Who's afraid of Virginia Woolfat?

I've tried the Kent 9265 this morning and I liked it. Easy to lather, great lather, but I couldn't see any differences to the MWF veg 9265 that I've been using for the last three days.
Kent came straight from Kent and MWF was ordered from Amazon and came from Eddie Jagger.
I'm not saing they are the same, just that I can't find any difference between them.
 
I find the two pretty close ... certainly closer than the Tabac tallow/veg.

Do you have a known (older) tallow MWF to compare @Eurofighter
... or @donnie_arko do you care to bust open your Ken 9265 to come to older MWF?

I'd be at odds to say Kent 9265 is tallow. Like my initial observation, it smells different to the MWF 9265.

To my nose, the tallow one smells softer whilst the palm oil smells a bit more floral.

I can't be 100% certain though.
 
I have two observations.
  1. What wooden bowl is that? Mine (TOBS) was too shallow for my MWF puck.
  2. Does it shave OK. My (confirmed by @pjgh ) looked ok-ish on the brush but dissipated on the face, and unshaveable.
    Having said that, it does look like a mighty fine dense lather.
 
I have two observations.
  1. What wooden bowl is that? Mine (TOBS) was too shallow for my MWF puck.
  2. Does it shave OK. My (confirmed by @pjgh ) looked ok-ish on the brush but dissipated on the face, and unshaveable.
    Having said that, it does look like a mighty fine dense lather.
Connought Shaving makes a wooden bowl for large pucks, and also sells MWF with said bowl as a combo or as a standalone.

He will be shaving with it this evening. He left the lather from each brush on the face for one minute. No dissipation. I expect the shave to go swimmingly, based on the appearance of the lather on the brushes and the report of no dissipation.
 
Report from @brucered, MWF batch 8923 is good. That was supposedly one of the 'bad' batches, at least with the Kent pucks.View attachment 106937

@Gairdner
Graeme, you had a few from this batch right? It seems not all of them were/are stinkers. If you still have some from that batch maybe you will be a little luckier for the other ones (presuming you didn't throw them out in a fit of rage, which would have been understandable!)
 
It'd be interesting to know ... both whether this person can actually shave with that lather and whether any others can be actually confirmed good.

I could happily create such a lather on the brush and even as a hand-lather, but when it hit the face it smeared around in a patch and refused to ... well, spread. With enough water it could be encouraged to do so but then dissipated. Or, that little bit over-watery from the off and it'd just be foam that would disappear on the face and eventually from the brush too.
 
It'd be interesting to know ... both whether this person can actually shave with that lather and whether any others can be actually confirmed good.

I could happily create such a lather on the brush and even as a hand-lather, but when it hit the face it smeared around in a patch and refused to ... well, spread. With enough water it could be encouraged to do so but then dissipated. Or, that little bit over-watery from the off and it'd just be foam that would disappear on the face and eventually from the brush too.

Paul, this was his info

"MWF batch 8923.
3 test lathers, applied to face (no shave), RR Beehive Synthetic, Semogue 830 Boar and Simpson M7 Manchurian. These are my go to brushes in each hair type, medium water hardness, face lather, normal load time.
Zero issues in latherability, face feel, scent, texture and creaminess.
I consider myself pretty good and working up a quality shave lather and feel all three I produced would have shaved perfectly fine.
Someone calling this a dud of dudsville or however it was described, either doesn't know what they are doing or the batch numbers mean nothing. It lathered up a storm of lather and I would have gladly shaved with any of the ones I produced.
I usually dial in the lather to perfection after 5-6 shaves, so expect it will improved once I start 3017'ing it and it will be even creamier with less volume. This won't happens for a while as I'm using a Tallow Tabac at the moment.
Tonight, I'll actually do a real shave with one of the brushes and report back again."

***
Seems encouraging that not the soaps in the batch were stinkers.
 
Nice one! Thanks @donnie_arko

We don't know the sizes in which the soap ingredients are mixed. I'm thinking back to my days of volume food production, especially how the pastry mix would hit issues in hot weather when the lard blocks would be too warm around the edges and too cold in the middle (blocks were 18Kg) ... and that would affect the mix which was blended in what was essentially a cement truck sized mixer. Most, like 99% of the mix would be fine. Remember, we'd be packing down 4 tonnes into kilo bags, so that 1% with issues translated to a good number of end product bags ... often sequential.

Right! Translate that to soap ... with a bit of imagination.

Poorly mixed product or product which had issues in terms of ingredient stability prior to inclusion in the mix could well constrain a problem to just part of a batch. Given that is likely to come out as several (scores?) of soap pucks in sequence, those duds would presumably end up with the same retailer.

I think I got onto the idea when I saw mixed reviews of one such batch, hence we tried to pull together not only batch number but retailer. The picture is only as good as the data and given the "few and far between" nature and just how quickly batches sold (or rather batch numbers that we were buying incremented), any problem was only really seen as a fleeting glance.

What I hoped to do was pull some actual data into what was otherwise initially a confused mess between whether there really was a problem or whether it was just folks who couldn't lather it. That, and some threads on larger forums just swamped with every man and his dog repeating their historic experiences which bore no assistance to the issue in hand.

Actual data was what we needed.

... all moot now, although still useful for folks picking up old stock.
 
Back
Top Bottom