Blade Sharpness Research Project

[helicopter]

So, there is no similarity with the Diamond Edge blades, despite the similarity in names, I guess? I seem to remember liking the Diamond Edge quite a bit more.

They are similar enough, 90 microns, 70-85g BESS, that the nominal spec might be the same. I haven't demonstrated they are supposed to be different. The Thane Diamond Edge was sharper with a more refined grind, that is, more even scratches and transitions.

Of course we know they are from different factories, and they aren't re-tooling to match the facility that shut down. A special steel, sure; a new oven, probably not; special belts, it doesn't look like it.

 

[pjgh]

So, there is no similarity with the Diamond Edge blades, despite the similarity in names, I guess? I seem to remember liking the Diamond Edge quite a bit more.

Likewise, I would have thought there would have been similarity ... names, and there's a blue diamond right there on the face of the tucks for the Diamond Edge.

If we go back to when SuperMax were still making blades, on their global website they listed just three blades: their Super Stainless, the Zorrik Supreme (Chrome) and the Blue Diamond Super Platinum.

I would have thought the Blue Diamond Super Platinum was the template for any regional/market-specific brandings but it seems that even they have subtle differences in the grind. I would perhaps expect to see some similarity between the likes of the SuperMax Diamond Edge, the Zorrik Super Platinum and the Vidyut Super Platinum which would appear to be just alternative brandings from a cursory glance. They're all of the same era with slogans "with new robotised technology", "new and improved new sputtered technology" and "I like the way it feels!".

Clearly, SuperMax had some new kit that they were excited about and were perhaps playing around with the settings?

At the time, there was also a re-issue of what I presumed was the old Blue Diamond Titanium ("Feel the power ...") under SuperMax and Zorrik brandings:

... but yes, despite the Blue Diamond Super Platinum being the global offering, I also found that my preference across the Super Platinums of the day was for the Diamond Edge with the Zorrik Super Platinum (tested above also) as a second. From the older generation productions, my personal favourite of the SuperMax is the silver/blue pack:

 

[helicopter]

This is the Super-Max Super Stainless green new and improved high quality blade made in India for export on behalf of the London UK Super-Max Limited. It is thin, soft, and mild, with a crude grind, and low durability and consistency. Because of poor initial performance, I tried three blades and tested the best bottom edge, but that individual had dead spots on the new top edge, so I tested the top of one of the others. The tuck was in excellent condition. I think they came off the production line in the condition tested.

This one is stamped with the code "12 B 22" which is similar to the Super-Max Blue Diamond Platinum Coated patriot blade's "12 B 50." They must come from the same factory.

The three stage grind looks a but blunt with that short tertiary bevel, but other wise fine. In the second photo, we see the failure mode of the steel is lots of large denting and chipping. The dimensions certainly aren't consistent in different locations on the edge. This is the individual tested for the bottom edge.

These thin blades that dent tend to have a small group of fans who find them subjectively smooth.

It might be related to the Middlesex UK Super-Max Ltd. Vidyut Zorrik SS, and possibly the MERS Super Shave X.

Date	27-Nov-2024			Blade Thickness, mm	0.090
Blade	Super-Max UK	Super-Max	Super Green	India	1-Jan-2022
Wear on Edge	0	3	6	9	12
Edges Measured	Bottom / Top	Bottom / Top	Bottom / Top	Bottom / Top	Bottom / Top
Measurement Medium	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22
Dulling Substrate	New	Paper	Paper	Paper	Paper
Measurements	20	20	20	20	20
Adj. Std. Dev.	8	16	15	22	26
Median F (g)	67.5	71	79.5	84.5	98.5
Mean F (g) Top	66	63	72	77	80
Mean F (g) Bottom	71	83	85	95	116
Mean F (g)	69	73	78	86	98
BESS Adj. Factor	1.22	1.22	1.22	1.22	1.22
Avg. Adj. F (g) Top	81	77	88	94	98
Avg. Adj. F (g) Bottom	87	101	104	116	141
Median Adj. F (g)	82	86	97	103	120
Mean Adj. F (g)	84	89	96	105	119

Blade Sharpness Test Index

 

[helicopter]

This is the Vidyut Super Platinum patriot blade with New Robotized Technology. It is made by Tigaksha Metallics Private Limited for the Thane Super-Max company. It is thin, with a blunt grind, good balance, mild in sharpness, and quite durable and consistent.

The grind is fairly blunt and other wise typical. In the second photo, we can see the steel remains in good condition after the test, with a failure mode of small chipping.

It might be a similar specification to the 90 micron Topaz Stainless blade. Performance and the grind are quite close, but this one has a better looking grind, and is about eight years older than the Topaz SS, which is the only reason I don't suggest the likelihood of an identical specification. The steel and grind are probably the same, but I imagine the coating is similar but not identical considering the similar performance and also the complicated business history and time that passed. I am not sure which India plant produced the Topaz SS.

Date	27-Nov-2024			Blade Thickness, mm	0.090
Blade	Tigaksha MPL	Vidyut	Super Platinum	India	1-Nov-2014
Wear on Edge	0	3	6	9	12
Edges Measured	Bottom / Top	Bottom / Top	Bottom / Top	Bottom / Top	Bottom / Top
Measurement Medium	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22
Dulling Substrate	New	Paper	Paper	Paper	Paper
Measurements	20	20	20	20	20
Adj. Std. Dev.	4	11	8	7	7
Median F (g)	77.5	79	79.5	80.5	81
Mean F (g) Top	76	73	75	78	81
Mean F (g) Bottom	79	87	81	83	83
Mean F (g)	77	80	78	80	82
BESS Adj. Factor	1.22	1.22	1.22	1.22	1.22
Avg. Adj. F (g) Top	92	89	92	95	99
Avg. Adj. F (g) Bottom	97	106	99	101	101
Median Adj. F (g)	95	96	97	98	99
Mean Adj. F (g)	95	98	95	98	100

If you like this blade, I suggest the Topaz SS as a replacement. Performance is very similar, and they might even be made to the same specification.

Blade Sharpness Test Index

 

[helicopter]

This is the Fpaiher Super Cut Special wavy hair shaper blade. It is one of several Chinese copies of Feather's Super Cut Special; all of them have graphic design intended to confuse purchasers into mistaking it for Feather. This one had a burr edge, and the worst performance of any hair shaper tested so far. Apparently not all Chinese copies of the Feather wavy hair shaper are made to the same standard.

The corrugations are rolled from just distal to the spine, to the proximal end of the bevel. I don't believe that the entire bevel is corrugated before grinding, like we see with the other wavy hair shapers from Feather and Shanghai Cloud.

The grind is crude, with uneven transitions, uneven scratches, and visible honing scratches from the coarse grind on the tertiary bevel. It looks like there is a burr there. In the second picture, we can see that it hasn't changed much from the test, except that some of the burr has been knocked off.

This is an interesting cutting force wear curve. I think the blade dulls a bit, and then we knock off some burr at the end. With fifteen reasonably consistent measurements at each section of the test, this seems to be physical rather than statistical. The photographs also support this hypothesis.

Obviously it is inferior to the Feather. It is also inferior to Shanghai Cloud's Jeifcnel.

Date	27-Nov-2024			Blade Thickness, mm	0.138
Blade	Fpaiher	Super Cut Special	Hair Shaper Wavy	China	1-Jan-2024
Wear on Edge	0	3	6	9	12
Edges Measured	Bottom	Bottom	Bottom	Bottom	Bottom
Measurement Medium	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22
Dulling Substrate	New	Paper	Paper	Paper	Paper
Measurements	15	15	15	15	15
Adj. Std. Dev.	7	9	13	16	9
Median F (g)	104	100	113	123	98
Mean F (g)	106	98	110	115	100
BESS Adj. Factor	1.22	1.22	1.22	1.22	1.22
Median Adj. F (g)	127	122	138	150	120
Mean Adj. F (g)	129	120	134	141	122

With that burr, this blade is pretty bad.

I think we can skip the last two charts for this one. I will add is so it shows up next time the big chart is produced.

Blade Sharpness Test Index

 

[helicopter]

This is the Tifonly Spacily Cut Platinum Coated wavy hair shaper blade from Xirui Rhinoceros in Ganzhou, China. The packaging is different from the Fpaiher I tested prior to this, but performance is similar and the stamping on the blade is identical. I am confident the blades are made in the same factory. Perhaps the other one is the older packaging. This one has a different grind, a traditional dull grind, and the performance of the platinum coating is clear on this one. It gets sharper throughout the test. It is exceptionally durable, but not very consistent.

This one has the big proximal wave in the grind. Measured thickness over the corrugation was also higher; I suspect it is just stamped a little harder and deeper. The difference changes the proximal appearance a lot. The rest of the grind is also different. This is a simple traditional two stage grind with no visible burr.

It is crude dull traditional grind, but I think this one performs as designed. I am guessing this is the new and current one, but perhaps they are still producing and distributing the Fpaiher as well.

Date	27-Nov-2024			Blade Thickness, mm	0.141
Blade	Tifonly	Spacily Cut Platinum	Hair Shaper Wavy	China	1-Jan-2024
Wear on Edge	0	3	6	9	12
Edges Measured	Bottom	Bottom	Bottom	Bottom	Bottom
Measurement Medium	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22
Dulling Substrate	New	Paper	Paper	Paper	Paper
Measurements	15	15	15	15	15
Adj. Std. Dev.	8	13	14	12	15
Median F (g)	125	125	108	106	105
Mean F (g)	122	120	107	107	105
BESS Adj. Factor	1.22	1.22	1.22	1.22	1.22
Median Adj. F (g)	153	153	132	129	128
Mean Adj. F (g)	148	146	130	131	128

Blade Sharpness Test Index

 

[BigAlVista]

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[helicopter]

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

 

[helicopter]

I hope you guys are ready for some cognitive dissonance.

This is the Feather Hi-Stainless black blade, which was made by Feather in Japan on July 20 of this year. It is quite sharp, with typical durability and consistency, however, it is not exceptionally sharp like the Feather blade from a yellow tuck that was featured in my eighth blade test.

These black tucks contain five blades, and the blades are of standard 100 micron thickness.

It is a three stage grind. Someone was saying they have a two stage grind recently, but that certainly isn't the case for this individual.

That is just some wax at the edge in the first picture. Feather uses stiff paper with a lot of wax.

In the second photo, taken after the test, you can see that it has a failure mode of small chipping typical of high-quality razor blade steel.

The grind scratches are much bigger and much less consistent than the other one I tested.

I also took some pictures of the sharper top edge, in case anyone is interested. It actually does look a little more even and consistent than the bottom edge. Perhaps the other edge was ground on fresh belts. You can see the coating on the tertiary bevel.

Here is a chart with all of the sharpest blades tested, as well as Kai. You can see that this black Feather was more durable and consistent than the other, and has a completely shorter cutting force wear curve compared to the sharper yellow one measured previously.

I was confused about these results and my preconceptions, so I did several things. I tested a second blade from the tuck, which had essentially identical performance. I did come calibration cuts with BESS certified test media and confirmed my results are properly calibrated. I put a known weight on my force meter to test its calibration. Perhaps with more sampling, this individual blade would fall closer to the middle of the sharp blade chart below, but it definitely seems to lack the exceptional sharpness of the other Feather I tested, which also got me asking lots of questions about its surprising sharpness. The yellow one had a way smoother grind, a much more fragile apex, and was way sharper.

What does this mean? It is only two samples, so it could mean a lot of things, but at the very least, it means that not all current Feather double edge blades are of the same exceptional sharpness. Maybe they changed a specification. Maybe the black and yellow ones have different specifications. Maybe the thicker test media I used for the other test, calibrated on an Astra SP, was hard on that Feather's relatively fragile edge, which could explain curve shapes partially, but not the difference in initial sharpness. Maybe it is just inconsistent production quality by Feather. Though I doubt it, maybe my black blades dulled in shipping somehow.

I think that J-shaped cutting force wear curve indicates a platinum based metallic coating. I know this may be controversial.

Date	28-Nov-2024			Blade Thickness, mm	0.100
Blade	Feather	Feather	Hi-Stainless Black	Japan	20-Jul-2024
Wear on Edge	0	3	6	9	12
Edges Measured	Bottom / Top	Bottom / Top	Bottom / Top	Bottom / Top	Bottom / Top
Measurement Medium	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22	Stren 6 .22
Dulling Substrate	New	Paper	Paper	Paper	Paper
Measurements	20	20	20	20	20
Adj. Std. Dev.	4	5	4	5	5
Median F (g)	50	49	51	53.5	57
Mean F (g) Top	47	45	49	51	54
Mean F (g) Bottom	51	51	52	55	58
Mean F (g)	49	48	51	53	56
BESS Adj. Factor	1.22	1.22	1.22	1.22	1.22
Avg. Adj. F (g) Top	57	55	60	62	66
Avg. Adj. F (g) Bottom	62	62	63	67	71
Median Adj. F (g)	61	60	62	65	70
Mean Adj. F (g)	60	59	62	64	69

I hope this stirs up some interesting discussion.

Blade Sharpness Test Index

 

[helicopter]

Here is a simpler chart:

 

[pjgh]

Gosh! It's nothing like! With nothing more than shaving my face to glean any actual knowledge the yellow pack Feather reads exactly as I expected it ... VERY sharp first shave, very sharp second shave, cools off third onwards. The black/grey pack Feather reads like ... well, any good, sharp blade. Curious indeed!

 

[Alex Jr]

I’m reaching the weird conclusion that there’s more variation with blades than we may think, being the same brand or not.

 

[BBSSBOSS]

Here is a simpler chart:

View attachment 1950903

Interesting variances, maybe we retest a newer recent tuck of the yellow Feathers as we certainly see performance variations for e.g in the Personnas year to year as indicated in the charts... perhaps such may be the case here also

 

[Flanders]

I don’t know man, I only have Feathers in the black colour and they cut me up just like their reputation says they will. They are all several years old so I have to go with production variance as well, unfortunately. It would have been nice to have a milder option.

Actually, I also bought a lot of 50 in light blue tucks that are supposedly meant for the South American market. They didn’t feel any less sharp and they sit in a box somewhere, dumb purchase.

 

[helicopter]

So, I have been scheming to do a group buy of a case of ten of the new and current version of these AccuTec Clean Room Lab Blue 95-0913 dispensers, and figured I would test the ones I have to see if they are amazing. Unfortunately, this lot is defective, with some damage, so I can't measure them properly.

I broke that tape seal, but it isn't something that would be difficult to counterfeit. It is just clear tape. I got these on ebay from a junk seller.

The blades were as clean as possible, so I don't think they were tampered with. I think someone handles them improperly in the factory before they went into the dispenser.

With the lid on, the sides parallel to the edges are protected, and with it off, there is some flex. However, I pulled the bottom blade from the stack as well and even it was damaged.

This is the top blade, the edge is trashed, rolled over and chipped.

The bottom blade also has lots of shipping.

The edges are dead on my test fixture and I put one to my cheek for a 1cm stroke in a Gillette black tip and it was horrid.

Oh, well. Maybe I will shoot them an email.

 

[Dirty Harry]

I’m reaching the weird conclusion that there’s more variation with blades than we may think, being the same brand or not.

I'm thinking the same thing. I think the most popular blades need to be a combination of sharp and consistent. What we pay for is the sharpness and also consistency. A blade that is inconsistent may have a larger variation in popularity due to different shaving results regardless of technique/prep etc.

Thanks Helicopter for this exhaustive testing of blades. I think it will be the "go to" data until someone comes up with something better.

When does it all end. When do you say enough. Is there a goal as far as number of blades tested?

When you do stop (assuming you will), then what. Is there going to be a final data base?
Thanks again,
Dirty

 

[NorthernSoul]

When does it all end. When do you say enough. Is there a goal as far as number of blades tested?

When you do stop (assuming you will), then what...

I'm thinking @helicopter will create a test setup driven by a robot. Entire tucks of blades from the same brand and type will be tested automatically to reduce potential sampling error. Results will be automatically uploaded and merged into a database on a custom website.

 

[helicopter]

The initial goal is to test the stuff that is in production and readily available to me on the primary market. Of course I have made several exceptions for discontinued and vintage blades either because they are still available or because they help us understand the current stuff better.

I have about twenty current blades here, and I just ordered everything with a straight edge that I haven't tested from the TRC, Maggard, and Hendrix catalogs, as well as several more Amazon and AliX private label blades. Once I am through all of those, I will probably go for the RBC catalog. I may go for a few more from other retailers after that. I am also going to re-test a handful of blades where consensus didn't match measurements, like Silver Star and Tiger Platinum.

This is the primary goal, and I think we will be there somewhere between 300-400 tests. At this point, I will probably put some work into the database and try to get it to a sort of 1.0 version. We can then consider the initial project complete.

I might try to get all of the blades XRF scanned at some point so we have all of the alloy compositions as well. I think this coiuld be extremely useful for putting puzzle pieces together.

I may look into some more sophisticated statistical analysis once we have this big trove of data, because there is a lot of useful information in the numbers that isn't expressed in an average. We can look at balance, ranked cutting force. I have a bunch of ideas, but I don't want to spend much time on it until I have the 1.0 database completed.

I might move the work somewhere else, depending on how accessible B&B wants to make it. All of the data gets committed to the public domain and published publicly outside of B&B before it gets posted here, so that it is always available to anyone who wants to use it. This means it should be pretty easy for me to jump ship if I want to publish something in a way that isn't possible here on B&B. This thread is pretty clumsy compared to what could be done in an editable format and with some custom code.

I also want to test some interesting vintage blades and see if I can discover the origins of the German Edgewell Wilkinson Sword Classic and a few others, just because they are interesting. Right now, I am not really interested in trying to test every vintage blade I can get, just some interesting ones. This would end with a sort of 1.1 version of the database. I might get bored at some point.

I am not sure what comes after that, but probably some focused looks at specific manufacturers. For example, I could do Treet, and test 3-5 batches of one or more current blades, make some charts with those and all of the discontinued blades already tested. Then we could say, "Here is how these ten blades performed in testing, and I am 85% confident that these three are good examples of the specification, and 95% confident that this really important blade, like Treet Platinum, is a reasonably good representation." Something that I believe to be within 10% of the nominal blade I would consider to be a good example. I find it difficult to tell much subjective difference over that range when we are talking about the same specification.

 

[Jay21]

I’ve been shaving with blades recently that have tested sharp, like Dorco, Bic, and Schick. I previously used and liked Silver Stars, which are highly thought of around here, but tested less than sharp. After using a Silver Star this morning, I can confirm that they aren’t sharp. They are very smooth and forgiving, but they can’t be confused with other much sharper blades.

 

[Alex Jr]

For example, I could do Treet, and test 3-5 batches of one or more current blades,

That would certainly reveal the extent of the variation within the same brand or line.

It’d be awesome to analyze that data for the first time.

Those “consistent” blades, are they really? Different batches, different manufacturing dates? Hmm…