Does Treet Platinum Pair With the Vector TC4?

Vector TC4 × Treet Platinum Super Stainless safety razor blade pairing data — three shaves on the same physical blade. The pairing averaged 47.0/50 (47 / 47 / 47), placing it first of the fourteen pairings in the database. No axis moved across the three uses, including the third, which came after a 163-hour interval.

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 — Treet Platinum Super Stainless Identification

Everything in this section comes off the photographs of the tested pack. Each printed carrier is recorded separately, because one pack can print different strings on different surfaces.

• Box front: Treet, PLATINUM and SUPER STAINLESS BLADE.
• Back panel: Treet, PLATINUM, TREET CORPORATION LTD., ISO 9001:2008 Certified Company, Made in Pakistan, www.treetblade.com, barcode 7398220001185, and an ink-jet batch code partly covered by the printed logo.
• Top flap and bottom end: the flap reads DO NOT WIPE BLADE / LEAVE BLADE IN RAZOR / OPEN HERE; the bottom end reads 5 BLADES, the only place the pack prints its count.
• Blade wrapper: two layers, a plain wax-paper inner sleeve inside a printed paper wrapper reading TREET CORPORATION LTD., PAKISTAN, PLATINUM, SUPER STAINLESS BLADE and DO NOT WIPE BLADE / LEAVE BLADE IN RAZOR.
• Blade stamp: Treet and PLATINUM SUPER STAINLESS. The tested blade also carries hand-written use-count marks, which cross the stamp without hiding it.

Origin rests on the printed Made in Pakistan line, and the wrapper repeats the country beside the company name. The brand and the company on the pack share the Treet name, so there is no separate producer to report. The barcode is recorded as printed and plays no part in the origin call.

The pack prints no street address, names neither a distributor nor an importer, and gives no steel grade or finish specification. Platinum appears here as the line name printed on the pack and nothing more. The identification exists to say which blade was tested. It is not a quality judgement of 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, Black, 26 mm Two Band Badger bulb, soaked in tap water ~1 minute (this build is not a catalogue configuration: the catalogue sells the 6061 Aluminum Line with synthetic knots and fits badger knots to the TA2 Titanium Line and the 6061 Aluminum Axis)
• 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)
• Post-shave: alum block
• Sessions: 3 shaves, 99h / 72h / 163h apart
• Conditions: 30 °C / 75% humidity, skin normal (all three sessions)

Lather condition: this series used Proraso Sensitive bowl-lathered on the Vector TC4, the same combination as the Shark Super run. The other eight Proraso entries (Astra SP, Personna, Iridium Super, Dorco Prime, Feather, Nacet, Silver Blue and Derby) ran the Vector 316L, so the razor changes across every one of them. See Cross-Pairing Reference for what that leaves comparable.

Test Period Summary

Three sessions on one physical blade, scored on the same five axes:

3-shave scores at a glance

Day-by-Day

Shave 1 (2026-09-24, 99h growth)

First blade out of the pack, wrapped twice: a wax-paper sleeve inside a printed paper wrapper. The WTG pass cut crisply with clear audible feedback, and long strokes ran without the edge making itself felt. ATG held wide angle tolerance and finished clean enough to reach SS on a 2-pass routine. No nicks, no weepers. Alum read mild overall; the skin was calm at 30 minutes and fully relaxed by the 4-hour follow-up.

Shave 2 (2026-09-27, 72h growth)

Every scored axis repeated the opening session, for a second 47/50. The session log records the edge as little different from the first use, and its WTG and ATG notes repeat Shave 1’s wording unchanged, so the scores and event counts carry this session. Those were again clean: no nicks, no weepers, alum mild overall and the skin fully relaxed at four hours.

Shave 3 (2026-10-04, 163h growth)

This session came close to seven days after the second, and the session log records the stubble as noticeably longer and denser than at either earlier shave. The scores did not move: closeness 7, the other four axes at 10, a third 47/50. The pass notes again repeat Shave 1, and the session summary adds that closeness and the after-shave skin both held up against the heavier growth. No nicks and no weepers for the third time running.

What Worked in the Pairing

No axis moved across three uses

All five axes read the same at every session. In the database, two entries have gone three sessions without moving a point: this one, at 47/50, and Feather.

The longest interval changed nothing

The third session followed 163 hours of growth, more than twice the second session’s 72. Heavier stubble asks more of the edge on both passes, which makes it the session most likely to show drag or draw blood. Neither happened, and no score moved.

A blood-free record

Three sessions, six passes, no nicks and no weepers. The Vector TC4 holds the blade where the 0.76 mm gap puts it, and across the run that geometry stayed predictable enough that no pass drew blood. A clean nick column appears on nine of the fourteen pairings in the database; this run also kept its weeper column at zero.

Bowl lather matched cleanly

Lather compatibility scored a flat 10 with Proraso Sensitive built in the titanium bowl, and the lather held its slickness through both passes at every session.

Friction Points in the Pairing

Closeness sat at 7 — set by the 2-pass protocol

The 7 reflects the protocol. Every entry in this database runs WTG → ATG with XTG skipped and SS as the target, and closeness is scored against that target. The touch grade was SS at all three sessions; reaching closer would take a pass the protocol does not run.

Three uses did not find the limit

Testing stopped at three uses with every axis where it started. The record supports a three-use window and carries no blade-life endpoint, so anyone reading it for cost-per-shave should treat three as where the data stops.

Two sessions lean on the scores

The pass notes for Shaves 2 and 3 repeat Shave 1 word for word. Each of those sessions opens its log with a fresh line recording the edge as little changed and carries its own scores, so the flat curve rests on per-session scores and event counts. The repeated pass notes add no independent detail about those two sessions.

Difficult Areas (Pairing on this skin profile)

The per-area fields for jaw line, neck, upper lip and the area under the chin were left blank in all three sessions, and no area was named anywhere else in the record. They are reported as unrecorded rather than as clean, since a blank field and a recorded zero are not the same evidence. What the record does show is that no session produced a nick or a weeper on any area.

Pairing Recommendation for Vector TC4 Owners

Conditions where the data supports this pairing for you:

• You want an edge that reads the same use after use — no axis moved across three uses of one blade, including one after a 163-hour interval.
• You go several days between shaves — the longest gap in this run produced the same scores as the 72-hour one.
• You bowl-lather a Proraso-type soft soap — lather compatibility held a flat 10 across the series.
• You weigh skin events heavily — no nicks and no weepers across six passes.

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

• You target maximum closeness / BBS — this run produced SS closeness on a conservative 2-pass; reaching closer would need an XTG pass outside the test protocol.
• You want a known blade-life figure — testing stopped at three uses with nothing yet moving, 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/UHOiCSHq5Fk
• Shave 2 of 3: youtu.be/IoP-tfQlFC4
• Shave 3 of 3: youtu.be/3foLJljnsrE

Cross-Pairing Reference

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

Closest comparison: Shark Super Stainless. It ran the same Vector TC4, the same Proraso Sensitive built in the same titanium bowl, and the same 2-pass protocol, and averaged 45.7 (46 / 46 / 45) against 47.0 here. The 1.3 between them sits on two axes: irritation scored 10 in every session of this run and 9 in every session of Shark’s, and Shark gave back a point of closeness at its third use. It is still not a single-variable comparison. Shark ran a Harbor 6061 Aluminum Axis brush with a synthetic knot and this run a 6061 Aluminum Line with a badger knot; the intervals differed; and Shark’s brush went unsoaked on two of its sessions. On this data the irritation point cannot be assigned to the blade rather than the brush.

The eight other 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)) share the lather and ran the Vector 316L, so every gap to them carries the razor as a second variable. Placed among all the Proraso rows this pairing’s 47.0 comes first; against the 316L rows that placement measures the razor as well as the blade.

Against the ARKO face-lathered rows — Perma-Sharp, Voskhod, Wilkinson Classic and Wilkinson Saloon Pack — the lather changed. Voskhod shares this pairing’s Vector TC4; the other three ran the Vector 316L and so carry the razor as well. The flat 10 on the lather axis here says this pairing works with a bowl-built Proraso lather on a titanium Vector; it says nothing about how this blade would score under theirs.

→ Full Vector Blade Compatibility Database

Methodology Notes

Transparency about the boundaries of this 3-shave run:

• Nearest comparison is not single-variable: Shark Super shares this run’s razor, soap, bowl and protocol, but the brush (badger against synthetic) and the intervals differ. 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. A comparison body running the same blade on the Vector 316L would be needed to separate the two contributions.
• Intervals varied, and the longest moved nothing: the sessions ran 99h, 72h and 163h apart. The third use and the longest interval landed on the same session, so the session most likely to show wear on either count was the one that showed none.
• The brush was not a catalogue build: the 6061 Aluminum Line handle carried a badger knot, a combination the catalogue does not sell. Brush and knot change how the lather is built and carried to the face, which is part of why the Shark comparison above stays two-variable.
• Closeness was calibrated against the touch grade: the contemporaneous closeness figures were written at 10 while the touch grade was recorded as SS in all three sessions. The published scores follow the rubric’s anchor, where SS sits at 6–7, and the original values are kept in the source record. The other four axes are untouched.
• Repeated pass notes: the WTG and ATG notes for Shaves 2 and 3 repeat Shave 1’s wording. Those sessions carry their own scores, event counts, opening lines and video, and the article does not present the repeated notes as fresh observations.
• Three uses, no endpoint: the run stopped at three sessions with touch still SS and no axis moving. A three-use window is the only claimable range.
• 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

47.0 places the pairing first in the database. The curve is three identical sessions at 47/50 with nothing on the skin record, and the session that tested the margin hardest — the longest interval, the heaviest stubble — read the same as the first.

What this run establishes is narrow: on a Vector TC4, with Proraso Sensitive built in a bowl and a conservative two-pass routine, this blade held an unchanged three-shave window, including after nearly a week of growth, and had not run out by the end of it. What it does not establish is how the pairing behaves past three uses, how it behaves with a different lather or brush, or how much of the placement belongs to the blade rather than to the titanium Vector it ran on. The verdict applies to the pairing, not to the blade and not to the razor on their own.

Vector 316L owners: the two variants share the same head geometry — the 0.76 mm blade gap and the same guard span — and differ in in-hand weight, at 60 g for the TC4 titanium against 104 g for the 316L stainless. That shared geometry is a design fact. It is not a measured transfer: no entry in this database runs one blade on both materials, so these scores and this placement are not shown to repeat on a 316L. Read the row as a blade worth trying there, not as a predicted score.

Sources

• AZoM — Ti-6Al-4V (Grade 5) titanium datasheet: density & elastic-modulus data for the TC4 alloy
• American Academy of Dermatology — How to shave (shaving with the grain & lather to reduce irritation)
• Cleveland Clinic — Razor Burn (friction, dull blade & against-the-grain as irritation causes)
• 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. Neither the pack’s manufacturer nor any 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
• Same razor, soap and bowl — Vector TC4 × Shark Super Stainless →
• Another curve that never moved, on the 316L — Vector 316L × Feather Hi-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 →