OK, but outperformed by a $10 foil electric
I got this shaver in early January of 2007.  For the first month or so that I had it, it worked decently.  The shave was relatively close and it did get most of the hair, but it did take a few passes over the skin, and a touch-up using the on-board trimmer to get the ones it missed.  I also found myself having the stretch the skin quite a bit to get a close enough shave.  However, it did offer an irritation-free shave (I have sensitive skin, thus why I stay away from blade razors).<br /><br />Over the next few months, though, I noticed that the shave started to get more irritating: more 'pulling' instead of cutting (had always pulled a little, but got more frequent), takes more passes to cut what it once would, etc.  I changed the blades after 3 months (short period, yes, but I tried anyway).  It helped a little, but it still wasn't as good as it once was.  Then, I started to realize that the shaver wasn't holding as strong a charge as it once did.  It would come off the charger and be 'full power' for less than one shave, and would need to go back on the charger after 6 shaves (far less than the advertised two weeks).  A call to Norelco led nowhere, as they said it was 'expected' for the battery to wear down over time (4 months?).<br /><br />I kept using the razor as I wasn't about to waste the $90 investment.  On a trip in late July, I had forgotten to pack the shaver, so I purchased a $10 Remington battery-operated foil razor at a local convenience store.  Sad to say, but from Day 1 that foil razor has outperformed the Norelco by leaps and bounds in all areas (closer shave, gets all areas better, less passes needed, etc.).  Also on a sad note, the Remington is kicking the bucket (a year later), and I am forced to go back to the Norelco for the time being while I look for an acceptable foil shaver as a replacement.<br /><br />In short, this razor performed decently at first, but it seems as though compared to a $10 battery operated razor, this $70 shaver isn't a good value for the investment.
Rating: 3 stars