But is it really better than Gillette's top selling Mach 3 Turbo?They give it a B, and say that the Mach 3's a better buy. I tend to agree.
A half dozen men who work for our partner, Consumer Reports magazine, checked this one out.
After one week, most announced it shaved well... but was not noticeably better than the Mach 3, which has no battery.
At least these guys shaved themselves and not fruit.
Speaking of the M3Power, it's still having legal problems around the world. I mentioned previously that Wilkonson Sword (owner of the Schick brand) had filed suit against certain claims made by Gillette, specifically the claim that the M3Power's vibrations caused the hair to stand up. In that case an injunction was granted in Germany preventing the claim from being aired in ads. Problems continue in Australia.
In that case and the subsequent Australian one, Energizer submitted the results of tests conducted by it and "observed" by Yale University dermatology professor, David Leffell.It will be interesting to see what happens with these cases.
According to Justice Hely, a special apparatus was used to demonstrate "a fully automated and controlled shaving stroke", yet Dr Leffell observed "no hair-raising or hair directional change effect". The Yale professor gave evidence to the Australian court by video link, as did Gillette experts, who disputed the findings, and maintained that the M3Power did create a "hair-extension effect".
In his judgement, Justice Hely said Energizer was developing, or at least investigating, a battery-powered oscillating razor of its own. That could lead to an inference that Energizer believed that such a razor would provide "enhanced shaving performance", the judge said, adding: "This matter was not disclosed on the application for an ex parte injunction. It should have been disclosed."