|
Post by fram773 on May 30, 2014 9:34:09 GMT -6
Last night I put the Fat to the test. Results which I have duplicated today. I am very impressed especially considering some MdC (a soap not in the same league as MWF or even Arko) fanboys claim 8 swirls of MdC is all it takes to generate a "miraculous" amount of lather- a claim that I failed to reproduce. So last night I decided using a Muhle Black Fiber synthetic to put MWF to the 8 swirls test using a bowl. Muhle specs: Handle: 50 x 35 x 35 mm Knot (at base): 20 mm Loft: 53 mm Weight: 30g First I put Arko to the test. 8 swirls and a bowl full of lather appeared. Not surprising. It is Arko- possibly the best lathering soap anywhere. But seeing as Arko is not my focus I didn't really care. I just wanted to see if 8 swirl lathering was possible. After each pass I want you to note that I rinsed my face. Yesterday and today I put MWF to the test. Here it is before doing anything to it (today): This is what it looked like after 8 swirls: After working up that lather: Yes, I shaved with it. Up to the 3rd pass anyways. It had plenty of cushion and slickness. Here is the soap after the SEVENTH pass: I felt it with my fingers. Plenty of glide and cushion. I waited a few minutes. No disappearing act. Now I really stretched it for the seventh pass so I didn't attempt an 8 pass of lather. I want to add, as a disclaimer, that you may not get the results I experienced especially with a natural brush since synthetics are much more efficient. I just wanted to show that it can be done and MWF isn't hard to lather at all. I really have no idea where that reputation came from. I have moderately hard Chicago city water (I live in the city not the suburbs) and it is as easy to lather as any soap. It might actually be easier to lather than Arko in a way since Arko gets really airy if you add too much water.
|
|
|
Post by fram773 on May 30, 2014 9:41:24 GMT -6
I want to add that Mitchell's wool fat is the best soap I have ever used. Easily. I am not easily impressed but this is a soap that has throughly impressed me. It is supremely easy to lather, the best cushion, stability, and moisturization of any soap I've used. Since every soap I've used so far was lacking in some department or another I never thought I could have it all. I feel like I could just shave for hours with this soap. Supremely comfortable. The scent I also enjoyed. I detest strongly scented soaps- they typically smell like cheap perfume and burn my skin up. Mitchell's on the other hand has a light pleasant scent reminiscent of soap and flowers. At the end of my shaves with the Fat my cheeks feel like my 8 year old brother's cheeks (I'm 23 so I can't guarantee those results for some). This soap has potential to make all my other soaps obsolete. I only wish I had tried this before. I admit some of what prevented me from using it was its reputation for being hard to lather (especially considering my moderately hard water) but i've learned reputation and cost do not always correlate to how good a soap is.
|
|
|
Post by PJGH on May 30, 2014 11:49:31 GMT -6
Cool! Cool! I do like my Mitchell's. It's made in my home town and it really is a small venture ... this unassuming little house: goo.gl/maps/FBzqA ... about 3 miles from where I live. I bought mine right there hoping to have a good chat with the Soap Meister, but it was just a young lass doing some admin (not that I was presuming) and peddling soaps as she went. It's still very much a family business with a very small number of people involved. I like their gear, generally, and like to support a local, craft venture like this. I gather (and someone please confirm) that Kent soaps are Mitchell's rebranded. Is that so?
|
|
|
Post by fram773 on May 30, 2014 21:11:40 GMT -6
It is supposedly rebranded MWF. So is Bluebeards Revenge soap. Thanks for sharing. I didn't know it might be considered artisan.
|
|
RobinK
Lather Catcher
Posts: 505
|
Post by RobinK on May 30, 2014 23:41:06 GMT -6
Challenge accepted. Try Scottish Fine Soaps's shaving soap instead. The scent is very similar (amber, patchouli, oakmoss, treemoss), but I find its performance to be significantly better. Not least because I was, and still am, underwhelmed by MWF's performance. Oh, and it is significantly cheaper than WMF, too.
|
|
|
Post by fram773 on May 31, 2014 8:56:28 GMT -6
It's not cheaper. $8.80USD=5.25GBP. connaughtshaving.com/mitchellsrefill.html. And I'm skeptical about a veggie soap. Even the best ones I have tried the lack cushion that tallow soaps have. I'm willing to try it though- I haven't used one with a similar ingredient formulation.
|
|
RobinK
Lather Catcher
Posts: 505
|
Post by RobinK on May 31, 2014 11:04:55 GMT -6
So you are in the UK, not the US. That makes all the difference, of course. Just head North to Falkirk, Stirlingshire, and get the refill pucks for .20. In the meantime, I would very much appreciate your elaborating on what "veggie soaps" are exactly. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by fram773 on May 31, 2014 18:33:46 GMT -6
So you are in the UK, not the US. That makes all the difference, of course. Just head North to Falkirk, Stirlingshire, and get the refill pucks for .20. In the meantime, I would very much appreciate your elaborating on what "veggie soaps" are exactly. Thank you. No I am in the US. Even with shipping from the UK it is cheaper. Plus I don't even pay VAT tax since I'm not in the EU. Veggie soaps= soaps with no tallow. But as with everything YMMV...
|
|
RobinK
Lather Catcher
Posts: 505
|
Post by RobinK on May 31, 2014 23:52:47 GMT -6
Thank you for the clarification. As always, if a product works for you, that is absolutely great. But, yes, YMMV, and mine does, especially with regards to claims about "tallow soaps": 6 Tallow Myths. Here is a bit of background about soaps and creams in general. Now, you may rightly say that he may have a vested interest in promoting his own product, but I have heard the same arguments made by professional soap makers, too. Just for the record, products like De Vergulde Hand, Dr. Dittmar, and Esbjerg fall under the "veggie" category, and I personally trust each of them to give MWF a run for its money.
|
|
ShadowsDad
Gem Star
None boring shaver!!
"It's not the bow, it's the Indian"
Posts: 4,534
|
Post by ShadowsDad on Jun 1, 2014 0:57:28 GMT -6
I've never found veggie soaps to be lacking as compared to tallow. It's simply up to the soap maker to make a proper soap. I also pay attention to what folks like on the various forums and I don't strike out on my own. :-) I just don't have the time or inclination to experiment with different brands. There are folks whose reviews I trust and I use those.
I'd need to read labels, but I'd be willing to bet that 1/2 or the soaps in my cabinet are veggie soaps today. But I simply don't keep track of it. I do keep track of the hydroxide used though. I've noticed fairly consistent results when Potassium Hydroxide is in the mix.
|
|
RobinK
Lather Catcher
Posts: 505
|
Post by RobinK on Jun 1, 2014 2:44:05 GMT -6
Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that the performance of shaving products can be fairly unpredictable. I recently sent out unmarked samples of some of my favourite products to friends in Belgium, Sweden, Poland, and Finland. Said friends are highly experienced, and have tried a vast range of shaving products, from €1 Croatian supermarket soaps to €70 Italian creams. There was exactly one product that consistently came out on top of the others, namely Castle Forbes (which, however, seems to cause slight allergic effects with some people). My favourite cream failed to perform at all with the guy in Sweden, whereas my least favourite soap worked very well for everyone else. So, I am wary of online reviews, no matter their source. There are three factors which make them unreliable: - How much experience does the reviewer actually have? There must be hundreds of thousands of "reviews" out there written by people who a) do not understand the chemistry, and b) have only very limited experience with various products. That is not a problem in and by itself, it just gives their reviews a slant one should keep in mind. And that is not even mentioning water hardness, or the use of inferior brushes.
- Independence, or does the reviewer have a special interest in the item, vested or other? A growing number of reviews to me seem to be shills. Yes, I do receive free samples (often in the form of whole jars), but I never review those on my own. Hence the blind test with my friends above. We like to write our reviews collectively for this particular reason. It just takes a lot of personal preference out of the test, and makes shilling less likely.
- Cognitive dissonance. Martin de Candre and Santa Maria Novella are two prime examples of products which receive extremely mixed reviews. Personally, I find MdC mediocre, and SMN horrible. How can that be given that many, many others think they are the best shaving products ever made? A look at the price tag might help. Both are very expensive. And who would publicly admit defeat? I did not mind, and gave both away to friends (who gave them away, too).
I have seen a number of so called "artisan" products hit the market recently, and their makers have learned their lessons in viral marketing well. They seem to giving away free samples left, right, and centre. They are also very active in various online communities, either personally or through others who claim their products are - as always - the best ever made. We recently acquired three of these products, and distributed unmarked samples. We were not impressed. But that is not really surprising, because "artisan" and "quality shaving product" do not really mix well. I know a number of small soapmakers, and you might call their manufactures artisan shops. Yet they employ chemists and other people with university degrees in subjects related to cosmetics. And it still takes them years, and dozens of attempts, to get their formulae right. I get highly suspicious whenever I read about lone men out there somewhere who concoct the best product ever - on their own, and after two months of testing. Oh, and please do not get me started on cocum butter, thank you.
Lesson learned: The world needs more blind tests. It really does.
|
|
|
Post by PJGH on Jun 1, 2014 15:40:33 GMT -6
Of all my gear, I keep coming back to ...
Supermax Shaving Cream (Cheapo Rubbish) Nanny's Silly Soaps Olive Oil recipe (Artisan) Gillette Gel ... no, really
I don't mind a shave with anything, really.
For prolonged use, the OO recipe NSS stuff proper floats my boat.
|
|