I'm glad to hear that the man is good to talk to and helpful in person. That paragraph ought to say:
A shaving brush holds water and allows you to apply the water to your face. Shaving cream assists in this process by trapping the water in tiny bubbles and droplets so it won't just run out of the brush, off your face, and down the drain. (It's silly to call shaving cream "cream", by the way, because it's really a combination of fatty acids and water.)
Someday maybe I'll translate and edit his Collected Works.
not.....shapest, There you go, a worthy goal for your later years. Now that I think about it, however,...a.....maybe you could start working on it now....? You seem to have a knack for it. Gordon
Translate it? I'm still trying to decide what language he is using!
Randy
"I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." J. B. Books
Gordon and Ken, I interpreted that paragraph exactly like Notthesharpest. So, you can see why I think he considers the cream a vehicle or carrier. But actually it's more like a binder that thickens the water and holds it to the face.
I think it's creepy the way we're reading CAR's writings like scripture (including the fact that I interpreted it). If anyone calls lather the "hydro-lipid substrate", I'm switching to a depillatory.
But I think anyone that translated CARs essays into English would be doing a great service for our community. I'm just afraid it would lead to more analytic discussions like this.
As far as I can tell, shaving cream and water isn't a substrate, because it isn't the layer under anything. (Unless he plans to spread something on top of it, or unless he considers the blade the top layer of his system, which would qualify as pseudo-system-ology in my book)
But it sounds cool
(Really though, isn't it more of a temporally-limited, optimally viscous, optimally lubricating, optimally frangible superstrate?)
notthesharpest wrote:(Really though, isn't it more of a temporally-limited, optimally viscous, optimally lubricating, optimally frangible superstrate?)
Sorry for the late arrival. I was in Bermuda for a few days.
My interpretation of CAR's writting (and my own opinion on the subject) is that we shave with what amounts to "fortified water". The goo that we put on our face is a mixture of water, lipids, and emollients (with possibly a few other chemicals thrown in). It creates a barrier that allows the blade to float over our skin. You can certainly shave with plain water, but all of us have found out that it works much better if you beef it up with something. Wet shavers make their own shaving cream every morning and the ingredient that we have control over is water. How much water a medium contains is at the core of the whole velocity notion.....
Now I'm getting off track. This was actually supposed to be a thread about the SMF brush.
The two premium brushes that I use are the SMF and a Simpsons Chubby #3 ST. I think the descriptions of the SMF brush and it's water-holding capacity are accurate. It holds ALOT of water. The key for me, and what I think most guys are missing, is that it does not readily release that water. Because of the hair density and the way that it is shaped, it does not have any real "breech" action. The water that is in the brush stays there and does not aid in creating a more hydrated cream. That is why it is a lousy Method Shaving brush. A good example is the last pull. When I squeeze the last bit of cream out of my Simpsons I get a well-hydrated, fully cooked mix. With the SMF brush I get whatever cream is in the canopy followed by a flood of water.
That being said, I very much enjoy using the brush with a nice English cream. I soak the brush, shake as much water out as I can, put a dollop of cream into my bowl, and whip up a nice lather adding water by hand as I need it. The canopy holds enough cream for 3 or 4 passes. The soft hair and round shape feel wonderful when massaging the face.
Brett, sorry to disagree, but I believe in keeping the language simple. While I understand your reasoning for being precise, "fortified water" is still commonly known as cream. I don't see any need to confuse the issue more.
As well, I know what you mean by canopy, but if we wish to encourage others to become involved in wetshaving, and to help everyone to understand how to get a good shave, I think it is more instructive to say the "brush" holds enough cream for 3 or 4 passes as opposed to the "canopy". In reality, a canopy is commonly understood to be a covering or the top layer of something, not a shave brush.
With respect, and I own, use and enjoy CR products, using non standard language to describe a process when more commonly understood words are readily available serves to cloud the issue. I take similar issues to high falutin' words such as "steel" and "velocity", as velocity is used improperly when referring to a cream's wetness.
I trust you won't take offence to my comments, as they were not meant to offend. I just believe in keeping language plain and understandable, and saying that, I do understand your desire to try to be more precise with the language of shaving.
Brett: I loved reading the post and read it 3 times!!!! i dont method shave so a lot of that is lost on me, not that i can not understand it, but i just have not found it my cup of tea to follow those theories closely. but your writing seems to make it something that is more readily understood and brings it a bit of life.
i do as you do with the english creams and love the SMF brush for that reason. i find that the kent probably does a better job for my shave soap in a mug. dont really know why, unless it has to do with the design of the bristles and how they interact or splay onto the soap cake.
yes, the cream is a bit better when you pull it up from the bottom on my kent, but there is more with the smf brush
honkdonker wrote:Brett, sorry to disagree, but I believe in keeping the language simple. While I understand your reasoning for being precise, "fortified water" is still commonly known as cream. I don't see any need to confuse the issue more.
As well, I know what you mean by canopy, but if we wish to encourage others to become involved in wetshaving, and to help everyone to understand how to get a good shave, I think it is more instructive to say the "brush" holds enough cream for 3 or 4 passes as opposed to the "canopy". In reality, a canopy is commonly understood to be a covering or the top layer of something, not a shave brush.
With respect, and I own, use and enjoy CR products, using non standard language to describe a process when more commonly understood words are readily available serves to cloud the issue. I take similar issues to high falutin' words such as "steel" and "velocity", as velocity is used improperly when referring to a cream's wetness.
I trust you won't take offence to my comments, as they were not meant to offend. I just believe in keeping language plain and understandable, and saying that, I do understand your desire to try to be more precise with the language of shaving.
Thanks.
_________________
The man upstairs is used to all of this noise...
I'm through with screaming and echoes nobody hears
Btrett, although I genrally agree with Honk about the language of method shaving, I understand why you said fortified water. I think you emphasized water for the same reason that I did. It really is about absorbing and releasing as much water as possible. Calling it cream seems to put the emphasis on getting a nice thick mix, which is all wrong. On the other hand, it isn't really fortified water in the sense that milk is fortified with vitamins. It really loses most of the characteristics of water.
Calling it fortified water is good for emphasis, though. Calling it a slag or a substrate just confounds understanding. Of course you're entitled to create your own vocabulary when it's necessary for accuracy, but that's not the case when it confounds understanding. Maybe just "mixture" or "lather" would be better, just as blade would be understood much better than steel. If you wanted to present method shaving in a concise way for the uninitiated, you would need a dictionary, at present. That just doesn't make sense.
CAR set that style and it's inhibited method shaving from moving into the mainstream. Now that the veil is lifted, there's a growing interest on all these boards, and you won't be able to meet the demands for information without forgoing the jargon and providing some kind of handbook for the shaving public. If you do, I predict method shaving will soar. It's just what's needed by the swelling ranks of new wet shavers.
In further reply to the issue of getting the best lather, I can say that I continue to use the CAR cube. It's a 4 inch cube of Marseilles olive oil soap, which soaks up water like a sponge when you lather on it.
After I have a nice lather on the brush, I put some on my face to keep it moist, while I go to my mug, where I have a reduced dollop of cream. I add some water into the mug and then beging mixing with the brush. The amount of lather produced is incredible, and I need to keep adding small amounts of water, and I continue to add it after each pass. The resulting mix is much wetter and goes on thinner, but it is amazingly wet and slick. And it never dries on my face even if I dally. Until I reduced the amount of cream I was using I was getting enough mixture for six passes with the amount of cream I was using before for three.
The cube was a mess when I tried to use it the way CAR teaches, but now it's only a little of a mess when I first use it. THe mug makes it all manageable, and my expensive creams seem to be lasting much longer.
Honk,
No offense taken. I wasn't trying to introduce a new phrase meant to replace "shaving cream". We were having a discussion about what role water plays in protecting the face. I thought that "fortified water" was a good term with which to make my point. I fully understand that I am associated with Method Shaving and therefore will be subject to a little bit of ribbing if I use a word with more than two syllables.
Brett,
You could have done worse. You could have been the one to coin the term slag or better known as the scum formed by oxidation at the surface of molten metals. I can see how this relates to RWSM and method shaving.
_________________
The man upstairs is used to all of this noise...
I'm through with screaming and echoes nobody hears
Brett G wrote:Honk,
No offense taken. I wasn't trying to introduce a new phrase meant to replace "shaving cream". We were having a discussion about what role water plays in protecting the face. I thought that "fortified water" was a good term with which to make my point. I fully understand that I am associated with Method Shaving and therefore will be subject to a little bit of ribbing if I use a word with more than two syllables.
Three syllables, five syllables, it's all good - just when there's already a commonly accepted word, it's necessary to use it rather than invent a new one.
An exception is of course required for old words that must be thrown out because they create misunderstanding - but none of the old words used in relation to shaving create any such problems, and none of the new shaving words that have been proposed solve any problems either. (Unless you know someone who looks for his shaving cream between the coffee cream and the whipping cream.)
Brett, Much appreciated your above post. Your term, "fortified water" is very similiar to the one I used above, "super fatted water", and connotes, or gives a sense of what the stuff really is. That stuff we generally call, "lather". BTW, I continue to suspect that the difference you noted between your Simpson and your SMF brush, is primarily due to the difference in construction. I have a Plisson that is also densely packed, and very much in the 'light bulb' shape. Yet, it releases and mixes water and lather every bit as well as other good brushes I've used, including a Chubby. Squeeze the base and you get that super wet super nice lather that you mentioned. The only major difference that I can see between the SMF brush and my Plisson is that of construction. Regards, Gordon
Last edited by bernards66 on Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks Brett. I am certainly glad you accepted that I was not attempting to rib you in the above post.
Brett, perhaps you have already done this, and since you are a method shaver, I know you probably really work the lather into the bristles, but is there a chance that you are not working it as thoroughly and with as much pressure when you are using the SMF brush compared to the other?
Perhaps this is causing the cream and the water in the brush to not be mixed as well when you squeeze out the lather for your last pass?
drmoss_ca wrote:I propose the substitution of 'small' for 'reduced' (and that 'substitution' is not in the chemical, sporting or pedagogical senses )
No, that doesn't do it! We need another language or a lot more words.
I was trying to give the inpression that I was using less than before. Normally, I use about an almond size dollop, and some might consider that small. Now I use less than 3/4 of that, not quite half.
Demi-dollop seems too small, as would mini-dollop, and definitely centi-dollop, milli-dollop, micro-dollop and nano-dollop. So you see the dillema? This is the time to use some CAR creativity!
How about a "microhectare"? I use a 3 microhectare blob of cream.
