So I recently acquired an Engstrom Frameback - the kind with the flat, thin blade and tang and a brass tube frame. The bevel angle measured out at a whopping 23 degrees. I went back and looked at my other Swedish framebacks of the same design and none of them were under 20 degrees. Only a few data points to be fair. Wondering if this is really an actual design feature - that framebacks of this type tended to have relatively fat bevel angles. Given that bevel angles this large are usually considered non-optimal, wondering if this is one of the things that led to this design type disappearing. Thoughts welcome!
Framebacks and bevel angle
- Thread starter 2bit_collie
- Start date
This type of razor has been around since 186X, and the angle is very large,
but it can be used for shaving. You can feel the difference after using it,
which is also a characteristic of this period. It is a good razor.
but it can be used for shaving. You can feel the difference after using it,
which is also a characteristic of this period. It is a good razor.
I have an Engström that's around 21, a Berg that's between 18 and 20 depending on where you measure, a Heljestrand thats between 17.5 and 18.5, a Dahlgren around 20, and a Japanese one around 19.4. I've seen Japanese made ones that are over 20, though.
Have had many 'brass tube' Engstroms well under 18 degrees. Currently have a Helje that is 16-17-ish, but it's not a brass tube frame back. The brass tubes erode quickly on a stone, I think a lot of them were either held off the stone or sharpened exclusively on pastes. It's very hard to measure to the 'top' of the spine wear when there's little wear there. Even a very slight 'miss' in measurement leads to a bad calculation. Same with old wedges, some have no spine wear, and very obtuse bevels. Pretty sure a lot of them were honed 'free hand' off the stone.
- Thread starter
- #5
Thanks All,
In particular @Gamma raises a very good point that it is really hard to measure the bevel angle accurately. First, this particular specimen has very minimal spine wear and that wear is way in the past, so really hard to pick out where the edge is. Second, as can be seen in @TSENG ’s photo, if you use a caliper coming over from the spine side of the razor (which is what I did) you are guaranteed to measure a spine width that is larger than the width at the top edge of the spine wear. A remeasure dropped the angle down to 21deg, though again, we should assume that this has a tolerance as well. Of course I could get a better reading once I rehone this, IF I actually put the brass tube against the stone. But as @Gamma pointed out, brass will wear pretty fast so perhaps not a good idea. I rarely tape razor spines during honing, but brass-tubed framebacks are usually one of my exceptions.
In particular @Gamma raises a very good point that it is really hard to measure the bevel angle accurately. First, this particular specimen has very minimal spine wear and that wear is way in the past, so really hard to pick out where the edge is. Second, as can be seen in @TSENG ’s photo, if you use a caliper coming over from the spine side of the razor (which is what I did) you are guaranteed to measure a spine width that is larger than the width at the top edge of the spine wear. A remeasure dropped the angle down to 21deg, though again, we should assume that this has a tolerance as well. Of course I could get a better reading once I rehone this, IF I actually put the brass tube against the stone. But as @Gamma pointed out, brass will wear pretty fast so perhaps not a good idea. I rarely tape razor spines during honing, but brass-tubed framebacks are usually one of my exceptions.
@2bit_collie, I saw the picture in the thread "Straight Razor Acquisition" and guess that someone put one
a tube that belongs to a wider blade.
a tube that belongs to a wider blade.
