The Last Straw: The jury is out on the new four-blade razor. Actually, there probably isn't a jury; but either way, the lawsuit heard in Boston last week is likely to be just the start of a long legal battle between Gillette, makers of the revolutionary Mach3 Turbo, and Schick- Wilkinson Sword, inventors of the Quattro, writes Frank McNally.
Experts predict that, barring a settlement, uses of the term "cut-throat competition" by headline writers could run into millions.
In case you're not a member of the shaving community and have missed the latest exciting developments, the Quattro is the world's first four-blade razor, promising the closest shave ever. It's the result of years of painstaking research, which revealed that consumers are complete morons who'll believe anything. No, wait a minute, that wasn't it. What it revealed was something to do with "progressive blade geometry", apparently. Add to this the Quattro's "anti-clog technology for improved rinsability", and you can see why shavers everywhere are in a lather.
Sadly, Gillette, the dominant player in the market, does not share the excitement. A razor company with sensitive skin, Gillette argues that the Quattro infringes patents for the Mach3. In the Mach3, as you'll know, the first blade extends the hair follicle while cutting, allowing the second blade to attack the remaining hair-stump from behind before it can retreat. The third blade then threatens what's left of the hair that if it comes out again any time soon, something nasty might happen.
Gillette's basic argument is that the Quattro is not revolutionary at all, and that the fourth blade does nothing except add unnecessarily to the stress of the traumatised follicle. But I'm paraphrasing here, because the legal case is a bit more technical than that. Meanwhile, Schick-Wilkinson Sword has counter-sued Gillette for false advertising, saying it cannot now claim to be "the best a man can get".
Razor manufacturers have some of the most ingenious marketing people on the planet. We know this because of the dramatically different ways they sell the same basic product to men and women - heightening the reality of the male shaving experience, while lowering the reality of the female one. Thus, men's razors are presented as high-tech machinery, with names such as "Terminator"; whereas women's razors are portrayed as things that occur naturally, in the Brazilian rainforest.
Under international broadcasting agreements, advertisements for men's razors must include a scene in which a female model greets the newly shaved male like a returning war hero who's just liberated his chin from freedom-hating follicles. By contrast, you never see a man in the vicinity of a female shaving event, either in advertisements or in real life. It's difficult even to imagine a male model admiringly stroking a newly shaved female leg (and as for a newly shaved female chin!). In fact, the only difference between western society and the Arab world is that whereas many Arab women have to cover up their legs, western women have to cover up the fact that they shave them.
Most are happy to oblige; but the large-scale under-reporting of female body hair has had a price. When Schick unveiled the women's equivalent of the Quattro (called - wait for it - "Intuition") earlier this year, it had a shocking 25 per cent fewer blades than the male version. Gillette's response, planned for next year (called - wait for it again - "Divine") is also expected to fall well short of the flour-blade threshold. So much for equality.
Even so, some of us men will not be exercising the opportunity to buy the Quattro. In a moment of weakness last year, I bought a three-blade razor, and it was like shaving with a Flymo hedge-cutter. I reverted to the two-blade version, which in my opinion remains the technology's high watermark. Perhaps my problem was not having a perfectly square jaw like the guys in the ads. Whatever the reason, the progressive blade geometry just didn't solve my equation.
But while the two-blade razor has been with us for decades, it's sobering to recall that the three-blade barrier was only broken as recently as 1998. At the current rate of blade inflation, you'll soon need an arms certificate to buy shaving equipment. Before this madness goes any further, I think we as a society have to ask ourselves: how close a shave does any man really need? It might not come to that, because patent litigation can be ruinous for the losing party. But no doubt the people at Wilkinson Sword know what they're doing. It's a very old company. Indeed, the name dates from when it was official bayonet supplier to the English crown. Products included the basic fixed bayonet; the twin-blade disposable; the flexible bayonet, with lubricating strip for sensitive skin,and so on.