Price-adjusted Blade Ranking

I wanted to adjust blade rankings to account for price per shave in order to better highlight not only good performance, but longevity and value. So I put together an excel spreadsheet that averaged my personal rankings with Squire's blade reviews. The spreadsheet then had another set of columns that take quantity, price, and number of shaves per blade to determine price per shave. Lastly, the review square is scaled based on price per shave to get an adjusted score. I don't believe I can attach a spreadsheet so I broke out the items and pasted them below. I ordered the results by best to worst price adjusted score so the first item has the highest score when accounting for performance, longevity, and cost. All costs are shipped from the seller to the U.S.

It should be noted that where squire did not have a review, I based it on other reviews. Bottom line, these numbers do have some subjectivity, but it still provides some interesting results.

Name | Rating | Squire Rating | Quantity | Quantity Price (USD) | Number of Shaves | Per Shave Price | Raw Rating | PIA Rating
Feather 9.5 8 200 70 4 0.0875 8.75 7.984375
Perma-sharp Super 9.25 7.5 100 28 6 0.046666667 8.375 7.984166667
Iridium Super 9 7.5 250 58 7 0.033142857 8.25 7.976571429
Gillette 7 O'Clock Yellow 9 7.5 200 56 7 0.04 8.25 7.92
Gillette 7 O'Clock Green Permasharp 8.75 7.25 100 38 5 0.076 8 7.392
Gillette 7 O'Clock Green Super Stainless 8.5 6.75 120 23 5 0.038333333 7.625 7.332708333
NOS Wilkinson UK White Box 8 7.5 100 22 4 0.055 7.75 7.32375
Shark Super Chrome 8 6.85 100 16 5 0.032 7.425 7.1874
Shark Super Stainless 8 6.85 100 17 5 0.034 7.425 7.17255
Kai 8.5 7 100 30 4 0.075 7.75 7.16875
Gillette Swedes 8.5 6.75 100 62 10 0.062 7.625 7.15225
Dorco ST-301 7.5 6.63 400 35 4 0.021875 7.065 6.910453125
Super-Max Platinum 7.5 6.75 100 21 4 0.0525 7.125 6.7509375
Super-Max Super Stainless 7.25 6.5 500 41 3 0.027333333 6.875 6.687083333
Bolzano 7.5 7.5 100 53 4 0.1325 7.5 6.50625
Wilkinson Economie 7.5 6.25 125 35 4 0.07 6.875 6.39375
Crystals 6.5 6.75 100 16 4 0.04 6.625 6.36
Dorco ST-300 7 6 100 10 4 0.025 6.5 6.3375
NOS Gillette Thin 8 7.5 10 8 4 0.2 7.75 6.2
Astra Superior 6.5 6.25 100 17 4 0.0425 6.375 6.1040625
Wilkinson India 7 6.85 5 2.75 4 0.1375 6.925 5.9728125
Red Pack Personnas 6 6.25 200 20 4 0.025 6.125 5.971875
Astra Keramik 6 6.75 100 33 4 0.0825 6.375 5.8490625
Derby 5 7 200 25 4 0.03125 6 5.8125
Greek Bic 5 6.75 100 19 3 0.063333333 5.875 5.502916667
Sharp 5 6 200 29 3 0.048333333 5.5 5.234166667
7 "AM" 4 6.5 200 30 3 0.05 5.25 4.9875
Treet Platinum 2 6.75 200 33 4 0.04125 4.375 4.19453125
Treet Classic DuraSharp 1 7 200 25 2 0.0625 4 3.75
Merkur Platinum 2 2 10 6 4 0.15 2 1.7
Wally Personnas (new release) 1 1 10 1.79 4 0.04475 1 0.95525

Are you familar with the concept of significant digits?

ouch said:

Are you familar with the concept of significant digits?

Click to expand...

as a science nerd, I can safely say: ROTFLMAO

to Ouch.

Let me guess: bored at work?

If the names of the blades were connected with underscores, or something like that, it woud be easy to copy and paste to excel and then use the text to table command.

Here try this. I transposed your numbers then took a screen shot. It might even be legible!

I think the screen shot is a good idea. Thanks!

ouch said:

Are you familar with the concept of significant digits?

Click to expand...

Emmett said:

Here try this. I transposed your numbers then took a screen shot. It might even be legible!

Click to expand...

Does your boss have shaving issues? This might get you some brownie points, with bonusmarple's permission, of course.

Maybe more so if you could work it into a Power Point presentation.

In some parts of the Pentagon, however, PowerPoint ist verboten.

Some studies have shown it adversely affects the quality of decisions.

Henrique said:

Let me guess: bored at work?

If the names of the blades were connected with underscores, or something like that, it woud be easy to copy and paste to excel and then use the text to table command.

Click to expand...

I am on vacation. I don't know if that is better or worse than doing this at work.

bonusmarple said:

I am on vacation. I don't know if that is better or worse than doing this at work.

Click to expand...

Emmett said:

Here try this. I transposed your numbers then took a screen shot. It might even be legible!

Click to expand...

Good work to both of you. The Screen Shot cleaned it all up nicely! Perhaps that screenshot should make its way into the Wiki?

BMarple, how did you derive the raw rating?

Stubblefield said:

Well other than it is purely subjective, sure.

BMarple, how did you derive the raw rating?

Click to expand...

Well naturally, but it could be presented that way as well. "One members rating system" perhaps more as an example for other newbies to use when rating the blades they are testing.

SlagleRock said:

Well naturally, but it could be presented that way as well. "One members rating system" perhaps more as an example for other newbies to use when rating the blades they are testing.

Click to expand...

Ahh, you were replying while I was editing my original post . . . . I had second thoughts about that comment for the reasons you mention.

I do like the idea of adjusting blade ratings based on number of shaves. Perhaps it is a metric we might include on future blade reviews.

And I will toss out for the record that I am uncomfortable with some of Squire's reviews. I would certainly rate the Wilkinson Light Brigade (White box nos Wilk?) as sharper and longer shaving than any of the blades posted (other than the Feather). And no way is the Super Iridium the equal of the LB.

Stubblefield said:

Ahh, you were replying while I was editing my original post . . . . I had second thoughts about that comment for the reasons you mention.

I do like the idea of adjusting blade ratings based on number of shaves. Perhaps it is a metric we might include on future blade reviews.

And I will toss out for the record that I am uncomfortable with some of Squire's reviews. I would certainly rate the Wilkinson Light Brigade (White box nos Wilk?) as sharper and longer shaving than any of the blades posted (other than the Feather). And no way is the Super Iridium the equal of the LB.

Click to expand...

Sorry I type fast! LOL

Stubblefield said:

BMarple, how did you derive the raw rating?

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the second ratings column was from Squire, where he had ratings. For the other values I used best guess. Perma-sharp Supers are very similar for me to Iridiums, so I used that rating. That disclaimer aside, here is the formula.

Raw Score = (Ranking Source 1 + ... + Ranking Source N) / N
Price Adjustment = 1 - cost per shave
Price Adjusted Score = (Price Adjustment) * (Raw Score)

Stubblefield said:

Ahh, you were replying while I was editing my original post . . . . I had second thoughts about that comment for the reasons you mention.

I do like the idea of adjusting blade ratings based on number of shaves. Perhaps it is a metric we might include on future blade reviews.

And I will toss out for the record that I am uncomfortable with some of Squire's reviews. I would certainly rate the Wilkinson Light Brigade (White box nos Wilk?) as sharper and longer shaving than any of the blades posted (other than the Feather). And no way is the Super Iridium the equal of the LB.

Click to expand...

Where there is controversy, this is where I added an average. I don't agree with some of Squire's ratings, so my scores were averaged in.

Interesting thing though, the top three with almost the exact same score, are Feathers, Iridiums, and Perma-sharps. 7 O'Clock Yellows are very close as well. These make for the bulk of the good reviews.

One other item is that in spreadsheet form, you can sort by whatever your preference is. If you are really a cost per shave kind of guy, sort by that and pick the top. Raw performance, same thing. I like the price adjustment since I will pay extra just to get a better shave. Either way, this lets people pick their poison.

As far as wiki is concerned, I would like to post the spreadsheet for download. People can use my values, or research their own. I think it works best as a tool and a starting source of data. Anyway, if the mods will agree, PM me and I will send in the spreadsheet.

SlagleRock said:

Good work to both of you. The Screen Shot cleaned it all up nicely! Perhaps that screenshot should make its way into the Wiki?

Click to expand...

I would be happy to post the spreadsheet to the wiki so that other can use this as a tool for blade selection. I am not big on pushing some of that data since it is pretty subjective, but the function is useful. A mod would need to pm me I guess and tell me how to post the spreadsheet.

bonusmarple said:

I would be happy to post the spreadsheet to the wiki so that other can use this as a tool for blade selection. I am not big on pushing some of that data since it is pretty subjective, but the function is useful. A mod would need to pm me I guess and tell me how to post the spreadsheet.

Click to expand...

I think that posting the spreadsheet and your methodology would be a great resource for anyone trying to find their own ideal blade.

bonusmarple said:

I would be happy to post the spreadsheet to the wiki so that other can use this as a tool for blade selection. I am not big on pushing some of that data since it is pretty subjective, but the function is useful. A mod would need to pm me I guess and tell me how to post the spreadsheet.

Click to expand...

What might be interesting is to develop a way for other users to add their impressions, or else develop their own ratings. And I'd want to devise a more simplified metric, say the price per blade divided by the number of shaves. But I do understand a need for the adjusted score, but only because I sometimes paid attention in my stats classes.

The second option would probably be a better, easier path, come to think of it. And I may do up my own--with NOS blades only--of course.