Gillette 'First Razor With Two Blades' Commercial (1973)

[Odie]

I remember seeing this commercial when it first came out. There was skepticism on whether it makes good sense.....but, those of us who transitioned from single edge shaves to two bladed shaves realize there is something to it.....and the resulting closer shaves we get are undeniable.

View: https://youtu.be/l7kT5kclz_k


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, now what does this have to do with lathe turning?

No, I'm not suggesting two-bladed turning tools......but, what I am suggesting is this:

As the wood is being cut, the pressure from the cutting action creates a pulling action on the wood fibers, and this effects the wood fibers below the surface. Just how much it effects the wood below the surface is up for speculation. Lathe rpm and the level of sharpness are major contributors to this theory, but I speculate the amount of disruption of the wood fibers beneath the surface is directly related to the best rpm with the least amount of inherent vibration, AND how sharp the cutting edge is.

My speculation is this: .....IF the wood fibers directly beneath the surface are disrupted, then the ability of that surface to be sanded well, AND how well the finish will appear on that surface, is directly effected. The wood fibers are naturally bonded, and when that bond is broken, then they are now loosely held together.....instead of their naturally tight state. This condition is not noticeable by sight.....or by feel.

Comments?......

(Well, except for those who think I'm a complete nutcase!....but, I must say that I'm definitely not joking about this theory. )

-----odie-----

.

 

[Michael Anderson]

This is the logic behind why supported-grain cuts look and feel better than non-supported cuts. That said, I would argue that tear out IS the evidence that the bond is broken. That is the extreme case, of course.

Regarding the sanding, I’m not sure if I agree. Progressive sanding is just making smaller and smaller scratches, until they are so crisscrossed and tiny that the human eye cannot perceive them. BUT if we were to examine the surface with a high-powered microscope, we would certainly see evidence of sanding, regardless of the quality of the initial cut. (Extreme cases, such as end-grain tearout, withstanding). Still getting through my coffee, so forgive the rambling haha.

 

[hockenbery]

You are describing torn grain. Tearout certainly can be microscopic

When I begin roughing l often use a non bevel riding roughing cut removing 1/2” to 3/4” shavings.
This produces torn grain on two counts
1 the deep cut shaving always has attached wood that is broken free instead of being cut
2 the non bevel riding cut tends to tear as much as cut.
This technique gets within a 1/4” of the desired surface with speed and efficiency.

I then transition to bevel riding cuts in successively lighter cuts
An 1/8” cut removes most visible tearout, following with progressively lighter cuts down to angle hairs.

With no visible tearout on the back side of the endgrain there is a surface requiring little sanding.

Is there microscopic tear out? probably. This is a job for finish.
Finish will swell the fibers and hide the microscopic tearout. Using fine abrasive between coats of finish further refines the surface.

 

[Odie]

You are describing torn grain. Tearout certainly can be microscopic

Yes, correct you are, Al.....

I'm definitely describing microscopic torn grain......with the exception that it can't be seen or felt. The difference in the level of finished surface is noticeable, when compared to the same surface, refined, and without the microscopic torn grain. I ask myself if there is no torn grain that can be seen or felt.....is there, or is there not any torn grain? The solution is the same....best rpm along with sharper tools.

-----odie-----

 

[Michael Anderson]

I ask myself if there is no torn grain that can be seen or felt.....is there, our is there not any torn grain? The solution is the same....best rpm along with sharper tools.

Like I said above, the crux is our ability to perceive the torn grain. There is almost no such thing as a perfectly smooth surface. At some level, as wood fibers are sliced, the cut surface will be rough, which can be construed as torn. Even with advanced techniques, and blades far sharper and finer than turning tools, the cut surface of a wood fiber will be rough to some degree. This image, for example, is probably about as smooth of a cut through wood as possible, and you can still see small undulations and inconsistencies on the surface:



Torn grain, sanding marks, imperfections with finish, etc... will always exist; however, our ability to perceive these things is limited. Ultimately, the perfect solution comes down to stabilizing the fibers, and being able to cut at the atomic level. The best practical solution for turning is sharp tools, good technique, and correct rpm (to limit vibration, defection, and chatter).

 

[Dave Fritz]

What about compressing the wood by the bevel being pushed too hard? Some times that's visible after sanding and hard to remove. Won't any disturbance leave evidence behind? Sharp tools and proper presentation certainly minimize the evidence.

 

[Odie]

Like I said above, the crux is our ability to perceive the torn grain. There is almost no such thing as a perfectly smooth surface. At some level, as wood fibers are sliced, the cut surface will be rough, which can be construed as torn. Even with advanced techniques, and blades far sharper and finer than turning tools, the cut surface of a wood fiber will be rough to some degree. This image, for example, is probably about as smooth of a cut through wood as possible, and you can still see small undulations and inconsistencies on the surface:

View attachment 48081

Torn grain, sanding marks, imperfections with finish, etc... will always exist; however, our ability to perceive these things is limited. Ultimately, the perfect solution comes down to stabilizing the fibers, and being able to cut at the atomic level. The best practical solution for turning is sharp tools, good technique, and correct rpm (to limit vibration, defection, and chatter).

OK, you are giving me some perspective I hadn't considered, Michael.....thanks for responding.

I think one problem we can conceive here, is many turners are satisfied with cuts that clearly show evidence of torn grain, easily seen with the eye. Modern advancements in power sanding make sub-standard tooled surfaces acceptable to turners, even though there are great advantages to be had with a cleaner cut. If there is any visible torn grain at all, the ability to maintain cleanly formed intricate shapes is diminished, specifically because of the aggressive sanding requirements. OTOH, if there is any invisible torn grain, normal sanding procedures won't prevent it from reducing the finish quality that is possible, as long as the disrupted fibers are still present.

If torn grain, either major or minor weren't an issue, then most any newbie turner could produce just about any shape he wanted......but, that's just not the case. Bowl turning with it's alternating end grain/long grain is the most difficult of turning disciplines when pursuing that ever elusive perfect cut. This is not to say it can't be done, but it takes more than instruction to learn how to do it.....it takes a certain perception that is developed through time and experience.

-----odie-----

 

[robo hippy]

When those blades first came out, I remember Bill Cosby doing a skit about them. "Zlip Zlop, cut your face twice as much." Yup...... Part of why I have a beard....

robo hippy

 

[Marc Banka]

Makes me wonder about those folks who can and choose to start sanding with a high grit! 320 and such. So, your cuts are great--no visible endgrain tear out.Are you really getting the best finish? Could you see the damage with stronger light and better lenses?
Also, the talk about 320 or 400 being ‘good enough’, ‘the finish will hide the rest‘ is shortsighted, for all of the reasons being discussed.

I think that all of the points made are excellent, so my choice has been to try hard to put it all together. Clean cuts with a sharp tool. I tend to do most of my shaping (I’m a bowl maker) with a handle down, bevel riding pull cut. It removes material quickly and shears endgrain beautifully, and allows me to develop my shape more easily than a push cut. Nearing my shape, the gouge rotates to a shear scrape to cleanup any pulled fibers.

sanding then should start at whatever is required to remove the still damaged fibers. A little off the top never hurt. Then progress through the grits. I alternate between hand holding a pad, and power sanding with the same grit. In this case power sanding isn’t about stock removal, but to eliminate the scratches from the hand held paper. Sharp paper and disks will help keep the bowl round with less pressure (and heat buildup) and less time sanding.

It‘s true that you may not be able to see individual scratches at 320 or 400 (strong raking light and strong glasses might extend ones ability to see the scratch) but they are there. We absolutely do see the scratches in aggregate, but have different terms for it.
We use terms like, dull, doesn’t have much ’pop’, mat, buff, soft sheen, warm glow, satin, gloss. All of these terms refer to what we are able to discern quite easily, all refer to the size of scratches. Scratches, no matter how small, scatter light.

So, fixing a dull surface quality with 12 coats of lacquer can make the surface shiny, but still doesn’t fix the poor surface, only attempts to camouflage, to obfuscate. All with A LOT of extra labor!

For me, the joy of my surface prep, is having fixed bruised of bend fibers, carefully and methodically reducing the scratch size to that which we can see, and then going from there. When I move beyond 400 paper, I notice first that the color richens,,darkens with each grit (more light reflection, more contrast). This continues through grits 1000 and 2000, along with the changes to our terms dull, mat, satin and gloss. I find it thrilling to turn off the lathe to see my piece with a gloss, smooth as glass glow. Really hard to improve on it with finishes. I use my finishes then, as a means to seal in what I’ve just created. So, oil and wax finishes certainly can have a nice gloss, and varnish finishes can be very easy (film finishes with varnishes are about the most difficult to pull off, and exactly what newer turners try).

Make the wood to shine, before any finish, while still spinning. It will always have more contrast (pop), cooler figure and grain, finish easier with an overall better outcome.

 

[Odie]

So, fixing a dull surface quality with 12 coats of lacquer can make the surface shiny, but still doesn’t fix the poor surface, only attempts to camouflage, to obfuscate.

This brings up the one single key element to the best all-around finish.....it's all about surface preparation......and this, speaking from my own POV, includes much more than how well the surface has been sanded. It also includes how cleanly the tool cuts were executed, prior to sanding.

When I move beyond 400 paper, I notice first that the color richens,,darkens with each grit (more light reflection, more contrast). This continues through grits 1000 and 2000, along with the changes to our terms dull, mat, satin and gloss.

I have no doubt that very high (1M to 2M) grits of sandpaper can create a better surface than 400gt alone. For bowl turning, these very high grits are best if done in a random orbit fashion, rather than in a single direction on the lathe. This doesn't include spindle turning, where these very high grits are likely more advantageous. I usually stop at 600gt for most woods, and occasionally use 1500gt micromesh when more preparation is needed. For my work, the 600gt is done on the lathe, and then by hand in a random orbit fashion where needed. The Tripoli abrasive used in the Beall 3-step buffing process continues to refine the surface beyond that.

-----odie-----

 

[hughie]

I remember seeing this commercial when it first came out. There was skepticism on whether it makes good sense.....but, those of us who transitioned from single edge shaves to two bladed shaves realize there is something to it.....and the resulting closer shaves we get are undeniable.

View: https://youtu.be/l7kT5kclz_k


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, now what does this have to do with lathe turning?

No, I'm not suggesting two-bladed turning tools......but, what I am suggesting is this:

As the wood is being cut, the pressure from the cutting action creates a pulling action on the wood fibers, and this effects the wood fibers below the surface. Just how much it effects the wood below the surface is up for speculation. Lathe rpm and the level of sharpness are major contributors to this theory, but I speculate the amount of disruption of the wood fibers beneath the surface is directly related to the best rpm with the least amount of inherent vibration, AND how sharp the cutting edge is.

My speculation is this: .....IF the wood fibers directly beneath the surface are disrupted, then the ability of that surface to be sanded well, AND how well the finish will appear on that surface, is directly effected. The wood fibers are naturally bonded, and when that bond is broken, then they are now loosely held together.....instead of their naturally tight state. This condition is not noticeable by sight.....or by feel.

Comments?......

(Well, except for those who think I'm a complete nutcase!....but, I must say that I'm definitely not joking about this theory. )

-----odie-----

.

For me there a lot truth in this, although of the idea behind dual, triple and quad blade razors etc is dealing with and over coming the pliability of the skin. But if we are removing wood with sharp slicing cuts, especially using some of the more exotic tool steel recipes, we should be able to reduce the under surface disturbance greatly. But species will have a great deal to do with the outcomes. Also swarf removal/clogging would be the major issue on multiple blade heads.
I routinely turn and carve hardwoods, in fact its about all that I have on hand. Many are quite hard over 2000 on the Janka scale at this level or above the density is such that tear-out/pulling etc is virtually non existent so for me it would be questionable as how much of this would be a success.
One of most successful single edge tools I have is a fine grain tungsten carbide gouge tip, much like the Woodcut gouge tipped tools. With this fine grained tool it takes an edge with amazing durability. So much so that I found can turn 6 medium sized open bowls, say 8-10" in dia before returning to the grinder, for me this is outstanding. The down side is that it was a test piece and the manufacturer decided not to proceed, cost factors apparently.
So the steel is available to produce longer lasting edges is out there, but at what cost? For the cynical it would suggest less tool sales over time and a surge in high end grinding set ups. But for me sharpening is lost turning time and fast fading edges a frustration.

 

[Monty Ivy]

I went back to the single blade safety razor for the 10 cent blades that last a week. $5 for a cartridge to shave with is an affront to a penny-pinching gentleman such as myself. I also don't do chemical goo in a can. Triple-milled saponified tallow soap and silver-tip badger brush for me.

A smaller gouge generally leaves smaller tear-out in those pieces where it's become problematic. Dropping down to a 3/8 bowl gouge seems to really help. Granted it may be too small to see with the naked eye but at that point I'm not sure it matters.

 

[William Rogers]

I agree with statements made. When I have a piece of spalted wood there are many time I will use a shellac sanding sealer. From my POV it makes sanding better for lack of a descriptive word. So does sanding sealer provide some bonding leading to a better surface?

 

[Monty Ivy]

I agree with statements made. When I have a piece of spalted wood there are many time I will use a shellac sanding sealer. From my POV it makes sanding better for lack of a descriptive word. So does sanding sealer provide some bonding leading to a better surface?

Shellac makes a wonderful sanding sealer that is part of my regular routine finishing a bowl. I think it does work kind of like glue...really sticky bug juice and a thinner to help it soak in. It does tend to load sandpaper until the surface layer has been removed.

 

[robo hippy]

When I was making furniture, the people who did my spray finishes, a catalyzed lacquer, they didn't want it sanded above 220. The spray needs some thing to stick to, and if you sand too fine, then it had problems sticking to the wood. It was a surface finish.

robo hippy

 

[Marc Banka]

When I was making furniture, the people who did my spray finishes, a catalyzed lacquer, they didn't want it sanded above 220. The spray needs some thing to stick to, and if you sand too fine, then it had problems sticking to the wood. It was a surface finish.

robo hippy

Apples and oranges, no? What you say makes absolute sense if I were making a dinning table. If I wanted a film finish to prevent anything from touching that wood, if I want an impregnable barrier. I know for some of you that’s a goal. It’s just not my aesthetic, not my craft.

But, I take your point, being surface quality is related to the final intent and desired finish type. ie, if I were to paint it, I may not sand it at all. I use oil/wax finishes, or lately, varnish—blo—turpentine , neither of which requires a surface bond.

My earlier opinion remains; easier to prep the surface such that no other shining is required, and seal it, than to apply a heavy film and then try to shine that. (I also feel it’s a higher order of craft)

Marc Banka

 

[Gabe Latner]

A single blade razor -safety or cuthroat- can give a much closer shave than any multi-blade razor. But it's "harder", mistakes are easier to make, and the consequences of a mistake are worse.

I don't know how that translates to turning. Maybe a really sharp gouge versus a carbide scraper?