Just two days ago, I was speaking with a customer when he pointed out something I had nearly overlooked — the Zhuque performance chart was never uploaded. So I took the opportunity to upgrade the entire shaving knot performance chart. The goal is simple: I want to create a more intuitive way for you to evaluate a knot's performance.
Combined with my earlier article on the logic behind performance parameters, I hope this visual representation will genuinely save you some time when choosing.
But here's what I really want to talk about:
Performance charts have their limitations.
Yes, it's difficult to fit different types of hair into a single radar chart for comparison. Even Asian badger (Hog badger / Meles leucurus) and Eurasian badger (Dog badger / Meles meles) can't be accurately compared side by side.
A quick note on naming: you'll often see Asian badger and Eurasian badger used in the wet shaving community, which can be confusing for newcomers — suggesting one comes from Asia and the other from Europe. In reality, both types originate from China. The names simply refer to two different species with distinct hair characteristics. I mention this because I want to avoid the common misunderstanding that "Eurasian" means European-sourced. Both are Chinese badgers, just different kinds.
Because the current radar chart parameters simply can't capture the extremely fine, silky smooth feel of Eurasian badger — and in this regard, Eurasian badger is absolutely dominant. You could even say it's a property unique to this type of hair.
The same issue applies to Synthetic hair knots. This is a cross-material performance comparison, which by nature isn't rigorous. But at the same time, Oumo's Super Fiber series hasn't yet formed its own independent system. If I listed synthetic fiber performance charts separately, there would be no unified basis for comparison.
Still, to judge a knot's basic characteristics, we rely on conventional parameters — like the eight metrics listed in the radar chart. In terms of coverage, we believe these parameters are sufficient to reflect a product's performance.
But here's the catch: any change in Loft or Handle opening size will affect these data points to varying degrees. At this point, you might think: with so many variables, aren't these numbers unreliable?
Actually, the opposite is true — in practice, they are controllable.
Because all data is collected under identical testing conditions. For example, a 25mm knot is tested with a 26.5mm Handle opening, at our default Loft setting. The differences recorded are purely performance variations under the same conditions.
In short: under identical testing conditions, the performance differences shown by these products are highly valuable for reference.
If we wanted to be truly rigorous — accounting for every handmade variation, even a 0.5g difference in filling weight — building a fully predictable, scientific system would require, by my rough estimate, over 20 different parameters, plus extensive explanations of how they interact with each other.
I think that's too hardcore. Wet shaving isn't rocket science. It doesn't need to be that serious.
One more thing: I considered replacing "Scritch" with "Softness" in the radar chart for better consistency. Scritch carries a slightly negative connotation, but in actual reviews and tactile descriptions, it appears far more frequently than Softness.
About Tips Length — this is a parameter almost nobody talks about, but it's a very hardcore metric. Tips Length is a physical property of high-grade hair. It is the only data point that directly correlates with hair grade. In other words, it determines the performance ceiling of a knot. Everything else can be adjusted through parameter tuning.
Origin:
Tyrant T-10:
Manchuria M-9:
These data points interact with each other. Some exceptionally high-performance hair can even break through certain parameter limits. Take Origin, for example — it scores strongly across multiple parameters. Under the same tuning, Tyrant and Manchuria simply can't achieve those scores. This is performance dominance at the raw material level — what I call a high enough performance ceiling.
Epoch:
ZhuQue:
The Unsullied:
Then there are special products like Epoch, which are hard to fully capture on a chart. But you can still sense its uniqueness from certain parameters — in its completely natural, untreated state, it still produces only the slightest hint of Scritch. Under the same tuning, something like The Unsullied shows much stronger Scritch. For Asian badger, Gel Tips is theoretically the opposite of Scritch. The same phenomenon appears in Zhuque's performance chart. But unlike Epoch, Zhuque achieves this purely through its exceptionally long Tip Length.
So, premium and specialty raw materials can, to some extent, break the balance between parameters, resulting in tactile experiences that go beyond conventional expectations.
I won't go through every example here. In short, if you're not overly concerned with the logic behind these parameters, the radar chart is perfectly sufficient for reference.
If you want to dive deeper into badger hair — or become something of an expert on it — feel free to reach out to me directly. I'll be happy to provide a more detailed and in-depth interpretation.
Thank you for reading.
Carry