Shaving requires a lot of gear – at least if you want to do it the right way. You will need a brush, a mug, a mirror, and maybe even a styptic pencil. And all that stuff makes a mess on the vanity… unless you got one of the patented all in one shaving mugs invented by Bernard Goodfellow Savage and Albert Cecil Lawless Loughran, that is.

Granted, their stated goal is a little less ambitious. To quote from the patent:

The object of the invention is to provide shaving-mug with a mirror which will virtually constitute an auxiliary bottom for the I5 mug when the mirror is not in use, the attachment between the mirror and mug being such that when the mirror is removed the mug will be completely closed at its bottom and will have a suitable base upon which to stand.

So all they wanted was a way to attach a mirror to a shaving mug – or any other mug. Although… I am less sure if my coffee mug needs a mirror?

The all in one shaving mug is well described in the patent as well as in the accompanying drawing.

The patent drawing for US patent 573,240.

Working our way from the bottom and up, we first have a small round mirror in a frame. The frame is threaded and screws onto the bottom of the mug. It also have a small, folding stand on the bottom, so you wouldn’t have to prop the mirror against something while shaving.

The mug itself is looking fairly normal. Apart from the screw threads on the bottom and top, that is. Judging by the drawing, it is right-sized to hold a puck of soap. Because unlike many modern wetshavers, our forefathers only had one shaving soap and they kept it in their shaving mug.

A cover can be screwed into the upper threads. In the cover there is a hole – also threaded – which you can screw a shaving brush into. Although the patent points out that having the brush being a friction fit works better.

In the handle of the brush there is a hollow space, normally closed by a plug. The plug, the patent states, can hold a stick of cosmetics or like material. TO my mind, the obvious choice would be a styptic pencil.

All in all the all in one shaving mug should be, in the words of the patent, a

(…) mug or cup is of exceedingly simple, durable, and economic construction, and is capable of being packed in a convenient and safe manner, the contents of the cup and the brush at that time being thoroughly protected. The mirror in no manner interferes with the design or the usefulness of the cup or mug, and the brush may be conveniently and expeditiously disconnected from the cover and the cover from the body of the mug or cup when the latter is to be used.

I see two problems with the invention, one of which can be worked around, and the others the inventors probably saw too.

The first problem is that unless you let the brush and soap dry, you would be sealing in the water when you closed up the all in one mug. The solution is, unsurprisingly, to let things dry before packing up.

The second would be the try to get the knot trough a narrow threaded hole without badly messing up the bristles. I suspect this is why the inventors suggested using a friction fit instead of threads.

Apart from those two issues, I see no trouble with the invention as such. The all in one shaving mug keeps most of your shave gear in one spot – and I am sure a hole through the handle could be arranged to hold your razor too. For someone with just one soap and one brush, and not a large bathroom, this could be a workable solution today – just as it was a hundred and twenty eight years ago.

You can read the full patent for the all in one shaving mug at Google Patents.

A little while back – because four years is nothing – I wrote a little piece on the Rally dry shaver. And now, while aimlessly poking through online patent texts, I found the patent for it.

Filed in the US and Germany by a Swede, the Rally was, as I mentioned, a lawnmower for your face. A handy way to get rid of that five o’clock shadow. A great gift that would likely be used twice and then put in a drawer.

So what was Jonas Åke Gregorius Malmberg trying to achieve? Well, mostly to improve on improving rolling drum dryshavers, apparently. By making the blades replaceable. Which makes a lot of sense, when you think about it. To quote the patent:

The present invention relates to an improvement in such shaving-apparatus having a finely slitted rotatably mounted drum and a fixed knife applied inside and in the longitudinal direction of the said drum, and the object of the invention is to obtain an effective operating and durable shaving apparatus of this type, the invention being chiefly characterized by an open-ended casing provided with a longitudinal slot and arranged inside the drum for the purpose of guiding the same and connected with a handle, the one of the longitudinal edges of the slot in the casing being provided with a longitudinal groove for inserting an exchangeable knife, and movable locking means which in the locking position cooperate with the ends of the knife in order to keep the knife fixed in the longitudinal direction and also crosswise. This arrangement thus renders it possible to use exchangeable knives which, after being inserted in the groove in the one edge of the slotted casing is firmly locked by the locking means.

The way the Ralley works can be worked out from the text and drawings.

Patent drawings for US patent 2,637,902 (and German patent 830,305)

The user would roll the finely slotted drum over his stubble. The stubble would – hopefully – enter the thin slots. The movement of the drum would bring the stubble to the blade, which would – hopefully – cut it.

One end of the Rally could swing up to access the interior of the drum. This both allowed the interior to be cleaned, and the blade to be replaced. The folding drum covers acted as the handle, as can be seen in the photo in my previous post. And the whole thing could fit in a pocket.

I can see a couple of ways to improve the Rally roller razor. The most obvious one would be a second blade. By mirroring the placement in the drum, the user would be able to roll it both ways. As Jonas drew and – likely – manufactured the Rally, it would only cut when rolled in one direction.

If it would cut much at all, that is. After all, the idea is that your stubble should somehow enter the slots – and not slip out again. So if your stubble is too stiff, or too thick, or too bendy, or too thin… the Rally would work less good.

You can read the full patent text for the Rally rolling razor over at Google Patents.

A problem challenge with straight razors is that they require skill to keep sharp. A safety razor on the other hand – be it using double edged, single edged, or even wedge blades – requires a lot less skill. So it is perhaps inevitable that someone will come up with a straight that uses replacable blades. Today we often call them shavettes. But when A V Brokhahne and C Langbein patented an early version back in 1887, they choose a more descriptive name: attachable and detachable back for razor-blades.

Conceptually there is little – if anything – that conceptually differs between their attachable and detachable back and a modern shavette.

There is a holder for the blade. The holder can be swung to rest against a handle. The whole thing looks more or less like a straight. The main differences seems to be the way the blade is secured, and that you would have to remove the blade to fold it.

But first, let us see how the inventors described their idea:

Our invention relates to detachable spring-backs primarily intended for holding the blades of safety-razors—as, for example, such as that for which Letters Patent were granted to F. and O. F. Kampfe, June 15, 1880, No. 228,904; but it is also applicable to the holding of a detachable blade for razors for actual use in shaving. It consists, partly, in the combination of a detachable and attachable spring-back for holding the blade of a razor for stropping the same or for shaving with the same, and a tang attached to said spring-back and pivoted to a handle for conveniently holding the same while stropping or shaving.

And yes, the attachable and detachable back for razor-blades was patented as an third part add-on of sorts to the Kampfe razor.

The Kampfe came with a holder for holding the blade while you stropped it. A holder which almost looks like you could use as a makeshift shavette. Brokhahne and Langbein’s invention aims to replace the blade holder with one that could be used for both stropping and shaving.

Since it was meant to be used with a wedge blade, the blade holder could be a simple piece of shaped steel. The laminated handle was vide enough to fit into the slot. All in all it is of remarkable simple construction, as can be seen in the drawing.

Patent drawing for US patent 377,926

I see no reason why a modern version of this couldn’t be made to fit a GEM-blade. But if I were to make one, I would make a slot in the handle for the blade, so it could stay in the attachable and detachable back.

You can read the full patent for the Attachable and Detachable Back for Razor-Blades over at Google Patents.

The Big Fellow.

A new – in 1920 – Old Type. Even if no one called it an Old Type back then, because the New Type wasn’t even a twinkle in Gillette’s eye.

So what is a Big Fellow, and how did I learn about it? Especially seeing as how I’ve not heard the term before, at least not used on a razor?

Well, to tackle the last question first; I learned about it because I found an advertisement that appeared in the Literary Digest in 1920.

This advertisement, in fact:

1920 advertisement for the Big Fellow

In short, it is a Gillette for guys with big hands. Meaning, as far as I can understand, it has a longer handle than the other Old Types.

Realising that, I also realised another thing.

I actually do own a Big Fellow. I found it at a flea marked a little over six years ago. And after a clean-up, it has stayed in my rotation ever since. I misidentified it at the time, but comparing it to the drawing… it’s a Big Fellow.

It’s a funny old world… I learned about an unknown-to-me subset of the Gillette Old, and it turns out I own and use one. How cool is that?

No shadow of doubt ever exists in the mind of a man who uses a –

Gillette Safety Razor.

Well, at least that was the claim in this 1905 advertisement for the new Gillette safety razor; the one we today would call the Old Type. Which was then the very newest type, and also the only type.

1905 advertisement from the Literary Digest.

In 1905 you would be an early adopter, and like most early adopters you would pay for the privilege. While the ad don’t mention how much you would have to fork over for an ideal holiday gift (either the standard silver-plate or the gold plated special set), they do mention how much you would have to pay for a dozen new blades.

One dollar.

Which may not sound like much for a claimed 240 to 480 shaves, but… inflation can be harsh. One dollar in 1905 is roughly the same as 36 dollars today (33€, 28£, or 395 Norwegian kroner). So not cheap.

But at least there would be no shadow of doubt in the mind of the shaver. But today I would very much doubt the mind of a man who opts to use the latest Gillette cartridge razor, at least if he has had the option of trying a proper safety razor.

As a side note, I like that they point out out their patent (#775,134) and what they claim it covers.

I have pointed it out before. Perfection is not achieved when there is nothing more to add – but rather when there is nothing more to remove. Seen through that lens, John B Lydiards 2020 patent for a shaving brush with interchangeable bristles is far from perfect.

The idea is simple enough. Different shaving brush knots have different qualities, and people prefer different knots. Some likes the softness of badger, some prefer a scritchy boar. Me, I like a good horse. But to get back on track, let us see what John had to say in the patent text

A problem with shaving brushes is that the bristles are permanently attached by glue or other adhesive, thus making it impossible to change to different bristles according to the desires of the user, thereby requiring one to purchase multiple brushes for different bristles. Thus, a need exists for a shaving brush which will allow a user to change to different types of bristles, such as without limitation, synthetic, boar, badger, or bristle knot, by cartridgizing the shaving brush knot.

Needlessly to say, I disagree with the perceived need. And I have a reasonable modest brush collection, compared to some shavers.

So, how were John planning to get around using an adhesive to secure the knot in the handle? By replacing it with arrangement of threads, levers, push-rods, bell-cranks and a clamp. Easy-peasy.

The pictures do more justice to the gadgetry of the invention than mere words.

From my understanding of how John envisioned his shaving brush with interchangeable bristles working, this would be the order of operations:

• Loosen the tension ring (#1 on the drawing) and screw it all the way down.
• Push on the spring loaded release button (#4) so the two halves of the fastening cuffs (#9) swings up and to the side.
• Pick up the old knot (#32) from the floor, sink, or wherever it fell.
• Insert a new knot (still #32) with an adaption hoop (#12) into the fastening cuffs (#9) and push the cuffs together.
• Screw the tension ring (#1) all the way up around the fastening cuff (#9) and tighten it.

Now, compare this to how I pick a new shaving brush knot:

• Reach out, grasp the brush I want.

And even if it wasn’t pointlessly complicated, John seems to have forgotten one minor thing: Storing a shaving brush knot takes up about as much space as storing a whole shaving brush! So there is added complexity with no benefit that I can see.

I mean, I can see part of what he was going for. The words cartridgizing the shaving brush knot gives the game away. I think John wanted to set up a walled garden, where people who bought his handle would have to turn to him for shaving knots.

While it is only two years since John patented his brush with interchangeable bristles, I just can not see it being successful in the marked – unless the target audience is people with more money than common sense.

Which is, admittedly, a large market.

You can read the full patent for the shaving brush with interchangeable bristles over at Google Patents.

One would thing there would be little left to invent, at least as far as shaving brushes goes. One would be wrong. Over in Japan, Mrs 由美子 井上 – or Yumiko Inoue for those of us who don’t read Japanese – recently got a patent for a shaving brush with a notch.

We have looked at a lot of brushes before. And I do mean a lot; folding, telescoping, collapsible, self-feeding, fountain style, antiseptic, disposable, self destructing, hygienic, sanitary, and many, many more. But Yumiko’s idea is the first notched brush that I can recall seeing.

Yet the idea is delightfully useful. The notch will let you rest the brush on the edge of a shelf (if the shelf has a lip of a certain size, that is). Or, perhaps more interesting, the notch lets the brush rest on the lid of a box. A box that is also a combined soap holder and ‘roughing bowl’. Or, as I would put it, a lather bowl.

The notch is sized so the brush can also rest on the size of the lather bowl.

And while the patent uses a lot of words to describe the brush with a notch, as well as the nesting bowls, the claims summarise it nicely:

A brush characterized by having a recess or a notch that fits into a locked body at the center of the handle in the longitudinal direction.

When the locked body is one or more of the handles provided on the protrusion, the protrusion, the edge of the container, and the lid, and the recess or the notch is fitted into the locked body, the handle is fitted. The brush according to claim 1, wherein the brush is held horizontally or with the hair bundle facing diagonally downward.

A whisk comprising the brush according to claim 1 or 2, and a whisk container for whipping a cleaning agent or soap.

The whipping container includes a razoring bowl for whipping shaving soap, a soap dish on which the shaving soap can be stored, and a removable cover having a handle on the upper surface, which covers the soap dish. The whipping device according to claim 3, further comprising, the recess or the notch being fitted into the handle of the cover or the edge of the roughing bowl, and the brush can be held.

I know, auto-translate makes somewhat of a dogs breakfast out of the text. But luckily the drawings are very clear.

I find myself almost wanting Yumiko’s brush with notch – and the nested soap-cup and lathering bowl too. It would make an excellent addition to my shave gear. Perhaps as my at work shave set.

You can read the whole translated patent at Google Patents, or over at Espacenet.

A couple of days ago I shared a video I found on the restoration of a Simens razor sharpener. And guess what? I’ve now found the patent for it. Filed by Ferdinand Souczeck in 1933, the patent was applied for in – as far as I can tell – Czechoslovakia, Austria, and USA.

I’m not sure if Ferdinand worked for Simens, of if they simply bought the rights of him. What I do know is that Simens must have manufactured the device in several places. The one I own is clearly marked as made in Sweden, while other examples I found online is marked with Austria, Japan, USA, USSR, and elsewhere.

Every invention is an attempt to solve a problem. But the problem Ferdinand tried to solve wasn’t to sharpen the blade per se – it was to sharpen it better. To quote:

In known grinding devices of this type, the movement between the razor blade and the grinding agent which is necessary for the grinding is generally only rectilinear and of a definite type of stroke, regardless of whether it is parallel, inclined or perpendicular to the edge and whether a grindstone or grinding rolls are used. However, this type of grinding favors the production on the sides of the edge of the blade of grooves which make it difficult or even impossible to obtain a complete grinding of the sides of the edge. The grinding, moreover, results in subjecting the blades to an injurious bending stress.

So according to Ferdinand, the problem with other razor blade sharpeners were that they were grinding in a linear back and forth motion. The solution, he claimed, would be to move the blade in a circular motion. And while other sharpeners did that, Ferdinand claimed they put a bending motion on the blade.

The solution Ferdinand came up with, and Simens manufactured, was a box with a string. You put your blade in the box, closed the lid, and pulled the string. And when you opened the box, your blade was sharper.

Patent drawing for US patent 2,004,838

Inside the box is where the magic happened. As can be seen from the drawings, there are a few things going on.

In one half of the box you have three gear wheels with pulleys. The two outermost ones have eccentric spindles. The string is wrapped around the pulleys.

On either side of these gearwheels are two spring loaded grinding members, set at an angle. A matching set of two grinding members are set in the opposite lid as well.

As can be seen, the blade is placed on the spindles. Once the box is closed, the grinding elements are pressed against the blade sides. And when the string is pulled, it rotates the gears, which in turn moves the blade in a circle.

Or as Ferdinand put it in the patent text:

When the razor blade is positioned on the carrier pins 18 and the device is closed, the blade prevents the inter-engagement of opposing grinding teeth and, under the opposite but equal spring forces constituting the grinding pressure, is accurately positioned centrally of the gap formed between the two halves of the casing by the collars on the guide pins I I when the grinding members on both sides are not overlapped by the razor blade to the same extent (see Figure 2).

If now the somewhat tensioned operating cord 11 is pulled from side to side, or, in the case where the cord is stationary, the grinding device itself is reciprocated along the cord, the razor blade will execute a curvilinear movement in its own plane.

There is, of course, a few differences between the device as patented, and the device as built. The big one is in the shape and position of the grinding members. Whereas the patent shows them with a flat top and set at an angle, my Simens sharpener (and every other one I’ve seen pictures of) has them with an angled top and set straight in the box.

Unlike so many of the patents I discuss, this one was quite successful. If you search for “razor blade sharpener” online today, a lot of your results will be of the Simens razor blade sharpener. It was successful enough that an Albert B Swanson filed a patent for what was basically an electric version of it in 1958.

Today, we are often told, you shouldn’t sharpen a regular razor blade. But if you needed to, a Simens razor blade sharpener would be just the thing to do it with.

You can read the full patent for Simens razor blade sharpener on Google Patents.

It is easy to forget, as one is looking at old patents online, that not every inventor spoke English. I’ve looked at several interesting non-english patents in the past, and stumbled over an interesting looking one today too. It is for how to do attach a handle to your shaving apparatus. Or to put it in a different way; a handle attachment to your razor.

Patented by Paul Druseidt, the invention gives a razor that both pack flat and is easy to assemble. It consists of a normal-ish razor head and a U-shaped handle made from spring steel. The handle is ever so slightly smaller than the head of the razor and can nestle inside it.

Patent drawing from German patent 323,451

The key is the shape of the recesses or hole on the underside of the razor. The keyhole, if you will. As can be seen from the drawing, it was longer one way than the other, and had arches or troughs on either side.

The U-shaped handle was, as mentioned, springy. You would insert it along the long axis of the hole, then twist it 90°. The arches on either side would stop it from slipping back, and the tension of the spring steel would hold it in place. After shaving the handle could be twisted back, removed, and placed against the inside of the razor head

Or, to quote the patent;

…der U-förmig gebogene Handgriff 6 zwecks Befestigung an der Kammplatte 2 mit seinen federnden Enden 5 in zwei unter der Kammplatte vorgesehene muldenförmige Aussparungen 4 eingeführt und sodann um 90° gedreht wird, wobei die federnden Enden in zwei weitere, enger aneinander liegende, muldenförmige Aussparungen 3 eintreten und in diesen festgehalten werden, während er nach Gebrauch aus den muldenförmigen Aussparungen herausgezogen und von unten gegen die Kammplatte gelegt wird.

For those whose German is a bit rusty, the autotranslated version runs as follows:

…the U-shaped curved handle 6 for attachment to the comb plate 2 with its resilient Ends 5 inserted into two trough-shaped recesses 4 provided under the comb plate and then rotated by 90 °, the resilient ends in two more, narrower Adjacent, trough-shaped recesses 3 enter and held in these while he is pulled out of the trough-shaped recesses after use and is placed against the comb plate from below.

All clear and fairly straight forward.

I though initially that a top cap could have been fastened by the pair of hook shaped projections on the bottom plate. I also though that these projections also would have acted as blade guides for a normal Gillette three hole blade.

Further research showed me that maybe was no top cap, and the hooks just held on to a proprietary blade. The first hint came in Waits’ Razor Compendium. Waits’ Compendium do mention a Druseidt razor – along with the similar Impero and Ratio razor. And in the description of the later, Waits states that “the special thick double-edged blade has two square holes and two centre oval dimples”.

Waits’ Compendium also mentions that “later versions has two pieces”, by which he seems to mean that at least the late production Ratio was made with a top cap. This in turn matches with pictures I found in a thread over on Shaving Universe, which clearly shows a top cap.

A top cap, I might add, that looks very much like Waits’ description of a “special thick double edged blade”…

Was Waits just confusing a poor quality picture of a top cap for a proprietary blade? Quite possible. It could simply be that a lot of the Druseidt, Impero, and Ratio razors that have survived have lost their top caps over the years.

Interestingly all three of the razors mentioned also have u-shaped handles. But none of the three has the handle attachment method described in the patent. Instead they uses a swinging out handle, which still relies on spring pressure to lock in place.

Overall the Druseidt patent looks like it would make an interesting razor, possible more interesting than the Druseidt razors that were actually manufactured.

You can read the full text of Druseidt’s patent at Espacenet, or a translated version at Google Patents.

A razor can take up space in a gentleman’s vest-pocket… a problem several inventors searched for a solution to, including Mr Albert S Aloe. He came up with a folding razor all the way back in 1886.

Described, unsurprisingly, as a new and useful improvement in safety razors, Albert didn’t have the benefit of the thin replaceable blade. Like most razors of this era he had to work with a wedge blade. A wedge blade is chunkier than a modern razor blade, but also has the benefit that it can be stropped and honed.

In hindsight his razor is simple enough. A couple of pieces of sheet metal, shaped to hold and clamp a razor blade. The blade holder and guard were made to fold flat when not in use. In some ways you could see it as a folding version of John Monks’ razor.

Patent drawing for US patent 375,592

It is worth noting that the first claim in the patent isn’t the razor per se. Rather it is for the spiral guard, which was meant to ‘carry the lather endwise’ when the razor was used. Or in simpler words; keep the lather out of the way.

The blade was held in place by a spring loaded catch. This also made sure the distance between the edge and the guard stayed constant, even as the edge was gently worn away by stropping and honing. You could say the blade was self adjusting to keep it working as intended.

I see no reason why Aloe’s folding razor shouldn’t work as intended, nor any reason why a version couldn’t be made for a GEM blade. At the same time I see no reason why anyone would want one today, as it is unergonomic and looks like a kludge.

You can read the full patent for Aloe’s folding razor at Google Patents.

I little while ago I bought a Christy razor. It’s a fun and interesting razor, fairly unique compared to modern razor. And, as I mentioned, you can’t get blades any more, as the Christy blade (which existed in a couple of variations) went out of production sometime in the late 30’s.

Some of you wondered if I couldn’t get another blade to fit.. and the answer; no, not really. And this is why:

First off, apologies for the glare in some of these pictures – taking photos of shiny blades can be difficult.

From the top: Common DE, GEM, Injector, and Christy blades.

No other blades are a good match – or even a partial match, for the Christy. It’s not just a matter of width and thickness, but more importantly of the inclined blade alignment cut-outs on the sides of the Christy.

The Christy compared to a common double edged blade.

You could trim a DE to match part of the outline of the Christy. However the slot means you can’t replicate the top part of the alignment cut-outs. And the cut-outs are also the blade stops, so there would be nothing keeping the blade in place. Nor would anything stop it from sliding too far forward.

The Christy compared to a GEM blade.

The GEM is the best candidate for conversion. But you’ll have to despine it, trim some of the top, do some very careful trimming of the length, and nibble a little for the shape of the alignment cut-outs. And even so the alignment won’t work, as the cut-outs on the GEM are too deep.

The Christy comparted to an injector blade

The injector blade seems to be a no-go from the start. Yes, you could trim a little to match the bottom of the alignment cut-outs, since the length is a good fit. But since the cut-outs are also the blade stops, you’ll have the same problems as you would with a DE.

So the question still remains; Where can I get a Christy blade today? I have this interesting old razor, and I can’t shave with it.

A little while ago I bought a Valet Autostrop, almost by accident.

Unlike some vintage razors, you can still get blades for the Valet. And since I consider myself a shaver and not a collector, I got some blades and gave the Valet a spin to see if it belongs in my rotation.

The jury is still out on that though. Yes, I have shaved with it for a week, but a few shaves isn’t enough to show me just how good the Valet is.

Of how bad, for that matter.

The Valet Autostrop in question

It is – mechanically speaking – a very interesting razor. The way it secures the blade is different. The way it aligns the blade is different – yet similar. And the blade itself is different too.

Then you have the whole “push lever to release blade holder so it swings freely”. It is there so you could strop the blade – hence the name Autostrop. The strop actually goes through the razor, and the blade swung in the right direction as you pulled the razor along the strop. The whole thing was highlighted in advertisements and animatronic displays.

Historically it is also an interesting razor. You could consider it an also-ran when compared to Gillette – but also compared to the GEMs and even Schick’s Injectors. It is more complicated than most other razors. The construction is mostly sheet metal. It requires it’s own blades. And yet it survived, unlike other also-rans like the Christy or the CURBO.

As mentioned, blades are still made for it – although you have a lot less choice in blades than you do for a DE or even an Injector blade. Some report using a de-spined GEM-blade in their Valets – I can see that in the early A, B, and VC1 perhaps… but in the VC2 and later you have to work around the alignment bumps. Bumps which, by the way, different between various models of the razor – but always lined up with part of the VALET name cut out in the blade.

A week of shaves with the Valet Autostrop VC2

As far as the shave goes… the Valet Autostrop VC2 is pretty middle of the road.

It is not great, but not terrible.

It don’t nip or scrape, but it is a bit on the mild side of things. Getting the angle right was a little tricky, until I realised that like my GEM razors you can simply place the top cap flat against the face. The left side blade stop has a small burr on it I probably ought to take a small file to. People tell me the FHS-10 blade dulls quickly, but I didn’t notice much degradation over the course of a week.

Will the Valet VC2 make it into my permanent rotation? How long will the blade last me? I don’t know.

I don’t know yet, that is. I’m heading into the second week of shaving with it. There might be a third.