(This post was last modified: 01-18-2024, 03:39 PM by mrdoug.)
Update: I found some reviews, details and videos on this razor (now that it's been out there for a bit). So, instead of the million questions, I'll post some comments I found and ask if anyone disagrees and/or would like to expound on them...
The razor has a slightly different angle than the overlander, which in turn was also different from the CB. The line of thinking is supposedly (1) to provide a wider working shave angle and (2) to make the ideal angle closer to vintage razors.
The blade gap is 71, two below the Overlander. The exposure is .06, where is the overlander is .07. So very close, with the overlander having ever so slightly more exposure and gap. Since these are not the only things that matter in a razor's efficiency/ aggression, I'm not sure actually makes a difference. Still, the consensus seems to be it's (slightly) smoother than the OL, but is a tiny bit less efficient, too. All the reviews seem to stress that it's still quite efficient and will get the job done. So basically no real difference unless you really nitpick?
A few references to this being marketed towards new shavers. IE, while the overlander certainly could be used by anyone newbie or expert, this one focuses on the newbies.
Any thoughts?
I'm thinking this is a razor which by all accounts is too duplicative of its predecessor to be necessary. Terms used like manufacturing stability (I think) lead me to believe Chris actually made a more cost efficient design, for a (copy of) Overlander and wants to try to phase the OL out? I could be going a bit too far with that hypothesis. Nonetheless, all these details make me think.
Thanks folks!
Sent from my Pixel 7a using Tapatalk