Look who's getting into the synthetic game.

[Attila]

Good on Simpsons! I'll be looking forward to seeing what they come up with.

 

[Kevan]

Good on Simpsons! I'll be looking forward to seeing what they come up with. I find the vitriol and biased hate here against Simpsons by some to be kind of sad.

Not "hate" at all, if you're referring to me. I love my 3 Simpsons brushes. What I don't like is their random pricing and the arrogance of some of the people within the company. So I choose to make fun of it. If these brushes come out and they're awesome and bring something new to the table, I'll applaud them.

 

[Monsieur Blaireau]

Here's the latest:



Looks like that earlier twitter pic was just a prototype, after all.

 

[Kevan]

Looks like the same bristles the Frank Shaving synths have. Decent performers, if they are, but not up to the Muhle standard. From the Twitter comments, it seems like they will be a "cheaper alternative" if introduced. Good on Simpson for not charging the same price as badger.

 

[oldbluelight]

These may be the greatest thing since sliced bread but they leave me cold. I have a negative reaction that's purely based on the emotional appeal of traditional materials, even with all their drawbacks. And no, Manchurian High Mountain Polymer won't help change my admittedly closed mind. Enjoy, it's probably the wave of the future. And I wish them the best of luck in their endeavor.

 

[Absolute Mustard]

These may be the greatest thing since sliced bread but they leave me cold. I have a negative reaction that's purely based on the emotional appeal of traditional materials, even with all their drawbacks. And no, Manchurian High Mountain Polymer won't help change my admittedly closed mind. Enjoy, it's probably the wave of the future. And I wish them the best of luck in their endeavor.

I was the same way...until I tried one

 

[LMAN007]

I see that Whipped Dog now has synthetic brushes. Interesting.

 

[brucered]

Looks like the same bristles the Frank Shaving synths have. Decent performers, if they are, but not up to the Muhle standard. From the Twitter comments, it seems like they will be a "cheaper alternative" if introduced. Good on Simpson for not charging the same price as badger.

looks and sounds like they have been put on hold for now.

seems the knot was sub-par, at least based on what I read elsewhere.

 

[Absolute Mustard]

It looks sub par

It looks like the same one I got from TGN that was terrible

http://thegoldennib.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=9_45&products_id=164

 

[cessnabird]

I can't wait to see how they perform once they release the next set of protos. They decided to go back to the drawing board on the bristles until they are on par with the top synthetics on the market now. It was a good decision on their part to go back and rework the knots to get them just right. I expect nothing but a top performer from Simpsons, it is sad to see how negative so many members are on this forum regarding their brushes. They make some of the best brushes on the planet... Have some faith gentlemen!

 

[German]

I tried a Mühle Silvertip Fibre and it is a good lather maker...but the face feel is just not up to badger standards... So enjoy your Synthetics... They ain't for me...

I was the same way...until I tried one

 

[wimbouman]

I am excited to see all these well known brush makers developing synthetics.
Based on earlier experiences with Omega Sintex (not good) and Muhle 2010 synthetics (also not good) I was more or less surprised myself that I liked the new silvertip fibers and artifiicial badgers.

So now we have a Kent Infinity (very affordable also), there's the Omega Hi-performance (whatever that may be, but they do come in a barbershop pole handle!), the v2 silvertip fibers and now of course Simpsons.
These are interesting times for brush-aficionados!

 

[Kevan]

That Omega with the barbershop handle is really handsome, but I don't want to take a chance on it until more comes out about the new fiber. I'm really curious to see if Simpson gets their synth right. Despite what several people in this thread may think, I do not dislike Simpson brushes. I own three for crying out loud. What I dislike is their attitude and their random pricing. Other manufacturers have uniform pricing tiers; Simpson is ALL over the place, as if we're supposed to believe that certain handle shapes are so much more difficult to produce or that only producing 40 in a batch as opposed to 100 means that a Persian Jar has to be more expensive than a Commodore. And there should be some uniformity to the hair as well, instead of "What kind of Best hair will I get this time?". I don't think it's remotely unfair to call them out on this. They are not above criticism.

But anyway, I really DO want them to get the synthetic hair right. What they offer beyond other manufacturers is the handle shapes and the knot density. Having them in the synthetic arena improves the market and makes things better for the consumer, because it gives us more choice. The high-res pictures of the Duke 3 prototype show an incredibly handsome and decidedly classic-looking brush, one I will gladly buy if they can nail the fibers.

 

[ChiefBroom]

I can't wait to see how they perform once they release the next set of protos. They decided to go back to the drawing board on the bristles until they are on par with the top synthetics on the market now. It was a good decision on their part to go back and rework the knots to get them just right. I expect nothing but a top performer from Simpsons, it is sad to see how negative so many members are on this forum regarding their brushes. They make some of the best brushes on the planet... Have some faith gentlemen!

I guess I'm not seeing what you're seeing in this thread.

1) Some members commented on the appearance of the hair (as shown in the prototype photos) in comparison to other synthetic products already on the market. If, as you say, Simpson has decided to go back to the drawing board until it can offer bristles on a par with other top synthetics, does that mean Simpson has gone negative on itself? No. It just means it's testing the waters and soliciting useful feedback, which usually involves a range of perspectives and opinions, not just gathering faith-based endorsements offered by die-hard fans who have already decided they'll love whatever Simpson serves up.

I commend Simpson for asking, listening, and engaging in critical assessment in this instance. The Invisible Hand seems to be doing its thing.

2) Some members simply hang-up on the idea of a shaving brush with synthetic hair. I'll admit I'm one of them. There, I said it; I'm prejudiced. But it's a prejudice I don't think anyone should have to make apologies for. I like the idea of taking some pressure off the Chinese badger population. But synthetic hair runs up against what DE shaving, at least in part, symbolizes for me, and it doesn't fit with my Old School aesthetic ideals.

I would, however, like to try a synthetic knot. And maybe I'll come around. Whether I do or don't, it won't have anything to do with Simpson, unless Simpson happens to stand and deliver with a superior product. In any case, I wouldn't make that decision for myself on account of the label.

3) Some members have voiced opinions about their willingness to pay a premium for a Simpson synthetic brush based on the label as distinguished from comparative product quality. That's fair, isn't it? If it weren't for price-conscious customers who discriminate based on value in relation to quality, Simpson and other brush makers wouldn't have an economic incentive to go back to the drawing board for the sake of getting it right. Informed and critical buyers are essential to healthy competition. Healthy competition is good for us all, sellers as well as buyers. B&B makes an important contribution to healthy competition by providing a venue for moderated exchange of information and critical opinions. If everyone agreed in these discussions, they would be useless, uninteresting, and generally suck.

It would be pretty vain for Simpson to take as a personal insult every decision by every buyer to purchase some other maker's brush. And if there are a few buyers out there who might intend such a choice to stand as an insult, wouldn't it be best just to ignore them and concentrate on what matters? At the end of the day, the best brushes (factoring both quality and value) will rule in spite of all the noise and drama. Unless we're stupid.

BTW, I own a slew of Simpsons, and several of them are among my favorites. I used a Tulip 2 in 2-band today that I think is probably magic. And I've been sorely tempted over the past few days to call Mark and order a Polo 8 in Manchurian. There's a pretty good chance I'll break down and do that tomorrow. If I do, I won't be taking any side other than my own. I think it's a little silly to fall into that sort of thing.

 

[Doc226]

Monsieur clean out your PMs

 

[German]

Well Said!

I guess I'm not seeing what you're seeing in this thread.

1) Some members commented on the appearance of the hair (as shown in the prototype photos) in comparison to other synthetic products already on the market. If, as you say, Simpson has decided to go back to the drawing board until it can offer bristles on a par with other top synthetics, does that mean Simpson has gone negative on itself? No. It just means it's testing the waters and soliciting useful feedback, which usually involves a range of perspectives and opinions, not just gathering faith-based endorsements offered by die-hard fans who have already decided they'll love whatever Simpson serves up.

I commend Simpson for asking, listening, and engaging in critical assessment in this instance. The Invisible Hand seems to be doing its thing.

2) Some members simply hang-up on the idea of a shaving brush with synthetic hair. I'll admit I'm one of them. There, I said it; I'm prejudiced. But it's a prejudice I don't think anyone should have to make apologies for. I like the idea of taking some pressure off the Chinese badger population. But synthetic hair runs up against what DE shaving, at least in part, symbolizes for me, and it doesn't fit with my Old School aesthetic ideals.

I would, however, like to try a synthetic knot. And maybe I'll come around. Whether I do or don't, it won't have anything to do with Simpson, unless Simpson happens to stand and deliver with a superior product. In any case, I wouldn't make that decision for myself on account of the label.

3) Some members have voiced opinions about their willingness to pay a premium for a Simpson synthetic brush based on the label as distinguished from comparative product quality. That's fair, isn't it? If it weren't for price-conscious customers who discriminate based on value in relation to quality, Simpson and other brush makers wouldn't have an economic incentive to go back to the drawing board for the sake of getting it right. Informed and critical buyers are essential to healthy competition. Healthy competition is good for us all, sellers as well as buyers. B&B makes an important contribution to healthy competition by providing a venue for moderated exchange of information and critical opinions. If everyone agreed in these discussions, they would be useless, uninteresting, and generally suck.

It would be pretty vain for Simpson to take as a personal insult every decision by every buyer to purchase some other maker's brush. And if there are a few buyers out there who might intend such a choice to stand as an insult, wouldn't it be best just to ignore them and concentrate on what matters? At the end of the day, the best brushes (factoring both quality and value) will rule in spite of all the noise and drama. Unless we're stupid.

BTW, I own a slew of Simpsons, and several of them are among my favorites. I used a Tulip 2 in 2-band today that I think is probably magic. And I've been sorely tempted over the past few days to call Mark and order a Polo 8 in Manchurian. There's a pretty good chance I'll break down and do that tomorrow. If I do, I won't be taking any side other than my own. I think it's a little silly to fall into that sort of thing.

 

[cessnabird]

I guess I'm not seeing what you're seeing in this thread.

1) Some members commented on the appearance of the hair (as shown in the prototype photos) in comparison to other synthetic products already on the market. If, as you say, Simpson has decided to go back to the drawing board until it can offer bristles on a par with other top synthetics, does that mean Simpson has gone negative on itself? No. It just means it's testing the waters and soliciting useful feedback, which usually involves a range of perspectives and opinions, not just gathering faith-based endorsements offered by die-hard fans who have already decided they'll love whatever Simpson serves up.

I commend Simpson for asking, listening, and engaging in critical assessment in this instance. The Invisible Hand seems to be doing its thing.

2) Some members simply hang-up on the idea of a shaving brush with synthetic hair. I'll admit I'm one of them. There, I said it; I'm prejudiced. But it's a prejudice I don't think anyone should have to make apologies for. I like the idea of taking some pressure off the Chinese badger population. But synthetic hair runs up against what DE shaving, at least in part, symbolizes for me, and it doesn't fit with my Old School aesthetic ideals.

I would, however, like to try a synthetic knot. And maybe I'll come around. Whether I do or don't, it won't have anything to do with Simpson, unless Simpson happens to stand and deliver with a superior product. In any case, I wouldn't make that decision for myself on account of the label.

3) Some members have voiced opinions about their willingness to pay a premium for a Simpson synthetic brush based on the label as distinguished from comparative product quality. That's fair, isn't it? If it weren't for price-conscious customers who discriminate based on value in relation to quality, Simpson and other brush makers wouldn't have an economic incentive to go back to the drawing board for the sake of getting it right. Informed and critical buyers are essential to healthy competition. Healthy competition is good for us all, sellers as well as buyers. B&B makes an important contribution to healthy competition by providing a venue for moderated exchange of information and critical opinions. If everyone agreed in these discussions, they would be useless, uninteresting, and generally suck.

It would be pretty vain for Simpson to take as a personal insult every decision by every buyer to purchase some other maker's brush. And if there are a few buyers out there who might intend such a choice to stand as an insult, wouldn't it be best just to ignore them and concentrate on what matters? At the end of the day, the best brushes (factoring both quality and value) will rule in spite of all the noise and drama. Unless we're stupid.

BTW, I own a slew of Simpsons, and several of them are among my favorites. I used a Tulip 2 in 2-band today that I think is probably magic. And I've been sorely tempted over the past few days to call Mark and order a Polo 8 in Manchurian. There's a pretty good chance I'll break down and do that tomorrow. If I do, I won't be taking any side other than my own. I think it's a little silly to fall into that sort of thing.

I was referring to the clear and present general negativity on B&B concerning Simpson brushes by "numerous" and well known members. It is hard to miss so I don't see what you aren't seeing??

Unfortunately, it is this type of behavior that has has led me elsewhere in the wetshaving forum world...B&B isn't the same site I joined several years ago sadly.

 

[ChiefBroom]

This thread isn't about that. Let's not take it there.

I was referring to the clear and present general negativity on B&B concerning Simpson brushes by "numerous" and well known members. It is hard to miss so I don't see what you aren't seeing?? Unfortunately, it is this type of behavior that has has led me elsewhere in the wetshaving forum world...B&B isn't the same site I joined several years ago sadly.

 

[seanusa]

This thread isn't about that. Let's not take it there.

+1

 

[cessnabird]

Agreed, I shouldn't mention that and totally derail this thread... However, don't call me out and make me look like I am making things up when it is blatantly obvious? Look below... Can you not see what I originally mentioned in my first post? Don't try and make me out to be the bad guy here, I am just sick of seeing this crap! Negativity and uncalled for remarks/comments.

Plastic pollution.

I'm tempted to be snide and say "more than it's worth," but I have no idea. I just came across the post and thought it was interesting. They seem to be following suit to Muhle's success with the silvertip fibre brushes.

Recycled toilet brush, probably.

I'm more than tempted, this WILL be overpriced....

I wonder if they'll start trashing the other synthetic brush makers on twitter?

I wonder if they'll be able to actually keep two knots the same?

Would anyone buy a $125 boar brush?

Very interesting. Thanks.

As for Simpson, let's see if they have any developments of their own to make their brushes a bit different, of if they will just be Purveyors of The World's Most Expensive Synthetic Brush Simply Because We Think You Should Pay More For Our Hand-Lathed Handles(tm). Brushes with different lofts, slightly different fibers, and extra density would be a welcome sight; "Get this Duke 3 with a basic synthetic knot for more than a comparative Muhle!" would be silly IMO.