ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on Apr 1, 2014 0:49:18 GMT -6
OK, the short story is that I have one with a custom 54mm loft (28mm diameter) and it's absolutely fantastic. Now for the long story. Understand, I face lather exclusively and what I write doesn't take into account bowl lathering. I haven't a clue regarding bowl lathering and the brush. I tested the twin to the brush I have in my cabinet maybe 2 months ago; a prototype. It too was fantastic and I hated to part with it to send it to the next tester. Eventually Simpsons turned it into a production item with one difference... a lower loft. I have no idea why. When the faux ivory handled version came out I purchased one with the caveat that I wanted one with a 54m loft the same as the prototype I tested. Mark came through and one arrived in the mail (Thanks Mark!). It is the twin to the brush I tested. It's a lather machine. It's also velvety soft, no scratch whatsoever, but with backbone, some would call it springiness but I don't. It's an absolutely superb synthetic. The tips of the fibers feel as though they're flagged, but they aren't. That's just the fiber used that makes it feel that way. I used the brush exclusively for the past few days and today I used the Frank Shaving 28 x 54 Pur-Tech to compare the 2. There is no comparison. With the FS brush I could seemingly feel all of the fibers, there was no scritch, it was soft enough with backbone, but the Simpsons is pure velvet (or gel-like) on the skin. It's fabulous. Both brushes lather fantastically, both feel entirely different. The FS brush has a significant glue bump that limits the effective loft, the Simpsons doesn't and uses the full loft. Would that make the difference? I have no idea. But one is velvet-like in use (with backbone) and the other isn't. It's not a badger so don't expect a badger; and I don't mean that in a negative sense. Synthetics are their own "animal" and have their own characteristics, but I just can't imagine synthetic brushes getting better than this. Yet they will. This brush has it's place in my cabinet and I knew it would if Simpsons ever went into production with it. I snatched one up as soon as I could. I think I have the first production brush with the 54mm loft. FWIW, for some incomprehensible reason to me Simpsons lowered the loft to 46mm for production. If you want one be sure to specify the 54mm loft. Just trust me on this. Synthetics don't work the same as natural fiber and you want the longer loft. No, as far as I know Simpsons doesn't sell knots.
|
|
RobinK
Lather Catcher
Posts: 505
|
Post by RobinK on Apr 1, 2014 4:12:10 GMT -6
Interesting. And does not match my experience with this brush, nor that of three friends of mine. One quote, and not the worst, was "The synthetic by Simpson: the worst brush I've ever tried. I wonder how it's possible to sell a thing like this..." I don't know against which badger you have benchmarked this brush, but it certainly was not a high quality one. It might match a Frank Shaving or any other brush derived from cheap Chinese import knots. But Rooney, Shavemac or Thäter? Sorry, but not even the new Mühle synthetics - the best synthetics I have tried, and significantly cheaper than Simpson - come even close to those. Water retention, backbone - not even close.
But that is the wonderful thing about brushes. So many to choose from, and so many personal preferences...
|
|
ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on Apr 1, 2014 14:27:12 GMT -6
Maybe you and your friends need to learn how to use various brushes. No in his right mind compares other fibers to badger and it's a whopping huge mistake to do so. It's myopia of the absolute worst sort.
Nor is it used the same way a badger is. I requires different techniques.
It's an extremely poor workman who blames the tools when he finds he himself isn't up to the task. A good workman learns and adapts and afterwards can do so much more than someone who doesn't.
|
|
RobinK
Lather Catcher
Posts: 505
|
Post by RobinK on Apr 2, 2014 0:03:48 GMT -6
Maybe we do. Maybe we do not. No one in his right mind would try to compare tools with identical purposes without making a comparison. Hyperopia of the absolute silliest sort. Because comparison does not mean equalisation.
I must admit, though, that your remark about "different techniques" has piqued my interest. Because, as I said, I have had good success with Mühle and (otherwise overpriced) Frank Black synthetics. So, if I take a Mühle and this Simpson synthetic, what exactly are the latter's mystical qualities that I have apparently missed? Apart from soaking, loading, lathering?
Or maybe mine just did not come with the Complete Guide to Making Lather with Magic Simpson LE High Mountain Fibre Synthetics (CGtMLwMSLEHMFS)? If so, that would probably explain my dismal failure to live up to this brush's expectations and, by association, yours. For which sincere apologies. However, Simpson's claim that this brush will "rival and better what is already out there" is, diplomatically, courageous. "Better" Mühle synthetics which cost half as much but offer better performance (at least for the uninitiated not in possession of the CGtMLwMSLEHMFS)? "Better" Frank Shaving synthetics which cost nothing (well, they do outside China, but blame your friendly vendor for the 200% mark-up)? I don't think so? Unless you are not interested in a sound price/performance ratio, but in owning a hyped brand instead. Which, as I said, is perfectly reasonable if you like hyped brands.
So, I offered an opinion based on four independent tests of this brush by people who have been wet shaving for decades. I know what they say about opinions in the US, and that is fine by me. What I do not understand is your overreaction culminating in an ad hominem attack. They say that when you point your finger, there are three fingers pointing right back at you. I shall leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by mjclark on Apr 2, 2014 0:25:41 GMT -6
Gentlemen,please... I love the friendly and relaxed atmosphere on this forum. Let's not spoil it! I'm very interested to read about these synthetics as I have a Muhle HJM coming in the post this morning (a little tax refund treat to myself). I was biased against synthetics after my poor experiences with the Body Shop brush, but everything I read tells me that these next generation knots are much much better.
|
|
RocketMan
Gem Star
RazorAddict
Welcome To The Sharp Side!
Posts: 4,167
|
Post by RocketMan on Apr 2, 2014 2:47:04 GMT -6
It is always good to hear the opinions of others regarding the ever burgeoning product pile that wet shaving enthusiasm has generated. There are so many choices nowadays.
Thanks for sharing your experience and opinion on this Simpson synthetic Brian. It seems you prefer the Simpson over the Frank and it sounds like the build of the knots are at the root, with the Frank having a glue ball moving up into the knot. I know what you mean with that and I have certainly run into it before. I'm not a fan of knots formed with too much glue. That said, the FS seems to have the fibers/hairs arranged better visually than the Simpson. Not sure that matters too much.
And folks do take their opinions on these things seriously. I'm just glad we are only sharing our experiences and not having to decide which brand of darn near any shave related product comes up the 'winner' in a crowd of products. It would be all out war!
I have only tried the older synthetics from the 50's or so. They quite simply are no good.
|
|
exapno
Shave Master
Posts: 108
|
Post by exapno on Apr 2, 2014 2:57:38 GMT -6
As Marcus quite rightly said, Gentlemen... please. Let's all have a massive group hug and get back to being friendly and relaxed.
Synthetics are my "thing". They've been my thing since I started all this business some while ago. There was a time when the Body Shop Synth was one of the best value/performance synths available, that goes to show you just how bad synthetic brushes were back then and how far they've come since. While not actually awful, the Body Shop brush wasn't great either. Mühle changed the game with their silvertip fibre brushes. They should be applauded because I believe it wasn't a lack of technology that held back the progress of synthetic brushes but more a lack of will. Companies just didn't take the market seriously but thankfully things have changed. I use a 21mm knot Mühle silver tip fibre and a custom handled 22mm TGN 3 band nylon. The brushes perform quite differently, they have different densities, different amounts of backbone and splay. I imagine that the silvertip fibre performs more like a natural animal hair brush than the TGN but I've never used a badger or boar brush so what do I know?
As to the Simpsons synthetic, I like the look of it but I very much doubt I'll be purchasing one. Reviews are very mixed to say the least but as it's a synthetic I expect them to be. For me it's purely a matter of price. For the same reason I won't be buying a Plisson synthetic as they're prohibitively expensive in the UK (especially when you compare the US price).
|
|
|
Post by mjclark on Apr 2, 2014 4:23:13 GMT -6
Well I'm very impressed with the Muhle black fibre. Beautifully soft tips, springy backbone and it holds much much more water than I was expecting. Nothing in this world is perfect, but this comes close, and this has got to be one of the few aspects of wet shaving that has actually progressed in the last 50 years! ...also I started getting a conscience about all those badgers
|
|
ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on Apr 2, 2014 9:25:09 GMT -6
I do apologize to the forum. Sorry you had to endure that. But it had to be done publically since the insult was delivered publically. But some folks think they can behave like that over the 'net. It's courage at a distance. In person they know there are repercussions when the person is physically in their presence and can take physical action.
But back to shaving.
It's a mistake to compare synthetics to natural fiber. It's like saying bananas are better than beef. It's OK to compare one synthetic to another because they're used the same way, but some folks will attempt to use a synthetic as they would a natural fiber brush, then proclaim it to not be like badger or boar. Well, DUHHH! One wouldn't use a banana the same way one uses beef, the same with brushes.
The industry, wrongly IMO, tries to make synthetics look like badger and that invites the comparison, I understand that. But synthetics are NOT natural fiber and never will be. They have their own qualities; good ones IMO. That shouldn't be taken as a slight to natural fibers either, one needs to know how to use them. Too, many years of shaving experience is no judge that someone will know how to use a synthetic. Any more than sweeping the floor at the stock exchange for 40 years makes someone a stock trader. Nor does 40 years of experience in shaving confer the knowledge that most badgers made today have chemically treated fibers, and I will never own one of those brushes. That's just my personal choice. I choose that because if they're going to chemically treat badger to make it "right" at least be honest about it, but they aren't. I'd like it better if synthetics weren't dyed to look like natural fibers. That was the point I was trying to make. Making it not look like natural fiber would also clue folks in that it's not a natural fiber brush (and shouldn't be used as though they are). On the converse, neither should a natural fiber brush be used the way a synthetic is used. It would probably destroy a natural fiber brush in short order.
|
|
|
Post by mjclark on Apr 2, 2014 9:35:23 GMT -6
So what's the way to get the best from a synthetic? Like I said, that Muhle black fibre has astounded me!
|
|
norfolkdick
Master Shaver
Captain of the Razor Blades
Posts: 1,601
|
Post by norfolkdick on Apr 2, 2014 10:51:30 GMT -6
Greetings I moved on my Frank shaving Pur-tech because the knot I found to be poker stiff and unyielding, the point made about the glue bump in this brush is spot on IMHO and was (at least in part) the culprit, it had the effect of reducing the already short and very fat knot to a super short knot which in practice turned the brush into a 'stencil brush'. I have to say the tips of the fibres were the softest thing I have ever felt on my face. I have perhaps been unlucky in so much as I have only owned a Bodyshop synthetic which I found hopeless and the FS brush discussed above, what this has taught me however is that you can not relate the loft height in a badger or boar brush with that of a synthetic, to function properly the synthetic does indeed need a taller loft by quite a bit. My only comment on the new Simpsons brush is that Simpsons certainly know how to charge, when the actual fibre used in their knot is exactly the same as the Pur-tech knot by Frank shaving, although I would accept it is probably put together much better. I have to temper this by saying this is only what I have read it is not from first hand experience of the Simpsons brush. I would however absolutely agree about the fact that direct comparisons between synthetics and natural hair are pretty meaningless, I would not put horseradish on my bananas nor would I put custard on my beef. I also like whiskey and soda and gin and tonic even if they are incomparable! Regards Dick.
|
|
ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on Apr 2, 2014 10:59:36 GMT -6
Dick, I don't think they are the same fiber. And by that I don't mean only cosmetically. I think the actual fiber is different. But of course I don't know for sure.
Yes, I've read that before on other forums and even when I had a prototype of the brush in hand I didn't think they were the same. I find the Simpsons to be (bad word choice) floppier. Not quite as unyielding (better word choice, thanks).
I probably should measure up a fiber or 2 of each. But even that won't prove anything hence I haven't done it yet, since actual chemical composition of the fiber used might be different even if they measure the same.
FWIW, check the price of the same size Pur-Tech today. Last I heard it was over $100. For a Chinese brush! No thanks.
|
|
RocketMan
Gem Star
RazorAddict
Welcome To The Sharp Side!
Posts: 4,167
|
Post by RocketMan on Apr 3, 2014 10:56:03 GMT -6
I need to say.
I am uncomfortable with charges of insults and assessments of personalities and intentions in this thread. It makes for uncomfortable space for everyone. Posts that are designed to share an opinion about something will likely be critiqued and challenged. This is the nature of opinion. And, it is quite apparently done in different ways.
Please separate the person from the problem when posting. Be cautious of deciding what someone else is thinking and intending. Give your utmost in courtesy and enjoy the online community.
|
|
RobinK
Lather Catcher
Posts: 505
|
Post by RobinK on Apr 3, 2014 12:10:47 GMT -6
Thank you, Wayne. I would like to offer my apologies to ShadowsDad and anyone else inconvenienced by sudden escalation of this thread. In case that my reply came across as harsh, or even personal, I would like to stress that it was never intended to be. English is only my forth language, and my German conciseness sometimes slips in. For which, as I said, apologies offered.
Thank you.
|
|