Does Super Treet Platinum Pair With the Vector TC4?

Vector TC4 × Super Treet Platinum safety razor blade pairing data — three shaves on one blade from a Chinese-language Treet pack. The pairing averaged 46.7/50 (47 / 47 / 46), placing it second of the fifteen pairings in the database. The first two sessions matched on every axis; the third, the first session with long strokes, gave back one smoothness point.

Conducted by a single ORMIXA tester (one skin profile) on the Vector TC4 — the material variant used is logged per entry of the blade compatibility database. Session-by-session notes follow ORMIXA’s published pairing rubric. This article documents pairing data — never a rating of either product on its own.

About the Companion Blade — Super Treet Platinum Identification

This section reports what the tested pack prints, face by face, from the photographs archived with the test. The pack is printed in Chinese and English, and the two languages do not say the same things.

• Box front: 超级特利特 刀片 (“Super Treet blades”), SUPER, Treet, PLATINUM and SUPER STAINLESS BLADE, beside a portrait.
• Upper long side: 原产地：巴基斯坦 (“place of origin: Pakistan”), 生产商：Treet Corporation.,Ltd (“manufacturer”) and 中国总代理：新疆特利特国际贸易有限公司 (“China general agent: Xinjiang Treet International Trade Co., Ltd.”), with an address in Urumqi.
• Lower long side (visible at the bottom edge of the box in the kit photo): Treet and the Chinese descriptor 超级白金刃口不锈钢双面刀片, which translates as “super platinum-edge stainless double-edge blade”.
• Back panel: Treet, PLATINUM, SUPER STAINLESS BLADE; the Chinese line 美国弗吉尼亚安全剃须刀公司与巴基斯坦(TREET)刀片有限责任公司合作出品, which translates as “produced in cooperation between a Virginia, USA safety-razor company and Pakistan’s (TREET) blade company”; barcode 0073982205886; and an ink-jet batch code printed over part of the Chinese logo.
• Blade wrapper: a wax-paper sleeve inside a printed paper wrapper. The printed wrapper reads TREET CORPORATION LTD., PAKISTAN along its top edge, repeats the box front in both languages, and carries DO NOT WIPE BLADE and the same Chinese descriptor.
• Blade stamp: Treet with a small portrait, and PLATINUM SUPER STAINLESS. Hand-written use-count marks on the tested blade cross the stamp; every string stays readable.

Origin rests on the printed 原产地：巴基斯坦 line, and the wrapper repeats Pakistan beside the company name. The back panel’s line describes two companies working together and is quoted as printed; the Virginia company is not identified further. No photographed face prints a blade count, so none is given here. The barcode is recorded as printed and plays no part in the origin call.

The pack’s own description of the edge is the Chinese descriptor above, quoted rather than checked. W13 in this database tested Treet Platinum Super Stainless in a different pack, one that prints Made in Pakistan in English and carries no Chinese text. The packs cannot show whether the two hold the same blade, so the database keeps them as separate entries. The identification says which blade was tested; it passes no judgement on the blade.

Test Conditions

• Tester: ORMIXA — one skin profile, fixed rubric
• Razor: ORMIXA Vector TC4 titanium (0.76 mm gap)
• Pre-shave: no hot towel; no pre-shave oil; face rinsed with tap water ~6 s
• Soap: Proraso Shaving Soap in a Bowl — Sensitive (green tea & oatmeal), bowl-lathered
• Brush: ORMIXA Harbor — 6061 Aluminum Line · Silver · 26 mm Black & White synthetic bulb, soaked in tap water ~1 minute (Silver was a prototype finish and never entered the catalogue, which ships the 6061 Aluminum Line in Black)
• Bowl: ORMIXA Titanium Shaving Bowl, Double-Wall Lather Bowl (lather built in the bowl)
• Pass pattern: WTG → ATG (2-pass; XTG skipped, target SS not BBS)
• Stroke length: short WTG strokes at Shaves 1 and 2; long strokes first used at Shave 3
• Post-shave: alum block
• Sessions: 3 shaves, 126h / 96h / 96h apart
• Conditions: 30 °C / 75% humidity, skin normal (all three sessions)

Lather condition: Proraso Sensitive built in the bowl on the Vector TC4, the combination also used by the Treet Platinum and Shark Super runs. The remaining eight Proraso entries ran the Vector 316L, so the razor changes across each of them. Cross-Pairing Reference below covers what stays comparable.

Test Period Summary

One physical blade, three sessions, five axes scored each time:

3-shave scores at a glance

Day-by-Day

Shave 1 (2026-10-09, 126h growth)

The first blade came out of a wax-paper sleeve inside the printed wrapper. The WTG pass ran on short strokes, cut crisply and gave clear audible feedback; long strokes were left for a later session. ATG suited the razor well, with plenty of room on angle, and finished at SS on two passes. No nicks and no weepers. Alum read mild across the face, the skin was calm at 30 minutes and fully relaxed at four hours. The session log also notes that the shave felt no different overall from the W13 Treet Platinum Super Stainless run on the same razor.

Shave 2 (2026-10-13, 96h growth)

The scores repeated the opening session for a second 47/50, and the record for this session centres on one spot. On the right side of the neck the hair grows against the direction the WTG pass normally travels, so a stroke meant to follow the grain there runs against it. That happened on the first pass and left one weeper; the alum stung at that spot and stayed mild everywhere else. Thirty minutes later the skin was mild, and at four hours fully relaxed with no tightness, the same as after the first shave. The written pass notes for this session repeat Shave 1’s wording, so the scores, the event count and the neck note carry it.

Shave 3 (2026-10-17, 96h growth)

Long WTG strokes came into the routine for the first time, and one of them drew a weeper on the right side of the chin. Smoothness scored 9; the log gives no reason for the point, and the other four axes held for a 46/50 total. The alum stung only at the weeper. The skin was mild at 30 minutes, and the closing check, taken about two hours after the shave and before the four-hour mark, found it fully relaxed and not tight.

What Worked in the Pairing

The first two sessions were identical

Shaves 1 and 2 scored the same on all five axes, and Shave 3 kept four of them.

Irritation held at 10

All three sessions scored irritation 10, and the after-shave checks line up with that: mild at 30 minutes every time, then fully relaxed. Each weeper left a local alum sting at its own spot, which the record keeps as an event next to the score.

No nicks

Six passes produced no nicks. In the database ten of the fifteen pairings have gone three sessions without one, and this run is among them. Its two blood points were weepers, and the Friction Points below say where they came from.

Bowl lather scored 10 throughout

With Proraso Sensitive built in the titanium bowl, lather compatibility scored 10 at every session.

Friction Points in the Pairing

Both weepers came on a changed stroke

At Shave 2 the weeper sat on the right side of the neck, the one area where this skin’s hair runs opposite to the usual WTG stroke, so the first pass cut against the grain there. At Shave 3 it came on the first long stroke, on the right side of the chin. Where the strokes stayed short and followed the grain, no session drew blood. The AAD and Cleveland Clinic guidance in the Sources both advise shaving in the direction the hair grows. On this skin the right side of the neck needs its grain mapped before the first pass, and the only session with long strokes is the one that drew blood on the chin.

One smoothness point at the third use

Smoothness dropped from 10 to 9 at Shave 3 and the log does not say why. The same session introduced long strokes, so the point cannot be separated from that change and is not, on its own, a sign of the edge wearing.

Closeness 7 follows the 2-pass target

Every entry here stops at WTG and ATG with SS as the target, and the closeness score is set against that target. The touch grade was SS all three times; a closer result would take an XTG pass this protocol does not include.

Three uses, no endpoint

Testing ended at the third use with touch still SS. The record covers a three-shave window and stops there, which is the figure to use for any cost-per-shave reading.

Difficult Areas (Pairing on this skin profile)

• Right side of the neck (Shave 2): hair growing against the usual WTG direction turned the first pass into an against-the-grain stroke; one weeper, and the alum stung there.
• Right side of the chin (Shave 3): one weeper on the first long WTG stroke, with alum sting at that spot only.
• Jaw line, upper lip, under the chin: the per-area fields were left blank in all three sessions. They are reported as unrecorded, since a blank field is weaker evidence than a recorded zero.

Pairing Recommendation for Vector TC4 Owners

Conditions where the data supports this pairing for you:

• You want consecutive shaves to read alike — Shaves 1 and 2 matched on every axis and the third kept four of five.
• You weigh nicks heavily — none across six passes.
• You bowl-lather a Proraso-type soft soap — lather compatibility held 10 in every session.
• You shave every four or five days — the run’s intervals were 96 and 126 hours.

Conditions where the data does not support this pairing for you:

• You target maximum closeness / BBS — this run produced SS on a conservative 2-pass; closer would need an XTG pass outside the test protocol.
• You use long strokes from a blade’s first shave — long strokes entered only at Shave 3, where one drew a weeper, so three sessions cannot show how the pairing handles them over a full run.
• You want a known blade-life figure — testing stopped at three uses, so this record cannot tell you where the window ends.
• You face-lather a hard stick — this series lathered Proraso in a bowl, and the one Vector TC4 entry on a face-lathered ARKO stick used a different blade.

Video Evidence

Three sessions, raw footage, no edits:

• Shave 1 of 3: youtu.be/cIHlsl0eHus
• Shave 2 of 3: youtu.be/YYpDUar4wIc
• Shave 3 of 3: youtu.be/G-CMpYYCd3U

Cross-Pairing Reference

Where this pairing sits against the other Vector × DE-blade pairings tested so far (5-metric average out of 50):

Same razor, soap and bowl. Treet Platinum (47.0) and Shark Super (45.7) ran the Vector TC4 with Proraso Sensitive built in the titanium bowl and the same 2-pass protocol. Neither comparison isolates the blade.

Treet Platinum Super Stainless (W13) scored 47 in all three sessions. Shaves 1 and 2 here match it axis for axis, and the 0.3 between the averages is this run’s third-session smoothness point. The W13 brush carried a badger knot on the same 6061 Aluminum Line series, W13 used long strokes in every session where this run waited until the third, and the intervals differed. The near-identical readings come from two different Treet packs, and the packs do not establish whether the blades inside are the same, so the rows stay separate.

Shark Super Stainless (W15) ran the same 26 mm Black & White synthetic knot model, fitted to a 6061 Aluminum Axis handle where this run used the Line. Irritation scored 10 here and 9 there in every session; at the third use Shark gave back a closeness point and this run a smoothness point. The W13 article could not split its irritation gap with Shark between blade and brush because the knot type differed; here the knot type matches, while the intervals, the brush soak (all three sessions soaked here, two of Shark’s unsoaked) and the handle still differ, so the irritation point stays unassigned.

The other eight Proraso rows (Astra SP (46.0), Personna (46.0), Iridium Super (45.7), Dorco Prime (44.3), Feather (44.0), Nacet (42.7), Silver Blue (42.7) and Derby (42.0)) ran the Vector 316L, so every gap to them carries the razor as a second variable. Among all the Proraso rows this pairing’s 46.7 comes second.

Against the ARKO face-lathered rows — Perma-Sharp, Voskhod, Wilkinson Classic and Wilkinson Saloon Pack — the lather changes. Voskhod shares the Vector TC4; the other three ran the Vector 316L as well. A flat 10 on lather compatibility here describes a bowl-built Proraso lather on a titanium Vector and predicts nothing about this blade under an ARKO stick.

→ Full Vector Blade Compatibility Database

Methodology Notes

What limits this 3-shave run:

• No single-variable comparison: Treet Platinum and Shark Super share the razor, soap, bowl and protocol, but each differs in brush build and intervals, and W13 also in stroke length. Every other row changes the razor, the lather, or both.
• Single-razor data: this pairing ran only on the Vector TC4, so blade-versus-razor causation is not isolated. The same blade on the Vector 316L would be needed to separate them.
• Stroke length changed inside the run: long WTG strokes appear only at Shave 3, the session holding both the smoothness point and one of the two weepers.
• Intervals ran long: 126h, 96h and 96h, each above the 72-hour target.
• Closeness was calibrated against the touch grade: the session log wrote closeness at 10 while recording the touch grade as SS in all three sessions. The published scores follow the rubric’s anchor, where SS sits at 6–7, and the original values stay in the source record. No other axis was changed.
• Irritation stands as recorded: Shaves 2 and 3 each logged a weeper and a local alum sting with irritation at 10. Scores are not rewritten after the session, so the events are reported next to the score.
• Corrections made to the session log: the Shave 1 interval was recorded as 102 hours and corrected to 126 against the previous logged shave; the location and pass of the Shave 2 weeper were added after the session; the Shave 3 closing skin check was taken at about two hours, before the four-hour mark, and is reported as such. The ATG note is the same sentence in all three sessions and the Shave 2 WTG note repeats Shave 1, so neither is presented as a fresh observation.
• The brush finish was a prototype: the Silver 6061 Aluminum Line handle never entered the catalogue. The knot is a catalogue option on that series.
• n=1: one tester, one skin profile, one razor, no A/B isolation. Read it as a data point, not a population result.

Pairing Verdict

46.7 places the pairing second in the database. Two sessions at 47/50 on identical axes, a third at 46 with the lost point on smoothness, no nicks, and two weepers: one on an against-the-grain first pass on the neck, one on the first long stroke on the chin.

On a Vector TC4, with Proraso Sensitive built in a bowl and a two-pass routine, the pairing gave three usable shaves that read close to identical and had not reached an endpoint by the third. The record leaves open how the pairing runs on long strokes from the first use, past three uses, with another lather or brush, and how much of the placement belongs to the titanium Vector rather than the blade. The verdict applies to the pairing, not to the blade or the razor on its own.

Vector 316L owners: both variants use the same head geometry — the 0.76 mm blade gap and the same guard span — and differ in in-hand weight, 60 g for the TC4 titanium against 104 g for the 316L stainless. The shared geometry is a design fact, not a measured transfer: no entry in this database has run one blade on both materials, so these scores and this placement are not shown to carry over to a 316L. Take the row as a blade worth trying there rather than a predicted score.

Sources

• American Academy of Dermatology — How to shave (shave in the direction the hair grows)
• Cleveland Clinic — Razor Burn (shaving against the direction of hair growth as an irritation cause)
• AZoM — Ti-6Al-4V (Grade 5) titanium datasheet: density & elastic-modulus data for the TC4 alloy
• scienceofsharp — Quantifying Sharp (blade-edge apex width & bevel-angle metallurgy)
• ORMIXA blade-test shave logs — one skin profile, fixed rubric; method in the blade compatibility test methodology

Disclosure

Internal lab pairing test. Not sponsored. ORMIXA does not receive commercial consideration from any DE blade vendor for pairing data or scoring.

ORMIXA products are sold by ECE Innovate Homes LLC and manufactured by Guangzhou Yanyang Technology Co., Ltd. under trademark license.

ORMIXA does not sell razor blades. This was a retail pack purchased for evaluation. No company printed on the pack and no blade vendor has a commercial relationship to ORMIXA, ECE Innovate Homes LLC, or Guangzhou Yanyang Technology.

If you think manufacturer-conducted testing biases the methodology, fair concern. Video evidence is linked above for every session, the pairing rubric was published before testing started, and the database includes Vector pairings with blades whose makers are direct competitors. Send your own pairing data — we’ll compare.

Related

• ← Back to the full Vector Blade Compatibility Database
• A different Treet pack on the same razor — Vector TC4 × Treet Platinum Super Stainless →
• Same razor, soap, bowl and knot model — Vector TC4 × Shark Super Stainless →
• The razor used in this test — Vector TC4 →
• The brush line used in this test — Harbor →
• The bowl used in this test — Titanium Double-Wall →