AJO                                A Remington Razor

Remington's are a well-known brand of shavers.  I recently bought one that was on offer by the Daily Telegraph sales team.  It was, of course, brand new, but it didn't shave nearly as cleanly as a very old Philishave that I use.  The Philishave is over ten years old and has had everal new cutters and foils as well as a new pair of rechargeable cells.  It has been excellent value for money.  But why should a brand-new Remington not be superior to an old Philishave?  I examined the device and came to the following conclusion:

The Philips razor has a rotary cutter whereas the Remington has an oscillating cutter.  I can't see that this should make a lot of difference.  But the thing that I think is most likely to be the difference is that the Philips razor has slots in the foil whereas the Remington razor has holes in its foil.   And the way an electric razor is used is to move the device back and forward across the face.  With slots, the beard hairs are more likely to poke through the openings and be shorn off by the cutter.  The holes in the Remington razor are only tiny, and I feel that the hairs are much less likely to poke through the holes to be chopped off with the oscillating cutter.

If my theory is valid, this could be a useful criterion to use to judge the effectiveness of other razors without actually using them.  I imagine very narrow slots are more expensive to make than simple holes in the foil