Smart!
I bet it is about what percentage of the formula was kept "original" that allowed them to keep name on packaging.
I bet it is about what percentage of the formula was kept "original" that allowed them to keep name on packaging.
Where is the Tallow?!
- Thread starter theklaw
- Start date
Just part of the brand name (vs "original formula");
akin to XPEC ORIGINAL, for example.
akin to XPEC ORIGINAL, for example.
The „original“ is in regards to the scent of the fragrance which is the same over the whole line. I’m pretty sure they changed the formulas of the shower gel and the bath soap a couple of times since 1959 yet it’s still the original/genuine scent.
Furthermore this is a brand/trademark. If you hold it you can sell probably even Tabac scented dish soap under that name without getting in trouble.
Furthermore this is a brand/trademark. If you hold it you can sell probably even Tabac scented dish soap under that name without getting in trouble.
Last edited:
The TABAC ORIGINAL scent has been tweaked through the years; today's scent is a bit different, vs some vintages, IME.
I'm not surprised by reports of the new (non-tallow) soap smelling a bit different.
I'm not surprised by reports of the new (non-tallow) soap smelling a bit different.
Same goes for Coca Cola or similar old products…
Oh, they can keep their, now trashed, brand name as TABAC. But the add-on "ORIGINAL" still bothers me.
I admit, a little bother, but bother nevertheless.
Why little? While they keep selling "TABAC ORIGINAL" packaging, I still have a stash of TABAC ORIGINAL shaving soap.
Ha.
I admit, a little bother, but bother nevertheless.
Why little? While they keep selling "TABAC ORIGINAL" packaging, I still have a stash of TABAC ORIGINAL shaving soap.
Ha.
Precisely (same goes for 'XPEC ORIGINAL').
Last edited:
I don’t want to ride a dead horse but there are many brand products that have even different compositions/recipes for different markets yet they are all labeled and sold under the original brand.
Isn’t Mexican Coke produced with cane sugar whereas US juice is made with high glucose fructose? In Europe it is sugar from Beets together with glucose fructose…
To be fair, the brand is Tabac.
Tabac has different fragrance names such as Craftsman, Man, and Original etc.
So you have Tabac Craftsman, which is different from Tabac Man, which is different from Tabac Original.
Tabac is the brand, Original is the name of the fragrance.
It would be like arguing that Hugo Boss isn't the top seller so they shouldn't call it Boss.
The Ford LTD wasn't really Limited.
Tabac has different fragrance names such as Craftsman, Man, and Original etc.
So you have Tabac Craftsman, which is different from Tabac Man, which is different from Tabac Original.
Tabac is the brand, Original is the name of the fragrance.
It would be like arguing that Hugo Boss isn't the top seller so they shouldn't call it Boss.
The Ford LTD wasn't really Limited.
Last edited:
Soft drinks are novelty items in our family. Actually, my oldest child had first taste of soft drink (Pepsi) at the age of 11. Never seen them drinking soda.
Just looked at Coca Cola history on their website. Every variation possible was marketed differently, and while Coca Cola name was always there, they added statements such as "NO SUGAR", "DIET", and so on.
Now, can you tell just by looking at the "TABAC ORIGINAL" packaging what is inside? Sugar vs No Sugar.
We accepted whatever rubbish salespersons and marketers are feeding us with and consider it normal. Not in my books.
Just looked at Coca Cola history on their website. Every variation possible was marketed differently, and while Coca Cola name was always there, they added statements such as "NO SUGAR", "DIET", and so on.
Now, can you tell just by looking at the "TABAC ORIGINAL" packaging what is inside? Sugar vs No Sugar.
We accepted whatever rubbish salespersons and marketers are feeding us with and consider it normal. Not in my books.
Last edited:
You are correct.
"Coke that is hecho en México (made in Mexico) contains cane sugar rather than high-fructose corn syrup..."
Hence, Hecho En Mexico statement.
Here it is:
We compare here an American company that announced every change, with its spine up and looking straight in the eyes of the consumer, while taking risks, with german companies known for their unorthodox marketing/sales practices. Like the R41 ver1, ver2, ver3 and ver4. And many others.
Keep TABAC, now trashed, brand name and make a respectable statement to show customers some respect. Like the American company did.
Maybe TABAC, New and improved, or anything else that could differentiate between the two formulas. Would that be too much for a german company?
Keep TABAC, now trashed, brand name and make a respectable statement to show customers some respect. Like the American company did.
Maybe TABAC, New and improved, or anything else that could differentiate between the two formulas. Would that be too much for a german company?
Tabac is the company, not the product. The product is "Original".
Original is a name not a status statement.
A more egregious example would be Coca Cola.
Coca Cola was named Coca Cola because it was made originally with coca leaf extract.
All traces of cocaine have been removed, yet they still call it Coca-cola.
Original is a name not a status statement.
A more egregious example would be Coca Cola.
Coca Cola was named Coca Cola because it was made originally with coca leaf extract.
All traces of cocaine have been removed, yet they still call it Coca-cola.
Last edited:
Which product, the one with tallow or the one without? Just a rhetorical question.
I am done here.
Go to Google shopping and search for "Teva Original"
How can all these shoes in different materials, colors and sizes for men, women and children all be called Original?
Because Original is the product name by a Company named Teva.
Tabac Original was a mens fragrance in 1959. They made a soap with that fragrance and named it "Original " as that was the name of the fragrance.
So in fairness, the original "Original" didn't have tallow, because it wasn't even a soap.
Yes...agreed that marketing, packaging and distribution are likely the more significant costs. That said, a company like M&W would likely require huge margins and even a saving of a fraction of a penny / cent per soap or case of soaps would likely be a consideration although appealing to a younger generation who do not want animal products in their soap is also likely a factor, we can only speculate. I have yet to experience a re-formulation (Lea, Haslinger, English Soaps etc) that have bettered the tallow formulation and for me there is a significant difference that can be noticed. Experienced shaving forum members, in the main, are very discriminating in their assessment of razors, blades, soaps and brushes, they do pick-up on the differences, however small.
The new Tabac formula does not contain synthetic surfactants. Synthetic surfactants would be detergents like sodium lauryl sulfate. These are good for cleaning, but may not be the best choice for use on your face. The main Tabac ingredients are just vegetable soaps, made with refined vegetable oils from natural sources.
Soaps and detergents are both surfactants. The manufacture is not using detergents as you seem to imply. What they are using is fractionated vegetable oil. Fractionating is a refining process that has been used for decades. Unrefined oils consist of a mixture of several different fatty acids. Fractionating is a method of separating the different fatty acids using controlled cooling and filtering. There is no chemical change, simply separation and concentration of material. This allows the manufacture to more closely control the properties of their product. In this case, to more closely emulate the performance of the old Tabac shaving soap. That's probably a good and reasonable thing to do, not something to worry about.
Steve56
Ask me about shaving naked!
@luvmysuper - you’re beating a dead horse, lol. Wait until you get into straight razor hones, it’s even worse.
I always think that if I explain my point of view clearly and succinctly that people may not agree, but they will understand what I'm trying to say.
I then second guess my own explanation and attempt to be more detailed and clear.
But it comes off as boorish and lecturing, which not my intent.
My doubt is not with the reader, but with my own ability to explain what I mean.
I then second guess my own explanation and attempt to be more detailed and clear.
But it comes off as boorish and lecturing, which not my intent.
My doubt is not with the reader, but with my own ability to explain what I mean.
