Talk:Straight razor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Expert Commentary

I am a barber and this article is way out of tune. Especially the section on use. The use of lather mugs and brushes is now practically banned by every barber board in the U.S. (with the exception of Alabama which has no barber board) due to their unsanitary nature. Instead a electric latherizer is used and the lather is dispensed into the barber's hand and applied as needed. Razors are honed and stropped both regularly and there is a certain art to it.

If you require any sort of reference I can provide scans of an article published in Knife World by Jim Shields on the art of "Old Fashioned Straight Razor Shaving"

Secondly a replacable blade straight razor is called an "injector razor" and they are made by many comapnies under many names such as Hess and Monsieur charles.

IMO, straight razors have a large nostalgic following -- I own one myself (and use it now and then). Should have their own page.--Rbeas 03:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Correcting for an NPOV

I went back in and edited the article for NPOV. After being away from it for a while, I could clearly see the bias. I plan to continue work on the article.----

Nice correction. —BenFrantzDale 06:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Weapon

Should a section on weapons use be included? It sound a little odd but I came to the page looking for that info and it wasn't here.--DannyBoy7783 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added the requested section. Anyone who feels they can improve upon it should feel free to do so. MartinRobinson 03:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the section on the Razor's appearance in the movies section was deleted completely. I remember that someone said that it appeared in Kill Bill Vol. 1 yet actually it was in Resivor Dogs. When that edit was made a few days later it dissapeared completely. Just because someone makes a mistake dosn't mean erase the whole section. It just means you made a mistake which is entirely human. Blip2blop 7:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason why it was blanked is that a list of what movies a straight razor appears in isn't particularly encyclopedic, whether accurate or not. TheWarlock 17:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the second and third sentences from the weapon section because they were not informative, but were obviously written by someone brainstorming statements of the obvious. It would take some actual research to write something meaningful. I am willing to do this, but I'm loathe to leave the stuff that was there simply because a section feels like it needs more bulk.

I've been into one modern jail and one jail museum where straight razors were displayed among weapons taken off arrestees. The anecdotal evidence indicates they were carried as weapons some time after they fell out of favor for actually shaving with. As a journalist I came across an article about a jail escape in the 1950s where straight razors were used to saw through bolts holding down a toilet. One might point out cultural references to razors as weapons, citing movies such as Maximum Overdrive and True Lies.

I'm leaving town for a while but would like to make this a project when I get back. Until then, I wanted to explain why the materials is missing, since I see someone reverted the last deletion I made. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Care and use of

There should be a section on 'best practices' and such with details on how to properly care for one, at least in a more elaborate / comprehendable form. Dante-kun 15:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No, for Wikipedia is not a manual or guidebook. ► RATEL ◄ 00:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a guidebook or manual, but the information can be included without being written as advice. There's abundant documentation of established practices. Dr.K has already added a lot of this without necessarily making this a Wikihow article. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

StraightRazorPlace

User:70.39.140.100 keeps adding a link to a straight razor forum. This seems a pretty clear advertisment of a website, rather than attempt to improve the article (especially since that IP has no other edits besides this), & I think violates the Wikipedia:External links policy of links normally to be avoided. I'm going to revert it one last time, but I don't want to get into an edit war here, so other input & help would be appreciated. If you are User:70.39.140.100, I also welcome your discussion here (though I'm about to head over to your Talk page to mention it there as well). --mordicai. 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mordicai,

I appreciate your imperialism here, but the modern growth of the straight razor phenomenon started with the StraightRazorPlace. It is not only of significant historical importance, but it is a place that provides the most non biased information to anyone interested in learning anything about straight razors and should be on any appropriate straight razor map. In addition, you already have another forum link up there from Nassur and another link from a .com store.

I await your unwarranted prosecution, sentence and execution.

Lynn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.140.10 (talk • contribs)

That is a whole lot of loaded language there, Lynn. I'm sorry if you feel that you are being unfairly targeted here, but I think you are misinterpreting my edits as more personal than they are. To your statements; I think you would be hard pressed to pin any social trend to a single cause, which makes me doubt that there could be sufficient evidence for a website being responsible for modern straight razor use. I don't know what citations you would use to prove your point, but I'm open to hearing them. As to your pointing out that there are other websites on the list that are inappropriate for an encyclopedia, thank you. It seems FreplySprang has already gone ahead & pruned them out. For my two-cents, the most I could possibly see warrented for StraightRazorPlace would be a spot in the External Links, not in the main body. Again, please don't take other users edits of your writing as attacks; we're all trying to make Wikipedia the best it can be. Also, you might want to consider creating an account for future edits. --mordicai. 21:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mordicai,

I take no credit for recognizing your narcissistic approach here. Prior to six years ago, there was no single source of straight razor information available on the internet. There were ebay auctions for straight razors and an occasional question regarding straight razors on the knife forums or scattered throughout the web. The StraightRazorPlace was built on the premise of trying to resurrect the art of straight razor shaving and preserve it. As a result of this group being formed, there has been international visibility concerning every aspect of straight razors and once barely surviving manufacturer's of straight razors and shaving products related to straight razors and wet shaving are now thriving and growing. In addition, there are custom makers of straight razors all over the world and more exploring this art daily. There are also now several forums for people to obtain some degree of straight razor information. Some exclusive to straight razor shaving and some for the entire wet shaving community.

Regardless of your lack of knowledge here, it seems that your mind is made up. Sorry dude, but you are what is wrong with the internet today. I appreciate your posting the link in any case if you intend to keep NassRasur which is a European Forum similar to the StraightRazorPlace.

Thanks for you time.

Lynn—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjustme69 (talk • contribs)

Hi again Lynn. Just at the start here I'd like to point out that you're pretty much in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I don't know if you are used to ad hominem attacks working, but they arn't a good way to express your viewpoint when engaged in a rational conversation. I seems that you feel very strongly about this website; you havn't, however, shown any kind of cause & effect in your argument. Straight razors being on the upswing & the forum being popularized only shows correlation, & you havn't even cited any evidence of that. I don't know what agenda you imagine I might have, but it would serve your argument better to come up with citable content than to concentrate on personal attacks. --mordicai. 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mordicai,

As previously stated your lack of knowledge is great and you do not have either the background or have you done any research here. I must accept your authority only because you have it. It is obvious that you don't intent to explore this at all. Your statement of correlation is ludicrous.

If you are a volunteer, they are paying you way too much. Feel free to remove the entire thread if you like.

Thanks again.

Lynn

Your constant ad hominem arguments lead me to think that you have no interest in a rational debate as to your edit's merits or flaws. As I mentioned on your user page, I have no authority here that you don't have, other than that lent to me by the strength of my argument-- you seem to still be confused as to what Wikipedia is & is not, but we are all volunteers here. Regardless, please don't remove this thread even if you are finished with it. Have a good New Year. --mordicai. 00:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mordicai,

Forgive me for not recognizing your limited intellectual ability and the fact that you are simply committed to your authority and argument vs. any real exploration regarding this subject.

StraightRazorPlace is certainly not the only forum on the internet dedicated to Straight Razors. It just happened to be the first. Today there are quite a few forums not only dedicated to straight razor use and collecting, but to the entire wet shaving population. If you go back in time, about 10 years or so, you would have found it hard to find a place to purchase and straight razor and if you did, even harder to learn how to care for or sharpen your own razor. You might have found a cutlery store that would send your razor out and sometimes it might come back ready to shave. You would also find that of the two resources still producing razors in Germany and in France that the grinders were old and that the art was continuing to die out. The work put into compiling all the resources into one place was an extraordinary task. If you now look over the past five years, you will see that the population of straight razor shavers, collectors, vendors, restorers, custom manufacturers, and even the two existing manufacturers has grown beyond their capacity. Because of the Forums who offer people the opportunity to learn everything they need to know and because of the word of mouth as a result of these Forums, Straight Razor Shaving is enjoying a huge revelation which of course is small in comparison to the global population, but still growing every day. The memberships of people from old to young passing on their experience has been a wonderful thing to watch and participate in. I don't believe there is any way to discount the impact to this environment that the Forums have had or continue to present. To not advise any and all readers of their existence based on your personal prejudice for argument is a shame. There are now thousands of members in the forums and they receive millions of hits a year compared to not even hundreds 5-6 years ago. You can stick to your conjecture of correlation all you want. If you feel that there is no room for mention of this, then Wikipedia loses a great deal of value.

I apologize and wish you a very good New Year.

LynnAdjustme69 15:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a far better reasoned argument than You are stupid, though of course you still pepper it with insults. Now what would really start convincing me would be if you could cite any reliable sources for your information. I'm sorry if my use of encyclopedic methodology is coming across to you as "imperialistic," "narcissistic," or "what is wrong with the internet today." I am, very simply, trying to keep a quality of standards in Wikipedia. Can you find sources that ascribe the level of value to StraightRazorPlace that you do? Once you have a reliable reference, we'll have a good idea of how to best incorporate it into the article. I appreciate your passion for the subject, & hope that you eventually understand that we're both on the same side here. --mordicai. 17:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lynn, I am not an expert at Wikipedia, but I felt it was time someone else intervened here. First of all, as far as I can make the rules Mordicai is trying to express are indeed those of Wikipedia. Secondly, as far as I can see he has been very patient with you consistantly making personal remarks. Third, most of the world still does not use the internet at all, so saying that straight-razor use has increased primarily because of anything on the internet would need substantial verification. As Mordicai tried to explain some time ago. It could just as well be that a rise, for another reason,in the use of straight-razors lead to its appearing on the internet, rather than the other way round. I don't know much about straight-razors, but the manner in which you have conducted this debate alone puts me off sympathising with your point of view. However, I urge you to respond positively to Mordecai's invitation here and produce the evidence he has asked for here on this page. Best Wishes, IceDragon64 21:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Stainless Vs High Carbon

It is my understanding that it is high carbon steel that will take and hold a fine edge, and stainless that will dull quickly, although this article claims otherwise. Does anyone want to tell me I'm wrong or does the article need correcting?--Pypex 14:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No experience with razors here, but this is definately true for a knife blade. Carbon steel will hold a sharp edge longer than stainless steel. --StarChaser Tyger 04:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I (Zubedar) had the same idea when reading this article. Specifically:

"The blade can be made of either stainless steel, which is easily stropped and honed, and resistant to rust, or high-carbon steel, which is more difficult to hone, but stays sharp longer, though it will rust if neglected."

This doesn't seem right to me. Carbon steel is much easier to sharpen than stainless. Stainless is notoriously difficult to sharpen. I've got a feeling this part of the entry has been compromised, and in any event it will only mislead Ebay purchasers if left as it is. I shall proceed to amend this. --Zubedar 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cut Throat Razor

Tasoskessaris undid my edit in which I switched the singular reference to "cut throat" razor in the article. As the article consistently uses the term "straight razor" and it is the title of the article, I simply changed the one discrepancy in the terminology. It does not matter if it was invented in England or not (as your noted said that it is the proper term because that's what the Brits call it) if the rest of the article refers to it as Straight Razor. This shouldn't be an edit war, but the article has to be consistent in terminology. We cannot haphazardly refer to it as a "straight razor" and then in the very next paragraph as a "cut throat razor." Liontamarin (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to be personal in our comments. You can refer to an editor in a more neutral manner without mentioning their names according to wikiquette. But nevermind, let's go on the subject. My edit summary comment maybe was too short and therefore not too clear. I never stated that we should call it cut throat for the rest of the article. I only wanted to use the term only for the time it was created, because historically, that is what they called it when it first saw the light of day. So only for the sentence of its creation it would be historically correct to call it cut throat and then switch to the modern terminology for the rest of the article. I hope this clarification helps. Dr.K. (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, but consistency should come first. I made the change because, when I read the article, it was jarring to have only one instance in which it was referred to as straight razor. I think the argument for consistency can be made in articles such as the "Charlie Parker" article where a consistency debate originated over "Charlie" or "Charley" when sources used both interchangeably. The single use of "cut throat razor" was jarring in the article, and I would also argue confusing for non-British, as "straight razor" is a more common term. But also, without the actual etymology of "cut throat razor" it makes no sense to use it in the paragraph of it's creation as, by your argument, we should call it the name it was created under. "Cut throat razor" appears, to me at least, to be a slang term that developed after the blade was put into use for some time. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I'm going to revert it back to "straight razor" for sheer consistency of the article because, regardless of other uses, the article is "Straight Razor" and that should be the term used to describe it consistently through the article. Liontamarin (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it may be a more common term in North America but not with the Brits, the Aussies and the Kiwis. Don't forget this is an international encyclopedia, not only North American. What seems jarring to you sounds like music to British ears. And what about variety? Calling it all the time straight razor is too straight. We can call it open razor, cut throat razor, straight razor or even open straight razor. Variety is the essence of life. It's not like we are going to forget or be confused about what we are referring to. Consistency can lead to boredom. You also say you don't want to enter into an edit war but you keep reverting in the middle of a discussion. I have then to caution you regarding WP:3RR. Your edit reversals in the middle of a discussion diminish the value of the discussion. I'm afraid we have to refer this to WP:3O as I see you have no intention to seriously discuss this point. As well I will revert back to the original version until the third opinion is rendered because we have to respect the status quo until this issue is resolved. Dr.K. (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys - found this page via the Wikipedia:Third Opinion page. In my mind, the best solution to this appears to be to use consistency (refer to it as a Straight Razor) as that's the title of the page. It's made clear in the opening paragraph in bold that they're also known as cut-throat razors, and there's a picture, so I doubt anyone will be confused. Oh, and I'm a Brit, by the way. Annihilatenow (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok let's see. Brits: check. What about the Aussies and the Kiwis? Where does your decision leave them? 15:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasoskessaris (talk • contribs)

I guess Down Under they wouldn't care much. Too busy holding the razor upside down. What can you do? I'll let it pass. Dr.K. (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for finding the actual reference to consistency. I'm sorry to have Taso attack me for not wanting to discuss, but Wikipedia, as it is not specifically directed at British or American speakers, requires consistency not just for one nationality, but for those who may speak English as a second or third language. As our standard is the standard of encyclopedias, we need to use consistency to keep order within the article. If the article were "cut throat razor" and someone used "straight razor" I would edit that for consistency as well. Variety may be the spice of life, but not the spice of an encyclopedia. Liontamarin (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not attack anyone. I just stated objective facts. We were discussing and you were reverting in the middle of a discussion. We cannot have a meaningful discussion that way. Where's the rush? Anyway this discussion is officially over and done. Dr.K. (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Congratulations for using my name in the correct declension. Not too many people know that. Goodbye. Dr.K. (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Silly question, but isn't the "cut throat" razor in reference to cutting _other_ people's throats? If you look back at old literature from the time period when these razors were in common use, you will find a host of seedy characters carrying them. And if you look at news stories from that same era, you find the occasional reference to these razors being used for exactly the same purpose in real life. Straight razors were also a popular weapon with street gangs well into the 20th century in the US. It has nothing to do with cutting yourself shaving. It is a reference to their other use as a weapon. Real or imagined. -CR (noob) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.57.39.4 (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Honing vs. Stropping

The phrase "The shave is completed using as few strokes as possible, honing sparingly if at all." - should it not be "stropping sparingly if at all."? Citizen D (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Great point. It escaped my attention. As I see you are an experienced user why don't you do the honours and change it. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hearsay, rumours and overuse of links to commercial sites

This article is chock-full of old wives' tales and unscientific nonsense. Take for example the claim, from a commercial site selling these items, that —

"you should nevertheless take into account that the razor must first "rest" after use. After the razor has been carefully rinsed and dried, it should not be used again for at least 24 - 48 hours because the fine "fin" on the cutting edge straightens up again extremely slowly."

Please give some links to scientific sources for this claim, or remove it. Someone needs to go through this article and ruthlessly delete these unsubstantiated voodoo claims and remove all links to grubby .COM sites in the process. If no scientific sources can be found on the web, use something like Standard Textbook of Professional Barber-Styling. Copyright 1938, 54, 59, 77, 83, Milady Publishing Company, Tarrytown, NY.. Secondly, there is no need to provide citations, to commercial sites, for information about the material used in the handles of straight razors (just one example). It is a way for spammers to abuse wikipedia by "citing" every obvious fact with links to their own websites. ► RATEL ◄ 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone who thinks all the links to commercial sites, which themselves quote no sources, is just fine, should read WP:VERIFY. ► RATEL ◄ 00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I hate to enter to yet another debate in the many articles that I helped edit but I will try to be brief and to the point. So here it goes (In almost point form for brevity): I doubt that the Standard Textbook of Professional Barber-Styling you quote above will include any references to material properties for stainless steel. The cutting edge of a razor is very thin by design. Very thin cutting edges have microscopic properties that may exhibit properties that are colloquially described as resting the blade. This is a very old tradition in shaving; it is not hearsay. That's why there are sets of seven razors widely available so that one can use one razor a day so that the others can "rest" or elastically recover the form of their thin edge. These razors are even marked in some sets by the day of the week. Shaving is an art. Some of this info is empirical but it exists through the decades of straight razor usage and design experience. In Wikipedia use of commercial sites is allowed as long as it is not done by spammers for their self promotion. The info of these sites serves as reference to real facts. Resting the blade is a fact insofar as straight razor usage and experience through the decades is concerned. I'm sure as we get better references we can replace the commercial sites. But commercial sites do contain good information and their use in Wikipedia by established editors is not prohibited. I also agree that handle materials can be referenced more economically. So if you wish you can remove that citation from there. Dr.K. (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I know a bit about metals, and the concept of "resting" an edge while it changes shape and "re-forms" is hogwash. Provide a proper source for this happening in any metallurgical situation or it will be removed. If you edit war it, I'll escalate to RfC and beyond. I notice from your edit history and the phrases you use, such as "So if you wish you can remove that citation", that you have a misplaced sense of ownership of this and other razor-related articles. If there is an old tradition in shaving, give a non-commercial link to provide verifiability. Currently the article has far too many links to commercial sites; such links are to be avoided. ► RATEL ◄ 01:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In my experience here I have come across many different styles of editors and I thought I saw a representative sample wide enough so that I wouldn't be surprised come what may. But you did manage to surprise me. I don't wish to debate this further given your belligerent tone and escalation threats as well as the absolute nonsense conclusion about any claim of ownership from my phrase quote: So if you wish you can remove that citation which was only meant as a courtesy gesture. I also was amazed by how quickly you generalised this ridiculous conclusion to include other articles as well. I am simply disappointed because obviously given your attitude no intelligent discussion can take place. As far as the tradition why do you think there are seven days sets for razors? As a fashion statement? Or because of an empirical understanding that the razor cannot be used on a daily basis? Anyway that's as far as I am willing to take this discussion. It's been bad enough. Dr.K. (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do men have different sets of cufflinks for each day of the week, or different ties? Because they can. Some women have thousands of pairs of shoes, but not to give the leather time to recover from their feet. You have still not provided any scientific basis for the claims, which, were they true, would be easy to substantiate. ► RATEL ◄ 03:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I'm sure I'm just going to get DOVO or other blade manufacturer to let me see their studies on blade mechanics. As if that were not bad enough I'm almost certain researchers at MIT are dying to write a paper on Post-Shave Blade Material Recovery Characteristics. The short answer to this is that there are no scientific studies on Blade Mechanics. To make it even better I have to provide the answer almost immediately. Due to your constraints tradition doesn't count as an explanation because it is unscientific. I cannot even suggest that you can go ahead and erase this offending information because I might be accused of article ownership. Dr.K. (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

1. No, take your time, as long as I know you are researching it. The claim should probably come out until you come back with something technical to support it, so I may do that. I'm interested to see what you can find, since I sharpen things as a hobby. Additionally, if no evidence can be found to support the contention, it can re-inserted with suitable caveats pointing out that it is a traditional belief without science to support.
2. I have no problem with the Dovo site links, since they are one of the only quality manufacturers left, and do not sell directly to the public, and the same goes for links to Thiers Issard (although you are using the incorrect website for them, and should probably be using this one instead — foreign language links are allowed when pertinent). ► RATEL ◄ 06:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you surprise me once more this time in the positive sense. Both your proposals are reasonable and I agree with them. Despite earlier indications we are now in agreement. As far as Thiers Issard I have the link you suggest as an external one and I'll look into mining some info out of it despite my rather low level of French. It is a constructive suggestion and I appreciate it. Despite our initial disagreement, I also note that you followed proper Wikipedia etiquette by discussing these changes on the talk page. While I do appreciate your invitation to further research the blade resting point, I think this article can benefit from your contributions as well especially since your hobby is sharpening and you seem knowledgeable about books on barbering, a central theme of this article and a resource that I lack. If you are interested I'm sure you can contribute greatly. Best regards. Dr.K. (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• De-indent. I have written to DOVO to ask for clarification on the claim that the "edge straightens up again extremely slowly" between uses. I suspect that this "fact" was copied and pasted from one original (and wrong) source to FAQ pages all over the Internet, including the page at DOVO. ► RATEL ◄ 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, by perpetuating this myth, we may be promulgating a marketing ploy invented by straight razor manufacturers. See this. ► RATEL ◄ 00:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Writing to Dovo is a good idea. Let's see what they say. Don't forget however that this has been going on for decades. To debunk it we need some time and maybe the advice of some Materials science experts maybe even specialists in thin edge recovery characteristics on a molecular level. Let's also not forget that although researching the truth behind this claim is a good and commendable goal, the fact inclusion threshold on Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. Dr.K. (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, the claims of slow straightening of a metal edge are not verifiable beyond websites that stand to materially gain from us accepting this idea and buying sets of products to use on every day of the week. The claim should be excluded until we hear more from a scientist. This should be put out for comment to Wikipedia experts. My own experience and knowledge of metals says that this is a fallacy. ► RATEL ◄ 03:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) If interested in presenting why historically there have been seven days sets, in the interim ,we can present it as Historically there have been claims that the blade needs rest....etc. etc. That's why seven days sets have been historically available... But scientific verification of these claims is not available or something to that effect. What do you think? Dr.K. (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This paper titled: The recovery of proportional elasticity in overstrained steel, although not specifically applying to thin steel structures like a cutting edge it nevertheless makes mention of the effect of rest on the elastic properties of metals. Quote from the paper: Can the property of proportional elasticity always be restored to the overstrained metal by resting it at ordinary temperatures? and Is the period of 50 hours used by Bauschinger sufficient to allow the new limit of proportional elasticity to reach its highest possible value, or will a longer rest period permit a greater degree of elastic recovery and a still higher value for the new elastic limit? Now let's suppose the beard overstresses the blade at the very thin cutting edge. Is it too far fetched to suppose that the cutting edge needs 50 hours or more according to the paper so that it can recover its elastic properties? This sounds awfully close to the two days rest period proposed by DOVO. Dr.K. (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Another quote from the same paper: Bauschinger was the first to observe that the limit of proportional elasticity could be lowered by overstraining the metal; and that, by resting the test-piece for a period of fifty hours the elastic limit was restored to a value sometimes above its initial or primitive value. Translation: Overstressing the metal can lower its yield point i.e. the point below which it still behaves elastically (meaning its ability to recover its shape after deformation). To remedy this the material must rest for 50 hours. After such rest its elastic limit recovers its original value and it can be even higher than the original. Dr.K. (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The only thing remaining to find out is if Johann Bauschinger (de:Johann Bauschinger) ever worked for DOVO. Dr.K. (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That paper refers to the Bauschinger effect (the phenomenon wherein plastic deformation of a metal raises its tensile yield strength but decreases its compressive yield strength) and hysteresis in metals. I do not see how this relates directly to the question at hand. The degree of deformation in the razor's blade through shaving is negligible, I would have thought, and in any case unidirectional. Where is the reverse load? Where, in that paper, is the reference to the metal slowly changing shape in the 50 hr period? Why would we care to allow the blade to regain elasticity, assuming its edge is being "overstressed" by shaving? Inelasticity is exactly what we need, not a floppy edge. ► RATEL ◄ 13:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget we are talking about a very thin edge. Its cross sectional area locally is very small leading to high stresses with relatively small application of force. It could (and this is a guess since I do not have the exact model physically or mathematically) lead to stresses producing significant local deformations along the thin line of the cutting edge. The cyclic loading is, of course, not a regular sinusoidal function since we don't have a function generator for the load, but a case could be made that the edge while sliding up and down against the beard in changing (thus opposing) directions makes the thin elastic membrane of the cutting edge subject to some type of alternating load. However, again, since I don't have the exact equations, (neither do I wish to develop them since even though intriguing I have better things to do), of the thin elastic membrane under a randomly alternating load or the experimental equipment (including a high power microscope to observe the thin edge deformations) to carry some form of experiment, this is as far as I can or am willing to take this argument (fun as it may have been). You are absolutely right regarding DOVO's assertion that the cutting edge will itself slowly recover back to its original shape. There is no support for this in any form from the evidence considered. I would tend to guess that DOVO"s claim is a translation to laymen of the discussion above. Not to make too fine a point of this however, as I can see this discussion easily ballooning to a continuous exchange of scientific papers between us, rest assured I am not trying to defend DOVO's position. Just trying to find some form of explanation for their claim. Having said that I will not mind if we took it out altogether. The only problem would then be if a reader wonders what a seven day set is and does not find a suitable, even historical, explanation for it. Anyway that's my shot. Dr.K. (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to address your inelasticity comment. According to Bauschinger, if the edge is not rested then its yield point lowers. Thus it plastically deforms at lower levels of stress. To keep it operating in the elastic region as much as possible so that it can recover its proper alignment and not have a jagged edge due to plastic deformation (bad for shaving) the cutting edge must rest. Otherwise it will tend to plastically deform at lower and lower levels. As far as your comment about floppy I take that as a joke because we are not talking about Jello here but about steel. It was funny though. Dr.K. (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact a cutting edge operating in the elastic region is a good thing for another reason as well. As it deflects under pressure it stores energy (potential energy). When the thin edge cuts the hair this potential energy is released so it has a slingshot effect at the point of cutting that reinforces the cutting action. Dr.K. (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's too speculative for me. :) ► RATEL ◄ 00:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You could read this apposite paper, The Physics of Plasticity. The phenomenon we are discussing is "strain aging". ► RATEL ◄ 14:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Great paper. I agree. Dr.K. (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, let's see if Dovo can defend their statements, because none of this refers to a "straightening" of the metal, or shape recovery. I'd also like to know the exact angle of the metal edge of a typical razor. In most knives, the angle forms an arc of 40° (hunting or general purpose knives) or 30° (kitchen knives). When I sharpen these knives, they shave hair effortlessly. I suspect the straight razor is down around 10-20°, but that still means the edge will behave like a typical edge and not deform under stress to the point that Bauschinger's effect comes into play. As to Bauschinger and the need to rest an edge if the yield point lowers, I have found a reference from an old version of Enc. Britannica[1] to suggest that the recovery times for steel are in the order of months, but that increased temps reduce the resting time drastically, implying that exposing the razor's edge to hot water for a few minutes would raise the yield point adequately (assuming these forces are at play on the edge, which I do not concede, since there is no proof, not even anecdotal proof from users of these razors, that the edge of the razor is so deformed by shaving as to bring these forces into play...):

When the behaviour of specimens of iron, steel, or other materials possessing plasticity, is watched by means of a sensitive extensometer during the progress of a tensile test, it is in general observed that a very close proportionality between the load and the extension holds during the first stages of the loading, and that during these stages there is little or no " creeping " or supplementary extension when any particular load is left in action for a long time. The strain is a linear function of the stress, almost exactly, and disappears when the stress is removed. In other words, the material obeys Hooke's law. This is the stage of approximately perfect elasticity, and the elastic limit is the point rather vaguely defined by observations of the strain, at which a tendency to creep is first seen, or a want of proportionality between strain and stress. " Creeping " is usually the first indication that it has been reached. As the load is further augmented, there is in general a clearly marked yield-point, at which a sudden large extension ensues. In metals which have been annealed or in any way brought into a condition which is independent of the effects of earlier applications of stress, this elastic stage is well marked, and the limit of elasticity is as a rule sharply defined. But if the metal has been previously overstrained, without having had its elasticity restored by annealing or other appropriate treatment, a very different C FIG. 18. behaviour is exhibited. The yield-point may be raised, as, for instance, in wire which has been hardened by stretching, but the elasticity is much impaired, and it is only within very narrow limits, if at all, that proportionality between stress and strain is found. Subsequent prolonged rest gradually restores the elasticity, and after a sufficient number of weeks or months the metal is found to be elastic up to a point which may be much higher than the original elastic limit. It has been shown by experiments by Johann Bauschinger, (Mitt. aus dem meth-tech. Lab. in Munchen (1886)), and by the writer, Proc. Roy. Soc., vol. xlviii. (1895). A summary of Bauschinger's conclusions will be found in Martens's book, cited above, and in Unwin's Testing of Materials. J. Muir 2 that the rate at which this recovery of elasticity occurs depends on the temperature at which the piece is kept, and that complete recovery may be produced in iron or steel by exposure of the overstrained specimen for a few minutes to the temperature of boiling water. Figs. 18 and 19 illustrate interesting points in Muir's experiments. In these figures the geometrical device is adopted of shearing back the curves which show extension in relation to load by reducing each of the observed extensions. by an amount proportional to the load, namely, by one unit of extension for each 4 tons per square inch of load. The effect is to contract the width of the diagrams, and to make any want of straightness in the curves more evident than it would otherwise be. To escape confusion, curves showing successive operations. are drawn from separate origins. In the experiment of figs. 18 and 19 the material under test was a medium steel, containing. about 0.4% of carbon, which when tested in the usual way showed a breaking strength of 39 tons per square inch with a well-marked elastic limit at about 22 tons. In fig. 18 the line A relates to a test of this material in its primitive condition; the loading was raised to 35 tons so as to produce a condition of severe overstrain. The load was then removed, and in a few minutes it was reapplied. The line B exhibits. the effect of this application. Its curved form shows plainly that all approach to perfect elasticity has disappeared, as a consequence of the overstraining. There is now no elastic limit, no range of stress within which Hooke's law applies. With the lapse of time the curve gradually recovers its straightness, and the material, if kept at ordinary atmospheric temperature, would show almost complete recovery in a month or two. But in this instance the recovery was hastened by immersing the piece for four minutes in boiling water, and line C shows that this treatment restored practically perfect elasticity up to a limit as high as the load by which the previous overstraining had been effected. The loading in C was continued past a new yield-point;. this made the elasticity again disappear, but it was restored in the same way as before, namely, by a few minutes' exposure to ioo C., and the line D shows the final test, in which the elastic limit has been raised in this manner to 45 tons. Other tests have shown that a temperature of even 50° C. has a considerable influence in hastening the recovery of elasticity after overstrain.

Very interesting discussion though. ► RATEL ◄ 00:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It was much more interesting and fun than I would have ever thought. Going into the discussion I had no intention of analysing this using Solid Mechanics but here we are. But it gets even better and I quote from your reply above: that the recovery times for steel are in the order of months. Does that mean that now instead of a seven day set we must have a year's supply of razors? (365 day set?). That would make the proposition of owning a seven day set appear modest by comparison. (Just kidding of course). Also about your point quote: that still means the edge will behave like a typical edge and not deform under stress. I agree and disagree at the same time. If the blade cross section is wedge shaped (like a knife) I agree. Because the blade cross sectional profile resembles that of a knife, the cutting edge of the blade resembles the geometry of a knife cutting edge. But if the blade profile is extra hollow ground (4/4 hollow) then the blade cross sectional area resembles not the one of a knife (wedge) but more of a very thin membrane running from the back of the blade all the way to the cutting edge, spanning most of the blade width. This is actually very deformable to the point of producing a characteristic tone when excited ("singing razor") in some extra hollow ground blades. This thin membrane has elastic properties quite different from that of a regular knife and the cutting edge of the thin membrane has even more thinness than the already thin blade proper, therefore the cutting edge angle must be quite different in this case. Thiers Issard doesn't produce wedge blades and most of DOVO's are hollow ground. So their blades are quite capable of elastic deformation and storing potential energy. Anyway let me know what kind of reply you get from DOVO if you don't mind. Goodbye for now. Dr.K. (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some straight razors are fully wedge shaped, although hardly any modern ones. And even the fully concave ground blades have a wedge at the end, see [2] and [3]. So on a fully concave ground razor, there is a little knife profile from the ridge down, even if the concave area allows the "singing" effect to occur. The cutting edge of these razors is still about 15° as I presumed, so while they could be deformed easily by any contact with a hard edge, such as the handle of the razor, they are most unlikely to deform on contact with soft, wet hairs. Yes, I will update you on the Dovo correspondence. ► RATEL ◄ 04:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but they are grossly overmagnified to look like a wedge at the lower end. In reality they look like wedge B from here. I've got a few hollow ground and they don't look anything like the cross sections from refs 2 and 3 above. However that's just for the record. Thanks for the follow-up. Dr.K. (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course those diagrams I linked are schematics, and exaggerated to make the point (excuse pun), but often the hollow grinding of a cutthroat does not go all the way to the cutting edge, but leaves a "ridge" (almost invisible) either very close to the edge, or somewhere between the back of the blade and the cutting edge, for strength, from which the angles intersect in another wedge shape (flat grind) at the edge [4] or a lesser hollow grind, and 15° is mentioned (also confirmed here). You can read about this at the section called PRINCIPLES OF STRAIGHT RAZOR GEOMETRY. One large hollow grind all the way to the edge, as in [5], can make the blade very fragile. The dovo illustration of a flat grind is completely at odds with what I know of flat grinds, which look more like this [6]. Oh, and to illustrate the variety of shapes, here is a mixture of chisel and hollow sides [7]. BTW, the page I refer to above [8] has this slightly different take on the issue we are discussing:

Strop only before shaving, after the edge could 'grow' for at least 24 hours, but preferably 48 hours. If you strop the edge immediately after shaving, the misaligned microserrations behave as a burr, which will break off and penetrate the leather, which will turn into sandpaper. If you honed just before stropping, clean the blade with water and soap and dry with a cloth without touching the edge; this too is to prevent small metal parts to get stuck into the strop, which can damage the edge while stropping.

So here, the issue of resting the blade is not so that it changes shape or regains shape, although once again the word "grow" is (mis)used, but rather refers to the fact that the blade, if stropped immediately after being deformed (stressed) during shaving, will have a weaker burr that is likely to break off, and should only be stropped again after the material has had time to regain some of its elasticity. This explanation certainly seems more sensible to me. ► RATEL ◄ 07:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the longitudinal ridge (longitudinal stabiliser). I knew about it and I actually wrote the relevant section in the article. But given the DOVO illustration I just thought the DOVO model is more likely to conform to any Bauschinger effect that's why I presented it here (let's call it the "ideal model" vs the practical model with the ridge present). The burr explanation you offer incorporates the Bauschinger effect insofar as it mentions the regaining of elasticity and I completely agree with you because I always suspected that any stressing would occur primarily at the cutting edge and this confirms it. So we are now in complete agreement. Great work (I can't believe it; it actually feels like the completion of a mini research project). Your burr detail clinched the deal. I never thought given the rather inauspicious start of this discussion that it would be so interesting and end at such a high note. But that's Wikipedia for you. Thank you for your great help at clearing this obscure yet interesting point and take care (and it was a pleasure meeting you). Dr.K. (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, it's been a lot of fun, but perhaps we are not quite finished yet. I suggest that we should go one step further and rephrase the relevant section of the article to put it into correct scientific language. I think part of the problem is that we are dealing, in the original text copied to various websites from the Dovo website, with someone from Dovo, probably not a scientist, who is making statements while only partially understanding the concepts involved (hence the erroneous references to edges "straightening up" etc). Perhaps you could come up with a better formulation of words that is both more accurate and at the same time evinces less certitude, for we are not sure of these phenomena in straight razors as facts, and it may still be a marketing manoeuvre. There is no hurry, enjoy the New Year, and when ready, let's put forward here a new version for discussion.... ► RATEL ◄ 21:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your gracious invitation but I would extend it right back. Please feel free to formulate it any way you feel appropriate. I am sure you are more than capable of doing at least as great a job as you did here. I also agree with your analysis of how the original claim from DOVO was formulated. Happy New Year to you as well. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, to quote and immortal phrase: I'll be back. ► RATEL ◄ 00:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

One of my favourite quotes. No wonder the original guy who uttered it went on to become Governor of California. No hurry at all. Dr.K. (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture captions

The captions for the pictures, especially near the bottom of the page, are far too long. The information should be stated within the article, with a reference made to the picture if necessary ("In the picture to the right..."), and the caption length should be kept within two to four lines. 24.15.53.225 (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I shortened the caption of the strop and razor picture at the bottom as suggested. The problem with the other captions is that they are related directly to descriptions of the razors just above. The captions only relate to these specific razors. The article text however relates to razors in general. So it's rather difficult to mix specific and general facts. On top of that the pictures can't be numbered as in a textbook. So you can't refer to Picture 1, 2 or 3 etc. Referring to pictures using right or left directions is risky because text gets rearranged and pictures move up or down relative to their related text. For all these reasons it is rather difficult to decouple pics and captions. Dr.K. (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the captions are too long and complicate the smoothness of the article. There are about 6 pictures with captions of 7 or more paragraphs which are unnecessarily long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.145.106 (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my explanation above. The information in the captions IMO is necessary in order to understand the text and the razor attributes in particular by providing specific examples. Also captions are sometimes long if a lot of details have to be analysed. See for example the captions at Centripetal force and Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame). Dr.K. logos 01:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "menessentials" :
  • [http://web.archive.org/web/20070603120022/www.menessentials.com/oxid.php/sid/x/shp/oxbaseshop/cl/info/tpl/straight_razors.tpl menessentials from web archive] (Parts of a razor) and: "Hold the razor at a 30 degree angle to the surface of your skin and shave your first even stroke"
  • [http://www.menessentials.com/oxid.php/sid/x/shp/oxbaseshop/cl/info/tpl/straight_razors.tpl menessentials] (Parts of a razor)

DumZiBoT (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the world coming to? Am I supposed to have a discussion with this smiling bot now? Anyway thanks, I'll fix it. (I guess we have to be nice to robots too). Dr.K. (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagging the article

The following sentence was tagged with the tag: "Despite that, straight razors still hold a market share and many forums and outlets exist providing products, information and help to straight razor users."

I think this is an obvious sentence that does not need citation. Just google the keywords "Straight razor forums", "Straight razor buy", "Straight razor info" etc and you'll see why this sentence is obviously true and does not need citation. I love citations. I use them excessively even. But there are exceptions, when something is demonstrably true then you don't need a citation. This is the case here. Plus if I start citing forums for the sake of proving that forums exist and no other purpose, this would be spamming the article for no good reason. Dr.K. (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I removed the word "many" from the sentence. "Many" is a weasel word. I do hope this solves the problem. Dr.K. (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Examples of straight razor forums, shops etc.

To make life easier here are some links where we can find Straight razor forums. Here we can find Straight razor supplies and here are some Straight razor stores. Now do we really want to put these names in the article proper? Dr.K. (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinner blade cuts better?

I own about 100 straight razors, and nothing in my experience supports the notion that thinner blades cut better. Thinner blades are a whole lot easier to sharpen, but my best shaver is an ancient Wade and Butcher with such a light hollow grind that it's nearly a wedge. I suspect the preference for super-thin blades could be: 1) The edge grinds down faster so you get less sharpening wear on the spine, 2) the blades are lighter, 3) it's the only way to get that pleasing "singing" blade, and 4) it takes less skill to sharpen them.

There are problems with thin blades. My most beautiful Wade & Butcher is a full hollow-grind, but so far I can't bear to sharpen it because at least a sixteenth inch of metal must come off to get rid of all the bent places. My wedge blades have no problems with bending along the cutting edge.

I'd like to add some of this to the article, but we'd need to take out the claim that thinner equals better-cutting. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can find citations to support your claims I have no problem with inserting them exactly as you mention. However owning 40, 140, etc. blades does not count as reliable sources but rather as personal experience and this is WP:OR. Also I don't think that I put in the article the statement that the thinner blades are sharper, rather that they are more expensive, higher quality and harder to manufacture. All of this is properly cited. As far as wedge blades not bending along the cutting edge this is already included and cited in the article in the section of stability. Dr.K. logos 11:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that personal experience equals original research. But it is also a guide for examining closely whether sources are being properly summarized, and I think the citations don't warrant the statement in the article that "For a blade to be most effective in cutting it must be as thin as possible." That may not have been written by yourself. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I wrote it. But I don't recall which citation supports it. Perhaps not in so many words. If it can't be supported by the existing citations, take it out. I'll try to support it and maybe restore it but if I can't find the exact quote, or similar, I will not reinsert it. It's ok by me if you removed it. Great point. (No pun intended). Dr.K. logos 12:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thinner blades, bulky citations

Dr. K, I'm not trying to destroy your work, but you really need to get those footnotes at the bottom and not clutter the body up with hidden quotations. Yes, there was an editor in here a while back who was overzealous about demanding citations on every line, but inserting hidden quotations makes it nearly impossible to line-edit. I don't see why you think you should "report" me for trying to line edit, when it's your cumbersome manner of inserting the citations that leads to the trouble. I'm not assuming this is your way of trying to make it hard for others to edit behind you, but it does have that effect. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you could explain to me how to move those quotes to the bottom, I'd be pleased to do the work myself. I regret that I am technically challenged in this respect. I once knew how to do it but can't recall, and am having a hard time finding the appropriate tutorial. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think there is no way to do this. If there is I would be glad to let you know. Until then please do not remove the information. You may also wish to ask at the village pump. Dr.K. logos 12:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There has to be a way; I've done it before. In any case, it isn't helpful to have embedded quotes, because that means only someone trying to edit the text will find the quotes. If you want people to find them, put them at the bottom where they can just click on the footnote and be taken straight to the citation. As someone who's in the straight razor business, I'm grateful for, and impressed by, the work you've done to vastly improve and expand the straight razor article. I disagree with what I presume is your statement about the superiority of thin blades, since it is the consistency and thinness of the cutting edge and the edge-retaining properties of the steel, not the thinness of the blade back of the edge, that determine how well a blade cuts. But you have made this article many times over as informative as it was prior to your contributions, and I am in no way hostile toward you. I regret the technical clumsiness of my edits. I am above all a line-editor, and most of my work is polishing others' work, making prose more understandable and easy to read, correcting punctuation and spelling, etc. If something prevents me from being able to line-edit my reaction is to clear it out with a machete. I will work to preserve the information somehow on the page before removing more material, but it must go, since I plan to edit the page regularly and need to be able to read the bloody text in order to do so. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, everyone can find and read the quotes. They are at the bottom of the article. Take a look now. They are there for all to see at the bottom of the article where all the citations are located. You don't have to edit the article to see them. Many articles have them. Look at Cold Fusion. They are the same. They are always in the body of the article. People edit around them. That's the way it's done. I know of no other way. And it is actually easy to edit with all the quotations present. I do it all the time. You just have to search for a few key words after the end of the quote and you can bypass it. For example, before you go into edit mode find a word after the quote. Now once in edit mode go to your browser's edit button and from the drop down menu choose "Find". In the popup window paste the word that you found and click search. This should take you to a point in the paragraph right after the citation. Dr.K. logos 13:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Also thank you for your kind comments. I also think many of your edits have improved the article and needless to say (but I'll say it nonetheless) I feel no animosity toward you. This is strictly an editing issue with no personal overtones. In response to your thin blade comments, I try to always cite my conclusions. If you find that my conclusions are not supported by the citations please feel free to challenge and/or modify them using other citations. Dr.K. logos 13:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Please stop removing descriptions from citations because they are needed for readers to verify the information contained in the article. I know they clog paragraphs but they are a necessary evil because otherwise the information would be difficult to find and people would start putting citation needed tags in the article. Also you destroy the citations after you erase the description. You keep doing this and I keep fixing it. You remember from last time. Please do not continue doing this because damaging citations is not the way to constructively edit an article. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 12:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr. K, you are right, the quotes are always in the hidden text, at least the code is there. If you are going to include the relevant quotes from a source you can't link to online, that's the only way to make the quotes available. I guess the issue is that, if you cite a source that's available online, it saves a lot of space by simply including the outside link in the footnote, and people can go there and read if they want. Otherwise, you can footnote to a work, and if you want the information available to read on Wikipedia, it could be placed in the discussion section for the enlightenment of skeptics who don't have direct access to the printed material you're quoting. Of course, in either case, if you're citing a printed source not available online, the people are trusting you to cite correctly; putting the quotes inside the code doesn't make them more credible. How would you feel about allowing the extensive quotes to be placed on the discussion page?

You are right about the method for searching out a keyword; unfortunately, I use the Safari browser and it's handicapped in this are; it won't search in the edit window. Perhaps I need to switch to FireFox when I edit. But I still think the material shouldn't be stuffed into the invisible code.

Thanks for your consideration. As far as the citations supporting the thin-blades-rule notion, I'll give them a look. I can't come up with an argument for saying personal experience should trump documented statements by experts, but I'm curious if you're going off your understanding of possibly uninformed sources, or if by chance you have experience that makes you confident that thin blades are better cutters? Just curious.

I think we should copy over and continue this discussion on the Straight Razor discussion page. What say ye? --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Preston. Yes let's copy it there. I still think that the citation quotes should remain in the article but let's open a discussion on the talk page of the article and seek other people's opinion. Also I don't know about Safari, but as you say Firefox is great for searching keywords. It has a small window on the lower left of the screen and it automatically goes to the string you are searching for. As far as thin blades I think the fact is (and many sources can be found to support it) that the hollower ground the blade is, the better it is. Hollow ground in my opinion means a a more expensive, and better overall, blade. The blades of my Thiers Issard and DOVO razors are all hollow ground and very thin. No high end manufacturer produces flat ground blades. This is cited in the article. In contrast, the Japanese flat ground razor that I have, is comparatively thicker and does not perform with the same precision or sharpness as the higher end blades, among other things. Anyway let's take this to talk and if you don't mind, please do the honours. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 03:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Also there are so many points made in the article that to verify them all, one has to read a lot of material. I recognise that putting lengthy quotes makes the citations bulky but it also makes verification of claims much easier for the readers who don't have to read whole PDFs and lenghty papers to verify the claims. It is intended as a service to the reader and it is an easy way to verify each claim made in the article. Also the quotes provided assist in locating the passages involved in the citations and makes google search easier. Dr.K. logos 11:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I concede that I should probably just use Firefox rather than interfering with the convenience of the reader. Your point is well taken.

Second, I've read the citation supporting the thin blade superiority statement. I've actually read that material before on on my own, and I am of course aware that Dovo and Thiers-Issard only make thin blades. I think my speculated reasons in the previous section of this discussion page, can account for why that is so. Until just recently my favorite shaver was a shorter-than-usual singing blade, just 4/8 wide, that is a pleasure to strop because it actually sings against the leather. But it's been eclipsed by a monstrous Wade & Butcher that I honed to an equal or better edge using the honing methods of Tim Zowada, quoted in this footnote, for his new custom Damascus blades, which are only one-quarter ground and, it is bragged, delivered with an edge equal to or better ofthan a Japanese Feather blade.

Tim keeps his blades thick because, to make the Damascus pretty, it has to be chemically etched, and the etching would ruin a blade ground as thin as a Dovo or Thiers-Issard. By following his methods I was able to put an edge on a massive, quarter-ground, wedge-style blade that is as good as anything I could put on the singing blade. The difference is, I didn't have to use as many steps or tools to get the result from the singer. But it's worth the effort because, for one thing, the meat-chopper's weight keeps it from skipping as easily off a particularly heavy patch of whiskers, the same way the aim of a bull-barreled rifle doesn't wander as much as a lighter one.

I personally regret that the major blade makers aren't doing wedges, but the Germans apparently never have made wedges, which may be why they took over the market from the British around the turn of the last century. Thin, light blades are easier to sharpen and easier to maneuver around the face, at least (and particularly) for beginning shavers. And they show off the maker's precision. But they also use less metal to make, which might be one reason they're preferred by the makers?

Anyway, I don't think your citations establish that thin blades are better, so much as that it takes more skill to produce them, and better steel to make them hang together. A singing blade is a mark of quality assurance to the consumer, since you can't make one from crappy steel; hence, thinner blades probably make for good marketing as well. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Preston for your Firefox comment. I am glad we agree on this. As far as your other comments I have to be brief for the moment so I will just say that you make well considered and interesting points. I have no problem at all including some or all of them provided that they are supported by the citations that you provided. I'll check them soon, but don't wait for me. You are a capable editor and I'm sure you will make good use of them. If you think any of your points are supported by the citations, then go ahead and add them to the article. I'll talk to you soon. Take care. Dr.K. logos 11:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweeney Todd Reference?

I noticed that several movie and TV references were given to the use of cutthroat razors as weapons, however the Broadway musical "Sweeney Todd" was not once mentioned. Any particular reason? I would be glad to add the section myself unless someone else wanted to. 65.41.140.144 (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It used to be in the trivia section. It got deleted per WP:TRIVIA along with the entertainment related references. Dr.K. logos 01:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Just wondered...I personally thought that the entertainment references were of great value. Oh well, each to his own, I guess. Sorry for not signing in earlier...Latte freak (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who came to this page looking for the popular culture references like I did, here is the last revision that contained them: [9] --kostmo (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)