Diferent Blade gaps than from Wiki

Hey guys,

I decided to use my feeler gauges on my 2 razors - Merkur 34c HD and a 1960 Gillette Superspeed.
I'm putting the feeler gauge in (with blade in the razor) from the bottom of the blade to the top of the safety bar correctly according to the directions in another thread.

I got widely differing readings that what the Wiki has -

1960 Superspeed - My reading 0.70mm, Wiki says 0.58mm
Merkur 34c HD - My reading 0.84mm, Wiki says 0.71mm

Why so different?

Noone knows?

Interesting find!

Manufacturing tolerance? Different blades? Different hands loading the blade and using the gauges?

Maybe we need to try this with lots of hands, lots of razors, and lots of blades. Could then figure out the high, low, and average for different razors. Or different razor/blade combinations.

The measurements that are in that table on the wiki were just ones contributed by different folks using various (and unknown) methods, as far as I know. So I'm not terribly surprised that you'd get something different from what's there, and that's even ignoring the questions of manufacturing tolerances, varying treatment/condition of the razors, etc.

What I found interesting when I reviewed those numbers was it explained why I kept cutting myself easily with my 34c and it felt too aggressive.
The 34c is like a 5.5 on a Gillette Adjustable - too high for me, and the SS is right where the 34c should be.

Possibly tolerance deviation, like you all said, but it was certainly surprising.

The wiki is editable. But we should have discussion and consensus before changing existing information.

mblakele said:

The wiki is editable. But we should have discussion and consensus before changing existing information.

Click to expand...

I agree, make sure we all come to consensus and go from there. All the facts and figures must altleast be somewhat accurate.

MacDaddy said:

. . . using various (and unknown) methods, as far as I know. So I'm not terribly surprised that you'd get something different from what's there . . .

Click to expand...

So true. The method is as important as the number. Is it one measurement on one razor? Or the average of several razors? How many? What is the range? What is the variance?

I too am not surprised there is a difference.

I am very interested in this subject. I have feeler gauges and would be willing to measure my razors for the cause. If we could get several people with the same razors to measure using the same method perhaps we can gain some insight in to manufacturing tolerances for these tools we all love. I have based razor purchases off of the numbers found in the wiki, using it as a kind of grading scale for aggressiveness (which I know is not really an accurate way to determine that but it's a start). If the tolerances on certain razors are even slightly different then two same model razors could give a completely different user experience negating a lot of what we do here which is share our opinions and give advice based on our experiences. Sorry, that was rather long winded and I'm sure everyone is on the same page. I digress.

Actually, I also wanted to add that I tend to think of a razor as a precision cutting tool rather than just a thing that 'scrapes hair off'. I would imagine that certain (possibly) more expensive brands/ models may have less difference in their tolerances but this would be really interesting to find out. I wouldn't be too surprised if the universal 'you get what you pay for' rule applies here.

Anyone who has the tools and the opportunity, please post measurements to this thread. If you see opportunities for variation due to tools or methodology, please explain those.

Once we have a sample set, we can organize by razor and source. Then we shall see if there are large differences to be reconciled.

I agree with all the above posts. We need to find a low, average, and high. I certainly won't edit the Wiki without that info.
Here is the post on measuring blade gap:

http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showth...Ranking-by-blade-gap-size?p=592727#post592727

Another suggestion regarding method: Measure both sides.

Muhle R89 - .024
1940's Ball End Tech - .020

Measurements in inches.

MattSD said:

Muhle R89 - .024
Tech - .020

Click to expand...

Are those in inches? The wiki lists the R89 at 30-mil, so that is already a fairly large variance. Was your R89 purchased new? When?

MattSD said:

I'm not sure of the year of the Tech. There's no date code.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. This was all just a ploy to identify your Tech. Date codes started in 1950. I would describe it as a 1940s NDC ball-end Tech, logo on cap. If it were a NOS set we might do a little better by checking the included blade for a code, but I think that is good enough.

If I can find the time I will also dig into the wiki page history a bit, and see if I can tie any of the existing numbers back to specific edits.

Yeah, another suggestion: Units.

mblakele said:

Are those in inches? The wiki lists the R89 at 30-mil, so that is already a fairly large variance. Was your R89 purchased new? When?



Ah, I see. This was all just a ploy to identify your Tech. Date codes started in 1950. I would describe it as a 1940s NDC ball-end Tech, logo on cap. If it were a NOS set we might do a little better by checking the included blade for a code, but I think that is good enough.

If I can find the time I will also dig into the wiki page history a bit, and see if I can tie any of the existing numbers back to specific edits.

Click to expand...

Yes, that measurement is in inches. The R89 was purchased used on this forum about 6 months ago. I have no idea as to the manufacture/ original purchase date.

Ah! Foiled again! I was curious about the Tech so I suppose it's a 2 birds, 1 stone situation. Hopefully the information is useful. Ive edited the post and taken the big 'ole pictures down.