i'm old enough to remember that when the Trac II came out Gillette had a very similar ad comparing the improved twin-blade Trac II to the "old-fashioned" single blade (i.e. Double edge, injector, or se razors. History is repeating itself.
Gillette takes a swipe at traditional wet shavers?
- Thread starter onethinline
- Start date
garyg
B&B membership has its percs
While I love the old, non-disposable razors (of all ilks) I think that the only reason ol' King C. would be spinning would be that he didn't think of that - he got men (mostly) hooked on the latest in machines (the razors last long enough that I've got a bunch older than I am), then shlipped them the throw away, disposable blades. P&G is just going the last lap on King's "improvement" over a straight razor .. but hear tell there are those that still use the cutthroats as well ..
True. King Gillette would probably be delighted and amazed to learn that his 100-year-old company now has 68% market share and generates billions of dollars annually. He was a businessman, first and foremost.
I can appreciate that, though I'm sure we can all agree that practical and quality built tools, that last, was a goal of the men in years gone by. Quality used to be what made customers knock at your door. It has snowballed into something entirely different. Like it or not, friends. Tell me there is a different reason for seeking out a vintage Tech! There is no argument. Things are no longer built to last. There is no money in it. The men of old made livings by providing a product that was worthy of appreciation. Tell me King wouldn't be rolling again. I wholeheartedly disagree!
Last edited:
If you really think at this, Gillette's tactics haven't changed since they got masses of men to drop their straight razors and use the new and super high tech safety razor. 100 years later, they want you to drop the Mach 3/Trac 2 and get the new fancy better product. 25 years from now they will wonder why you are still shaving with the Fusion Proglide with flexball technology.
I don't agree that "things are no longer built to last." Some things are not built to last.
Right now you can purchase any number of razors that will outlive you (ATT, Wolfman, any number of straight razors,) if you are willing to pay for that level of quality workmanship.
You can also get a razor basically for free, but it will not be made to the same standard of workmanship.
In 2015, you have choices. You can pay for quality, or you can pay surprisingly little and still get a workable product that is meant to last only a very short time.
My preference is for the long-lasting quality choices, and I'm willing to pay for it. But other people -- particularly people without much money to spend on things like razors -- are probably happy to have a cheap option that allows them to spend money on other things.
It's nice to fantasize about a world where everyone shaves with a stainless steel razor. But for many people, having only one option at a $175 price tag -- would be oppressive.
We are talking about Gillette. Nothing more.
What I think is ironic is that I was one of those guys. I grew up with a Mach III as my first razor and when the 4 blade came out I was like Neat! Then the fusion came out and it was not as neat anymore. I really started to get more annoyed by the whole idea of "if we add more blades we can do even better". Now I have turned back to the ways of my grandpa and use a straight razor. These ads drove me to where I am at now, loving my wet shaving. I guess I should thank Gillette for pushing the price up. I never would have got my Puma if the just kept going with the Mach III.
Keep in mind also that there were plenty of cheap products out there 100 years ago, too.
The reason you don't see them anymore is that it all went to the slag heap long ago. Only the best products have survived and become collector's items.
This is called "survivorship bias" -- because the best razors have survived we assume that that's all there was at the time.
The reason you don't see them anymore is that it all went to the slag heap long ago. Only the best products have survived and become collector's items.
This is called "survivorship bias" -- because the best razors have survived we assume that that's all there was at the time.
The Gillettes many here consider heirloom quality were not intended to be heirlooms when they were built. Fatboys, Slims, Techs were mass produced using materials and production techniques available at the time.
Why would Gillette make an heirloom quality Fusion that would appeal to maybe 1/10th of 1 percent of its market?
My '66 Slim is 49 years old. I won't be here 49 years from now, but I bet in the year 2064 their will still be many Fusions floating around in flea markets that todays kids will consider heirlooms because they saw their old man shave with one.
Why would Gillette make an heirloom quality Fusion that would appeal to maybe 1/10th of 1 percent of its market?
My '66 Slim is 49 years old. I won't be here 49 years from now, but I bet in the year 2064 their will still be many Fusions floating around in flea markets that todays kids will consider heirlooms because they saw their old man shave with one.
I doubt that. The Slim will probably be around. If it's lasted 49 years it will last 49 more.
The Fusion is not a razor per se. It's a razor handle. It's a glorified plastic stick. Without a cartridge, it is worthless. Unless you think Gillette is going to be making cartridges for that plastic stick in 49 years, the stick itself will be worthless.
Your original post that I quoted was a global statement about how things aren't made the way they used to be. That's what I was responding to.
As for Gillette, keep in mind that King Gillette popularized the concept of disposability with his razors. "Gillette" and "disposable" have always gone hand-in-hand.
That's exactly what a DE is. Worthless without the blade. And you're right. Gillette doesn't make blades for their old sticks.
By all means, please point out where a global statement was made, aside Gillette. Try to keep it in context. I'm in no way arguing that quality is a thing of the past. I'm saying it is for Gillette... The context is Gillette.
Last edited:
garyg
B&B membership has its percs
I'm thinking that the simple design safety razors will outlast the world, as will the straights (all's you need is a rock to rub, eh). I'm worried about going into the bin without a Fat Boy, so have four of them, mint save the travel razor.
I'm blaming the media, for making people who had only clamshells know that Martin de Candre made soap. So we got all these people without the beans or the means to afford expensive stuff, voila, Sam Walton, now everyone can have everything (or a knock-off) .. and, yes, that is Henry Ford-esque
I'm blaming the media, for making people who had only clamshells know that Martin de Candre made soap. So we got all these people without the beans or the means to afford expensive stuff, voila, Sam Walton, now everyone can have everything (or a knock-off) .. and, yes, that is Henry Ford-esque
Gillette does make blades for DE razors -- lots of them, actually. But more importantly, so do dozens of other manufacturers. DE blades are easy to make, and as long as there's a market you'll be able to buy them.
By contrast, look at the Atra. That is not a collector's item by any stretch of the imagination. Nobody gets all weepy and nostalgiac over them, although some people pay up for the old handles because Gillette doesn't make them anymore.
I don't think anyone would seriously compare a plastic Atra razor from 1982 to a Gillette Aristocrat in terms of collectability. I had one and it broke. They were cheap. The only reason they're still used by anyone at all is that the blades are very cheap to manufacture and so they're cheap to use.
Last edited:
Similar threads
