Captain's Choice is the WORST shaving soap that I've optimized so far

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

I read this thread and the wiki page for optimizing lather. Gotta be honest, I think the whole thing is silly. From a scientific perspective too many variables are ignored.

Thanks for reading the thread and wiki page. Yeah, it get how it seems silly, but ever since I started measuring soap and water masses, my lathers have never been so consistent and controlled. It's interesting to me how a single soap can produce two lathers that look the same and might seem the same, but perform differently because they have different hydration levels or were built with different amounts of agitation. I shave daily and so I got in the habit of documenting my findings and sharing them here with the hope that they help others find what works best for them, too.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

+1. Could not have said it better.

I don't have an issue with anyone dissing a product they don't like but to create a libelous thread using all caps and to justify it with a pretense of scientific objectivity is bad form and ungentlemanly. Imagine yourself a small businessman who had worked for years to establish a reputation only to have that reputation assailed by an amateur scientist who has not even first subjected his theory to any kind of expert review. The fact that so many disagree with the scientific results is sufficient evidence to suggest that the method needs some work and maybe the libel isn't justified.

Just sayin.

The title of my thread is not libelous. It's my opinion and I even used a personal pronoun to emphasis that.

Happens every day & all day on Amazon, Ebay, Yelp, etc. The OP's personal opinion hardly can be called libel even in the most liberal sense of the word itself. The problem is that society has been "dumbed down" and many are unable to separate wheat from chaff. As well, many are too sensitive to any critique whatsoever and threaten to "unleash the lawyers!!". Perhaps we should bring back dueling(?).

Take what you want from it & leave the rest. Personally, I think he's wasting his time, but that's his right and I can always choose not to click on the thread.

Thanks. I agree, not completely with the "he's wasting his time" part, but I get that and I've even thought that to myself sometimes.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

This thread has actually been helpful because it has been a vehicle allowing people to share how it does and doesn't work well, as well as the factors contributing to the experiences. So, for that I can offer my thanks. It also encouraged me to break out my Vie Long 50/50 and try it with, of all things, a hard soap.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

TBH I don't understand your methodology and it makes little sense to me. Creams, croaps and used soap already have water in them so the SCM is ..what??? It's cool to quantify but with no controls it does not make sense to me. It's great if you are tabulating your own YMMV results but has no bearing on how good a soap is. AoS could be used brushless so would have a WSCR of unknown (don't know amount of water in base cream), SCIT=0, LBT=0 and gives a fantastic shave. Don't even have to use a brush. Have fun with trying to quantify your own personal results but don't take offense if people put no merit in them.

My methodology and results are all documented in my lather optimization guide in the ShaveWiki (URL). You're right that AOS could be used brushless, so in that case, SCIT=0, LBT=0, and WSCR=0 (since no water was added to the cream).

 

[Macfrommichigan]

Not tonight, dear. I've got a headache.

 

[Hannah's Dad]

 

[AimlessWanderer]

I get good lather with PdP using my favorite brush. People always comment on how small it is. My Pro 10098
@ShavingByTheNumbers , if you happen to get a soap that isn't performing as expected. Some soaps only lather well if incremental, small amounts of water are added over time while whipping/lathering in between additions.

I agree with this. I've been having battles with a cream, which seems to be rather inconsistent at my hand. I know what lather the cream is capable of producing, but my efforts aren't always successful in getting it there.

I lathered it up successfully today with a synthetic brush, after a boar brush with less water turned it to soup a few minutes earlier. It was almost as though the soap stuck to the brush, and refused to party with the water in the bowl, but I think the boar adding the water too quickly might have been part of the problem. The synthetic picks up less water at a time, and the slower incorporation (plus the better suited action of the bristles) was significantly better.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

Ok, first off it's kinda bad form to call a soap out as the WORST you've ever tried. It's much better to say things like "maybe this one wasn't a good fit for me" or even, "it's not one that I'd prefer to use". I'm all for honest reviews and insist on nothing less but many of these artisan makers put a lot of time and effort into their products. It's really hard to get any kind of publicity so negative publicity is not a good thing for any of them. The maker is a hell of a nice guy and personally I rank his soaps toward the top of my second tier. My top tier only contains 8 soap makers of the 600 plus soaps I've tried. So near the top of my tier 2 would be an excellent product. Something that would be impressive to most that tried it. I don't work for or benefit from anything this or any other vendor sells. I'm not trying to defend anyone, but I try to see the big picture and be kind to everyone. Products that I don't care for might well be someone else's favorite and vise versa. So I try to be respectful.

So in seeing your post title I don't agree, so I want to better understand your criteria and I take a closer look. This closer look makes me even more confused. I didn't see this thread earlier but it appears the mods had to clear some comments making me suspect that I'm not the only one that doesn't agree.

So I proceed further, looking at the facts subjectively.

Now, I'm doing my best to stick to the facts and I'm looking at this with an open mind and unfortunately I'm not sure that I understand how your criteria would effect the performance. I'm completely clueless as to why you're gathering the data that you're gathering and how it impacts your ranking. While I applaud your effort, because I know you're putting some work into this, I'd like to better understand what it is that you're going for.

Please clarify.

PR Performance Ranking - ok, this one matters but I have no idea how it's determined as all other data isn't really related or at least it isn't related to performance to me.
PD Purchase Date (YYYY-MM-DD) - doesn't really matter to me as long as the soap hasn't gone bad or is excessively old.
SCM Soap/Cream Mass (g) - interesting to note but not really related to performance. I use whatever amount that I need to get the ideal lather.
WM Water Mass (g) - see soap/cream mass. I add whatever water I need so this means nothing to me either.
TM Total Mass (g) = SCM + WM - again, pretty much useless to me in determining performance.
WSCR Water-to-Soap/Cream Ratio = WM / SCM - again useless to me.
SCIT Soap/Cream-Incorporation Time (s) - I'm guessing this is how long to convert the soap to a lather. Again, no impact on performance for me.
LBT Lather-Building Time (s) - how long it took to make the lather. Not sure on this one as well.
SCP Soap/Cream Price (USD) - no impact on performance at all.

So from the categories you're looking at how much soap it takes to lather, how easily a soap lathers and what it costs. The rest of the criteria are ratios of the time to lather or the amount of soap/water. Interesting to note but not numbers that I'd use to rate a soaps performance. Kinda on par with picking a car to win a race only because it's blue.

With the statistics you're displaying, as I understand them, I'd expect Martin de Candre to come in first as it seems to produce lather more quickly than anything else on the market and it does so with very little product used.

The performance ratings are nowhere near the order I'd rank those soap in having tried them all. Based on the other comments I suspect others aren't agreeing with your ratings as well.

What I'm not seeing here is water quality, slickness, residual slickness, post shave moisturizing, cushion (though to me this isn't as good of a performance indicator as slickness). There is no mention of anything that I'd consider related to performance. Time to lather is a negative if it's excessive but most are reasonable in this regard as not to stand out.

This test might be more useful in using the same soap each time with different qualities of water to determine water hardness impact on latherability. That would be interesting and the results would likely have a bit more meaning.

Maybe these statistics would be good to determine how long a soap will last or possibly the potential price per shave but again for me price isn't related to performance.

Either way, if I missed it in an earlier post my apologies, but please share some more information as to why you're ranking the performance the way that you are.

Thanks, David, for your feedback. I think that my lather optimization guide (URL) covers my subjective performance rankings in the reviews, particularly the "ranking details" sections. Usually I give more details than I did with CC, but I didn't feel like explaining what can be understood, even if not agreed to due to subjectivity, if one compares my "optimum lather overview" sections for CC and the previous last-place soap. (@Clay S is probably saying something like, "This is why you need detailed performance scores, Grant!" ) The other metrics, soap/cream mass, water mass, lather-building time, etc., provide the quantitative values needed to reproduce my optimum lathers for the soaps and creams, at least when following my lather-building method of bowl lathering with average water and starting with a dry synthetic-hair brush. It's the information that I use when revisiting a soap or cream to reproduce its optimum lather for a ranking test. I hope that helps. Please let me know if there's more that I should explain.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

View attachment 939803

Gotta love Don Knotts! Boy, do I feel like that sometimes. Thanks for the laugh!

 

[ajkel64]

Gentlemen, let's keep the discussion civil. Every member is entitled to his or her opinion and discussion about methodology is always helpful

+1 Here. We can certainly have a spirited discussion on a product or topic but lets start off the New Year as Gentlemen and remain friends. We are not always going to agree on everything but we can agree to disagree. As with one of the most used quotes on this forum YMMV.

 

[Clay S]

Thanks, David, for your feedback. I think that my lather optimization guide (URL) covers my subjective performance rankings in the reviews, particularly the "ranking details" sections. Usually I give more details than I did with CC, but I didn't feel like explaining what can be understood, even if not agreed to due to subjectivity, if one compares my "optimum lather overview" sections for CC and the previous last-place soap. (@Clay S is probably saying something like, "This is why you need detailed performance scores, Grant!" ) The other metrics, soap/cream mass, water mass, lather-building time, etc., provide the quantitative values needed to reproduce my optimum lathers for the soaps and creams, at least when following my lather-building method of bowl lathering with average water and starting with a dry synthetic-hair brush. It's the information that I use when revisiting a soap or cream to reproduce its optimum lather for a ranking test. I hope that helps. Please let me know if there's more that I should explain.

Yeah! I was about to PM you and let you know that several think the metrics are "why" you ranked it a certain way. Not just you basically explain "what" lather you tested. Someone could figure out how, in a repeatable, measurable way, that they lather it well, and tell that to you, viola. You might be on the same page. Load for a time period is too variable to be useful though, along with any type of love interest, or breakup you had with it.

Your ranking system is what you like best, in an open, undefined way, heavily penalized if it irritates your skin, IIRC.

You could have worded the title so many different/better ways though

 

[Hannah's Dad]

Gotta love Don Knotts! Boy, do I feel like that sometimes. Thanks for the laugh!

He’s one of my favorites! Great work, by the way. I’ve been following your conclusions closely (if not the methodology!).

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

He’s one of my favorites! Great work, by the way. I’ve been following your conclusions closely (if not the methodology!).

Thanks! I appreciate that. It's nice to hear.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

Yeah! I was about to PM you and let you know that several think the metrics are "why" you ranked it a certain way. Not just you basically explain "what" lather you tested. Someone could figure out how, in a repeatable, measurable way, that they lather it well, and tell that to you, viola. You might be on the same page. Load for a time period is too variable to be useful though, along with any type of love interest, or breakup you had with it.

Your ranking system is what you like best, in an open, undefined way, heavily penalized if it irritates your skin, IIRC.

You could have worded the title so many different/better ways though

That title really instigated some unwanted attention, but it was a good lesson. I'll try not to emphasis "worst" the next time I use it, if ever again.

I know what you're saying, Clay, about the confusion. I've seen it too many times now, and with the list growing, it's getting harder to do ranking tests and it's causing more confusion by my not having metrics that detail my performance rankings. I need to transition to SCORES that should then allow me to avoid ranking tests. It takes time to do that and it's not easy, so I don't know when it will happen, but thanks for the encouragement and clarity.

 

[dfoulk]

Thanks, David, for your feedback. I think that my lather optimization guide (URL) covers my subjective performance rankings in the reviews, particularly the "ranking details" sections. Usually I give more details than I did with CC, but I didn't feel like explaining what can be understood, even if not agreed to due to subjectivity, if one compares my "optimum lather overview" sections for CC and the previous last-place soap. (@Clay S is probably saying something like, "This is why you need detailed performance scores, Grant!" ) The other metrics, soap/cream mass, water mass, lather-building time, etc., provide the quantitative values needed to reproduce my optimum lathers for the soaps and creams, at least when following my lather-building method of bowl lathering with average water and starting with a dry synthetic-hair brush. It's the information that I use when revisiting a soap or cream to reproduce its optimum lather for a ranking test. I hope that helps. Please let me know if there's more that I should explain.

Thanks for the response, I'll take a look tomorrow as we have people over for a New Year's celebration right now. I am interested in how you see things whether I happen to agree with your findings or not.

May you and your family have a Happy New Year.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

Thanks for the response, I'll take a look tomorrow as we have people over for a New Year's celebration right now. I am interested in how you see things whether I happen to agree with your findings or not.

May you and your family have a Happy New Year.

Thanks, David. Have a great time! Happy New Year to you and yours, too.

 

[StillShaving]

While I have very much enjoyed by-the-numbers reports on DE razors and blades, I don't understand these soap reviews, as the numbers reported seem to matter little. The added text write-up provides more insight, but I take all soap/cream reviews with a grain of salt due to YMMV. And my own experiences of getting a perfect lather one day and not quite nailing it a week later when I go back to the same soap.

Scent, type of lather, post shave feel, etc, are not universally shared attributes and are difficult to quantify. But make all the difference.

I don't think I would like MWF if it didn't contain lanolin. But at what point is one (myself included) judging a soap by added ingredients that could otherwise be part of their aftershave balm. Maybe judging after any aftershave splash or balm is applied is also warranted.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

While I have very much enjoyed by-the-numbers reports on DE razors and blades, I don't understand these soap reviews, as the numbers reported seem to matter little. The added text write-up provides more insight, but I take all soap/cream reviews with a grain of salt due to YMMV. And my own experiences of getting a perfect lather one day and not quite nailing it a week later when I go back to the same soap.

Scent, type of lather, post shave feel, etc, are not universally shared attributes and are difficult to quantify. But make all the difference.

I don't think I would like MWF if it didn't contain lanolin. But at what point is one (myself included) judging a soap by added ingredients that could otherwise be part of their aftershave balm. Maybe judging after any aftershave splash or balm is applied is also warranted.

Thanks for the feedback, @StillShaving. The optimum lather table gives the numbers for how to make my optimum lathers. You're right that the table doesn't explain the performance rankings. That is done in the reviews with words, not numbers, except for the numbers discussed regarding optimization details. Since opinions of soaps and creams are subjective, and I know that my opinion alone shouldn't mean much to others, I didn't want to break down performance metrics and give scores, which can be tricky anyway. However, I knew that I could make measurements and share them to show how much water really is needed to build lather, which soaps and creams are more "thirsty" than others with respect to their optimum lathers, in my opinion, of course, and how much time it takes to build those optimum lathers relative to incorporating the soaps and creams. The idea was to inspire others to optimize lather, too, even if they don't measure mass, but that hasn't panned out.

 

[Esox]

That title really instigated some unwanted attention, but it was a good lesson. I'll try not to emphasis "worst" the next time I use it, if ever again.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

Okay, guys. Aside from the criticism of the thread's title, I heard the confusion about the optimum lather table. It is understandable since that table doesn't explain the performance rankings. That's what the reviews do. However, I haven't provided a table with key review information to make it easy for others to understand why I rank my optimum lathers the way that I do. Some buddies recommended that I convert to a numeric scoring system, and that's a good idea, maybe something that I'll do in the future, but getting that going seems difficult to me and I don't have time.

I did have time to copy what I wrote in my reviews, specifically from the "optimum lather overview" sections, and paste the performance information in shortened form into a performance ranking table, shown below. The idea is that this table will be included and updated with the optimum lather table, since the performance ranking table explains in short form how my optimum lathers perform. What do you think?

PR	Soap/Cream	Slickness	Cushion or Protection	Post-Shave Moisture	Post-Shave Comfort
1	Nanny's Silly Soap (NSS) Original Shaving Soap	very good to great	pretty good	very good	very good
2	Declaration Grooming (DG) Shaving Soap, Premium Bison Tallow Base	generally good to very good	very little	very good	very good
3	Proraso Single Blade (PSB) Shaving Cream	generally good to very good	okay or pretty good	very good	good
4	Barrister and Mann (B&M) Shaving Soap	pretty good to very good	very little, almost nothing	good	good
5	Oleo Soapworks Shaving Soap, Canard Base / West Coast Shaving (WCS) Duck Fat Shave Soap	generally good to very good	okay	pretty good	pretty good
6	Cold River Soap Works (CRSW) SELECT Shaving Soap	okay to very good	pretty good	very good	very good
7	Stirling Soap Co. Shave Soap	generally good to very good	basically nothing	kind of on the dry side	good
8	Saponificio Varesino (SV) Shaving Soap	generally okay to good	pretty good	okay or pretty good	good
9	Barrister's Reserve Shaving Soap	generally good to very good	pretty good or good	okay, but kind of dry	little irritation
10	Rockwell Razors Shaving Cream (Old Version)	okay to very good	okay or pretty good	pretty good	okay
11	Proraso Red Shaving Soap	generally good and steady	okay or pretty good	good	okay with irritation
12	Martin de Candre (MdC) Shaving Soap	generally very good	okay or pretty good	pretty good	some overall irritation
13	Mike's Natural Shaving Soap	generally okay or pretty good	okay	good	little irritation
14	Arko Shaving Soap	generally okay to good	okay or pretty good	kind of dry	okay with some irritation
15	Barrister and Mann (B&M) Latha Shaving Soap (Discontinued)	generally good to very good	basically nothing	on the dry side	some overall irritation
16	Floris Shaving Cream	generally pretty good to very good	okay, not much	dry	bad, significant irritation
17	The Art of Shaving (AOS) Shaving Cream	generally good to very good	almost nothing	on the dry side	irritation
18	Mystic Water (MW) Shaving Soap	okay to good	basically nothing	little on the dry side	pretty good
19	The Sudsy Soapery Shave Soap, Vegan Base	pretty good	very little, almost nothing	kind of dry	little overall irritation
20	Captain's Choice (CC) Shaving Soap	generally good	very little, basically nothing	dry	bad, significant irritation