What's new

Mitchell's Wool Fat (MWF): Optimization Results Help SOLVE the MYSTERY!

Time is a factor. Lather is being created at a quicker rate with my well used, well soaked puck, than was when it was new. However there is more to it than that, spending more time with the newer puck wouldn't have yielded the same lather that is being yielded now. It was perfectly fine before, but now it is better. I have had good results all the way through with this product, but I would not say that I have had consistent results. It started good, and got better.

It's not just time loading, or time working. If it was, the same lather that I'm getting now could have been had before by different methods. I believe the puck has improved with time, and not just because it is now wetter than I bought it.

Remember many of these products contain organic compounds. Maybe change of some kind is happening due to a puck being gradually hydrated, and retaining that additional moisture, over several months. As I said, I'm no chemist, so I cannot speculate on such matters.

Maybe your MWF really has improved over time outside of hydration, just as @MrMoJoe's MWF apparently got worse over time outside of hydration (URL). Maybe both modes are possible. Maybe MWF gets better for some time, peaks, and then takes a turn for the worse. Maybe some pucks of MWF get better with age while other pucks of MWF get worse with age. I think that I'll add your claim alongside @MrMoJoe's claim as two sides of the same coin. Thanks! :001_smile

All I can conclude and offer forwards, is that this product has consistently given me (and many other people) great shaves, and that I, and other people, have noticed improvements in the product as you work through it.

I have no answers as to why others may struggle to get the same performance. As speculated before, it could be water, brush, hydration time, agitation, working time, temperature, extent of pre-hydration, or even the skin of the user. I do not believe that there'll be a standard formula that works for all, no matter how much time is spent measuring, calculating, and reporting - because there's no guarantees that the next person will get the same results - even from the same puck of soap.

There are good reasons why you and others like MWF and I and others don't like MWF. A few reasons have been documented here (URL), first and foremost being simple differences of opinion about the same lather, as surprising as that may be to some who love MWF and can't understand why others don't love MWF. All of the parts that go into making and reacting to lather, some of which you listed, are always present for MWF, just as much as with other soaps. Any suggestion of a standard formula would be ridiculous.

It was my hope that this thread would help shed light on why MWF is so controversial, and I believe that this has been accomplished. I put my foot down on face lathering with MWF, since I've done just about everything else with it, I am not a face latherer, and no one presented evidence that bowl lathering was bad with MWF. No one has all of the answers as to why MWF is more controversial than so many other soaps, but I believe that the evidence presented in this thread helps to remove much of the mystery.

I'll post an updated summary soon with your claim about your puck getting better with age.
 

AimlessWanderer

Remember to forget me!
I think the reason that this product is so "controversial" is that it is so well liked by so many, and is one of a few very well established products. I don't think it's any more YMMV than anything else, just that it's a topic of conversation more, therefore it is subject to more passionate responses (for and against). The secret to it's controversial nature is social, not chemical or mechanical.

For example, Polsilver SI blades get some fantastic reviews on here, but I've found the one in my razor right now to be incredibly disappointing. I'm not the only one. Psfred shared that his experiences with them pretty much parallels mine. I went to the "what popular blades do you hate" thread earlier this evening, to make my first entry there, and my post followed another by a member decrying Polsilvers. It wouldn't take much "effort" for these blades to be just as controversial as MWF, with a little provocation of human nature.

I'd suggest the real secret to why Mitchell's is so controversial, is precisely the same reason that Twitter is so successful. Polarisation and frequency of exposure. The frequency of the praise draws out the hate, and vice versa.
 
I think the reason that this product is so "controversial" is that it is so well liked by so many, and is one of a few very well established products. I don't think it's any more YMMV than anything else, just that it's a topic of conversation more, therefore it is subject to more passionate responses (for and against). The secret to it's controversial nature is social, not chemical or mechanical.

For example, Polsilver SI blades get some fantastic reviews on here, but I've found the one in my razor right now to be incredibly disappointing. I'm not the only one. Psfred shared that his experiences with them pretty much parallels mine. I went to the "what popular blades do you hate" thread earlier this evening, to make my first entry there, and my post followed another by a member decrying Polsilvers. It wouldn't take much "effort" for these blades to be just as controversial as MWF, with a little provocation of human nature.

I'd suggest the real secret to why Mitchell's is so controversial, is precisely the same reason that Twitter is so successful. Polarisation and frequency of exposure. The frequency of the praise draws out the hate, and vice versa.

It's possible that MWF might not be as controversial as it appears, but then again, MWF might just be as controversial as it appears. Some soaps will be more liked on average than other soaps on average, just as some blades will be more liked on average than other blades on average. Differences of opinion will be greater for some soaps than others.
 

AimlessWanderer

Remember to forget me!
Maybe so, but it's the passion and frequency of discussion that brings them to the fore. Also, the fact that the product is the same as it was in the 1930s.

Wilkinson sword blades have been made in England, Germany, and india. Even while in Germany, they've been sold in a white box and black box, with variations if card image. Variations dilute the polarisation. I bet that if they had always been made in England, always with the same grade of stainless, always on the same machines, and always with the same packaging, those blades would be just as polarising today as MWF.

Conversely, if Mitchells moved factory and changed packaging, after a while you'd hear people saying they preferred the old over the new, or the new over the old, even if the product hadn't changed. At that point it's no longer this one product that's been around since 1930 vs everything else on the market and still sold in ye olde style packaging. It's new vs old vs everything else, and it's presence and identity against other products changes.

Another example would be Edwin Jagger razors. Always the same head, and same design for many years, produced in the same factory. It's a staple on the market that's been on the market in it's current form for many years, and the only thing that diminishes it from being more polarising is the fascination with vintage DE razors. As regards modern razors, the "DE89" (which is only one razor, but is commonly used to reflect the range) is a key marker for other razors.

As it is the one that others are often measured against, it get come mention in conversation, and therefore becomes more polarising. Still a lesser extent that Mitchell's, I agree. But is there any other product on the shaving market, of which there is only one variation, and which has remained unchanged since the 1930s? It's a milestone, a prevailing feature on the map, a marker from which other products are compared.
 
Maybe so, but it's the passion and frequency of discussion that brings them to the fore. Also, the fact that the product is the same as it was in the 1930s.

Wilkinson sword blades have been made in England, Germany, and india. Even while in Germany, they've been sold in a white box and black box, with variations if card image. Variations dilute the polarisation. I bet that if they had always been made in England, always with the same grade of stainless, always on the same machines, and always with the same packaging, those blades would be just as polarising today as MWF.

Conversely, if Mitchells moved factory and changed packaging, after a while you'd hear people saying they preferred the old over the new, or the new over the old, even if the product hadn't changed. At that point it's no longer this one product that's been around since 1930 vs everything else on the market and still sold in ye olde style packaging. It's new vs old vs everything else, and it's presence and identity against other products changes.

Another example would be Edwin Jagger razors. Always the same head, and same design for many years, produced in the same factory. It's a staple on the market that's been on the market in it's current form for many years, and the only thing that diminishes it from being more polarising is the fascination with vintage DE razors. As regards modern razors, the "DE89" (which is only one razor, but is commonly used to reflect the range) is a key marker for other razors.

As it is the one that others are often measured against, it get come mention in conversation, and therefore becomes more polarising. Still a lesser extent that Mitchell's, I agree. But is there any other product on the shaving market, of which there is only one variation, and which has remained unchanged since the 1930s? It's a milestone, a prevailing feature on the map, a marker from which other products are compared.

I'm sure that you're right about there being social and pschological factors at play on why MWF appears more controversial than many other soaps. :001_smile Unfortunately, what I think about such speculation takes a backseat to experimental evidence and personal testimony, including yours, about the behavior of MWF. I'll update the summary soon.
 

AimlessWanderer

Remember to forget me!
I personally think it's BY FAR the most significant factor.

Apologies for the excruciating spelling and grammatical errors, by the way. That's my phone trying to be "helpful".

The shaving soaps are probably the most dynamic sector of the traditional shaving scene at the moment. There's a plethora of artisan creators and products coming on line all the time. Then there's business acquisitions, relocations, fomulation evolutions... how on earth do you navigate through it all? The same way we do any form of navigation. You need a datum from which to navigate from. Something that's been there for ever, and will continue to be there for years to come. One constant.

Mitchell's Wool Fat!
 
Last edited:
I personally think it's BY FAR the most significant factor.

I hear you, but even if social factors are involved in why we hear of more controversy with MWF than other soaps, those social factors wouldn't take anything away from experimental evidence and real testimonies, as documented here, regarding the behavior of MWF.
 

AimlessWanderer

Remember to forget me!
I hear you, but even if social factors are involved in why we hear of more controversy with MWF than other soaps, those social factors wouldn't take anything away from experimental evidence and real testimonies, as documented here, regarding the behavior of MWF.

Nope! They wouldn't. But why this soap? Why is this the one that needs to be understood?

Social factors.

(I edited my previous post while you were posting). Mitchells is the constant that many people compare to and navigate from. But while it is constant, the opinion of it is not. The navigation marker so often used does not look the same to all that view it, and that frustrates us. When someone says "this new soap is fantastic, it's even better than mitchell's", but the reader of that review hates Mitchells, their navigation is screwed. Everyone else can navigate to the same understanding but them, and then there's a RESENTMENT for the product. Not only does the product not work for them, it also puts them at a disposition to the crowd in terms of understanding.

You've got a constant which is not universal. The fact that other stuff isn't universal, frankly doesn't matter, because you're not trying to navigate from A to B with it. Other stuff doesn't need to be understood. It doesn't matter if some like it and some don't, or how many are in favour or are against, as it's only relative to itself. This is why Mitchell's gets peoples goat, and why it is a more passionate subject than alternative products. This one matters in more ways psychologically, and literally fragments a group even when not discussing the product itself.
 
Nope! They wouldn't. But why this soap? Why is this the one that needs to be understood?

Social factors.

(I edited my previous post while you were posting). Mitchells is the constant that many people compare to and navigate from. But while it is constant, the opinion of it is not. The navigation marker so often used does not look the same to all that view it, and that frustrates us. When someone says "this new soap is fantastic, it's even better than mitchell's", but the reader of that review hates Mitchells, their navigation is screwed. Everyone else can navigate to the same understanding but them, and then there's a RESENTMENT for the product. Not only does the product not work for them, it also puts them at a disposition to the crowd in terms of understanding.

You've got a constant which is not universal. The fact that other stuff isn't universal, frankly doesn't matter, because you're not trying to navigate from A to B with it. Other stuff doesn't need to be understood. It doesn't matter if some like it and some don't, or how many are in favour or are against, as it's only relative to itself. This is why Mitchell's gets peoples goat, and why it is a more passionate subject than alternative products. This one matters in more ways psychologically, and literally fragments a group even when not discussing the product itself.

MWF has been around a long time, that's for sure, but there are other soaps that have been around a long time, too. I hope that no one sees this and thinks that MWF is being singled out as the only soap that is controversial, that apparently has larger variance in opinions, more lovers and haters. MWF is not alone there. Social factors could play a role in the appearance of controversy. We're all free to speculate about how significant social factors are, but such speculation pales in comparison to real testimonies and experimental evidence about the behavior of MWF. The latter is what I've tried to focus on here.
 

shavefan

I’m not a fan
I gave up on MWF after trying for weeks to get a consistent lather from it. I don't think 'social factors' played into my decision.
 

AimlessWanderer

Remember to forget me!
MWF has been around a long time, that's for sure, but there are other soaps that have been around a long time, too. I hope that no one sees this and thinks that MWF is being singled out as the only soap that is controversial, that apparently has larger variance in opinions, more lovers and haters. MWF is not alone there. Social factors could play a role in the appearance of controversy. We're all free to speculate about how significant social factors are, but such speculation pales in comparison to real testimonies and experimental evidence about the behavior of MWF. The latter is what I've tried to focus on here.

My point is not that social factors distract from the exchange of what works for who, and why - but has in fact led to the discussion in the first place.

You stated that ...

It was my hope that this thread would help shed light on why MWF is so controversial

... and I believe the controversy (not variations in performance) stems from the social and psychological factors.

If Williams doesn't work for someone, no biggie, they just move on. Arko picks up some love/hate for the scent, but again, if someone doesn't get on with the performance, there's no profound consternation, no controversy.

Not so with Mitchell's.

There's a passion. A need for the views to be expressed, and shared with others who feel the same way. Disbelief and lack of understanding of why others passionately express the polar opposite opinion. A desire to try and understand and rationalise this.

No, this takes nothing whatsoever away from your findings of the product, or Sam's, or mine, or anyone else's. The persistent fact (probably the most persistent fact of this thread in my mind) is that socialogically, opinion on Mitchells matters more to online communities than the vast majority other soaps.

Would this thread have had so much attention if it was any other soap?

It's the passion (positive and negative) that causes the controversy with this soap, and that passion doesn't seem to be present with other products. Yes, there are some passionate supporters of other soaps, but those who don't like them don't feel the need to fly the flag like they do with this.

I believe the previous findings do explore how lather may vary with water or time. It does also show that one man's meat is another mans poison. But to understand the controversy, and why the conversation matters, the answer isn't on all the brushes, but the reflections in all the mirrors.
 
My point is not that social factors distract from the exchange of what works for who, and why - but has in fact led to the discussion in the first place.

You stated that ...



... and I believe the controversy (not variations in performance) stems from the social and psychological factors.

If Williams doesn't work for someone, no biggie, they just move on. Arko picks up some love/hate for the scent, but again, if someone doesn't get on with the performance, there's no profound consternation, no controversy.

Not so with Mitchell's.

There's a passion. A need for the views to be expressed, and shared with others who feel the same way. Disbelief and lack of understanding of why others passionately express the polar opposite opinion. A desire to try and understand and rationalise this.

No, this takes nothing whatsoever away from your findings of the product, or Sam's, or mine, or anyone else's. The persistent fact (probably the most persistent fact of this thread in my mind) is that socialogically, opinion on Mitchells matters more to online communities than the vast majority other soaps.

Would this thread have had so much attention if it was any other soap?

It's the passion (positive and negative) that causes the controversy with this soap, and that passion doesn't seem to be present with other products. Yes, there are some passionate supporters of other soaps, but those who don't like them don't feel the need to fly the flag like they do with this.

I believe the previous findings do explore how lather may vary with water or time. It does also show that one man's meat is another mans poison. But to understand the controversy, and why the conversation matters, the answer isn't on all the brushes, but the reflections in all the mirrors.

You are right that there has been much interest in this thread, more than I expected---the title helped, I think---but what else are we to expect about a soap that has its own fan club? As a member of the Order of the Fat, and as someone who is focusing on social factors surrounding MWF, it should be apparent to you that any soap that garners so much love will inevitably garner strong reactions on the other end of the spectrum, especially when those that love MWF defend it and explicitly or implicitly blame users for not liking MWF. That's what I've observed at B&B over and over again. It's easy to see how emotions can be stirred. That's a social factor for you, and a big one, at that. Trying to understand why so many people love MWF and others hate MWF, trying to understand the "mystery", has been this thread's focus, grounded not in speculation, but in experimental data and real testimonials that could actually shed light on why MWF works for some and doesn't work for others. My focus has been on actual performance, not on sociological and psychological issues regarding familiarity, tradition, etc. The OP got the ball rolling with my personal optimization results. From there, samples have been shared, more experiments have been conducted, and important testimonials have been posted. With any hope, those that have no feelings about MWF and those that "love" or "hate" MWF, whether impassioned or not, can all look at this thread and see that a fair, honest, and open attempt has been made to understand MWF and the differences of opinion surrounding its performance. I'm still open to accepting a sample of MWF that is considered as making thick, rich, slick lather. You'd think that someone from the Order of the Fat, at least within the United States, would be willing to put his stamp of approval on a personal sample and send it to me for comparison and photographs, but no such luck yet. I would love to see and feel proof of my MWF being significantly different from someone else's MWF. That would be really cool!
 
Last edited:
I gave up on MWF after trying for weeks to get a consistent lather from it. I don't think 'social factors' played into my decision.

Thanks for the feedback. Similar to your experience, my opinion of MWF didn't have to do with social factors, either. Picking MWF as my second shaving soap was based on all of the praise from others, but that's as far as social factors went.
 

Current Summary of Thread Results on Mitchell's Wool Fat (MWF)


[Note: This summary is identical to the previous summary, but with additional information about how one's puck might change with age, for better or worse, outside of hydration.]

  1. Differences of Opinion on Same/Similar Lather with MWF: It appears that there are big differences of opinion about similar or identical lather from MWF, as supported by two cases of members sharing MWF samples:
    • @ShavingByTheNumbers (Grant) sent @rockviper (Sam) a sample of MWF that Grant considered as making an airy lather that was not slick (URL). Sam posted lather photos and reported that Grant's MWF made the slick lather with MWF that Sam was used to (URL, URL, URL, URL). Grant looked at Sam's photos and was reminded of the inferior lather with MWF that Grant was used to (URL).
    • @AlphaFrank75 (Dan) sent @ShavingByTheNumbers (Grant) a sample of MWF that Dan considered as making a "somewhat" thick, rich, and slick lather (URL). Grant made lathers with distilled water, took photos, and shaved with the lathers in controlled tests between his MWF and Dan's MWF. Grant found that the two samples of MWF made very similar lather, both in appearance and performance, airy and not slick, with the exception that Dan's MWF had a lower optimum water-to-soap ratio (URL).
  2. MWF Might Get Better or Worse with Age: A puck of MWF might actually degrade with age, as indicated by the experience of @MrMoJoe, who found that his MWF changed from "always" making very good lather in the prior two or three winters to making "a very thin bubbly, sudsy lather" despite his best efforts with extended soakings of the puck and multiple attempts with various lathering methods (URL). On the other hand, a puck of MWF might actually get better with age. @AimlessWanderer (Al) found that his puck of MWF "improved with time, and not just because it [got] wetter" (URL). It is possible that, apart from hydration, certain pucks of MWF could get better with age, while other pucks could become worse with age. It is also possible that the same puck of MWF could improve with age, then peak in performance, and finally degrade over time.
  3. Lack of Visual Feedback Can Make Building Lather with MWF Tricky: Lack of visual feedback regarding lather hydration has been photographed by @ShavingByTheNumbers (Grant) for two samples of MWF (URL), which might just be observed as making airy lather no matter the reasonable water-to-soap ratio. Combined with the possibility that MWF may be used in smaller amounts compared to other soaps, this would also make MWF a more difficult soap to lather, more difficult to hit the right amounts of soap and water for the particular user, and explain why some users never get MWF to work for them (URL).
  4. Rate of Adding Water during Lather Building with MWF Is Insignificant: Thorough experiments were conducted and photographed by @ShavingByTheNumbers (Grant) on the issue of water incorporation rate during lather building. Lathers with water-to-soap ratios of 10, 50, 100, and 200, from relatively dry lathers to relatively wet lathers, were built more slowly with incremental additions of water and were also built more quickly with almost all water being added at the start of lather building. Results showed the insignificance of water incorporation rate (URL).
  5. Soaking MWF Does Not Matter Much: Photographed experimental results by @ShavingByTheNumbers (Grant) indicate that soaking MWF can reduce lather building time, but soaking does not significantly improve lather quality (URL).
 
I live in NYC, but travel to Cambodia every year for board work I do for a non-profit. I just got back this weekend after spending 3 weeks there. Typically I don't check a bag so I have brought disposable razors and stuff out of a can that I buy over there, but this time I brought my badger, blade, and soap with me. NYC has pretty soft water after testing it and also looking at the annual water quality reports that have come out agree with my home testing. Phnom Penh where I was has incredibly hard water (and other nasty stuff you don't want to drink). There is typically scaling all over everything that water touches over there. Oddly enough, my shave soap and soap in general lathers better and slicker than in NYC. What gives? I'm curious after looking at the huge annual water quality report that there could be other factors that effect lather. There's a ton of stuff in that report present in water and calcium and magnesium are only two. There might be some lesser known stuff in there that has a much larger effect on lather than typical measures of "hardness".
 
I live in NYC, but travel to Cambodia every year for board work I do for a non-profit. I just got back this weekend after spending 3 weeks there. Typically I don't check a bag so I have brought disposable razors and stuff out of a can that I buy over there, but this time I brought my badger, blade, and soap with me. NYC has pretty soft water after testing it and also looking at the annual water quality reports that have come out agree with my home testing. Phnom Penh where I was has incredibly hard water (and other nasty stuff you don't want to drink). There is typically scaling all over everything that water touches over there. Oddly enough, my shave soap and soap in general lathers better and slicker than in NYC. What gives? I'm curious after looking at the huge annual water quality report that there could be other factors that effect lather. There's a ton of stuff in that report present in water and calcium and magnesium are only two. There might be some lesser known stuff in there that has a much larger effect on lather than typical measures of "hardness".

Maybe. I did some research and found that Cambodian water has high levels of arsenic:

https://www.chijournal.org/Content/Files/R225-02.pdf

Could arsenic explain your experience? I don't know.
 
So I have always stayed in Phnom Penh. I found this report detailing the city's water treatment plants pre and post treatment to disinfect the water. It's also a more modern study. Total hardness is very low, similar to NYC. However, they have added chlorine gas and aluminum sulphate. It also mentions that nothing is implemented to remove heavy metals, which could include the metaloid arsenic that you mention.

Phnom Penh’s Municipal drinking water supply: water quality assessment


Maybe next year when I go I will bring MWF and see if it lathers as well as everything else out there!
 
Top Bottom