Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 45 of 45

Thread: Simpson Chubby questions

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Thread Starter


    I was expecting chubby 2 in super. Why best? Would you want 2 band? Trying to extract as much info as I can :)

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Land Of Confusion


    I got my Chubby 2 in the mail today and promptly bowl lathered up some KMF and then shaved using Cella. What a wonderful little machine. The only brush that I've had that comes close to the amount of lather the "2" gave me was a Simpsons 57.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Thread Starter


    In best?

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2011


    Here are a couple of my favourite Chubby brushes. Both size 3, both not current production (likely "Carter" era), one in best (which IMO is comparable to today's super) and one "Extra Soft" which is supposedly "Manchurian." I am going to have to acquire the current Chubby 3 in the current "Manchurian" offering to compare...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Screen Shot 2012-02-20 at 12.17.48 PM.jpg   Screen Shot 2012-02-20 at 12.18.19 PM.jpg  

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    North Carolina - Sabtieh-Beirut, Lebanon


    Quote Originally Posted by ben74 View Post
    IMO size is predominately an issue dictated by preference.

    That said, all brushes have their pros and cons.

    But in the end, some like big brushes while others prefer small.

    Definite advantages only become apparent when other factors are thrown in the mix. For example, I want a Chubby for travel, well a smaller Chubby, aside from taking up less room in your toiletries bag is also likely to dry faster than a larger one (which is important if you are on the move).

    Another might argue, a smaller brush allows for a more deliberate application of lather and hence might argue face latherers would benefit in the possibility of greater control offered by a smaller brush. Well, I say despite an extensive scuttle collection, my preference is not only for larger brushes, but also face lathering and I have no issue with keeping the lather where I want it.

    I guess my point is size 1, 2 or 3 are going to be equally proficient at preparing your lather. A size 3 is likely to use up a little more product than a size 1, but is that really a determining factor in choosing size... Of course not, it's what you enjoy most that should influence your size choice.

    Edit: Or perhaps budgetary constraints might dictate your choice (as obviously >badger = >$).

    Further, I own all 3 sizes and the size 1 sees very little soap! (But that's because I ENJOY larger brushes, not because they perform any better).
    Plissons, and chubbies, and Kent's ohh my!! What brand don't you own all models of? ;)
    BOTOC, Arkolyte, TOFLAC-U, Muhle R41 (2010)- Merkur Progress, Merkur 37 Slant, Simpsons Wee Scot lover,Omega Pro boar, Arko & Gada face latherer.

Similar Threads

  1. Simpson Chubby 1 Two Band & Chubby 3 Best, AOS Lavender and AS Gel
    By johnmets32 in forum Shaving Mall - Buy/Sell/Trade
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-21-2011, 07:39 PM
  2. Simpson's Chubby Questions
    By Shaving Dad in forum Shaving Brushes
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 12-19-2010, 08:30 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-02-2010, 04:51 PM
  4. ***FS: Simpson Chubby 1 Super and Chubby 2 Best***
    By poonjaji in forum Shaving Mall - Buy/Sell/Trade
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-26-2010, 12:08 PM
  5. Simpson Chubby 1 Best VS. Simpson Duke 3 Best VS. Rooney 1:2
    By some kind of ugly in forum Shaving Brushes
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-30-2009, 10:58 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
By accessing Badger & Blade, you agree to abide by the Terms of Usage. You can find our Privacy Policy here.
Once submitted, any posts, images, or content become the property of Badger & Blade.
Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.