Different Artesian same head/handles

Let me help with a couple definitions, just so we're clear.

Cheap
adjective
1.
costing very little; relatively low in price; inexpensive:
a cheap dress.
2.
costing little labor or trouble

Knockoff
noun
1.
an act or instance of knocking off.
2.
an unlicensed copy of something, especially fashion clothing, intended to be sold at a lower price than the original.

One of the synonyms of 'cheap' is 'inexpensive'. It is the same meaning as what you're saying, so we should be okay there.

How about 'knockoff'? It says in the definition it is a copy, which you also claim. And unless these razors were licensed by Merkur, it is an unlicensed copy, or 'knockoff'.

Now that you understand these words more clearly, and you have already agreed upon the politically correct words of the same meaning, we can agree these razors are 'cheap knockoffs', no different from the fake Rolexes ghetto hustlers push.

About price, original designs cost more due to R&D, marketing of a new, untested design, generally higher quality materials, and other factors. I appreciate ingenuity, originality, craftsmanship, hard work, entrepreneurial risk taking, quality materials, etc.

What knockoff artists do is ride the coattails, and basically steal by exact copies, the ideas and work of these innovators. (If you think a Merkur looks the same as a Gillette, I have a bridge to sell you! Patent law has already worked out these arguments, BTW, check it out.) The reason you are able to buy a Merkur clone so cheaply, is because you're buying from intellectual thieves. This is why physical thieves are able to sell you big screen TV's at a fraction of the retail cost. Do you buy from them too, in the name of 'price' and 'affordability'? Or is the only thing holding you back the fear or getting arrested, rather than any silly ethical concern?

The knockoff artist is only half of the scam. The other half is the vendor. They don't tell you what you're buying is a clone/knockoff. They conceal this fact, and rebrand it, to build a name for themselves. Why would they hide this? Why aren't they completely transparent about the product's provenance? Maybe cause they are a little embarrassed, and maybe cause they know people will be less likely to buy a product they know is a cheap knockoff. In other words, these vendors must hide or blur the truth to get people's money. You may know the truth, but most people are unaware.

If you have to steal exact designs and deceive people to get their money, I really don't care how well it shaves or how 'affordable' it is. The shave ain't worth the sick feeling in my stomach.

Tell you what, you want a 'affordable' shave that doesn't border on criminality? Check out the Rocnel SE: http://damnfineshave.com/thread-rocnel-se-review

Can't say how it shaves, but looks original, is affordable, and otherwise has my complete endorsement.

Let me help with a couple definitions, just so we're clear.

Cheap
adjective
1.
costing very little; relatively low in price; inexpensive:
a cheap dress.
2.
costing little labor or trouble

Cheap is also used to reference inferior quality in a colloquial and commonly accepted sense, where "inexpensive" is used to describe something of a quality higher than it's price tag. No, the two are not directly synonymous.

Knockoff
noun
1.
an act or instance of knocking off.
2.
an unlicensed copy of something, especially fashion clothing, intended to be sold at a lower price than the original.

Knockoff is a slang term used to describe generic products that are illegally manufactured against copyright and patent laws. Again...not applicable in this sense.

One of the synonyms of 'cheap' is 'inexpensive'. It is the same meaning as what you're saying, so we should be okay there.

Not when you choose to use the word cheap in the colloquial manner, directly insinuating inferior quality products with a tone of condescension.

How about 'knockoff'? It says in the definition it is a copy, which you also claim. And unless these razors were licensed by Merkur, it is an unlicensed copy, or 'knockoff'.

Merkur does not have to license something to which the patent has expired. Patents are not permanent. It would help if you understood that legal fact. They expire. It is how the free market exists.

Now that you understand these words more clearly, and you have already agreed upon the politically correct words of the same meaning, we can agree these razors are 'cheap knockoffs', no different from the fake Rolexes ghetto hustlers push.

I understand these words both in their strict definitions and in their colloquial forms. It is you that does not seem to understand how important context is.

Here, you are comparing valid businesses to "ghetto hustlers" which is simply insulting and infuriating on multiple levels. A vendor paying to have a company manufacture LEGAL CLONES of a NON-PATENTED product design is vastly different than sticking fake labels on a an inferior item and hocking them on a street corner without a business license.

About price, original designs cost more due to R&D, marketing of a new, untested design, generally higher quality materials, and other factors. I appreciate ingenuity, originality, craftsmanship, hard work, entrepreneurial risk taking, quality materials, etc.

BLABLABLA...doesn't take a lot of R&D to reproduce a similar design to something that has been being made for 100 years. Sorry, you fall flat on your face. Nice try though.

What knockoff artists do is ride the coattails, and basically steal by exact copies, the ideas and work of these innovators. (If you think a Merkur looks the same as a Gillette, I have a bridge to sell you! Patent law has already worked out these arguments, BTW, check it out.) The reason you are able to buy a Merkur clone so cheaply, is because you're buying from intellectual thieves. This is why physical thieves are able to sell you big screen TV's at a fraction of the retail cost. Do you buy from them too, in the name of 'price' and 'affordability'? Or is the only thing holding you back the fear or getting arrested, rather than any silly ethical concern?

The knockoff artist is only half of the scam. The other half is the vendor. They don't tell you what you're buying is a clone/knockoff. They conceal this fact, and rebrand it, to build a name for themselves. Why would they hide this? Why aren't they completely transparent about the product's provenance? Maybe cause they are a little embarrassed, and maybe cause they know people will be less likely to buy a product they know is a cheap knockoff. In other words, these vendors must hide or blur the truth to get people's money. You may know the truth, but most people are unaware.

If you have to steal exact designs and deceive people to get their money, I really don't care how well it shaves or how 'affordable' it is. The shave ain't worth the sick feeling in my stomach.

Tell you what, you want a 'affordable' shave that doesn't border on criminality? Check out the Rocnel SE: http://damnfineshave.com/thread-rocnel-se-review

Can't say how it shaves, but looks original, is affordable, and otherwise has my complete endorsement.

So...look at it logically, for a small second, if you will...

Merkur does not hold a patent on a solid bar or open comb razor any longer. Neither does Gillette. This is why Wolfman is ALSO allowed to make "expensive knockoffs" of their products and sell his "stolen designs" under his own label.

NONE of the vendors selling razors for $15-20 has EVER called them an original design. In fact, the vast majority are proud to claim that their razors are based on either a Merkur or EJ89 design, or whatever else they have chosen to clone. They also advertise precisely where they are made and out of what materials, so no ethical qualms there...100% up front.

You clearly do not understand even the finer points of patent law, nor do you comprehend the obvious fact that all modern DE razors are based on designs that are older than the manufacturers currently making them. Do you really think Gillette would let Wolfman and ATT make razors that are virtually identical to their original design if they had a legal leg to stand on?

You are a very condescending individual, and it makes no sense to have a logical discussion with someone that refuses to see logic, so I bid you good day, and have fun.

If the vendors are transparent about it, I have less of a concern... But I haven't really seen much of that.

And if you can't tell the difference between a Merkur and a Gillette, I don't think you can understand anything else I have to say.

If you are insulted by the strict dictionary definition of the very thing we're talking about, all I can say is I'm not going to sugar coat and hide the truth the way these vendors do to sooth your conscience. Call a spade a spade.

And if your only problem with ghetto hustlers selling fake Rolexes is that they don't have a business license... Maybe you'd buy from them too if they paid for the licensing fee to sell to you.

We just have a different set of ethics, I suspect. Hope that works out for you.

This is starting to make my head hurt and I started this thread .... When razor talk turns to Webster Merrium meets Saul Goodman that's my cue to get a beer... Several of them.

my opinion has always been: use whatever works best for you, whether it's a $1,000 razor or a $2 antique shop find.

Thank you!

Let me help with a couple definitions, just so we're clear.

Cheap
adjective
1.
costing very little; relatively low in price; inexpensive:
a cheap dress.
2.
costing little labor or trouble

Cheap is also used to reference inferior quality in a colloquial and commonly accepted sense, where "inexpensive" is used to describe something of a quality higher than it's price tag. No, the two are not directly synonymous.

Knockoff
noun
1.
an act or instance of knocking off.
2.
an unlicensed copy of something, especially fashion clothing, intended to be sold at a lower price than the original.

Knockoff is a slang term used to describe generic products that are illegally manufactured against copyright and patent laws. Again...not applicable in this sense.

One of the synonyms of 'cheap' is 'inexpensive'. It is the same meaning as what you're saying, so we should be okay there.

Not when you choose to use the word cheap in the colloquial manner, directly insinuating inferior quality products with a tone of condescension.

How about 'knockoff'? It says in the definition it is a copy, which you also claim. And unless these razors were licensed by Merkur, it is an unlicensed copy, or 'knockoff'.

Merkur does not have to license something to which the patent has expired. Patents are not permanent. It would help if you understood that legal fact. They expire. It is how the free market exists.

Now that you understand these words more clearly, and you have already agreed upon the politically correct words of the same meaning, we can agree these razors are 'cheap knockoffs', no different from the fake Rolexes ghetto hustlers push.

I understand these words both in their strict definitions and in their colloquial forms. It is you that does not seem to understand how important context is.

Here, you are comparing valid businesses to "ghetto hustlers" which is simply insulting and infuriating on multiple levels. A vendor paying to have a company manufacture LEGAL CLONES of a NON-PATENTED product design is vastly different than sticking fake labels on a an inferior item and hocking them on a street corner without a business license.

About price, original designs cost more due to R&D, marketing of a new, untested design, generally higher quality materials, and other factors. I appreciate ingenuity, originality, craftsmanship, hard work, entrepreneurial risk taking, quality materials, etc.

BLABLABLA...doesn't take a lot of R&D to reproduce a similar design to something that has been being made for 100 years. Sorry, you fall flat on your face. Nice try though.

What knockoff artists do is ride the coattails, and basically steal by exact copies, the ideas and work of these innovators. (If you think a Merkur looks the same as a Gillette, I have a bridge to sell you! Patent law has already worked out these arguments, BTW, check it out.) The reason you are able to buy a Merkur clone so cheaply, is because you're buying from intellectual thieves. This is why physical thieves are able to sell you big screen TV's at a fraction of the retail cost. Do you buy from them too, in the name of 'price' and 'affordability'? Or is the only thing holding you back the fear or getting arrested, rather than any silly ethical concern?

The knockoff artist is only half of the scam. The other half is the vendor. They don't tell you what you're buying is a clone/knockoff. They conceal this fact, and rebrand it, to build a name for themselves. Why would they hide this? Why aren't they completely transparent about the product's provenance? Maybe cause they are a little embarrassed, and maybe cause they know people will be less likely to buy a product they know is a cheap knockoff. In other words, these vendors must hide or blur the truth to get people's money. You may know the truth, but most people are unaware.

If you have to steal exact designs and deceive people to get their money, I really don't care how well it shaves or how 'affordable' it is. The shave ain't worth the sick feeling in my stomach.

Tell you what, you want a 'affordable' shave that doesn't border on criminality? Check out the Rocnel SE: http://damnfineshave.com/thread-rocnel-se-review

Can't say how it shaves, but looks original, is affordable, and otherwise has my complete endorsement.

So...look at it logically, for a small second, if you will...

Merkur does not hold a patent on a solid bar or open comb razor any longer. Neither does Gillette. This is why Wolfman is ALSO allowed to make "expensive knockoffs" of their products and sell his "stolen designs" under his own label.

NONE of the vendors selling razors for $15-20 has EVER called them an original design. In fact, the vast majority are proud to claim that their razors are based on either a Merkur or EJ89 design, or whatever else they have chosen to clone. They also advertise precisely where they are made and out of what materials, so no ethical qualms there...100% up front.

You clearly do not understand even the finer points of patent law, nor do you comprehend the obvious fact that all modern DE razors are based on designs that are older than the manufacturers currently making them. Do you really think Gillette would let Wolfman and ATT make razors that are virtually identical to their original design if they had a legal leg to stand on?

You are a very condescending individual, and it makes no sense to have a logical discussion with someone that refuses to see logic, so I bid you good day, and have fun.

And with this eloquent response, I say to Mr. L,

If the vendors are transparent about it, I have less of a concern... But I haven't really seen much of that.

And if you can't tell the difference between a Merkur and a Gillette, I don't think you can understand anything else I have to say.

If you are insulted by the strict dictionary definition of the very thing we're talking about, all I can say is I'm not going to sugar coat and hide the truth the way these vendors do to sooth your conscience. Call a spade a spade.

And if your only problem with ghetto hustlers selling fake Rolexes is that they don't have a business license... Maybe you'd buy from them too if they paid for the licensing fee to sell to you.

We just have a different set of ethics, I suspect. Hope that works out for you.

See, here are the thinly veiled insults coming through again.

I know Gillette and Merkur are different. This is why I use both as reference points for 100 year old razor designs that have no patent any longer.

I'm not insulted by dictionary definitions, I am insulted by someone using colloquial context to hurl thinly veiled insults, and then hiding behind a dictionary.com definition to pretend that wasn't what they intended.

I fail to see how ghetto hustlers relates to this topic at all, unless said ghetto hustler is selling generic razors labeled as Gillettes.

To be clear, if Maggard was selling their V3 labeled as an R89, I would agree with you that it is a knockoff. That is not what they do. Period.

I DO, however, have a problem with someone comparing legitimate vendors selling rebranded razors under their own name being compared to ghetto hustlers selling generic and illegally labeled items by someone without a concept of patent infringement law.

We don't have a different set of ethics, but clearly we have a different set of values and morals. I hope that works out for you...

If the vendors are transparent about it, I have less of a concern... But I haven't really seen much of that.

And if you can't tell the difference between a Merkur and a Gillette, I don't think you can understand anything else I have to say.

If you are insulted by the strict dictionary definition of the very thing we're talking about, all I can say is I'm not going to sugar coat and hide the truth the way these vendors do to sooth your conscience. Call a spade a spade.

And if your only problem with ghetto hustlers selling fake Rolexes is that they don't have a business license... Maybe you'd buy from them too if they paid for the licensing fee to sell to you.

We just have a different set of ethics, I suspect. Hope that works out for you.

See, here are the thinly veiled insults coming through again.

I know Gillette and Merkur are different. This is why I use both as reference points for 100 year old razor designs that have no patent any longer.

I'm not insulted by dictionary definitions, I am insulted by someone using colloquial context to hurl thinly veiled insults, and then hiding behind a dictionary.com definition to pretend that wasn't what they intended.

I fail to see how ghetto hustlers relates to this topic at all, unless said ghetto hustler is selling generic razors labeled as Gillettes.

I DO, however, have a problem with someone comparing legitimate vendors selling rebranded razors under their own name being compared to ghetto hustlers selling generic and illegally labeled items by someone without a concept of patent infringement law.

We don't have a different set of ethics, but clearly we have a different set of values and morals. I hope that works out for you...

My friend, do not waste your time.....

You're right, vendors won't sell knockoffs as Merkurs or Gillettes... Because that doesn't build their brand name. They sell them as items that work to get people to think the vendor made them, with no disclosure of provenance.

You're also correct that it's not breaking the law, but it is deceptive, and this is where our morals part ways, as you say.

Knockoffs, copies, clones, cheap, affordable... Whatever... Pick whatever word makes you feel better... A rose (a zamak knockoff/fake Rolex) is still a rose (a zamak knockoff/fake Rolex) by any other name...

The law aside, it is the same essential action.

And I am not insulting you. I have more of an issue with the makers and sellers of these things than I do the people buying them, most of whom are fooled into doing so.

You're right, vendors won't sell knockoffs as Merkurs or Gillettes... Because that doesn't build their brand name.

End the discussion right here, because that is, by definition, a knockoff, and is, by colloquiaslly accepted definition, what said "ghetto hustler" is doing. In other words, your argument is based on a false equivalency. Period.

They sell them as items that work to get people to think the vendor made them, with no disclosure of provenance.

They work. They have a limited warranty, and they are not being sold as knockoffs. There is no ethical OR moral dilemma, unless you happen to be an obnoxious individual that cannot acknowledge that inexpensive razors perform well.

You're also correct that it's not breaking the law, but it is deceptive, and this is where our morals part ways, as you say.

There is no effort being made to deceive anyone of anything. The razors are NOT being "passed off" as anything other than what they are, quality, inexpensive razors built upon a 100 year old design history, used my many, many manufacturers in the industry. Again...no moral dilemma other than that which you have made up in your own mind.

Knockoffs, copies, clones, cheap, affordable... Whatever... Pick whatever word makes you feel better... A rose (a zamak knockoff/fake Rolex) is still a rose (a zamak knockoff/fake Rolex) by any other name...

The law aside, it is the same essential action.

And I am not insulting you. I have more of an issue with the makers and sellers of these things than I do the people buying them, most of whom are fooled into doing so.

You are just wrong. Producing low priced items based on expired patents is how the free market operates. How else do you explain multiple manufacturers of the internal combustion engine, microwave oven, television, radio, etc, etc, etc.

This is the way the real world operates.

Personally, I think the ones being fooled are those that are paying $150 for a razor based on the same 100 year old designs as my $6 razor. The ones getting fooled are the ones that think they are paying for R&D and ingenuity, but still buying a razor based on a 100 year old design.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between labeling a generic item as a brand, and selling a clone of a non-patented tool. If you can't comprehend the difference between those two actions, I suggest you take an introduction to business law class before you get yourself in far too deeply in any future discussions.

For the record, the OneBlade is extremely similar to the Atra II, except that the Atra was made from plastic and had 2 blades...Just saying...