Derby blades are not sharp enough for tough beards, even with awesome prep, and too rough for sensitive skin. I have tried them several times (on my third tuck), most recently today. It was the worst shave in all the months of wet shaving (new blade). It could be it was a dud. But I wonder why I have not gotten such bad results with other blades, like the Astras. Anyway, YMMV, but for me Derbys are fail blades.
What makes Derby blades so bad?
- Thread starter chrisf8657
- Start date
I like them. Have no issues. I get one solid week or 6 shave from one derby. Using an F-1 Flare tip
Listen to the man!! Truer words were never spoken.
I just got done with a pack of Derbys and, while they are distinctly less sharp than other blades that I use, they are perfectly adequate for most shavers. I agree that Derbys are much maligned by some (mostly new) shavers, but the fault may well be theirs and not the blade. Derbys are often used by those just starting out, and whose technique hasn't yet settled down. The result? They get inconsistent results, and some nicks and weepers from them, then write them off as unuseable, and toss them.
In my opinion, Derby blades are not deserving of their bad reputation, and are an OK middle-of-the-road, if not super-sharp, blade.
Detby blades are rather good than bad. I have no complaints from them. The only reason I don't use them is because I have a few other brands that I like better. But if Derby are the only available blades, I'll be totally satisfied.
Hilarious! Then we need no other blades. Everybody use Derbys, no, even better - Balakas - and if it's horrible then it's your fault for not prepping well enough! Awesome logic! Ad hominem falacy anyone?
What I find hilarious is that Derby are the only blades that endure so much generalizations and still raise questions for unknown to me reasons. There's no another blade thread that starts with "Most/majority don't like them..." BUT then why we keep talking about them?! Because they are not that bad for the money, and because it's not "most/majority"! What majority to me means is that 'most' people who wonder why these blades "are so bad", start their posts with "It's the first blade I tried!" And there's a point after you've tried 30 different blades, you can use each one of them with great success. There are not bad blades, just better and great ones. And good technique and practice helps adjusting to any of the available blades. To me, Sharks SC and Lord Platinum have been the least comfortable blades to use, but I have no desire to bash them for any reasons because they are usable nonetheless.
Nope, they weren't in the sample pack I had. Glad I did the sampler, though. I found a couple that were like shaving with an angry cat - and they weren't Derbys or Sharks. I also discovered that Feathers were a nice blade, but not nice enough for me to buy in bulk. As my technique has improved over the past two years, the Derbys (and Sharks) are even better.
Chromium - Ceramic - Platinum - Tungsten and Polymer coated edges. Problem is: not enough coating on that blade. Eight more layers, that would fix it...
That being said, I will try again one, next blade change.
This question really does keep cropping up doesn't it?
The reality is that Derby blades are NOT that bad, but neither could they be described (for most people it would seem) as good.
Mediocre just about sums them up for me. I've used much worse blades, and if Derby were the only ones available then I'd manage quite well.
Not my blade of choice by any means, but perhaps unfairly derided by many for no real reason.
The reality is that Derby blades are NOT that bad, but neither could they be described (for most people it would seem) as good.
Mediocre just about sums them up for me. I've used much worse blades, and if Derby were the only ones available then I'd manage quite well.
Not my blade of choice by any means, but perhaps unfairly derided by many for no real reason.
