Kent
Anderson, M&F and Simpsons. NB the Anderson is wet!
Knot
is responsible for the bloom, and for the amount of water and soap a brush holds.
This is where the three bands rule! The Shavemac holds the largest amount of water and soap very closely followed by the Kent. Two bands are left behind because of the nature and size of the knot. For being such a big knot the Pur Tech holds very little water. On the other hand it does not need much water or soap to make very good lather. Please keep in mind that I cold water shave, so no problem with heath retention here!
Be advised that only Shavemac, M&F, Pur Tech and Kent use their own in house made knots. The Simpsons knot is a TGN, the Anderson is a WSP (same source as Kent uses).
Water and soap capacity: Shavemac, Kent, M&F, Anderson, Simpsons and Pur Tech
Handle
aesthetics and comfort is a very personal choice. I use all my brushes for face lathering and this usage calls for a rather compact handle. The total height of the brush should not be too tall or it will be uncomfortable to hold to the face.
The Simpsons handle has really surprised me. It’s quite comfortable for face lathering although I had presumed it was more aimed at bowl lathering. This butterscotch Somerset era Colonel handle is one size bigger than the ordinary X2L and it weighs a lot more. It was custom made to B Altman & Co (BAC) on 5[SUP]th[/SUP] Avenue in New York City in the late forties or early fifties. The butterscotch is the darkest I have seen.
I have to admit that I am partial to the octagonal handle by Shavemac in their own brush and in the Anderson (yes – Bernt supplies the Anderson handle!). This is my all-time favorite in handles and I still get a tear in my eye thinking of my Thäter 4125 I traded for a razor.
Handle comfort: Anderson, Shavemac, M&F, Simpsons, Pur Tech and Kent
My best handle, the Anderson custom
Conclusion
I have used to complain that the Simpsons line of best badger knots is inconsistent over time. I have to admit that compared to the predictability of the two band knots on the market the Simpsons are quite consistent. What I’m trying to say is that there is no standard for what to call badger hair and there is a tendency to invent new classes of badger to imply a better quality.
The only way to get what you want is to handle the brushes before you buy them. But even then you won’t know how the knot will feel after break in!
The intention of this comparison is to give you an idea of what is out there and how I evaluate these brushes in my personal usage. By dividing up my thoughts I hope to give you a tool to do the same.
My other brush comparisons can be read here: (small brushes); http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php/359040-Stick-brushes-shootout (synthetic brushes); http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php/392181-Synthetic-brush-shootout
I have been DE shaving full time for just short of 8 years (and part time since 1980) and tested quite a few brushes along the way, mostly ad hoc. I have finally arrived at this check list on brush properties (which I have shamelessly copied from an ancient B&B post!). This is my strategy for brush comparisons and it is highly subjective. Your mileage will vary!
My way of shaving consists of a shower , face wash with an appropriate soap to exfoliate, brush soaking in cold water during shower, cold water shaving with 2+ passes (XTG, ATG + clean up), cold water rinse and an AS. I pick up the soap from a puck or apply the puck or stick directly to my face. I apply extra moisturizer once a week or daily during cold/dry season. I shave every day and all my shaves for the last five years have been BBS.
Anderson, Shavemac, Morris & Forndran, Kent, Pur Tech and Simpsons loft and height comparison
Since the vendor of the Pur Tech brush is banned on B&B I will not name him out of respect for the members and mods. All measurements are made by me using my calipers. Please also note that the Anderson maybe isn’t totally broken in yet, so it might develop in softness and water retention.
For a brush to qualify into my den I have to consider it my desert island brush and furthermore it has to add something unique to the existing mix. As you might have realized I enjoy diversity in brushes.
The comparison of these brushes inevitably ends up being divided into two bands and others. The practical difference between two bands and other brushes is so huge that this aspect demands this division, as is evident from the face feeling section below!
It is up to the reader to decide which features of a brush are the most important. Here are mine:
Face feeling
of the brush on my face is the most important property to me. I don’t want any scritch! The face feeling of the brush is a determined by its knot. Loft (hi – low), profile (fan – bulb), bristles (2/3 band – synth), backbone and density. The density is the most elusive characteristic of the knot even though a simple amount of grams of used bristles would be very informative for the customer.
The softest tips is on the Pur Tech, hands down. Synthetic fibers in a sparse knot are in a class of their own in this respect. Oddly enough I think that the least soft tips are on the Kent, in spite of its reputation. Please note that this brush is of the newer non floppy batches.
The size (or rather focus) is an aspect of the brush that assists in its intended use on the face. If a brush lacks focus on the skin it is not easy to spread the paste or build the lather.
The biggest feeling on the face is that of the Shavemac. It truly has the ‘wall of badger’ feeling without splaying out from the face. This is of course because of the fan shape of the knot and the density.
The smallest face feeling is that of the Simpsons. In spite of having the same measurements as the ‘Chief’ it has a much more bulbous loft, better backbone and far sparser knot.
The least focus is by far that in the Pur Tech. This is because of the sparse knot and the bristle type.
Face feeling, softness: Pur Tech, Shavemac, M&F, Anderson, Simpsons and Kent
Face feeling, focus: Simpsons, M&F, Anderson, Kent, Shavemac and Pur Tech.
Lathering
For me the lather building and release are the second most important characteristics of a brush. The size, loft, material and density of the knot are important properties in this respect.
For many this must come as a shock but the best lather maker of them all is the Pur Tech. The not so well filled Chubby style knot has an ease in the lather building that none of the others can equal in my usage. The three bands are better at this than the two bands.
The best release of lather (with a very small margin) has the Simpsons. The two bands release better than the three bands by their nature, as does the synthetic.
Lather making: Pur Tech, Shavemac, Kent, M&F, Anderson and Simpsons
Lather release: Simpsons, Pur Tech, M&F, Anderson, Kent and Shavemac
Shavemac, Kent and Pur Tech
Backbone
is dependent on what material the knot is made of and how the loft is set, in height and density. The backbone of a brush is important in assisting to pick up the soap from the puck and spreading it on the face. A weak backbone will result in unintended splaying and potential harming of the brush while building lather.
This is a no brainer: The TGN knot on the Simpsons has the strongest backbone of them all with a considerable margin. What surprises me is that the difference of the backbone between the Anderson and the Kent is so small. Please note that the Anderson might not be properly broken in yet and because of that it might lose some of the backbone still.
Backbone: Simpsons, Shavemac, M&F, Pur Tech, Anderson and Kent
Anderson, M&F and Simpsons. NB the Anderson is wet!
Knot
is responsible for the bloom, and for the amount of water and soap a brush holds.
This is where the three bands rule! The Shavemac holds the largest amount of water and soap very closely followed by the Kent. Two bands are left behind because of the nature and size of the knot. For being such a big knot the Pur Tech holds very little water. On the other hand it does not need much water or soap to make very good lather. Please keep in mind that I cold water shave, so no problem with heath retention here!
Be advised that only Shavemac, M&F, Pur Tech and Kent use their own in house made knots. The Simpsons knot is a TGN, the Anderson is a WSP (same source as Kent uses).
Water and soap capacity: Shavemac, Kent, M&F, Anderson, Simpsons and Pur Tech
Handle
aesthetics and comfort is a very personal choice. I use all my brushes for face lathering and this usage calls for a rather compact handle. The total height of the brush should not be too tall or it will be uncomfortable to hold to the face.
The Simpsons handle has really surprised me. It’s quite comfortable for face lathering although I had presumed it was more aimed at bowl lathering. This butterscotch Somerset era Colonel handle is one size bigger than the ordinary X2L and it weighs a lot more. It was custom made to B Altman & Co (BAC) on 5[SUP]th[/SUP] Avenue in New York City in the late forties or early fifties. The butterscotch is the darkest I have seen.
I have to admit that I am partial to the octagonal handle by Shavemac in their own brush and in the Anderson (yes – Bernt supplies the Anderson handle!). This is my all-time favorite in handles and I still get a tear in my eye thinking of my Thäter 4125 I traded for a razor.
Handle comfort: Anderson, Shavemac, M&F, Simpsons, Pur Tech and Kent
My best handle, the Anderson custom
Conclusion
I have used to complain that the Simpsons line of best badger knots is inconsistent over time. I have to admit that compared to the predictability of the two band knots on the market the Simpsons are quite consistent. What I’m trying to say is that there is no standard for what to call badger hair and there is a tendency to invent new classes of badger to imply a better quality.
The only way to get what you want is to handle the brushes before you buy them. But even then you won’t know how the knot will feel after break in!
The intention of this comparison is to give you an idea of what is out there and how I evaluate these brushes in my personal usage. By dividing up my thoughts I hope to give you a tool to do the same.
Last edited by a moderator:
