|
Post by mjclark on Dec 7, 2014 18:27:05 GMT -6
Marcus, the Chubby2 has tips so soft that they aren't even felt (gel like). It's like lathering with a force field. (imagine similar magnetic poles- they repel but never touch). Maybe tomorrow I'll be getting my CH2 back in my hot little hands and I'll try to remember to do a side by side to refresh my memory of the CH2 and the Pur Tech. The CH2 is a wall of gel, that I distinctly remember. The Classic 1 syn' (production version) uses the exact same fiber, so I've read, as the CH2 and feels much the same, just less of a good thing. Neither of my Classic 1 syn's can be compared to anything else I have in the cabinet. Sounds superb Brian! What's the backbone of the Simpson like?
|
|
ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on Dec 8, 2014 2:16:21 GMT -6
It's not a brush for everyone. But I love mine and eagerly anticipate when it comes up in the rotation.
The backbone is off the natural fiber shave brush scale; there's plenty. So much so that it's off putting to some folks. One has to press to get the brush to splay and work. Once the lather starts to form, the brush and lather will take over from there.
If someone has a tendency to mash the brush this is definitely the brush for them. They'll get the face feedback that they desire and still get tips that pamper. It's difficult to describe better than that. It simply doesn't exist in natural fibers.
That's why I suggest to folks that if they want a CH2 syn' to specify a loft of 54mm or more. The longer fibers will flex better. It might seem like too much loft, but the synthetic fibers DO NOT act the same as natural fibers. IMO they need the loft to work.
|
|
|
Post by mjclark on Dec 8, 2014 8:53:45 GMT -6
That's very useful Brian - for me the backbone of the Pur Tech is perfect but you say that the Simpson is stiffer which sounds less appealing, though the super soft tips are definitely a great attraction.
Of course, I'll have to experience the Simpson myself and I'm confident that all of the new synthetics are excellent brushes, so there's nothing to lose.
My perfect brush would have the softness of the Plisson and the stiffness of the Pur Tech and the efficiency of both.
|
|
ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on Dec 8, 2014 9:46:45 GMT -6
I'm waiting until my brushes come back to me, maybe today. Soon thereafter I'll do a side by side rather than work from memory.
If your b/s/t forums are anything like ours, one thing is fairly certain. If you get a proper CH2 syn' and if you don't like it you can sell it and get most of your money back.
Edit: The brushes are back in my hot little hands and have been washed. I expect todays shave will do the side by side test. They are incredibly close in backbone when they're dry. The CH2 might even have a hair less backbone. But I want to do the side by side wet/lathered test. Definitely the Simpsons brush is hands down the most attractive of the 2 brushes
Here they are side by side.
The Pur Tech might not look like it, but there's just too much handle to the brush. It doesn't feel right to me.
|
|
ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on Dec 9, 2014 11:09:34 GMT -6
I tested them side by side this morning and the PurTech (PT) has more flexible knot in circular strokes. But the CH2 isn't far behind. The CH2 has more backbone, for whatever reason. In tip softness the CH2 is the clear winner, but don't take that to mean the PT is coarse, it isn't. In use lathered up, the PT knot doesn't remain splayed as much as the CH2; the CH2 holds significantly more lather (not measured) and the knot is held splayed noticeably wider than the PT.
Just for kicks I wanted to test the Classic1 (production model) against the fibers in both of the scheduled test brushes. The lineage of the Classic was immediately apparent with it's gel like tips. Oddly though, despite the much smaller knot the backbone seemed to be more than either of the 2 brushes above. Too, the force was more easily felt in the small area that the brush had to work in. Maybe due to the short loft? I don't know, just speculating, but the feel of it was quite real.
Back to the actual scheduled test... Either the PT or the CH2 would make a great larger brush. I much prefer the aesthetics of the CH2, it feels better in the hand and the build is better. I got my PT for more $ than I wanted to spend, and I understand that they're even more expensive now. Unless the price has come down, for just a few more dollars one can get the CH2 and have a better brush and a company that will stand behind their product.
Having both, and I've thought this before... I could part with the PT and it wouldn't upset me greatly (but it's not for sale), but I wouldn't want to part with the CH2, that would upset me.
|
|
|
Post by mjclark on Dec 9, 2014 13:53:09 GMT -6
Thanks Brian! That's exactly what I needed to know. It's great that all these new synthetics perform so well yet have markedly different characteristics. It means there's justification in trying them all
|
|
ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on Dec 9, 2014 16:19:10 GMT -6
Marcus, wouldn't it be nice if there was a way to grade synthetic fibers? There sort of is for badgers but grading system for badger is lacking since it doesn't take into account chemically altered fibers, but at least it's something. Synthetic fibers are a crap shoot. Then to compound the problem there are the "generations". But hopefully things have calmed down for a time. There for awhile it was impossible to keep track of.
Too, there is brush construction; glue bump or not, loft, density, it's mind boggling for a newb to synthetics.
Then to compound that there are jingoistic pushers of chemically altered badger brushes who compare that altered fiber to synthetic. They haven't a clue, but think that they do. How to detect a chemically altered "natural" fiber? If every brush coming from a manufacturer is identical you absolutely know that the fiber has been altered. Badgers aren't all the same and the person who cuts the hair off has latitude in the cutting. Badger hair has variations, so knots can't all be identical. If they are there is a problem.
But for a shopper of a new brush today the synthetic fibers are pretty awesome and identical. Would I have written that even 4 years ago? Probably not. In fact you couldn't find a synthetic brush in my cabinet 4 years ago and I'd have called a time traveler a liar if he'd told me that someday I would like them. Too, synthetic brushes, unlike truly natural badger hair, is identical from fiber to fiber.
I have a huge problem with a manufacturer calling a chemically altered badger knot "badger", but I have no problem with a synthetic knot being truthfully called synthetic. Truth in advertising. That's why I stick with Simpsons when I buy a new brush anymore. They either use naturally varying hair and do their best, or they call it synthetic. No deception or lying. Not all manufacturers are (most aren't) that honest. Heck, when Simpsons released their prototype Classic1 they came right out and told us that the production version was going to have a different fiber. When I asked Mark he told me that the production fiber would be the same that the CH2 currently had. Honesty, and exactly what I wanted to hear. I bought one of each and haven't looked back. I like variety and each brush is different as promised. Ask other manufacturers about their fibers and good luck with that. At least one synthetic brush manufacturer also makes razors and won't even admit when one razor model changes from the '11 to the '13 version even though anyone with a brain can see that it changed.
Hah! I started with brushes and I'm on to razors. Clearly I've written too much. I just dislike deception and blind adherence, I far prefer honesty.
|
|
|
Post by mjclark on Dec 9, 2014 18:26:52 GMT -6
I absolutely agree Brian! I had a Body Shop synthetic (generation 2) and it was just rubbish compared to naturals.
They got the softness and face feel right by generation 3 and improved the efficiency with generation 3.5 - Silvertex and Black Fibre v2. These are both brushes that equal the best naturals and as you know I really like how well balanced the Silvertex is.
But the real winners are the latest generation 4 fibres which have an efficiency far exceeding anything that has come before- Plisson, STF v2, Pur Tech and now the Simpson.
My grumble is the faux banding. Why pretend they're badgers when they're actually better than badgers?
|
|
RocketMan
Gem Star
RazorAddict
Welcome To The Sharp Side!
Posts: 4,167
|
Post by RocketMan on Dec 10, 2014 2:08:31 GMT -6
It means there's justification in trying them all Oh no.
|
|