GEM Razors

Gents-- I've had a number of requests to do a video on GEM razors. Unfortunately I don't really know what to look for when I'm searching for a "good" GEM razor. From forums searches it appears that there are some models that are more desirable than others. But what should I be looking for to make sure I've found a desirable one in good working condition?

--Mark

Mark, I would suggest a model 1912 which is widely recognized as one of the best shaving GEM's, as well as one of the more affordable ones given they were made from the 1910's through the 1940's under the GEM, GEM Jr. and Ever-Ready names.

GEM Jr.



GEM



Ever-Ready

+1 to Guido's idea of the 1912, but also maybe throw in just for demo purposes the micromatic since it's a TTO mechanism. But, shave-wise, stick with the 1912.

Both, in their own way, are very photogenic razors, especially if you get the chain link /fancy handle for the 1912.

EDIT: also to demonstrate re: blade positioning... the micro has a center post (bump) centering guide in addition to the two leading edge retainer clips whereas other models (the 1912 for ex) do not have a center post.

Many GEM users find an earlier lather catcher model more satisfying, but they are much, much more rare and much, much more expensive. I feel the 1912 would have much broader appeal as it is a more accessible razor for the general audience.

The Micromatic

AsylumGuido said:

The Micromatic

Click to expand...

This would be the Bullet Tip Micromatic, which has a regluar safety bar, and is considered the mildest of the three models (the other models being the far more common Open Comb, and the somewhat rarer Clogpruf; which has a slightly different looking safety bar than the Bullet Tip).

A couple of photos of the head of a Micromatic Clogpruf:

I would use a 1912 as the archetypal GEM. There are many later variations and it would be hard to classify them all as the same razor. Many do not have the comb-like guard that is part of the essence of the 1912 GEM.

The earlier "Lather Catchers", the ones that take a standard SE blade, are very similar except they are:

a) fussier to load a blade,
b) lighter weight,
c) more "Victorian" looking, and
d) harder to come by.

As far as the shaving experience, I think the lighter weight of the Lather Catchers makes a difference, but they are otherwise a very similar experience to the 1912s.

EDIT: My favorite 1912 handle is the cylindrical, knurled, handle. Not as interesting looking as the hexagonal "chain" style but nicer to use.

I thought the 1912's as illustrated were the lather catchers.

I recommend the G bar. With the longer handle, it's easier to control than the 1912 (in my experience). Also fewer moving parts than the TTO.

Zumkopf said:

Could someone post a picture of a "Lather Catcher"?

Click to expand...

Here are six. Note the "scoop" shape of the head. The one on the far left of the first picture and the second one from the right in the second picture are older models and have more of a pronounced "catch" area. Neither of those two will accept a modern SE blade.

I doubt they were called "Lather Catchers" when the were originally sold. I think that may be a modern term used as a convenient way to speak of them as a group, and distinguish them from newer models. Perhaps someone can provide a better understanding of this.




EDIT: Split into two pictures.

I have owned and used all SEs except the Clog-Pruf and Lathercatcher and prefer the 1912 to the Micromatics and G-Bars but enjoy all of them. Gem, Star, Ever-Ready, Treet, etc. all are good shavers. Too bad they are not made today; their only competition from my experience are the Injectors with the Platinum Series blades.

Robert Paulsen said:

Here are six. Note the "scoop" shape of the head. The one on the far left of the first picture and the second one from the right in the second picture are older models and have more of a pronounced "catch" area. Neither of those two will accept a modern SE blade.

I doubt they were called "Lather Catchers" when the were originally sold. I think that may be a modern term used as a convenient way to speak of them as a group, and distinguish them from newer models. Perhaps someone can provide a better understanding of this.

EDIT: Split into two pictures.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that illustrates it nicely.

Robert Paulsen said:

Here are six. Note the "scoop" shape of the head. The one on the far left of the first picture and the second one from the right in the second picture are older models and have more of a pronounced "catch" area. Neither of those two will accept a modern SE blade.

I doubt they were called "Lather Catchers" when the were originally sold. I think that may be a modern term used as a convenient way to speak of them as a group, and distinguish them from newer models. Perhaps someone can provide a better understanding of this.

EDIT: Split into two pictures.

Click to expand...

im starting to think youre the biggest showoff ever

One more vote for using the 1912 model for your purposes. Personally, I prefer the 1900/1901 patent Gem Jr. Bar razor, but as Guide points out, the 1912 is much easier to find and less expensive to aquire. I feel the 1912 is the next best shaving razor that I have ever used. Second only to the 1900/1901's

As far as Zumkopf's mention about the 1912's being the lather catchers . . . to a degree, he has a point; the 1912 does have a small lather scoop area under the head, but the term "lather catcher" is usually applied to the various earlier models which had a significantly larger scoop under the head. This scoop is noticeable on many of the specimens in Bob Paulsen's fine pictures.

I'll be looking forward to your video showing the use of these fine shaving instruments. By the time you have worked with the 1912 enough that you feel competent to make the video, I have to wonder if we won't have another SE convert.

Regards,
Tom

Mark,

One other thing. You should really use the best blades available for your exploration of the GEMs.

There is some question (but not much!) about what those blades are. If you frequent the GEM threads you will read about the "Ted Pella" blades. This is a bit of a misnomer as Ted Pella (http://www.tedpella.com/dissect_html/dissect.htm#anchor1606431) is just a merchant and the same blades can be had elsewhere (http://www.emsdiasum.com/microscopy/products/preparation/blades.aspx). Most everyone agrees that these are the best.

Many believe (and I used to be in that number) that the Persona GEM Super SE blades available in the big chain drug stores are the same thing. But, someone with a decent microscope took pictures of the Pella blades and the drug store blades and there was an obvious difference! The Pellas did look sharper -- their bevel was wider and therefore came to a finer edge. I have shaved with both and didn't notice a difference although I wasn't really paying attention.

The Pellas are sold for "industrial use only" and some have questioned if they are properly sterilized. But one of the "industrial use" examples given is the preparation of tissue samples for lab work where any contamination would be unacceptable. If they are appropriate for that they should be OK for shaving!

I bought 200 blades from Ted Pella and can give you some if you want.

At the very least, you need stainless, PTFE coated blades.