TC4 Safety Razor Blade Test: A Manufacturer's Database

Every wet shaving forum thread eventually arrives at the same question: what blade should I use with my razor? Most answers are anecdotal — “I love Astras”, “Feathers are too sharp”, “Voskhods are underrated.” All of that is one person’s experience, usually after one shave, often on a razor totally unlike yours.

I’m the manufacturer of the ORMIXA Vector TC4 titanium safety razor. So I’m systematically testing every double-edge blade I can get my hands on — multiple shaves each, scored on a fixed rubric, with video evidence per session. This page is the live database.

Early stage: This database currently has 1 completed test (Voskhod). New blades are added every 2–3 weeks as each clears the full 3-shave cycle. Bookmark this page — it is updated on a rolling basis.

Why I’m Doing This

Three reasons.

First, I designed and machine the Vector. I should know — concretely, with data — how it performs across the full range of DE blades a customer might mount in it. “I tried Astras once and they’re fine” isn’t enough. This project forces deliberate, scored use across every major mass-market blade on the same physical razor.

Second, customers ask. Every week, several emails land in support: which blade with this razor? Until now my honest answer has been “try a sample pack.” A documented database — fixed rubric, video evidence, manufacturer-as-tester disclosure — is a better answer than passing the buck.

Third, calibration. The subtle interaction between a blade’s coating, its edge angle, and the Vector’s specific cap/baseplate geometry only becomes legible after enough blades have run through the same head. Each tested blade sharpens my read on what the geometry is actually doing — input for the next razor I machine.

A Note on the Razor Used

Every test in this database is conducted on the ORMIXA Vector razor. The Vector ships in two material versions:

• Vector 316L (surgical stainless steel) — $119
• Vector TC4 (aerospace titanium) — $189

Both versions share the same blade gap (0.76 mm), head geometry, and weight balance. The only differences are material-driven:

• TC4 dampens vibration more (you feel less blade chatter)
• 316L has slightly more perceived weight per stroke
• Coatings and finish wear patterns differ over years of use

For blade compatibility scoring, these material differences are irrelevant. A blade that scores high on the Vector TC4 will score high on the Vector 316L — the cutting geometry is identical. So this database serves owners of both versions equally.

(URL slug uses “tc4-titanium” because that’s the SEO-relevant keyword — but the data applies to all Vector owners.)

Full Vector specifications

For DE shavers who care about exact geometry (and you should — blade gap matters more than handle material):

Material differences (weight, vibration dampening) do not affect blade scoring — see Razor Note above.

Testing Methodology

Variables I control

• Razor: ORMIXA Vector TC4 Titanium — same physical unit. Specifications:
  • Blade gap: 0.76 mm
  • Blade exposure: 0.14 mm
  • Blade angle: 32°
  • Guard: closed comb, 1.84 mm span
  • Aggression: mild-to-moderate (suitable for 70–80% of DE shavers)
  Results transfer 1:1 to the Vector 316L variant — same blade gap and head geometry. See A Note on the Razor Used above.
• Pass pattern: WTG → ATG (2-pass). See “Why 2-pass instead of 3-pass” below for rationale.
• Pressure: minimal — let the razor’s weight do the cutting.

Why 2-pass instead of 3-pass

I run a 2-pass routine (WTG → ATG). I do not include an XTG transition pass.

In my testing on the Vector platform, XTG adds marginal closeness benefit but increases irritation likelihood. The 2-pass routine matches my actual daily shaving habit, and consistency across all 13 cluster reviews matters more than adopting a “theoretical standard” I don’t actually use.

Note: 2-pass on a 0.76mm blade gap mild razor still achieves SS-to-DFS levels for most blade/skin combinations. BBS targets require XTG, which is outside this test’s scope.

Pre-shave routine (constant across all 13 tests)

• Cold water splash for 5 seconds (no warm soak)
• ARKO shaving stick applied directly to face
• Lather with TA2 Titanium Line 26mm two-band badger brush (cold water)
• No pre-shave oil, no warm towel, no cream

Why this matters: I’m testing blade performance, not pre-shave routine effectiveness. Constants stay constant. Your routine may differ — adjust your interpretation accordingly.

Post-shave routine

• Cold water rinse
• Alum block applied (consistent across all tests)
• Sting/heat sensation noted as part of irritation scoring

Alum block is part of SOP because it’s part of my actual routine and gives a quick weeper detection signal — visible sting on micro-cuts you didn’t notice during the shave. Without it, irritation data would be less precise.

Variables I document but can’t control

• Beard growth at each shave: standardized at 72 hours since last shave from Shave 2 onward (Shave 1 is a 1-week-stubble baseline — see Methodology Deviations on each cluster).
• Skin condition: any visible irritation / dryness from prior shave
• Use number: shave 1, 2, or 3 of 3 for that blade
• Room temperature & humidity (logged from a shelf hygrometer)

Scoring Rubric

Each dimension is scored 1–10 per session. The blade’s per-session total is the sum across the five dimensions; final score is the average across the 3-shave cycle. Maximum: 50 points per shave.

Closeness (1-10)

• 10/10: True BBS, 48+ hours before re-shave needed
• 9/10: BBS, 4-6 hour peak window
• 8/10: DFS+ (very close, mild stubble in 12-18h)
• 7/10: SS (Socially Smooth) — what most people consider “well-shaved”
• 6/10: Mild stubble visible to touch
• 5/10: Clearly under-shaved
• 1-4: Failed shave

Smoothness (1-10) — drag/glide during the shave

• 10/10: Glass-on-glass, blade fully invisible to face
• 9/10: Effortless, no perceptible drag
• 8/10: Smooth with occasional micro-drag in difficult areas
• 7/10: Noticeable drag in 1-2 spots
• 6/10: Persistent drag requiring re-lather
• 5/10 or below: Painful pulling

Irritation (10 = zero irritation)

• 10/10: Zero weepers, zero alum sting, zero sensation
• 9/10: Zero weepers, light alum sensation only
• 8/10: 1 weeper OR mild post-shave tightness
• 7/10: 1-2 weepers OR alum heat sensation (warm not burning)
• 6/10: Razor burn within 2 hours
• 5/10 or below: Significant nicks, persistent burn

Audible feedback (1-10) — sound of blade vs hair

• 10/10: Crisp, satisfying click-cut
• 9/10: Clear cutting sound, no scraping
• 8/10: Mostly clean, occasional scrape
• 7/10: Mixed clean cut + drag sound
• 6/10 or below: Mostly scraping, blade not engaging

Lather compatibility (1-10)

• 10/10: Blade and lather work together, zero interference
• 9/10: Excellent, no clogging
• 8/10: Good, occasional rinse needed
• 7/10: Workable but blade clogs
• 6/10 or below: Lather/blade fight

Total: out of 50

(Longevity is captured in the Test Period Summary table’s “Fresh / Peak / Late” rows rather than as a single dimension — degradation shape over the 3-shave run is more informative than a one-number longevity grade.)

What I deliberately don’t score

• “Premium feel” — too biased.
• Packaging — irrelevant to the shave.
• Brand prestige — the entire point is to ignore this.

Test process

1. New blade installed. Baseline shave on 1-week stubble (Shave 1, recorded).
2. Same blade used for exactly 3 consecutive shaves. Shaves 2 and 3 are spaced 72 hours apart. This covers the full performance arc:
   • Shave 1 (fresh): coating breaks in, baseline cutting power read on 1-week stubble.
   • Shave 2 (peak, +72h from Shave 1): community data and my testing both confirm this is where most blades hit their best performance window.
   • Shave 3 (late, +72h from Shave 2): degradation signals, when most experienced wet shavers swap blades.
3. Score recorded immediately, before reading prior session notes.
4. Final score = average of all 3 sessions (out of 50 per shave).

Why exactly 3 shaves with 72-hour spacing?

• Sample size discipline: 3 is the minimum to capture a degradation curve (start / peak / decline). 2 isn’t enough; 4+ provides diminishing marginal data. Vendor claims of “5-7 max use” overstate real-world replacement habit (Sharpologist polls show 52% replace at 3-5).
• 72-hour spacing: at 72h, beard growth reaches ~0.6mm — long enough to reveal a blade’s true cutting character, short enough that hair density remains within a daily-shave reviewer’s frame of reference. 24-48h growth is too forgiving (most blades feel similar). 96h+ growth is too long (different mechanics — closer to beard-trimming territory).
• Skin recovery: 72h between sessions allows complete recovery from any micro-irritation. Faster cadence accumulates skin trauma that confounds blade-attributable scoring.
• Real-world relevance: “every 2-3 days” is one of the most common DE shaving cadences (per B&B forum threads), so testing at 72h matches actual user behavior — not artificially-easy 24h baby-stubble conditions some review sites use.
• Manufacturer’s prerogative: I’m the one machining the razor, so I get to set the testing condition that exposes the most performance differences. 72h is the stress test.

Data Source Note

The methodology above isn’t pulled from thin air — it draws on community consensus and published references where they exist:

• Beard growth at 72h reaches ~0.6mm — per the Gillette beard length guide.
• Skin recovery threshold and “best shaves at 2-4 days growth” reports — see the Badger & Blade forum thread on 3-day vs 1-day growth.
• Blade replacement habit polling (“52% of wet shavers swap at 3-5 shaves”) — per Sharpologist reader surveys.

These references inform the test cadence (72h between sessions) and the test cycle length (3 shaves total). They do not dictate the scoring rubric — that’s calibrated against what actually moves a blade’s perceived quality on the Vector TC4 specifically.

Important Caveats

This is a single-tester project. My results reflect:

• My technique and pressure habits
• The specific TC4 razor used — blade gap 0.76 mm, exposure 0.14 mm, closed comb (see full spec table above)

Your experience with the same blades may differ. Treat this database as a starting point — a way to narrow down which sample packs are worth ordering — not as absolute rankings.

I genuinely welcome contradicting experiences in Reddit threads or in my email. Counterexamples make the database better.

Disclosure

I designed and machine the ORMIXA Vector razor used in every test in this database. I do not sell blades — every blade tested in this project is purchased at retail, in my name, with my own money.

If you think the manufacturer-as-tester framing biases the methodology, fair concern. Three countermeasures:

1. Every session is recorded on video — full raw shave footage, not edited highlights. Videos are linked from each cluster review as they publish.
2. Methodology is published before testing. Results are scored against the published rubric — no retroactive adjustment to favor specific blades.
3. The current #1 isn’t a blade I sell. If a Russian factory blade beats premium Japanese coatings, I write that.

Send me your own data — I’ll compare.

Current Database

Sorted by total score, descending. Click any blade for the full review.

Additional rows are added as cluster reviews go live — see the Currently Testing Queue below for what’s in the pipeline.

Currently Testing Queue

Thirteen blades, 13 weeks. Each entry below has been purchased at retail and either tested or scheduled. Weeks correspond to the 72-hour-cadence cycle (3 shaves over 7 days = 1 week per blade, with overlap on writing weeks).

• W1 — Voskhod Teflon Coated (Russia, Mostochlegmash) — review published 2026-05-03 → read it
• W2 — Wilkinson Sword Saloon Pack (India) — currently testing
• W3 — Wilkinson Sword Classic (UK / Germany) — queued
• W4 — Astra Superior Platinum (Russia, P&G) — queued
• W5 — Gillette Silver Blue (Russia, P&G) — queued
• W6 — Gillette Nacet (Russia, P&G) — queued
• W7 — Personna Stainless (red, Israel) — queued
• W8 — Feather Hi-Stainless (Japan) — queued
  Note: this is the standard Hi-Stainless (black tin), not the Platinum variant (blue tin). The cluster review will differentiate the two products explicitly.
• W9 — Iridium Super / Wizamet (Russia, P&G) — queued
  Note: Wizamet Super Iridium is the official successor to the legendary Polsilver Super Iridium — same factory, same recipe, different label.
• W10 — Derby Premium (Turkey) — queued
• W11 — Gillette Perma-Sharp (Turkey) — queued
• W12 — Gillette 7 O’Clock Super Stainless (India) — queued
• W13 — Derby Extra (Turkey) — queued

This first batch spans six production regions — Russia (5 blades), Turkey (3), India (2), Israel (1), Japan (1), and UK / Germany (1). A second batch (W14+) will fill in Egypt (Shark Super Stainless), Greece (BIC Chrome Platinum), Italy (Bolzano Superinox), and Pakistan (Treet) among others.

If a blade you care about isn’t on either list, email me and I’ll add it to the buy queue.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will the rankings change?

Yes. As I accumulate more shaves on each blade and as new blades enter the database, rankings shift. The ranking table at the top is the current state — never the final state.

Why test on a TC4 titanium razor specifically?

The razor’s material affects vibration dampening, perceived weight, and how blade feedback transmits to your hand. Titanium dampens differently than zinc or stainless.

Do these results apply to the Vector 316L (stainless steel)?

Yes — directly. Same blade gap (0.76 mm), same head geometry. A blade ranked #1 here will rank #1 on the 316L.

The only context where material matters: TC4’s vibration dampening makes harsh blades (e.g., Feather) feel slightly less aggressive. On a 316L, the same blade transmits more feedback to your hand. Adjust your expectation by ~10% feedback intensity if you’re a 316L owner reading TC4-specific notes.

Are these results applicable to non-Vector razors?

Partially. The biggest variable for blade behavior is blade gap. My razor has a 0.76 mm gap with 0.14 mm exposure, which sits in the mild-to-moderate aggression range — suitable for roughly 70–80% of DE shavers.

If your razor has similar parameters (gap 0.5–0.85 mm, exposure under 0.2 mm, closed comb), my rankings should transfer reasonably well. If your razor is significantly more aggressive (gap > 1 mm, open comb), the ranking order may invert — sharper / harsher blades that I rate down may suit your setup better, and the smoother blades I favor may feel underpowered on a more aggressive head.

How can I trust this?

Every test session has video evidence and methodology is published above. See the Disclosure section for the full bias acknowledgment and countermeasures.

When will [specific blade] be tested?

See the queue above. New cluster reviews ship every 2-3 weeks (physical test cycle is the bottleneck — each blade needs a full week of shaves before it’s ready to write up).

Where do you buy these blades?

From Chinese Taobao listings. That’s where I’m based, and Taobao has the broadest DE blade selection at the lowest per-blade cost in mainland China. Counterfeit Voskhod and Astra packs exist on every large marketplace — Taobao included — so seller reputation is cross-checked before each order.

For international readers, Taobao isn’t realistic and I won’t recommend vendors I haven’t bought from myself. Wet-shaving community forums (Badger & Blade, /r/wicked_edge) maintain rolling per-vendor authenticity threads — those are more current than a static list here, and let you cross-check against recent counterfeit reports before you place an order.

About This Project

I started this project because every customer email asked me “what blade?” and my honest answer was “I don’t know — I never tested systematically.” Now I’m fixing that.

The razor used in every test is the same physical unit — my personal daily driver.

Read the full ORMIXA story →

Want to Try TC4 Yourself?

If you want to validate this testing methodology with your own blades, the Vector TC4 is the same razor I’m using in every test.

ORMIXA Vector TC4 →