Bill Webber wrote (in part):

>The question in my  mind, remains, should the bevel on the body of the
>shave (body bevel) have a slope to it?  Don McConnell (and others) sent
>info from the original patent.  The description sounded like it might
>indicate a slope to the body bevel, but the sketches were not detailed
>enough for me to tell. 
>
>...
>
>With the blade installed, and as you move the blade forward to close the
>mouth, the back of the bevel on the blade contacts the body bevel, you
>essentially have no mouth clearance, but there is considerable space
>between the leading edge of the blade and the flat body bevel.  If you
>try to use it, it simply jams.
>http://users.erols.com/hihouse/0305-009.jpg
>
>If the body bevel had a slope down and towards the mouth, then you could
>move the blade up over the body bevel to adjust the mouth opening like
>this:
>http://users.erols.com/hihouse/0305-012.jpg
>
>...
>Any way the question remains: Is the body bevel on my MF #1 manufactured
>correctly and if so, how do you make the dang thing work?

Upon reading Bill's message and looking at his photos I decided to
take a closer look at the cross-section portion of the patent
drawings. Magnified four times at fairly high resolution, it appears
that the face bevel is angled so that there is a reasonable shaving
aperture ("mouth") as the cutting edge sits above the internal arris of
the bevel. It would appear that the intent was for the shaving aperture
to close as the blade, and cutting edge, is rotated toward the outside
arris of the bevel.

Though, since the blade is rotating through an arc and the face bevel
is flat, the shaving aperture would actually open up for the first
portion of the rotation. Then begin to close as the rotation continues.

Based on that, *theoretically*, it would appear that a slow arc to
the face bevel would provide a more uniform closing of the shaving
aperture as the blade rotates toward the outer arris. To repeat,
theoretically.

If I understand Bill's description and photos accurately, it would
seem that the face bevel on his shave is incorrectly manufactured.

This discussion has caused me to also take another look at my
Kelly reproduction circular shave. I have been able to make it work,
but have never been quite satisfied with it. What I'm now noticing,
is that the inside arc of the cutter is *slightly* slower than the
arc of the body of the shave.

The result of this is that the cutter is tight to the body where the
screws are holding it down, but there is a very small gap between
the cutter and the body at the edges. Including the cutting edge. I
haven't attempted to correct this, yet, but mention it in case Ted's
difficulties may be arising from the same source.

Don McConnell
Knox County, Ohio