If this is useful info to anyone keeping a list, my Mitchell's has batch 9029 and was purchased from Amazon Nov 5, 2022
Mitchells Wool Fat Shaving Soap is no longer Tallow based
- Thread starter zoidberg
- Start date
It's tallow. Highly unlikely to be from a problematic batch, but who knows? I'll open it (ceramic bowl+refill) when I get mine and report the batch #.What batch number?
Who knew buying shave soap was so complicated.
I'm pretty sure it will be sold out by then, though.
Gotcha
So do the bad batch numbers apply to both Kent and MWF?
ie) 8923 shows Kent as dud. I have MWF 8923.
I'm trying to determine if my 4 pucks of MWF 8923 are worth replacing or still good, without lathering each
Well I have reached the final stage of mourning, acceptance. I am ready to see how this all shakes out. I have several veggie soaps but have not tried many. Of the few I have tried, Captain's Choice works best for me but I do tend to use more for acceptable cushion. I still have a supply of Williams Mug Soap (my all time favorite, used for many years). I have Arko and probably 10 tubs of tallow soap from various artisan makers. The final step of my grieving process was ordering some more Arko pucks and a tub of RazoRock Irish Countryside. I have enough tallow to hold me for probably 5 years. That should give the world enough time to either bring back tallow soaps, develop great veggie soaps at reasonable prices or something else we haven't thought of yet. I also have my own rendered tallow that I use for making hand soap so with some practice, maybe I can make my own shave soap. I have purchased artisan soaps for the unique scents they have but I don't want to spend $25/puck for a daily shave soap. My artisan soaps are used when I want something different or fitting for the occasion.
For those that want a truly great vegetable based soap, Wickham's 1912 is the best I've tried.
Fendrihan is out of Harris as well. I expect a Harris Lavender puck tomorrow or the next day. Went back yesterday and poof all gone.
Kent and MWF share identical batch numbers, it's the same soap, different labels. Try it and report back, please.
Last edited:
I couldn’t locate a “batch #” from the boxes of my ceramic kits
I empathize this as a very unpopular business decision that was made under the cover of night.
There are quite a few tallow free soaps that I (and many others) find damn good; PdP, MdC, PAA CK6, SV, etc.
Last edited:
It might be stamped on the label, like the Kent pucks.
As a devoted 3017 soap user, I did something I haven't done in years for the sake of MWF science....opened and lathered a puck I don't plan on using from start to finish immediately.
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.
No staging.
You're absolutely correct! I should have tempered my enthusiasm a wee bit and put Wickham's in the excellent class. I also have PdP No.63, two flavors of MdC, and SV, and they are also excellent!
So, all is not lost...
Oooo, I'm telling the 3017 police! Lol, it must feel weird doing a one-off test lather and shave. But at least you know you have a few solid performing pucks for someday. I got my four refill pucks the other day grom IB. I didn't open them to check lot numbers, and they're already vaccuum sealed.
That's remarkable on the 830. I have very hard water and find the lather I get from MWF more than acceptable (obviously, otherwise I wouldn't be in this thread) but I don't think I can match that for creaminess. I will get my favourite synth out for the next MWF shave and see how close I can get - purely in the interests of science. How long did you load for to produce that?
Maybe I'll get banned from posting in there or a 30 day time-out.
I have a feeling, the ones I got from IB last week, were the "bad batch" 8923. The other 4 have a couple different numbers and were likely ones I picked up from Connaught on 2 different orders, a year or two ago. They were all vacuum sealed for future use and I cracked all the seals too, it drove me nuts to do it. I don't sell soaps and don't collect, so know I'll be using them myself anyways.
Tonight will be the real test, but I'm not concerned with the batch number at this point.
Good to know. Reading though that thread, the impression I got was that it lathered fine, was insanely slick, but the issue was the lather dissipated rapidly on the face. Good to know you have no issues with it!
Edit: ...and that's exactly the kind of lather I get and expect from MWF. Good show!
Normal load time, I'm going to say 30-45 sec for a hard soap. I just go off how much is in the brush and don't track swirls or time.
Keep in mind, this was immediately after lathering with a synthetic, so the puck may have had some softness to it etc. But I did fully rinse the puck and proto-lather, between each brush type. No lather was carried forward from brush type to brush type.
It's been a LONG time since I used MWF, so I was a little scared it would be airy and foamy, but it wasn't.
I did apply it to my face, slapping strokes (as I always do) to thicken it up and waited a minute to see if it would evaporate.....it didn't.
I'll report back tonight, following my normal Sunday night, 2 pass shave.
My feelings as well, the original didn’t need to be improvedFor checking to make sure a soap was good, that had been widely reported as a bad batch? I wouldn't think so, and I would certainly hope not.Maybe I'll get banned from posting in there or a 30 day time-out.
Similar threads
