Simpson's Chubby 2 synthgetic brush

robk · Mar 5, 2014

I get $138.77 shipped to the US at the current exchange rate for a ltd. ed. Chubby 2 (faux amber).

More than I think I'm personally willing to pay just now.

Let's see what prices will be on the non-limited models when they finally hit local stockists.

That amber handle sure looks nice.

Evil4blue · Mar 5, 2014

parapaul said:
I used a 28mm FS Gen 4 synthetic last year. I had no issues with quality at all, but it was, for me, unusable. the knot was so dense and had such backbone that the pressure needed to splay it and face lather effectively was ridiculous - and it was an utter lather hog, it would take as much product as you could throw at it, then manage not to apply any to your face.

Well that's disappointing. I have 2 Muhle synthetics, one is in a Rudy Vey custom handle and is used for travel. It's a 21mm knot and I liked it enough to buy Muhle's big dog, 25mm knot for my den. I'm not sold on that brush though, the loft is just way, way too high (62mm) and it makes the brush hard to handle when face lathering. I was hoping that this would be the holy grail, big knot and short loft, but if the backbone is like the FS brush, not thanks.

I guess count me in the "wait and see" crowd.

branford · Mar 5, 2014

Evil4blue said:
Well that's disappointing. I have 2 Muhle synthetics, one is in a Rudy Vey custom handle and is used for travel. It's a 21mm knot and I liked it enough to buy Muhle's big dog, 25mm knot for my den. I'm not sold on that brush though, the loft is just way, way too high (62mm) and it makes the brush hard to handle when face lathering. I was hoping that this would be the holy grail, big knot and short loft, but if the backbone is like the FS brush, not thanks.

I guess count me in the "wait and see" crowd.

You might have to compare the Muhles and Simpsons under the electron microscope :wink2:

. For science!!!

Evil4blue · Mar 5, 2014

branford said:
You might have to compare the Muhles and Simpsons under the electron microscope . For science!!!

Jeez, I never even thought of that. I could pull a fiber and compare it to Badger and Boar too.

Ok, so who's gonna buy me a Simpson brush? :tongue_sm

grantmm · Mar 5, 2014

robk said:
Let's see what prices will be on the non-limited models when they finally hit local stockists.

It is roughly 13 Dollars to ship the LE brush, so I'm assuming it is the same for the regular handle version. $108.49 + shipping was the cost slated for the regular handle. That puts us at $121 for a non-natural hair brush.

Still excessive, IMO.

.soap. · Mar 5, 2014

Has anyone seen mention of how many will be sold in each LE handle?

branford · Mar 5, 2014

.soap. said:
Has anyone seen mention of how many will be sold in each LE handle?

In another forum, I believe Mark from Simpsons stated that there would be a total of around 50 LE brushes at this time. I see that the amber and cobalt are already out-of-stock.

grantmm · Mar 5, 2014

Soap, you can see the remaining stock by just entering a large number for the quantity field and selecting "add to cart". The quantity added will show how many of that handle style are remaining.

Utter Lie · Mar 5, 2014

Very good story. Thank you

Codfish · Mar 5, 2014

Gentlemen, I am seriously concerned with recent developments on two fronts: (1) pricing in the $120-$140 range is unrealistic, and (2) this is not a Generation 5 fiber, and their undeserved claim is both an exaggeration and an insult to the shaving community.

First, Simpson's has likely priced themselves out of the synthetic market. My early correspondence with them (and their public statements) identified a price point of $90-$100. Mark justified this by making a comparison to a full price Muhle 25mm STF V2 which was selling from the highest price vendors for $109 at the time. The same brush was selling for $72 from a number of lower-priced vendors. There is nothing to distinguish the Simpson's in terms of quality, materials or design over other premium manufacturers such as Muhle. At this price point, there is little reason for shoppers to select a synthetic brush over a good quality badger. Only the arrogance of the manufacturer explains this price point.

Second, the self-nomination by Simpson's to Generation 5 status is offensive and insulting. The classification system now in use worldwide by brush manufacturers and shavers alike was developed by B&B member Gary D. Carrington. It is the result of months of detailed research into synthetic fibers and knots. His 10-part series is the defining study of synthetic shaving brushes and knots.

The classification system is entirely user-defined, and its use by manufacturers to make exaggerated claims about their brushes is reprehensible. Gary and I concur that the Simpson's brush uses a Generation 4 knot. The entire classification system was developed by users so that we would have a common language and a a science-based understanding of fibers and brush construction. Simpson's "Best in the World" claim registers hollow and flat, and is, in my opinion, one of the worst pieces of hucksterism I have seen in the shaving world.

Shame on Simpson's for producing an overpriced and over-exaggerated synthetic brush.

GDCarrington · Mar 5, 2014

Codfish said:
Gentlemen, I am seriously concerned with recent developments on two fronts: (1) pricing in the $120-$140 range is unrealistic, and (2) this is not a Generation 5 fiber, and their undeserved claim is both an exaggeration and an insult to the shaving community.

First, Simpson's has likely priced themselves out of the synthetic market. My early correspondence with them (and their public statements) identified a price point of $90-$100. Mark justified this by making a comparison to a full price Muhle 25mm STF V2 which was selling from the highest price vendors for $109 at the time. The same brush was selling for $72 at the time from a number of vendors. There is nothing to distinguish the Simpson's in terms of quality, materials or design over other premium manufacturers such as Muhle. At this price point, there is little reason for careful shoppers to select a synthetic brush over a good quality badger. Only the arrogance of the manufacturer explains this price point.

Second, the self-nomination by Simpson's to Generation 5 status is offensive and insulting. The classification system now used worldwide by brush manufacturers and shavers alike was developed by B&B member Gary D. Carrington. It is the result of months of detailed research into synthetic fibers and knots. His 10-part series is the defining study of synthetic shaving brushes and knots.

The classification system is entirely user-defined, and its use by manufacturers to make exaggerated claims about its brushes is reprehensible. Gary and I concur that the Simpson's brush uses a Generation 4 knot. The entire classification system was developed by users do that we would have a common language and a a science-based understanding of fibers and brush construction. Simpson's "Best in the World" claim registers hollow and flat, and is, in my opinion, one of the worst pieces of hucksterism I have seen in the shaving world.

Shame on Simpson's for producing an overpriced, over-exaggerated synthetic brush.

I wholeheartedly agree with Jim's assessment and it is a travesty that manufacturers take too many liberties with rating systems and methods designed by the user community for the user community.

refles · Mar 5, 2014

We'll put Codfish, my only possible consideration to the Simpson pricing would be that there's more (?) fibers due to being a chubby than normal brush then factor in the 'being a Simpson' price adder .. But if there no real improvement in their synthetics then it's pure marketing magic trying to put them over the current crop to make it stand out.
If the generation numbering was universally acknowledged then it's disappointing at the very least that they just blew it out of the water.
This has peaked my interest though regarding Gary's work I'll try to find in the forum as it will probably prove very educational not having any knowledge on synthetics . Thx

dushea · Mar 5, 2014

Codfish said:
The classification system is entirely user-defined, and its use by manufacturers to make exaggerated claims about its brushes is reprehensible...
Shame on Simpson's for producing an overpriced, over-exaggerated synthetic brush.

You are certainly not the only one with those feelings. Mark has seemingly been doing nothing but marketing to try to set the brand apart from other manufacturers, including listing a two band Duke 3 for close to $400 when the market has set such a brush at closer to $250.

The bummer is that the brand still has a TON of power and this is not likely to change, unless their inconsistency and poor quality control begin to reach critical mass.

fastback · Mar 5, 2014

I just got a new CH2 in best for $160 out of Canada.
I'd be up for trying a synthetic but for a slight amount more why not get the real deal?

I was really interested in these during the testing phase. Estimated prices were much lower than actual. I'm sure they'll sell just fin, and I'll hopefully remain happy with my best CH2 for years to come.

Elbe · Mar 5, 2014

Codfish said:
Shame on Simpson's for producing an overpriced and over-exaggerated synthetic brush.

I'm not surprised at all. That's Simpsons sales policy boiled down: Sell average quality brushes for a superduper-premium price. Blowing the fanfares with marketing gobbledeegook ("The world's most respected manufacturer of handtied brushes now proudly offers the most iconic brush of all times in a magnificent 5th generation synthetic badger fibre, available in most stunning vibrant handle colours"&#8230

is replacing a decent QA, as it is much cheaper.

After all, there will always be enough idiots around willing to pay for that overpriced stuff.

bosseb · Mar 6, 2014

Codfish said:
Gentlemen, I am seriously concerned with recent developments on two fronts: (1) pricing in the $120-$140 range is unrealistic, and (2) this is not a Generation 5 fiber, and their undeserved claim is both an exaggeration and an insult to the shaving community.

Shame on Simpson's for producing an overpriced and over-exaggerated synthetic brush.

GDCarrington said:
I wholeheartedly agree with Jim's assessment and it is a travesty that manufacturers take too many liberties with rating systems and methods designed by the user community for the user community.

Well ...

As one of our esteemed mods would have said: You could have knocked me over with a feather.

Matlock · Mar 6, 2014

It will be interesting to see what the price of the Simpson Synthetics will be when they are rolled out as standard issue rather than LE.
A comparison with other Simpson prices is worth a look:
LE Synthetic Chubby 2 £75 + (VAT @ 20% in the UK)
LE Best Duke 2 £75 + VAT
LE Silvertip Chubby 2 £199.95 + VAT
Standard Best Duke 2 £66.40 + VAT
Perhaps it will be worth waiting to see what, say, a Synthetic Duke 2 will cost.

Matlock · Mar 6, 2014

fastback said:
I just got a new CH2 in best for $160 out of Canada.
I'd be up for trying a synthetic but for a slight amount more why not get the real deal?

I was really interested in these during the testing phase. Estimated prices were much lower than actual. I'm sure they'll sell just fin, and I'll hopefully remain happy with my best CH2 for years to come.

Simpsons Price for a Chubby 2 in best is £128.20 compared to the LE Synthetic Chubby 2 at £75. Quite a difference and this for a Limited Edition. Perhaps we should wait for the standard editions to be rolled out. (note that Simpsons prices are quite a lot higher than those of retailers).

GDCarrington · Mar 6, 2014

To all,

As of today Simpsons has removed the incorrect ascriptions of "Fifth Generation" to their fibers. I reviewed the same page this morning and found it to be removed.

I appreciate Mark's diligence in correcting this to allow the rating system to reflect user generated information rather than company generated.

Thank you very much Mark!

Codfish · Mar 6, 2014

GDCarrington said:
To all,

As of today Simpsons has removed the incorrect ascriptions of "Fifth Generation" to their fibers. I reviewed the same page this morning and found it to be removed.

I appreciate Mark's diligence in correcting this to allow the rating system to reflect user generated information rather than company generated.

Thank you very much Mark!

I'm sorry, but I'm not as easy-going as Gary on this matter. The characterization of "Generation 5" fibers was, in my opinion, as serious a n error as a French restaurant awarding itself a 5-Star Micheline rating. If done with fraudulent intent, it is inexcusable. If done with a lack of understanding of the rating system, then at least an explanation and apology are due.

Simpson'e has a right to charge whatever it desires for its products. Potential customers will decide if their products justifies those prices.

Search

Simpson's Chubby 2 synthgetic brush

robk

Evil4blue

branford

Evil4blue

grantmm

.soap.

branford

grantmm

Utter Lie

Codfish

GDCarrington

refles

dushea

fastback

Elbe

bosseb

Matlock

Matlock

GDCarrington

Codfish

Similar threads