It’s difficult to have an idea of a brush’s density without being able to feel the brush or even try it. I received many questions asking me to compare my brushes to similar brushes from other brands. While I feel that it’s not my role to compare my own brushes to other brands, without going into deeper comparisons or details, I know that many of you would love to see how they compare at least in terms of shape and size. I hope this helps you decide whether these Traditions brushes are something you could be interested in!
TRADITIONS FACE 1
The Tom Ford 06 (full natural version- discontinued), is just slightly denser and sideways, the body is wider.
The Mac 134 (full natural version- discontinued), is a brush I used constantly and one that inspired me for the functionality of the TF1. The TF1 and the Mac 134 have a similar width (sideways) but the bristles surface of the TF1 is approx 1cm longer. The Mac 134 is firmer, I wouldn’t say much denser but the bristles don’t flex as easily as the TF1.
The Chikuhodo Z9 has a similar width sideways but it’s 2cm shorter at the surface. The bristles of the Z9 flex more in comparison to the TF1.
The Chikuhodo T-1 is bigger and a little bit airier than the TF1.
TRADITIONS FACE 2
The Chikuhodo GSN 04 is bigger, a bit more airy, with a surface that is a bit flatter but this could vary depending on the batch.
The Chikuhodo Artist 18-2 (discontinued, but Chikuhodo have several similar options), has a bigger ferrule but doesn’t splay out as much as the TF2.
The Wayne Goss 13 is denser, the surface at the top is quite similar in size but since the bristles are shorter and denser on the WG, the TF2 feels more airy in comparison.
The Chikuhodo T-4 is bigger (bigger ferrule, longer bristles and larger surface at the top). Density is a bit similar although I feel a bit more airiness in the TF2.
The Mac 109 has shorter bristles and feels denser, the surface at the top of the bristles on the TF2 is a bit bigger.
TRADITIONS FACE 3
The Surratt Highlight and the Chikuhodo Z-2 both have ferrules with a wider diameter and the bristles don’t splay out as much in comparison the TF3.
The Wayne Goss 13, the Hakuhodo J5521 and the MAC 165 are all more densely packed in comparison to the TF3. The bristles on the TF3 extend a little further in comparison.
The Chikuhodo T-5 is bigger in comparison to the TF3. The point on the TF3 is more pronounced, also, the TF3 feels denser towards the bottom half of the brush and more airy in the top part, this allows the top part to have more movement while being supported by its denser base.
Thank you for reading and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out in the comments section below!
2 comments
Dear Sonia, I am starting to think I will never buy another brush of yours because every time I decide on something… you release something else beautiful that makes me rethink my choice 😉
I’m interested in a cheek brush that will give me a lighter application of hard-pressed blushes like Nars and Laura Mercier. My favourite colours are quite pigmented relative to my skin tone and I have a smaller face, so it would be nice to have a cheek brush that would give me a light-medium application without distributing pigment too broadly.
I was just about to buy the Soft Cheek but now I really like the look of the TF2 and TF3. Would either brush work for that purpose? I am really drawn to the TF2 because I have the Master Face and love how it feels soft but grippy… it’s like a powerful pom pom! I would love to find a blush brush that has the same feeling.
Thank you for your help! I know that’s a very specific question lol and I’m grateful that you take the time to personally answer questions about your products.
I know they’re different hair types; goat vs. squirrel, but how does the TF2 compare to the pom shaped Surratt Cheek Brush, with regards to size, density, blush application…?
Thx!
cat_mom13