Talk:Razor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Tool (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tool, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the band Tool on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Why is there a picture of a modern Gilette razor in the straight razor section? That's confusing. 118.92.155.33 (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We need an entry on Double-Edged safety razors ("DE") which many people (including myself) use on a daily basis.

Stainless steel[edit]

Around 1960, stainless steel blades which could be used more than once became available

Not sure about that. There are photographs of 1938's Gillette stainless steel blades at http://www.mr-razor.com/Rasierklingen/Rasierklingen.htm

Actually, the Kro-man blade was introduced in the US in 1930, and then, again, in 1938, in England, as shown in the above URL. Wilkinson introduced stainless steel blades in 1956. However, it was only when Gillette introduced the Super Blue, the first blade which was coated, that stainless steel blades became viable. Wilkinson's was first, and their blades first entered the US in 1962. They sold so well, the other companies came out with their own in 1963.

Durability[edit]

How long does a normal razor blade last? Brutulf 15:18, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

"The electric razor requires no soap or shaving cream."

Shaving cream is optional, I don't even use it.

Inconsistency[edit]

There seems to be an inconsistency between the "Safety razor" section and the safety razor from Gilette in the "Disposable razor" section. 71.250.9.119 14:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I just did some cleanup to that section. 24.99.38.36 04:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is almost no info about safety razors, which is quite sad. They should be seperated out from disposable razors since they are not even the same creature and have been in use from about 1900 to the mid 1970's. They deserve their own section.

Women's razors[edit]

So what's so special about women's razors? Is it just a misnomer for body razors, or are they really somehow specially adapted to the "unique" features of the female physique (whatever that would be in this case)?

Is it just an attempt at selling razors to women as "more womanly" or are they actually not appropriate for men other than by branding alone?

I've been wondering, because that would mean a man would have to get a "women's razor" in order to shave areas other than the face -- and a woman would have to get a "men's razor" to get rid of unwanted facial hair -- which is pretty absurd.

I'm only wondering because "women's razors" are usually marketed as something to shave legs with, which may simply be an attempt at making it seem more appropriate to buy them for women (shaved legs being "womanly") than "men's razors", which would imply they have a ("unwomanly") need for facial shaving (especially so since disposable razors seem to come mostly from the US in a type when gender stereotypes were very common); thus avoiding having to admit that either may be used for both by both sexes. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 06:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Granted this is quite a bit after the fact... Hokay. Women's razors have traditionally just been colored differently from men's razors, and in fact even now men's and women's razor blades are generally interchangeable. I think that when there is a difference (and functionally, there isn't always), it mostly comes down to handle shape -- women's razors either have longer handles for better reach or paddle-shaped handles so they can be held with a lengthwise grip. There's occasionally a difference in the composition of the lubrication strip on high-end razors, but with the obvious exception of the Schick Intuition, most blades are compatible with either handle. (That and women's razors probably tend to have a shorter life cycle, mainly because the usage patterns are vastly different.) Haikupoet 04:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

They are pretty much the same. The womans Venus razor marketed for leg/bikini line is basically a normal mans Mach 3 but with a different styling. The blades are interchangeable.86.16.153.191 (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Infinite razors?[edit]

The section entitled infinite razors seems odd. How could a razor realistically have infinite blades? Arms race? Can someone do some research on this? Sabishii Kouen 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I just took it out. It's bogus information pointing to someone's LiveJournal(as a reference) that some trekkie thought was cool. 204.60.149.80 13:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, leave off with the "trekkie" insults! Fans hate that. We're trekkers. Trekphiler 06:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Ugh...and people wonder why I never admit to liking Star Trek. Get a grip, dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.136.139 (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The information isn't really bogus, after you go to his journal he links the Economist which describes what he's talking about. From a mathematical point of view it is shown that the progression of razor blades is approaching infinity along a hyperbolic curve. This is a trivial fact though.

If that's the case, then link directly to the information, not a middle man blog about it.

Because sources that do not require payment to read the article are preferred. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Straight razors[edit]

The current content about straight razors is simply wrong. "The safety razor was developed in the mid-1800s. Early razor blades needed continuous sharpening, soon becoming worn out, making them expensive. " Straight razors will last two lifetimes if properly looked after. Many are returning to shaving with a straight because of the money saved and the quality of the shave. The reason people left straight razor shaving was because it is typically slower to shave with a straight and one also has to maintain a proper edge. The sharpening removes ver little material and is only needed about once a year. The stropping is something that is performed before and after each shave and is one of the factors that make straight razor shaving more time consuming.

I'll edit the page to reflect this and cite links to contemporary straight razor information if no one posts a comment in the discussion page to challenge this in the next few days.

Uh, isn't that paragraph about safety razors, not straight razors? I think that early safety razors had the issues described, which were eventually worked out. --  timc  talk   04:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

the information 'The blade can be made of either high carbon steel, which is slower to hone and strop, and holds an edge longer, or stainless steel, which hones and strops quickly, but has a less durable edge.' is simply the wrong way round. Carbon steel razors hone and strop easier than stainless ones. Stainless ones keep an edge longer, and are harder to hone and strop. I have edited the page a few times but it keeps getting reverted. Somebody please do their homework. I am not getting in to a war - there is plenty of information out there. Use it. Here are just 4 references showing this. There are a lot more: http://www.strop-shop.co.uk/product/5%7C8_Basler_Stainless_Steel_Straight_Razor_BASLER http://badgerandblade.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-92554.html http://www.straightrazorplace.com/forums/razors/51314-stainless-vs-carbon-steel-3.html http://www.menessentials.com/oxid.php/sid/x/cl/info/tpl/straight_razors.tpl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.93.103 (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You're references are wrong. In case you haven't noticed, any real blades, like wood chisels, swords, are made of carbon steel. This is because carbon steel can hold an edge, while stainless cannot. Stainless has high amounts of chromium in it, which makes the metal very, very weak. It decreases the alloy's ability to rust, but also decreases the alloy's strength, hence why it sharpens more quickly. This is why Carbon steel is used for real applications. The alloy is much stronger, thus making it harder to hone, and sharpen. This is common knowledge of anyone know really knows about cutlery.— dαlus Contribs 09:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, various stores cannot be used as sources, especially since such stores usually lie to make a profit. If you can find a real source, such as a metallurgy note, not just some forum posts and stores, then let's see it.— dαlus Contribs 09:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

what you say about the quality of the different types of steel would lead one to logically conclude the position you state. However my point is that it is well known among those who actually shave with straight razors, barbers an such, that carbon steel razors hone and strop easier than stainless ones. Stainless ones keep an edge longer, and are harder to hone and strop. There are various reasons for this that are discussed in the forums I posted, but they are just 4 posts - there are many more. Yes, I know that from a metallurgical point of view, in the case of chisels and so forth that what you say is true,theoretically what you say should be true for straight shaving razors, but it isn't and there are reasons. I will not post here again, at the end of the day the quality of the razor and the person involved is a big factor. People will find out for themselves and no-one is going to loose an exam over this little bit of information. I won't revert your post - Maybe you can find a reference that supports your position with respect to razors actually in practice having the qualities you state, I can't, but finding evidence - even anecdotal so support the opposite is easy. I think that if you actually look into it you will revert the post yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.93.103 (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A cut too far?[edit]

Can somebody confirm that 1901 date? I've seen 1909. Trekphiler 06:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Maintenance[edit]

An article about Razor Gator [1] was deleted, but in general, would it be a bad idea to add a section to the article about maintaining a razor using products such as Razor Gator? --Damian Yerrick () 23:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture[edit]

Does anyone know enough to add a section about how razors have been used in pop culture, particularly the punk subculture? The Punk article says that razor blades are used as jewelery; one example of the is the movie SLC Punk where Stevo, the main character wears a razor on a necklace, and earrings. This also ties in with the "Suicide Razor Blades" above. Danielbot 19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

actually, some Gothics use it to perform self-injury.

sorry not just goths but mostly emo kids yes u heard me emo kids me being one of them

Death?[edit]

The straight razor can easily slip and sever the head from the body? Doesn't that sound a little excessive? David Corbett 01:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah it seems like someone may have vandalized the straight razor section. the idea that you need a lot of training or you'll kill yourself, decapitation, and the term "throat loppers" are clearly tongue in cheek. that section really needs a rewrite.

"Yeah its actually quite hard to slit a persons thorat, especially from the front like that86.16.153.191 (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Double edged razors[edit]

I know little about double edged razors, but this section needs to be cleaned up. Providing a photo of the holder and blade would be helpful. Additionally, some of the information in this section seems to be biased towards this method without any citations of its advantages. Swax 06:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of multi-razor blades[edit]

This section appears to be written mostly for the purpose of criticizing major companies like Gillette and Schick and contains no sourced information. I think it needs rewriting or at least some editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeysyodel (talkcontribs) 21:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree wholeheartedly. I just tried to refactor a bunch of stuff and remove POV nonsense, but it still needs more references. --  timc  talk   14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Safety razor section split[edit]

I suggest that the Safety razor section be split into a separate article. I'm not sure what information should be left behind in this article, but if anyone is inclined they could give it a shot. --  timc  talk   14:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The original parent article IS called Safety Razor. How about splitting the "modern" safety razors off instead? 68.145.103.13 05:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this article is called Razor. It refers to more than safety razors. Much as straight razors have a few paragraphs here and then a separate article with more detail, I think it makes sense to include a few paragraphs here with more detail at a separate article. The safety razor section dominates this article more than it should. --  timc  talk   14:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be helpful to the reader to include a link to this comprehensive guide to shaving with a safety razor. This was at one time included in the references, but has been excised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montereyham (talkcontribs) 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't think those links are really necessary in an encyclopedia article, and I believe that is why they were excised in the first place. --  timc  talk   23:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I support the article split proposal. Shorten the safety razor material in this article, and strenthen the paragraph/section on straight razor. In fact, I would think the straight razor section should also be reordered to be ahead of the safety razor section, since it preceded it in historical time. N2e 14:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the ordering is debatable. One should also consider that the majority of razors in use are safety razors, so that may provide justification for placing that section first. I'm not against chronological ordering, but there is overlap between straight/safety/electric razors. --  timc  talk   19:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Single-edge blades used for shaving[edit]

Single edged blades can also be used for shaving using GEM Micromatic razors. Some people may still own them and they are available on the internet, antique stores, etc. Many of us consider their shaves to be superior to the DE varieties.

Electric-razor batteries[edit]

The section on Electric-Razor Batteries sounds more like rant from an annoyed consumer than an enccyclopaedic entry. This is probably more appropriate for a personal blog or consumer advocacy forum. Martyvis 04:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to find a source, ANY SOURCE, which would tell me when wet/dry shavers were first introduced.

This matter is real. My last Norelco razor's instructions included how to remove the battery for "proper disposal" that made it clear that to do that one had to break an essential part and render the razor to junk. On my current one, also Norelco, there is no such instruction and I have successfully replaced the batteries by soldering them. A user without soldering experience could not have done that. I cannot imagine a motive for this other than an intended shortening of the razor's life. Radio Sharon (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

History/manufacturing information?[edit]

For anyone who has the expertise or the research time, I'd like to see more in this article about the history of razor blades, and how they were made and maintained with earlier technology, as well as information about how they are manufactured today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.157.78 (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Spring razor[edit]

The article does not mention that there were also "spring razors", i.e. a spring powered mechanical razor. For example the one produced by Thorens, in the fifties (see here). In my opinion it is an interesting an missing information. If you want, I've one, and can make a picture of it. Momet (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The were also known as clockwork razors. I believe the original was known as the "Monaco" razor, and it was manufactured in Monaco during the 1950s and into the 1970s. There were knock-offs, too. Such razors were taken along on the U.S. Apollo flights to the Moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s. A rather poor photo of one can be seen at http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19930369000. I don't know if anyone makes them anymore, but one can still find them as collector's items on online auction sites. I also still have one stashed away somewhere; its bronze bushings on the highest speed pinion gear are worn out, causing it to lose power to an unacceptable degree, but when it was new it worked quite satisfactorily, giving up to two minutes of use between windings. — QuicksilverT @ 22:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Actually, the Viceroy, by Rolls Razors, was the first in 1936.

The "Rolling Razor"[edit]

This looks much like an advertisement. If nobody complains, I'll erase it. Momet (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. They've been spamming all over for a month or two now. Might be worth keeping an eye out for other wiki pages they might have targeted as well. --Lijnema (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove section![edit]

The Battery Powered Electric Shaver section is completely unnecessary ; no one needs to know the specifics of warranty, etc.; and it isnt a different type of razor either. Info is dated, as lithium ion/lithium polymer batteries are more often used now, and the section even includes info copied and pasted about electric TRIMMERS. Regardlesss of all these issues, the section is completely unnecessary to begin with, as it's not a type of razor -- and battery operated razor are already mentioned. Someone please remove the section, upon review. 207.12.38.254 (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Head blade[edit]

I have moved it to the see also, as the article is for razors/shavers of the face, i.e., for beard and whisker removal and not the head. Fimmmark (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stubble[edit]

One thing I’ve noticed about electric shavers is that, unlike normal razors, you can’t shave a beard off. They seem to work only on very short stubble. I just had a try, and it left all the longer hairs on my face! I’m going to have to have a wet shave with my normal razor now! 61.68.150.1 (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Razor[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Razor's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Classic shaving":

  • From Straight razor: Classic shaving
  • From Thiers Issard: Classic shaving:The Thiers-Issard Story. (Blade manufacturing details) quote: ...In 1884 Mr. Thiers undertook to establish his own forge and assume the rightful place of such a highly regarded craftsman - working for himself. In order to differentiate his products from those produced by other members of his family who were still active in the trade themselves, he named his factory Thiers-Issard, adding his wife's family name, Issard, to his own... and: As can be expected, the more grinding required, such as in the case of a Full Hollow Ground "Singing" razor, and the more skill and precision required in accomplishing the grind, the higher the finished razor's resulting cost... and: When the edge of this razor is plucked or strummed much like a guitar string, a clear resonant tone is heard. also: They must flex with the pressure of the fingernail only and of course, "Singing" razors must "Sing."

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 11:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Razor blade marketing model[edit]

The origins of the so called razor blade marketing model have been questioned.

The Razors-and-Blades Myth(s)
Randal C. Picker
University of Chicago - Law School
September 13, 2010
U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 532

Abstract:
The razors-and-blades story offers a foundational understanding of a key area of economics and strategy: Invest in an installed base by selling the razor handles at low prices or even giving them away, then sell the razor blades at high prices to justify the prior investment. Large chunks of modern technological life - from VCRs and DVD players to video game systems like the Xbox and now ebook readers - seem to operate subject to the same dynamics of razors and blades.

At least on the paper, the competitive dynamics of this situation are straightforward and well understood. If you actually give away the handle to create the installed base, you need to recapture those loses in the blade sales. And if you are selling blades above cost, you need to be able to tie the blades to your handle or you should expect entry in the blades business to compete on the base that you have installed.

That is at least the theory. The actual facts of the dawn of the disposable razor blades market are quite confounding. Gillette’s 1904 patents gave it the power to block entry into the installed base of handles that it would create. While other firms could and did enter the multi-blade market with their own handles and blades, no one could produce Gillette handles or blades during the life of the patents.

From 1904-1921, Gillette could have played razors-and-blades - low-price or free handles and expensive blades - but it did not do so. Gillette set a high price for its handle - high as measured by the price of competing razors and the prices of other contemporaneous goods - and fought to maintain those high prices during the life of the patents. For whatever it is worth, the firm understood to have invented razors-and-blades as a business strategy did not play that strategy at the point that it was best situated to do so.

It was at the point of the expiration of the 1904 patents that Gillette started to play something like razors-and-blades, though the actual facts are much more interesting than that. Before the expiration of the 1904 patents, the multi-blade market was segmented, with Gillette occupying the high end with razor sets listing at $5.00 and other brands such as Ever-Ready and Gem Junior occupying the low-end with sets listing at $1.00.

Given Gillette’s high handle prices, it had to fear entry in handles, but it had a solution to that entry: it dropped its handle prices to match those of its multi-blade competitors. And Gillette simultaneously introduced a new patented razor handle sold at its traditional high price point. Gillette was now selling a product line, with the old-style Gillette priced to compete at the low-end and the new Gillette occupying the high end. Gillette foreclosed low-end entry by doing it itself and yet it also offered an upgrade path with the new handle.

I think you mean single edged razors, not multi-blade razors!

But what of the blades? Gillette’s pricing strategy for blades showed a remarkable stickiness, indeed, sticky doesn’t begin to capture it. By 1909, the Gillette list price for a dozen blades was $1 and Gillette maintained that price until 1924, though there clearly was discounting off of list as Sears sold for around 80 cents during most of that time. In 1924, Gillette reduced the number of blades from 12 to 10 and maintained the $1.00 list price, so a real price jump if not a nominal one. That was Gillette’s blade pricing strategy.

It is hard to know what to say about that strategy. If Gillette had finally understood razors-and-blades they might have coupled their new low-end razor with higher blade prices and the two changes coincide roughly. But the other event, of course, was the expiration of the 1904 blade patents and eventual entry of Gillette blade competitors. That should have pushed blade prices down and made it difficult for Gillette to play razors-and-blades. Indeed, even with the drop from 12 to 10 blades, by 1930, Sears was selling genuine Gillette blades for the price it had been selling them prior to the packet reduction.

And all of that gets us to the final irony. No razors-and-blades during the years of 1904 patents. With the expiration of the patents, Gillette no longer had a way to tie the blades to the handles and thus, at least on paper, seemed to have no good way to play razors-and-blades. Yet with sale of razor sets to the U.S. government during World War I and the jump in handle sales with the introduction of the low-price old-style handle, Gillette’s installed based jumped rapidly and the profits followed.

And that leaves a hole in the analysis. Gillette hadn’t played razors-and-blades when it could have during the life of the 1904 patents and didn’t seem well situated to do so after their expiration, but it was exactly at that point that Gillette played something like razors-and-blades and that was when it made the most money. Razors-and-blades seems to have worked at the point where the theory suggests that it shouldn’t have. Why is that? Did Gillette succeed because of quality or were their powerful even-if-hard-to-discern-now locks - psychological or otherwise - between the razors and the blades?

Keywords: Razors, blades, razor-blade market, aftermarkets, consumables, tying, platforms, platform-based competition
Working Paper Series
Date posted: September 14, 2010 ; Last revised: September 14, 2010
Picker, Randal C., The Razors-and-Blades Myth(s) (September 13, 2010). U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 532. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1676444 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.34 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Critique of razor article[edit]

Critique of Wiki Article Project
The technology I looked at when writing a critique for Wikipedia was the evolution of the razor blade. As a male and someone who shaves on a regular basis I thought that this article looked interesting. In the following paragraphs I will critique the article I found on Wikipedia based on how well-written the article was including how thorough each section of the article is, how accurate and reliable the sources of the article are, and how helpful the illustrations are in regards to the article.

The article goes into great detail on the history of razors and all the different types there are. The article mentions that the function of shaving with a razor goes back to the prehistoric times as well as the time of the Romans and still continues to develop today. The article also says that the first modern razor was created in Europe. It was interesting to note in the article that it said shaving everyday became a custom in the 20th century. In the history section of the article it goes into detail on the main razor companies that arose in the 20th century such as Schick and Gillette and the type of blades they manufactured to get a more effective and safer shave. The following segments of the article include information on straight razors, disposable blade straight razors, safety razors, electric and battery razors, and other razors. In my opinion this article was well-written and thorough and provided an abundance of information on razors.

After I read the article I checked the reference list at the bottom of the page to make sure all the sources were accurate and reliable. Fortunately I found all of the articles sources to be very substantial in information and complete in detail. Also, after reading the article I went on to check if there had been any false contributions made by other people in regards to this article and could not find any. In reference to the critique question of how does this article stand up to on in an encyclopedia I was fortunate that one of the sources for the article was an online encyclopedia that was very similar to the article in the information it provided.

Lastly in critiquing this Wiki article I thought the illustrations on the page of the article were very helpful. The images ranged from prehistoric razors to razors you would see in the store today. The article also provided an image of every razor it described which was helpful in understanding the differences in the razors the article was talking about.

Overall, this article was very interesting and helped me gain a better understanding of the razor as a tool and as an important form of technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10tdailey (talkcontribs) 14:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What seems lacking however, are pictures of the Schick prototype and the first production model of the electric razor.Landroo (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Prehistory[edit]

There is no reliable reference to back the assertions regarding Bronze Age or earlier razors. Livy in particular (the only source given)is not a particularity reliable source as he wrote about things which were ancient history athistime.

Anyone able to come up with references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.253.72 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Livy can be unreliable but the claim he is unreliable just because he is writing about events that are not contemporaneous to him is just plain silly. Following that reasoning there would be no reliable sources at all for the pre-literate bronze age and the researches of all modern scholars would have to be discarded. Reliable sources for bronze age razors are easy to find with a Google search and there are many examples in the British Museum. SpinningSpark 20:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed?[edit]

Are they really? I found a source for the only unsourced claim I could fine. Did I miss something else or is the template outdated? - Anton Nordenfur (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Can this help? http://www.answers.com/topic/the-gillette-company

Hermaphrodite razor?[edit]

The safety razor - electric or not - is most commonly used by both men and women, but other kinds still exist. Is there really a kind of razor that is not used by men or women? :) SpinningSpark 19:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Drying stainless double edge blades[edit]

The Disposable blade straight razors says "Although the blades of disposable razors wear quickly, useful blade life can be more than doubled with proper care, including drying the blade after use." The information is bad, the reference is terrible. I'd like to delete that sentence. If you have blades that are carbon steel (not stainless), yes, this sort of special handling may be justified, but that is far from the typical case. —Darxus (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple-blade[edit]

Can we have some info on multi-blade razors? Like teh Fusions, Mach3s and so on. Where/when they came from? Who popularized them?

I think it's the biggest marketing gimmick that everyone bought into. It's much better shaving with a simple single blade, even a cheap BIC - hairs don't get stuck between many blades. Not to mention safety razor that costs at least 10 times cheaper to shave and looks like a man's instrument.--74.57.167.219 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You should look for some sources on teh question in your fist paragraph and get back to us.
Your second paragraph is off-topic chat. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Razor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)