Gillette Tech

I have tried a Fatboy, Merkur 34C and a Muhle R41, for me my ball end Tech is way better, easy to use and with the right blade superb shaves are possible.

It's a simple but effective design, no moving parts and positive blade location and clamping mean no alignment issues.
 
Of the 7 razors i have the flat bottom tech gets most use, its like a little sports car whipping round my face with no fuss or drama. just brilliantly fantastically efficient. Gillette got it right with the tech
 
Knowing that all Techs have essentially the same blade gap (that I have measured), but that many feel a pre-war is ever so slightly more aggressive I have formulated a theory after using every possible type of Tech except for the ultra rare "Hybrid" and even rarer OC model made for the French market.

The post-war Tech doesn't seem as aggressive as it shaves slightly smoother due to a little better blade rigidity and more importantly somewhere along the line Gillette made the top cap thinner which changes the "sweet spot" angle a tad which IMO makes it even "sweeter". Whether this was intentional by design or unintentional as a cost cutting measure I do not know. I am thinking the former as it is known from the memoirs of a retired executive with the co. that even until the 1980's that Gillette still thought of itself as a DE manuf. and that perhaps the newest disposable rage would not supplant that. To further my theory I think some young engineers in R&D tweaked the design at a couple different times to win their "spurs" so to speak and that Gillette didn't really want to advertise that as they wanted people to buy an upscale DE razor = more money. Just my theory and worth what you were charged to read it.

Whether intentional or not, the post-war Tech in any form is perhaps with the Schick Krona the smoothest DE razors of the vintage era.
 
Bogeyman said:
Knowing that all Techs have essentially the same blade gap (that I have measured), but that many feel a pre-war is ever so slightly more aggressive I have formulated a theory after using every possible type of Tech except for the ultra rare "Hybrid" and even rarer OC model made for the French market.

The post-war Tech doesn't seem as aggressive as it shaves slightly smoother due to a little better blade rigidity and more importantly somewhere along the line Gillette made the top cap thinner which changes the "sweet spot" angle a tad which IMO makes it even "sweeter". Whether this was intentional by design or unintentional as a cost cutting measure I do not know. I am thinking the former as it is known from the memoirs of a retired executive with the co. that even until the 1980's that Gillette still thought of itself as a DE manuf. and that perhaps the newest disposable rage would not supplant that. To further my theory I think some young engineers in R&D tweaked the design at a couple different times to win their "spurs" so to speak and that Gillette didn't really want to advertise that as they wanted people to buy an upscale DE razor = more money. Just my theory and worth what you were charged to read it.

Whether intentional or not, the post-war Tech in any form is perhaps with the Schick Krona the smoothest DE razors of the vintage era.
Click to expand...
Hear, hear
 
Dave2018 said:
I have tried a Fatboy, Merkur 34C and a Muhle R41, for me my ball end Tech is way better, easy to use and with the right blade superb shaves are possible.

It's a simple but effective design, no moving parts and positive blade location and clamping mean no alignment issues.
Click to expand...
Which blade do you find works best with your Tech?
 
Scotshave said:
That's for sure. My first ever vintage razor was a 1968 aluminium Tech. Paired with something assertive like a Gillette 7 o'Clock Yellow or a Feather, it gives great shaves. The Travel Tech, though arguably gimmicky, is a great wee razor. My 1938-41 English Fat Handle Tech is a tremendous bit of kit. Slightly more efficient (aggressive) than its American counterpart, it pairs well (for me) with an Astra SP.
Click to expand...
My findings exactly! I enjoyed the Aluminium Tech, but then the Flat Bottom Fat Handle is something else entirely, especially with an Astra SP!
 
Dave2018 said:
I have tried a Fatboy, Merkur 34C and a Muhle R41, for me my ball end Tech is way better, easy to use and with the right blade superb shaves are possible.

It's a simple but effective design, no moving parts and positive blade location and clamping mean no alignment issues.
Click to expand...

I actually think that's why I like it so much... It's super simple, has no alignment issues (unlike the Merkur 34c) and works so bloody well!
 
I have and use Canadian, English, and US Techs from Pre-War to 1960s. I agree with @Bogeyman that there isn't much difference among them. Having said that, my favourite is the Canadian Post-War No Date Code Fat Handle Tech. That "frog's hair" difference in blade rigidity compared to the Pre-War Tech makes a difference. Maybe. Just a little.
I think the lowly Travel Tech is a great way to acquire an as-new tech head for very little £. Most Travel Techs were never used since the little 2" handle was seen as difficult to use. Screw on your own handle, and you have what is essentially an unused Tech.
Just my .02
 
Dave2018 said:
I have just purchased a pre war triangular slot Canadian Tech, I have read they are more aggressive than other models.


Do you think it will shave as close as my Star 100?
Click to expand...
I have faith that it will shave as close as any other razor if you learn the correct technique/angle! My Tech shaves as close as my MMOC, 1912 and Schick G1

Sent from my EML-L09 using Tapatalk
 
Ricksplace said:
I have two Star razors. I agree they shave as well as a Tech. Some say better. Many folks say the Star is better built than a Tech. If I remember correctly, the Star was almost twice the price of a Tech when new.
Click to expand...
Is the Star razor allegedly better built than British Techs? I heard that the build, fit and finish of the British made Techs was vastly superior to the rest!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom