06-22-2021, 07:58 AM
#1
User Info
My Rockwell 6S Adjustable Stainless Steel razor arrived just in time for Father's Day. The box was packed well and looked all fancy-schmancy.  Perfect as a gift presentation.  It seemed to get pretty good reviews, and I was in a quandary over how "aggressive" a razor I'd ought to be using.  I figured the Rockwell 6S could help me answer the question, since it could be set up with a variety of blade gaps.  So I figured I'd try them and compare them to a known quantity... my Gillette '48(ish) Super-Speed. 

[Image: Yg4YPTa.jpg]

The 6S is a 3-piece razor (cap, mount, and handle) that comes with three different mounts, each of which are reversible.  Each mount is numbered, on each side; the mounts are numbered 1/3 on the first mount, 2/4 on the second mount, and 5/6 on the third. Flipping over the mount will yield a different geometry to the shave.  Rockwell calls them "plates" rather than "mounts."  Some manufacturers call the "cap" a "top plate," too, just to confuse folks who are new to the DE shaving world (nomenclature confusion is one way to keep out the riff-raff like me, I guess).

Apparently there is a big difference between the original blade gap on the first (milled) version of the 6S and the current (MIM) version of this razor.  The internet tells me the original blade gaps were:
Size 1: 0.38 mm
Size 2: 0.56 mm
Size 3: 0.72 mm
Size 4: 0.84 mm
Size 5: 0.94 mm
Size 6: 1.12 mm
[Image: 5NMtGrv.jpg]

It seems the current 6S razors are Metal Injection Molded (MIM) rather than milled (by machine) from solid steel.  MIM is more cost-effective because there is less metal waste, it yields great precision, reduces production time, with fewer finishing operations required.  MIM is best suited for small, complex parts that would be difficult to make with other metalworking technologies, or that would require extensive machining.  Apparently gun makers have been using MIM since the 1990s (Colt, S&W, Ruger, etc).  Seems like it'd be a PERFECT process for manufacturing a razor to exacting tolerances!

But the current blade gaps on the Rockwell 6S are:
R1: 0.20 mm
R2: 0.35 mm
R3: 0.48 mm
R4: 0.61 mm
R5: 0.69 mm
R6: 0.79 mm
[Image: lfSP7Uh.jpg]


...wait, what? The original blade gap #1 is like a modern version blade gap between #2 and #3.  The old model's #4 was more aggressive than the new model's #6?  Wow, what a difference!  I guess they learned a lot between Version 1 and Version 2 (or had pressure from investors, buyers, or maybe they just paid attention to forums for feedback).  When talking about this razor, it'd be best to specify WHICH one you're discussing, I think, because the two versions are so different!   Or maybe they're not... it could also be that the re-design of the base plate (mount) required an adjustment of the blade gap in order to end up with the same level of aggressiveness.  After all, there's more to aggressiveness than just the blade gap.  Maybe the different gaps are equivalent in aggressiveness.  What do I know... I'm a noob, remember?  :-)

It is "made out of pure, durable stainless steel through an innovative metal-injection-moulding process, and is bead-blasted for a premium matte finish," according to the manufacturer.  Being unable to independently verify their claim, I concluded "Neat-o! This looks pretty COOL, even if they DO spell "moulding" funny!"    

I lathered up with my trusty badger brush, soap, and bowl, and prepared to give it a test drive.  I decided to use the same blades I've BEEN using (with my trusty Super-Speed) in order to give it a fair evaluation. I used Plate #1.  My first impression?  Never before have I experienced such an effortless, smooth shave!  Wow!  The razor just glided over my skin with no resistance. This was the first time I've used a razor heavy enough to let the weight of the razor do all the work. I decided that in Heaven, this is what shaving must feel like for all of the angels!  No wonder they sang a lot and were in great moods all the time!  Wow!  Was I ever impressed!  I rinsed off my face, and instantly realized the error of my ways.  I probably shouldn't have started with mount #1, because as I rinsed my face, I could hardly tell I'd shaved at all!

I lathered up again with my trusty badger, soap, and bowl.  I had plenty of lather for a 2nd pass.  Rather than trying the #2 mount, I skipped ahead to #3.  Mostly because #3 is the back-side of #1 and I was too lazy to dig out a different mount.  The #3 mount yielded a shave that was a lot more like the shaves I was used to from my Gillette Super-Speed, but still not as close.  I had places to go and things to do, so I left it there for the day, figuring I'd continue my evaluation of the Rockwell 6S the next day.  

The next day, I started out with a #4 mount, with the same lather routine I'd previously, same blade.  Unlike guys with brillo whiskers who can only get a couple of shaves out of a blade, I can usually get a couple dozen shaves out of a blade.  My whiskers are diaphanous and delicate (in a manly sort of way) in most spots, and I only have a couple of areas where they grow like telephone poles, sturdy and dense.  Again, I let the weight of the Rockwell do all the work, I was just there to steer it around my face. This felt like a pretty awesome shave!  I could tell it was a notch higher on the aggressiveness scale from the #3 plate, just due to the feel of the razor on my face and the sound it made when clear-cutting the forest.  I did my first pass, rinsed, and felt like I had a nice shave, with only a couple of spots in need of further attention.  I re-lathered and went back to those pesky trouble areas (around the points of my masculine, yet undeniably cute, chin and around the corners of my mouth). After that little touch-up, it felt pretty smooth, but not quite perfect.  I thought I was going to stop at #4, but it just didn't seem quite as satisfying as it should have been.  

The next day, I tried an experiment.  Using my trusty '48 Super-Speed as my standard, I shaved HALF of my face with the Super-Speed and the other half of my face with Rockwell 6S Plate #4.  As I rinsed, I noticed that I got a closer shave with the Super-Speed.  That made me conclude that plate #4 is slightly less aggressive than my vintage Super-Speed razor.  Huh!  I would have EXPECTED the Super-Speed to be somewhere between Rockwell Plate #3 and Plate #4. But the Super-Speed was more aggressive than the Rockwell's plate #4.  I'll try the same "half face" comparison tomorrow, pitting the '48 Super-Speed against Plate #5.  I'm still amazed I got a closer shave with the Super-Speed than plate #4!

After getting 24 hours of growth to get rid of, I prepped for a comparison of S-S vs Plate #5. I used the same process, same soap, same bowl, same blades, same routine.   I confess some trepidation as I looked at the Rockwell 6S and noticed a huge, threatening blade sticking out, intimidating me with the potential for cuts, scars, and possible dismemberment.  My Super-Speed looked MUCH more friendly than this cool-razor-suddenly-turned-feral!  With great care, I began to shave the usual way, and (much to my surprise), Plate #5 was a pussycat!  My shave with Plate #5 was smooth and the razor glided along nicely, again letting the razor's weight do all the work.  I had no problems, not even under my nose, corners of my mouth, or the manly points of my chiseled masculine chin. I confess that I was paying close attention the whole time and was diligent with each stroke (versus my sometimes-lazy and careless approach with the Super-Speed).  Then I did the other half of my face with Trusty S-S and compared the two.  The S-S usually does a great job for me, but the 6S side of my face was actually SMOOTHER after the 1-pass shave!  I think the #5 plate is more aggressive than the stock Super-Speed, but wasn't nearly as scary as my death-and-dismemberment imagination had feared. I think I can characterize the Rockwell with Plate #5 as a BBS shave -- with panache!  

I don't think I'll try the #6 plate unless/until I have a few days' growth to mow.  Seems like it'd be too much blade for my 24-hr growth.  Next time my wife's out of town for some odd reason, I'll let my face grow a few days and give plate #6 a shot.  For now, I'll end my review with Plate #5.
 

Summary: This razor was $99 well spent.  I learned a lot and thought the results were great!  The weight is comfortable and heavy enough to do the job without pressure.  The different plates will let me change the aggressiveness as my needs change over time, and will accommodate various whisker length and a variety of blades (I've ordered a sample pack with a bunch of blades, so I can figure out which works best for me).  If I need a quick "get out the door" shave, I'll probably reach for my Super-Speed because it's comfortable and I can be careless without penalty (perhaps due to nothing more than familiarity).  Or I'd use the Rockwell 6S with Plate #3 or #4.  But if I'm going out somewhere fancy-schmancy and have the time to be more careful and diligent when I shave... and really want a BBS... then I'll reach for the Rockwell 6S with the #5 plate, because it does such an amazing job. It's difficult to believe that a close shave would make me even MORE suave, debonair, and attractive, but the Rockwell 6S with Plate 5 may have done just that!  :-)

- Bax


P.S.  This is a newbie review, so the above is probably full of errors, misconceptions, and boo-boos of various magnitude, but "I called 'em as I seen 'em" through the lens of a relatively new Wet Shaving guy.

0 173
Reply
 06-22-2021, 08:31 AM
#2
User Info
(06-22-2021, 07:58 AM)Bax Wrote: My Rockwell 6S Adjustable Stainless Steel razor arrived just in time for Father's Day. The box was packed well and looked all fancy-schmancy.  Perfect as a gift presentation.  It seemed to get pretty good reviews, and I was in a quandary over how "aggressive" a razor I'd ought to be using.  I figured the Rockwell 6S could help me answer the question, since it could be set up with a variety of blade gaps.  So I figured I'd try them and compare them to a known quantity... my Gillette '48(ish) Super-Speed. 

[Image: Yg4YPTa.jpg]

The 6S is a 3-piece razor (cap, mount, and handle) that comes with three different mounts, each of which are reversible.  Each mount is numbered, on each side; the mounts are numbered 1/3 on the first mount, 2/4 on the second mount, and 5/6 on the third. Flipping over the mount will yield a different geometry to the shave.  Rockwell calls them "plates" rather than "mounts."  Some manufacturers call the "cap" a "top plate," too, just to confuse folks who are new to the DE shaving world (nomenclature confusion is one way to keep out the riff-raff like me, I guess).

Apparently there is a big difference between the original blade gap on the first (milled) version of the 6S and the current (MIM) version of this razor.  The internet tells me the original blade gaps were:
Size 1: 0.38 mm
Size 2: 0.56 mm
Size 3: 0.72 mm
Size 4: 0.84 mm
Size 5: 0.94 mm
Size 6: 1.12 mm
[Image: 5NMtGrv.jpg]


But the current blade gaps on the Rockwell 6S are:
R1: 0.20 mm
R2: 0.35 mm
R3: 0.48 mm
R4: 0.61 mm
R5: 0.69 mm
R6: 0.79 mm
[Image: lfSP7Uh.jpg]


...wait, what? The original blade gap #1 is like a modern version blade gap between #2 and #3.  The old model's #4 was more aggressive than the new model's #6?  Wow, what a difference!  I guess they learned a lot between Version 1 and Version 2 (or had pressure from investors, buyers, or maybe they just paid attention to forums for feedback).  When talking about this razor, it'd be best to specify WHICH one you're discussing, I think, because the two versions are so different!   Or maybe they're not... it could also be that the re-design of the base plate (mount) required an adjustment of the blade gap in order to end up with the same level of aggressiveness.  After all, there's more to aggressiveness than just the blade gap.  Maybe the different gaps are equivalent in aggressiveness.  What do I know... I'm a noob, remember?  :-)

It is "made out of pure, durable stainless steel through an innovative metal-injection-moulding process, and is bead-blasted for a premium matte finish," according to the manufacturer.  Being unable to independently verify their claim, I concluded "Neat-o! This looks pretty COOL, even if they DO spell "moulding" funny!"    

I lathered up with my trusty badger brush, soap, and bowl, and prepared to give it a test drive.  I decided to use the same blades I've BEEN using (with my trusty Super-Speed) in order to give it a fair evaluation. I used Plate #1.  My first impression?  Never before have I experienced such an effortless, smooth shave!  Wow!  The razor just glided over my skin with no resistance. This was the first time I've used a razor heavy enough to let the weight of the razor do all the work. I decided that in Heaven, this is what shaving must feel like for all of the angels!  No wonder they sang a lot and were in great moods all the time!  Wow!  Was I ever impressed!  I rinsed off my face, and instantly realized the error of my ways.  I probably shouldn't have started with mount #1, because as I rinsed my face, I could hardly tell I'd shaved at all!

I lathered up again with my trusty badger, soap, and bowl.  I had plenty of lather for a 2nd pass.  Rather than trying the #2 mount, I skipped ahead to #3.  Mostly because #3 is the back-side of #1 and I was too lazy to dig out a different mount.  The #3 mount yielded a shave that was a lot more like the shaves I was used to from my Gillette Super-Speed, but still not as close.  I had places to go and things to do, so I left it there for the day, figuring I'd continue my evaluation of the Rockwell 6S the next day.  

The next day, I started out with a #4 mount, with the same lather routine I'd previously, same blade.  Unlike guys with brillo whiskers who can only get a couple of shaves out of a blade, I can usually get a couple dozen shaves out of a blade.  My whiskers are diaphanous and delicate (in a manly sort of way) in most spots, and I only have a couple of areas where they grow like telephone poles, sturdy and dense.  Again, I let the weight of the Rockwell do all the work, I was just there to steer it around my face. This felt like a pretty awesome shave!  I could tell it was a notch higher on the aggressiveness scale from the #3 plate, just due to the feel of the razor on my face and the sound it made when clear-cutting the forest.  I did my first pass, rinsed, and felt like I had a nice shave, with only a couple of spots in need of further attention.  I re-lathered and went back to those pesky trouble areas (around the points of my masculine, yet undeniably cute, chin and around the corners of my mouth). After that little touch-up, it felt pretty smooth, but not quite perfect.  I thought I was going to stop at #4, but it just didn't seem quite as satisfying as it should have been.  

The next day, I tried an experiment.  Using my trusty '48 Super-Speed as my standard, I shaved HALF of my face with the Super-Speed and the other half of my face with Rockwell 6S Plate #4.  As I rinsed, I noticed that I got a closer shave with the Super-Speed.  That made me conclude that plate #4 is slightly less aggressive than my vintage Super-Speed razor.  Huh!  I would have EXPECTED the Super-Speed to be somewhere between Rockwell Plate #3 and Plate #4. But the Super-Speed was more aggressive than the Rockwell's plate #4.  I'll try the same "half face" comparison tomorrow, pitting the '48 Super-Speed against Plate #5.  I'm still amazed I got a closer shave with the Super-Speed than plate #4!

After getting 24 hours of growth to get rid of, I prepped for a comparison of S-S vs Plate #5. I used the same process, same soap, same bowl, same blades, same routine.   I confess some trepidation as I looked at the Rockwell 6S and noticed a huge, threatening blade sticking out, intimidating me with the potential for cuts, scars, and possible dismemberment.  My Super-Speed looked MUCH more friendly than this cool-razor-suddenly-turned-feral!  With great care, I began to shave the usual way, and (much to my surprise), Plate #5 was a pussycat!  My shave with Plate #5 was smooth and the razor glided along nicely, again letting the razor's weight do all the work.  I had no problems, not even under my nose, corners of my mouth, or the manly points of my chiseled masculine chin. I confess that I was paying close attention the whole time and was diligent with each stroke (versus my sometimes-lazy and careless approach with the Super-Speed).  Then I did the other half of my face with Trusty S-S and compared the two.  The S-S usually does a great job for me, but the 6S side of my face was actually SMOOTHER after the 1-pass shave!  I think the #5 plate is more aggressive than the stock Super-Speed, but wasn't nearly as scary as my death-and-dismemberment imagination had feared. I think I can characterize the Rockwell with Plate #5 as a BBS shave -- with panache!  

I don't think I'll try the #6 plate unless/until I have a few days' growth to mow.  Seems like it'd be too much blade for my 24-hr growth.  Next time my wife's out of town for some odd reason, I'll let my face grow a few days and give plate #6 a shot.  For now, I'll end my review with Plate #5.
 

Summary: This razor was $99 well spent.  I learned a lot and thought the results were great!  The weight is comfortable and heavy enough to do the job without pressure.  The different plates will let me change the aggressiveness as my needs change over time, and will accommodate various whisker length and a variety of blades (I've ordered a sample pack with a bunch of blades, so I can figure out which works best for me).  If I need a quick "get out the door" shave, I'll probably reach for my Super-Speed because it's comfortable and I can be careless without penalty (perhaps due to nothing more than familiarity).  Or I'd use the Rockwell 6S with Plate #3 or #4.  But if I'm going out somewhere fancy-schmancy and have the time to be more careful and diligent when I shave... and really want a BBS... then I'll reach for the Rockwell 6S with the #5 plate, because it does such an amazing job. It's difficult to believe that a close shave would make me even MORE suave, debonair, and attractive, but the Rockwell 6S with Plate 5 may have done just that!  :-)

- Bax


P.S.  This is a newbie review, so the above is probably full of errors, misconceptions, and boo-boos of various magnitude, but "I called 'em as I seen 'em" through the lens of a relatively new Wet Shaving guy.
Nice review!!! I own the 6C. The only difference between the 6C and 6S according to Rockwell is the materials. The 6C is a zinc alloy vs. stainless on the 6S. Hence the price difference. I found myself settling for the #3 plate. I think I may have originally tried the #6 and #4 plate. I don't need to have an aggressive gap to get a good shave, though I do have some more aggressive razors. I also use the "half my face" method when comparing blades, razors, etc. I find it easier to compare them at the time, rather than try to remember if I use them at different times.

4 620
Reply
 06-22-2021, 08:35 AM
#3
User Info
Thanks for the review!

My Rockwell is the 6c Gunmetal.  I use currently use Plate #4 for 1st pass (WTG), Plate #2 for 2nd pass (ATG), and Plate #2 for any cleanup.  Was using Plate #2 for 3-pass shaves and besides getting a BBS shave I started also getting ingrown hairs which I've never had before.  Using Plate #4 and then Plate #2 I have not had any more ingrown hairs and still get BBS results.

It is true, YMMV, depends on how you use things and probably the difference between us.

Again, thanks for your experience!

0 71
Reply
 06-22-2021, 08:37 AM
#4
User Info
Agree, Mike!  The first couple plates I didn't do the "half face" method, but it was really necessary to understand the difference between plates 4 and 5.   I wonder what the blade gaps are on your 6C... does it have a "Version 1" and "Version 2" gap?  If yours is Version 1 then your plate 3 is darned close to my Version 2 plate 5!  Interesting stuff.  (To me, anyway.)
- Bax

0 173
Reply
 06-22-2021, 09:10 AM
#5
User Info
(06-22-2021, 08:37 AM)Bax Wrote: Agree, Mike!  The first couple plates I didn't do the "half face" method, but it was really necessary to understand the difference between plates 4 and 5.   I wonder what the blade gaps are on your 6C... does it have a "Version 1" and "Version 2" gap?  If yours is Version 1 then your plate 3 is darned close to my Version 2 plate 5!  Interesting stuff.  (To me, anyway.)
- Bax

Yeah, I read that in your review. I wasn't aware of the 2 versions. I'm not sure about mine, I'll have to look into it.

4 620
Reply
 06-22-2021, 10:56 AM
#6
  • RyznRio
  • Senior Member
  • Connecticut
User Info
I have the 6C. I have it for a while so I guess it's old gap. I have settled on the 4 plate and I find that the 6C gives me the best shave of all of my 20 odd vintage and modern razors.

0 528
Reply
 06-22-2021, 11:19 AM
#7
User Info
I updated the original post when someone asked me what "MIM" meant; I used an acronym and didn't explain it.  Shame on me.

Here's the text I added to the original post: 

"It seems the current 6S razors are Metal Injection Molded (MIM) rather than milled (by machine) from solid steel.  MIM is more cost-effective because there is less metal waste, it yields great precision, reduces production time, with fewer finishing operations required.  MIM is best suited for small, complex parts that would be difficult to make with other metalworking technologies, or that would require extensive machining.  Apparently gun makers have been using MIM since the 1990s (Colt, S&W, Ruger, etc).  Seems like it'd be a PERFECT process for manufacturing a razor to exacting tolerances!"


- Bax

0 173
Reply
 06-22-2021, 12:42 PM
#8
  • norton
  • Member
  • The Alien Nation
User Info
So according to Rockwell's site, the 'old' (at least the old 6s) was 2015-ish.

17 208
Reply
 06-27-2021, 04:30 AM
#9
User Info
The version 1 of the Rockwell has only been available for a short time so it doesn't play any role. Was it been sold regularly or only been given to the original backers from the kickstarter campaign?
The 6c was released after the 6s' design was changed.
So there is a previous version of the 6s only, but i think you can ignore that fact.

Gesendet von meinem Redmi Note 8 mit Tapatalk

0 12
Reply
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)