First off, I realise that blade gap alone doesn't make or break a razor (head geometry and other technical things I don't understand come into it I guess), but I have just been perusing the gaps of a few razors and am left somewhat puzzled by this:
Rockwell 6C/S blade gaps:
1: 0.20 mm
2: 0.35
3: 0.48
4: 0.61
5: 0.69
6: 0.79
EJ DE89 blade gap: 0.76 mm
I've read a good number of posts where people declare a Rockwell 3/4 plate to be their sweet spot, the 5/6 to be too aggressive, and the 1/2 to be so mild thus hardly effective at all / needing lots of passes, touch-ups, etc. Fair enough, but what baffles me then is that the DE89 is known for being a mild razor, yet going on these blade gaps it is virtually as aggressive (efficient if you prefer) as the most aggressive Rockwell plate. So, getting a 6C would be effectively pointless for me, if 5 of the plates give an even milder shave than a DE89, and the only remaining plate is virtually the same as a DE89.
Can anyone explain why I bet the same shavers who declare a 0.76mm gap DE89 too mild, also declare Rockwell 0.69mm & 0.79mm gap 5/6 plates too aggressive?
Rockwell 6C/S blade gaps:
1: 0.20 mm
2: 0.35
3: 0.48
4: 0.61
5: 0.69
6: 0.79
EJ DE89 blade gap: 0.76 mm
I've read a good number of posts where people declare a Rockwell 3/4 plate to be their sweet spot, the 5/6 to be too aggressive, and the 1/2 to be so mild thus hardly effective at all / needing lots of passes, touch-ups, etc. Fair enough, but what baffles me then is that the DE89 is known for being a mild razor, yet going on these blade gaps it is virtually as aggressive (efficient if you prefer) as the most aggressive Rockwell plate. So, getting a 6C would be effectively pointless for me, if 5 of the plates give an even milder shave than a DE89, and the only remaining plate is virtually the same as a DE89.
Can anyone explain why I bet the same shavers who declare a 0.76mm gap DE89 too mild, also declare Rockwell 0.69mm & 0.79mm gap 5/6 plates too aggressive?