Gillette Super Adjustable v. Gillette Super Slimtwist
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:51 pm
Gillette Super Adjustable v. Gillette Super Slimtwist
Any feeback on these two?
Currently, I use a 1965 Slim and I am very happy, but wanted to branch out and try one, or both, of these. I may be a bit confused about the difference.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Derek
Currently, I use a 1965 Slim and I am very happy, but wanted to branch out and try one, or both, of these. I may be a bit confused about the difference.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Derek
Hi - I've got both of these. They're quite different - maybe the only thing they have in common - apart from being twist to open - is that they're both late sixties/seventies razors though they were still being made on through the 80s.
The super adjustable is a development of the slim adjustable; black handle instead of shiny nickel; larger blockier numbers on the adjustment ring. There are a few variations: long handle and short handle and on the latest ones plastic under the head. It's a good looking razor I think - very early seventies in its design.
They've got a high reputation for being great shavers. I agree, but I actually marginally prefer my slim adjustable. I've come to appreciate its modest ability to give me a great shave with more blades than any other razor I own.
The super slim twist is the seventies British version of the Knack. It's not adjustable. The twist mechanism is just under the head. It has a plastic handle. It replaced the slim twist which was late sixties and which looks a bit more super than the super in terms of build quality. It's probably the cheapest looking tto Gillette made but I find it actually shaves very well. The low profile head gives an excellent shaving angle. Unlike the super adjustable you should be able to get one cheap. Hope this is helpful.
From Mr Razors site: http://www.mr-razor.com/Rasierer/Adjust ... e%20W1.jpg
AND
http://www.j-duwe.de/Rasierer/One-Piece ... 20Logo.jpg
The super adjustable is a development of the slim adjustable; black handle instead of shiny nickel; larger blockier numbers on the adjustment ring. There are a few variations: long handle and short handle and on the latest ones plastic under the head. It's a good looking razor I think - very early seventies in its design.
They've got a high reputation for being great shavers. I agree, but I actually marginally prefer my slim adjustable. I've come to appreciate its modest ability to give me a great shave with more blades than any other razor I own.
The super slim twist is the seventies British version of the Knack. It's not adjustable. The twist mechanism is just under the head. It has a plastic handle. It replaced the slim twist which was late sixties and which looks a bit more super than the super in terms of build quality. It's probably the cheapest looking tto Gillette made but I find it actually shaves very well. The low profile head gives an excellent shaving angle. Unlike the super adjustable you should be able to get one cheap. Hope this is helpful.
From Mr Razors site: http://www.mr-razor.com/Rasierer/Adjust ... e%20W1.jpg
AND
http://www.j-duwe.de/Rasierer/One-Piece ... 20Logo.jpg
I own a Super Adjustable -- and have been erroneously calling it my Black-Handled Adjustable for years
It's a great daily shaver -- really versatile, and has a lower-profile head which makes it very easy to maneuver around the jaw line, chin, and upper lip. I like the long handle as it allows me a better view when shaving on the opposite side of the face (I am left-handed, so this would be the right-hand side of the face for me). The one drawback may be is that it is a tad on the lighter side of things. At least, it's much lighter than my '59 Fatboy or EJ Chatsworth.
It's a great daily shaver -- really versatile, and has a lower-profile head which makes it very easy to maneuver around the jaw line, chin, and upper lip. I like the long handle as it allows me a better view when shaving on the opposite side of the face (I am left-handed, so this would be the right-hand side of the face for me). The one drawback may be is that it is a tad on the lighter side of things. At least, it's much lighter than my '59 Fatboy or EJ Chatsworth.
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:51 pm
- cooncatbob
- Vendor
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:10 pm
- Location: Carmichael, CA
- cooncatbob
- Vendor
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:10 pm
- Location: Carmichael, CA
- cooncatbob
- Vendor
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:10 pm
- Location: Carmichael, CA
-
- Duke of Silvertip!
- Posts: 27393
- Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 1:02 pm
- cooncatbob
- Vendor
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:10 pm
- Location: Carmichael, CA
Actually the Knack head mounted on a heavier handle shaves very much like my earl 50s Aristocrat.bernards66 wrote:Paul, Yeah, I had one of those as well...in fact, I think it's still around someplace. Personally, I remember that I didn't much care for how it shaved, having been spoiled for decades by earlier Gillette models.
Regards,
Gordon
I originally thought these razors were cheap junk but after taking them apart I've come to appreciate the simple fool proof design.
- cooncatbob
- Vendor
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:10 pm
- Location: Carmichael, CA
Not yet, all of these except the razor on the right end were commissioned and provided by the clients.e d o wrote:Interesting! Bob have you made any of these without the knobby end? I think that would improve the looks.
Actually many like the knob, they feel it give the razor a neo industrial look.
I add a short length of 1/4-20 threaded rod to the shank so I can mount these heads on any type of handle that the client would desire.
I have some faux ivory and the fellow I procure it from is working on making me something that duplicates the butterscotch bakelite Schick used on their vintage razors.