• Domain Change - We have moved to https://paste-and-cut.com as our new domain.

    If you are using shortcuts or bookmarks for the old paste-and-cut.com.au domain, you need to update these or they will cease working from the 25th January, 2025. Please check the notice post for more details on this change to the forum.

Two completely different GEM Micromatic Open Comb base plate model

SpeedyPC

SpeedyPC

NEEDS more soaps ...
Grand Society
2017 Sabbatical Fail
2018 Charity Auction Winner
G'day P&C,

I've noticed something very strange about the GEM Micromatic Open Comb if you can see two round bumps on each end of the base plate, I've also notices on the Bullet Tip as well and they've got two round bumps on each end shown. My question is why the gold GEM Micromatic Open Comb doesn't have to two bumps shown on each end, because I began to understand the GEM blade will be completely flat on the base plate. Has anybody can tell the differences between shaving performance on each GEM razor, or do they both shave exactly the same regardless of the two bumps as shown below.

IMG_0103.jpg
 
Last edited:
can’t say I noted a difference but that’s me..
 
I have heard that some open comb MM have no bumps while most do. They are supposed to be more aggresive. I think the bumps were added when the blade thickness changed the MMOC , with bumps, being the first Gem that takes the modern thinner blades and retains the original angle so with no bumps needs the thicker spine of the old blade. Also without the bumps you couldn't use the Micromatic DE blade, which has no spine, perhaps they were added simply to use the "new" Micromatic blades
 
Last edited:
Sticky said:
I have heard that some open comb MM have no bumps while most do. They are supposed to be more aggresive. I think the bumps were added when the blade thickness changed the MMOC , with bumps, being the first Gem that takes the modern thinner blades and retains the original angle so with no bumps needs the thicker spine of the old blade. Also without the bumps you couldn't use the Micromatic DE blade, which has no spine, perhaps they were added simply to use the "new" Micromatic blades
Click to expand...

I've read that about the bumps being for the DE/spineless blade.
 
Sticky said:
I have heard that some open comb MM have no bumps while most do. They are supposed to be more aggresive. I think the bumps were added when the blade thickness changed the MMOC , with bumps, being the first Gem that takes the modern thinner blades and retains the original angle so with no bumps needs the thicker spine of the old blade. Also without the bumps you couldn't use the Micromatic DE blade, which has no spine, perhaps they were added simply to use the "new" Micromatic blades
Click to expand...
+1 @Sticky - thats what I have read also. The older GEM blades had a slightly thicker spine and the "bumps" allowed the newer, thinner spined blades to give the same angle, and "aggression" .
 
In actually using them both can u guys tell a difference? As previously posted I can’t remeber a marked difference when I was going through my Gem phase
 
When reading this thread I thought maybe I've seen something about this in the shaveden a long time ago, but haha, you already posted there.
I only have two micromatics now, a clogpruf and standard OC and both have the bumps.
Definitely makes sense to say either:
they were for the later models with thinner blades, to raise them up to the correct angle. So if you're using a modern SE blade with an older MM then it's at the wrong angle if this is true. Surely people with both types would have noticed this?
Or, they are for the reversible blades as they obviously don't have a spine at all.

I think it's for reversible blades as looking at my MM right now it looks like the blade spine hit's the base at the same time as the bump. And also I think the MM was designed for thin SE blades anyway - total redesign with side notches compared the the 1914 model (which had stroppers, thick blades and specifically doesn't work well with the side notched blades thin blades the MM came out using).
E: Actually the 1924 needed thick blades too didn't it? Can't remember as mine broke long ago. I think the MM came out with a thinner blade in the first place to take the fight to DE razors blade cost, then the bumps appeared in later models to make them compatible with the reversible micromatic blade.
 
Last edited:
Ferret619 said:
In actually using them both can u guys tell a difference? As previously posted I can’t remeber a marked difference when I was going through my Gem phase
Click to expand...
I only have the bumps so I haven't had a chance to compare. I do remember reading somewhere that because of the slight difference in angle the no bumps was more aggressive. If the spine and the bumps on a modern blade contact at the same time this shouldn't be so and it would just be for the reversible as @shavenardo says. Perhaps @SpeedyPC will experiment and let us know if he can tell a difference in the shave
 
I've been thinking about this because I'm bored/boring. While checking my damaskeene there's a used vintage blade in the case that was "duridium" and it had a thicker spine - and it was a later blade type (had micromatic notches that 1920s blades do not).
When looking up info on the net/googlebooks/period mags I found out it was a blade advertised all the way to 1952. Not sure if they kept the spine thickness to that date, so I kept digging. BTW the spine thickness difference to a modern SE blade is about the thickness of a DE blade, so angle change on a MM would be 1/2 the thickness of a DE blade. Ad says fits all GEM razors - nothing about being too thick for micromatics that have the bumps.
Anyway, looking up the patents of the MM (1929) said it included reversible blade option for the first 1930 model. So not sure why any MM was made without the bumps. First mention of a reversible blade being available though is 1932.

Lastly my clog-pruf micromatic came with blades and not sure which, if any were original.
RlSB15N.jpg


The top blade is the duridium from my damaskeen case
second blade that is for micromatic is actually the same thickness as the thicker duridium
3 & 4 clearly marked as for micromatic (and all GEM razors!) is thinner, the same as a modern SE blade

It's like GEM didn't care about blade (spine) thickness at all, so wouldn't have put the bumps in just due to that.
I would love to know which micromatic blade is older - the thick one or the thin spine ones. Plus which one shipped with a clog-pruf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top