You should advise Mark Watterson.
Simpson Brushes Appreciation Thread
- Thread starter Boojum1
- Start date
N_Architect
Travel, See, Feel, Explore
This is the exact reason why I sold all the Simpsons CH2 synths I had.
But, in contrast to your other statements, I am of the opinion that this is rather a case of a manufacturer who possesses a specific philosophy on how to set the knots in their line of brushes.
We understand that the synth bristles in these knots are some of the best out there, in line with the likes of EJ and Plisson. It is by choice of Mark and his craftsmen that the knot in the Chubby is so stiff, with near-zero splay, that ultimately makes this brush a paint tool.
Perhaps this choice of the manufacturer is dictated by their long-standing knowledge on how knots should be set in their models. Perhaps even the Simpsons clients dictate and influence that choice as well. But in my humble opinion, and considering that this brush did not suit my style and preference, I personally still find no reason to say that it is wonky brush or a poor synth in general.
I believe Mark tested a few alternatives and did think carefully before presenting this brush to the market, years back. There is reasoning in everything he does. The name he carries on his shoulders is heavy; just a few critical yet wrong decisions during the years of gradual transition from the badger to synth era can easily ruin a lot for such a prestigious manufacturer.
No pun intended to anyone, and especially to you, Wayne.
Simpsons is the Rolex of the shaving brushes, in my view. They make products which are of high quality, and last for generations. However, the fact that for some of us these products -in their current configurations- may not be to our taste or preference, does not change the standing of the product.
Wayne
Forum Sod
Thank you for the measured reply Konstantinos. Obviously you hold Simpsons in much higher esteem than myself. I care little of their heritage, I really only care for the product they have put out now and the quality of that product as that is what I have spent my hard earned money on. The quality here is lacking no other way to say it. I have had a reply from a member who's knot is set at 54mm. Here is mine. So it's 7 or 6mm, with the benefit of the doubt, to the odd mm shorter than the other Gentlemans. That isn't good is it. I hope you can see how badly formed it is from the pictures too. If not you will have to take my word for it. It's awful it is square rather than round and it is more lumpy than domed.
If they are indeed the Rolex of shaving brushes then this particular example is running 10 minutes slow.
Last edited:
Dr Watson
James
IME any questions directed at Simpsons HQ regarding variation in knot shape and loft are usually given a copy/paste answer of "our brushes are made by hand and so will vary depending on who made it, have a nice day..."
Doris must have made your brush prior to her Specsavers appointment Wayne
Doris must have made your brush prior to her Specsavers appointment Wayne
Wayne
Forum Sod
Is this Doris by any chance?IME any questions directed at Simpsons HQ regarding variation in knot shape and loft are usually given a copy/paste answer of "our brushes are made by hand and so will vary depending on who made it, have a nice day..."
Doris must have made your brush prior to her Specsavers appointment Wayne
I think the beta testers all like the 54mm loft height on theirs at the time. Mine was short lofted too and the reason I wanted to remove the knot was to reset it at 54mm.
Bob
Last edited:
Missoni
Fellow Traveller
I agree with you, it is a quality issue. Simpson will no doubt say it is because they are hand made. Happy to send you my 54mm one, if you want to give it a whirl...
Missoni
Fellow Traveller
It is not an inconsiderable amount of money (at least for me) that they charge for their Synth, a bugger that it is a lottery with the loft. I think I would probably prefer one at 52mm!!. I am hoping it is at least worth an email from you to Mark, but I fear you may be boiling the water already
...
ajc347
Forum GOD!
The QC on that Chubby is terrible @Wayne.
One thing I’ve noticed with Simpsons synhthetic brushes is that they tend to use the same knot dimensions as the badger brush equivalent. This is, in my opinion, a mistake.
I can remember really enjoying shaving with a D3, CL1 and M7 amongst a plethora of other badger knotted models. The badger knots worked perfectly for me in most of them. The synthetic knots in the D3, CL1 and M7 seem anaemic by comparison and, whilst they perform okay, are eclipsed by a multitude of other, much cheaper, brushes. I do still like the handle designs, though.
Strangely enough, I do really like my two short lofted Chubby 2’s. I only ever bowl lather and find they work really well in this respect. I can certainly see why people struggle to face lather with them, though.
I find it interesting that the instructions that come with every Simpsons brush talks about using painting like strokes to apply lather and not mashing the brush into the face. I do wonder whether this is more of a caveat to get around brush related problems by claiming user misuse, but am open to the possibility that, like Vulfix, Simpsons do actually see this as being the correct way to use a shaving brush.
It’s a shame that Simpsons, unlike other high-end manufacturers, such as Rolex (in Konstantinos’ example) or Ferrari etc, haven’t moved with the times by understanding exactly how a synthetic knot differs from a Badger knot.
I rather fear that unless they do do soon, the UK (sorry, I mean the Isle of Man), will lose another brush maker as the demand for premium Badger brushes continue to fall over time.
One thing I’ve noticed with Simpsons synhthetic brushes is that they tend to use the same knot dimensions as the badger brush equivalent. This is, in my opinion, a mistake.
I can remember really enjoying shaving with a D3, CL1 and M7 amongst a plethora of other badger knotted models. The badger knots worked perfectly for me in most of them. The synthetic knots in the D3, CL1 and M7 seem anaemic by comparison and, whilst they perform okay, are eclipsed by a multitude of other, much cheaper, brushes. I do still like the handle designs, though.
Strangely enough, I do really like my two short lofted Chubby 2’s. I only ever bowl lather and find they work really well in this respect. I can certainly see why people struggle to face lather with them, though.
I find it interesting that the instructions that come with every Simpsons brush talks about using painting like strokes to apply lather and not mashing the brush into the face. I do wonder whether this is more of a caveat to get around brush related problems by claiming user misuse, but am open to the possibility that, like Vulfix, Simpsons do actually see this as being the correct way to use a shaving brush.
It’s a shame that Simpsons, unlike other high-end manufacturers, such as Rolex (in Konstantinos’ example) or Ferrari etc, haven’t moved with the times by understanding exactly how a synthetic knot differs from a Badger knot.
I rather fear that unless they do do soon, the UK (sorry, I mean the Isle of Man), will lose another brush maker as the demand for premium Badger brushes continue to fall over time.
You do not have to mash the brush flat into your face while face lathering using a circular motion, however some do insist on doing so. I can see heavy handed use like that contributing to damaging a brush over time and thus the caveat from Simpsons who are just trying to cover their butts against customer complaints about a poor product with problems.
I have wet shaved on and off for about 50 years and face lather too. I have not had a knot fail from using circular motions building a lather with painting strokes to spread it. Painting strokes are not the only correct way to use a shave brush. OTH abusing a brush is never correct.
Bob
GSVwetshave
Forum GOD!
My first Tulip and first Manchurian
