Identifying Vintage Williams

[michiganlover]

As myself, and others have said, Vintage Williams was amazing stuff. In this thread, I am going to attempt to collect all of the information we know about Vintage Williams together, so that those of you who wish to locate a puck of this great soap can know what you are looking for.

(this thread will probably drive the bidding wars for Vintage Williams higher. )

If you have any info to add, please feel free to do so. I am by no means an expect on Vintage Williams, but the soap has a rich history, that I would like to eventually document in the Wiki.

 

[michiganlover]

The discussion of Vintage Williams is found in multiple Williams threads, scattered throughout the board. It's not currently collected together in one location. I would like to change that, and eventually put together a wiki page.

First a note on Reformulation: the product has had multiple re-formulations. It's seems to have been reformulated every time the company was sold. The best of the best is pre-bar code. This would be the product actually made by the "J.B. Williams Company". Bar codes started in the late 1970's.

So anything without a bar code is amazing stuff!!

It's fairly difficult to date Williams, but a trained eye will pick up on subtle differences in the box design. There is one box design that can be accurately dated: it has a promo to save $3/$4 off of a pewter mug celebrating the nations Bicentennial. Since the promo appeared in variations of saving either $3 off, or $4 off, I suspect the promo ran for two years 1975, and 1976.

After the actual "J.B. Williams" soap, the company was sold to Beechum, which was later Glaxo, Smith Kline. A friend from the North graciously sent me a puck to test with (which was from the 1990's), and while not the knock your socks off formulation of the truly Vintage Williams, it's still a passable shaving soap.

Another distinguishing feature, that is lacking on the most recent boxes, is a round circle on the top flap of the box for affixing a price sticker. Some of the really old boxes have a price permanently printed in this circle from the factory. Others have the pricing circle blank.

I don't have evidence to support this, but I suspect this pricing circle disappeared once bar codes became more prevalent.

From what I know, the product didn't become the disaster of a shaving soap, that inspires the love it, or hate it reaction until it's most recent re-formulation which happened when the company was sold to Combe.

If I get some time in the next few days, I will try to post some photos of the various box designs.

As for the actual Vintage Williams itself, it came in a few different variations. There was Williams, Williams Barber Bar, Williams Tonsorial, Williams Luxury (same as regular Williams but with a rose scent), and Williams Menthol, and a Williams Shaving Stick (also rose scented).

The Barber's Bar, and the Tonsorial were bulk packed in a tube for the Barber trade. The Williams Menthol, and Williams Luxury were out of production by the 80's I believe.

 

[Greybeard]

Williams soap was introduced in Manchester, Connecticut as Williams Genuine Yankee Soap in 1840. It was the first soap manufactured for use in shaving mugs.
The company moved to Glastonbury, Connecticut in 1847 and stayed there until 1960. Any box with a company address of Glastonbury, Connecticut would have been manufactured before 1960.
In 1848 the company was known as James B. Williams and Company. The name was changed in 1885 to J. B. Williams Company.

The company was purchased from the Williams family by Pharmaceuticals, Inc., manufacturers of Geritol and Sominex, in 1957. The company was moved to Cranford, New Jersey in 1960 and the name was changed to J. B. Williams Co. Inc. The company remained there until 1999 (afaik).
The old plant in Glastonbury was taken over by former employees and incorporated as Glastonbury Toiletries. Glastonbury Toiletries continued to manufacture Williams shaving soaps under contract to the J.B. Williams Co., using the old formulae, until they went under in 1977. This may also have signaled the demise of the luxury variations. This was also just around the time UPC coding was showing up in grocery stores, so any box without a UPC code is made using the original company formulae and before 1977.

Nabisco purchased the J. B. Williams Co. in 1971. It is unknown what variations of Williams were produced in the Cranford, New Jersey plant and what was sub-contracted to Glastonbury Toiletries. However after 1977, all Williams was produced in the New Jersey plant.

Since Nabisco was a major food company, they would have been one of the early adopters of bar coding which was first implemented in grocery stores. Universal standards for UPC coding by product and by weight were adopted in 1976. So any barcoded Williams would have to be after 1976. Retailers other than grocery stores did not implement bar coding until 1978. The system was inefficient for large retailers unless at least 80% of their suppliers were providing bar coded packaging. It took until 1978 for UPC coding to be generally implemented. The 23033 portion of the Williams UPC codes of any era is the US identifier for the the standard Williams soap product. The 5 digits preceding the product identifier denote the parent company of the product.
The US UPC code for Williams from 1977 - 1981 is ?

In 1982 the J. B. Williams Co. was purchased from Nabisco by Smith Kline & French Laboratories. Due to a merger later that same year, the parent company name was changed to SmithKline Beckman.
The US UPC code for Williams for 1982 - 1988 is ?
There might also be a separate UPC code just applicable to a part of 1982.

In 1989 SmithKline Beckman merged with The Beecham Group plc to become SmithKline Beecham plc. In 1995 SmithKline Beecham licenced the European and Asian rights to manufacture Williams products to the Sara Lee Corporation based in the Netherlands.
The US UPC code for Williams from 1989 - 1999 is 5310023033

In 2000 SmithKline Beecham merged with Glaxo Wellcome and became GlaxoSmithKline. The J. B Williams soap manufacturing operation was located in Glen Rock, New Jersey for this period.
The US UPC code for Williams from 2000 - 2002 is 2217023033

In 2002 GlaxoSmithKline licenced North American manufacturing rights of the J. B. Williams Co. to Combe Incorporated. Combe was located in White Plains, NY. However they were undergoing expansion and renovation, so some Williams production may have continued in Glen Rock. This is also when the Canadian J. B. Williams Co. was folded and its facility closed.
The US UPC code for Williams from 2002 - 2004 is 322170230330
In late 2004 GlaxoSmithKline sold the J. B. Williams Co. North American divisions outright to Combe Incorporated.

Combe undertook an expansion and modernization of its manufacturing facilities that was completed at the end of 2004. Sometime after the beginning of 2005 is when tallow became the second ingredient in the Williams formulation. It appears to be the time when Williams underwent its most radical reformulation that made it the current product.
UPC coding standards changed on January 1st, 2005 and everyone had to adopt the new codes.
The US and Canadian UPC code for Williams from 2005 - present is 011509230331.

Combe purchased the world wide rights to the J. B. Williams Co. from GlaxoSmithKline in late 2009.

I hope this gives you a timeline and fills in some gaps for the US Williams.

 

[BlackBard]

Partial quote - Williams soap was introduced in Manchester, Connecticut as Williams Genuine Yankee Soap in 1840. It was the first soap manufactured for use in shaving mugs.

Combe undertook an expansion and modernization of its manufacturing facilities that was completed at the end of 2004. Sometime after the beginning of 2005 is when tallow became the second ingredient in the Williams formulation. It appears to be the time when Williams underwent its most radical reformulation that made it the current product.
Combe purchased the world wide rights to the J. B. Williams Co. from GlaxoSmithKline in late 2009.

I hope this gives you a timeline and fills in some gaps for the US Williams.

I posted this on the Williams puck pass thread, but thought it might be useful to post here, also.

I recently sent an inquiry to Combe about reformulation. Here is their reply.

"Thank you for contacting us regarding Williams Mug Soap. We welcome all comments about our products. We are pleased to learn that you enjoy using our product and we will forward your comments to our marketing department. Also, there has been no change to the product since we purchased the company from JB Williams in 2002.

Thank you for contacting us.

Sincerely,

Karen Stoeckli
Senior Consultant, Consumer Resources"

 

[michiganlover]

I posted this on the Williams puck pass thread, but thought it might be useful to post here, also.

I recently sent an inquiry to Combe about reformulation. Here is their reply.

"Thank you for contacting us regarding Williams Mug Soap. We welcome all comments about our products. We are pleased to learn that you enjoy using our product and we will forward your comments to our marketing department. Also, there has been no change to the product since we purchased the company from JB Williams in 2002.

Thank you for contacting us.

Sincerely,

Karen Stoeckli
Senior Consultant, Consumer Resources"

For sake of having all info in one spot, I will post my response from that thread:

That statement can read one of two ways: "We have not changed the product at all, and it is the same formulation as when we purchased it from JB Williams", or "We have not changed the product since our last reformulation in 2002 when we bought the soap from J.B. Williams".

The company doesn't want to admit to changing the formula of a product that has a long, and rich history, so their statement is a little vague.

Their statement that they bought the soap from JB Williams is also inaccurate, as I am pretty sure Beecham/ Glaxo Smith Kline was producing the product at that point in time, although it may have been under license from JB Williams.

If you have tested Beecham Williams, and Combe Williams side by side, it becomes quite apparent that they are not the same formulation.

Since Greybeard indicates the change in formulation didn't occur until 2005, one has to conclude that the marketing/ P.R. department of Combe is flat out lying.

 

[SliceOfLife]

I have a 2000-2002 puck that is Tallow first. It's good. I feel it's almost as good as the 1950ish Barber bars I've got and probably about as good as the 60's-70's Tonsorial.

 

[Greybeard]

Since Greybeard indicates the change in formulation didn't occur until 2005, one has to conclude that the marketing/ P.R. department of Combe is flat out lying.

Thank you for the support, John.

David PM'd me inquiring as to how I arrived at my conclusion. I think he kept it in a PM to avoid embarrassing me in public in case I was pulling this theory out of my a**. I will also post my reply here.


Hi David,

I got the basis for it from this thread.

http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthr...light=williams

US regulations stipulate that packaging list the ingredients of a product in order of its proportion in the product.

In post #17, Topgumby listed a UPC code of 322170230330 for a package of Williams soap he had that listed Sodium Tallowate as the first ingredient. I'm recently retired but at that time still had a paid subscription to a UPC database service. The database indicated that that UPC had been assigned to Combe Incorporated and was in effect from 2002 - 2004.

In that same post Topgumby listed a UPC code of 011509230331 that listed Potassium Stearate as the first ingredient and Sodium Tallowate as the second ingredient. My database indicated that this UPC was registered to Combe and came into effect in 2005.
Further, UPC coding was changed to a new system that took effect Jan. 1, 2005. One of the changes was to add a category number digit to the beginning of all UPC codes and to ensure that all UPC codes incorporated a check digit at the end. This was mandated by law and the above code is one of the new ones. This is the UPC code currently on Williams packaging.

Hope this helps clarify my reasoning.

Peter

 

[mark_mw]

$1,000,000 worth of whining over a $1.00 product

 

[Greybeard]

$1,000,000 worth of whining over a $1.00 product

Considering that the product has been around for 170 years, I'd suggest that total sales would have exceeded $1,000,000. many times over. It's also still, by far, the best selling shaving soap in North America.

Hey, it's a shaving forum and Williams is an interesting piece of shaving history.

 

[BlackBard]

Thank you for the support, John.

David PM'd me inquiring as to how I arrived at my conclusion. I think he kept it in a PM to avoid embarrassing me in public in case I was pulling this theory out of my a**. I will also post my reply here.

On the contrary, Peter. I thought it was interesting that Combe would not just own up to changing the product. After all, they could always claim it was an "improvement."

Hi David,

I got the basis for it from this thread.

http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthr...light=williams

US regulations stipulate that packaging list the ingredients of a product in order of its proportion in the product.

In post #17, Topgumby listed a UPC code of 322170230330 for a package of Williams soap he had that listed Sodium Tallowate as the first ingredient. I'm recently retired but at that time still had a paid subscription to a UPC database service. The database indicated that that UPC had been assigned to Combe Incorporated and was in effect from 2002 - 2004.

In that same post Topgumby listed a UPC code of 011509230331 that listed Potassium Stearate as the first ingredient and Sodium Tallowate as the second ingredient. My database indicated that this UPC was registered to Combe and came into effect in 2005.
Further, UPC coding was changed to a new system that took effect Jan. 1, 2005. One of the changes was to add a category number digit to the beginning of all UPC codes and to ensure that all UPC codes incorporated a check digit at the end. This was mandated by law and the above code is one of the new ones. This is the UPC code currently on Williams packaging.

Hope this helps clarify my reasoning.

Peter

 

[Greybeard]

On the contrary, Peter. I thought it was interesting that Combe would not just own up to changing the product. After all, they could always claim it was an "improvement."

Possibly

1. They don't consider it a major change in formulation.

2. They're aware of the fact that a niche segment of their market is criticizing the product as reformulated and they're glossing it over. Anyone who would enquire about reformulation would obviously be a member of this niche group. Claiming it's an improvement probably wouldn't fly.

3. The Consumer Resources person may not know that the product was changed.

Just off the top of my head.

 

[BlackBard]

Possibly

1. They don't consider it a major change in formulation.

2. They're aware of the fact that a niche segment of their market is criticizing the product as reformulated and they're glossing it over. Anyone who would enquire about reformulation would obviously be a member of this niche group. Claiming it's an improvement probably wouldn't fly.

3. The Consumer Resources person may not know that the product was changed.

Just off the top of my head.

All possible.

I am waiting impatiently for my shot at the vintage Williams puck pass. Although I have used Williams off and on for about 45 years, I still want to try vintage up against current Williams when I get my turn.

 

[masonjarjar]

I was using Williams pretty much straight through the time of the 'reformulation' of the early 00's and don't recall there being a difference.. but I never read the ingredients or knew/cared what tallow was back then either.. and I would normally add some Edge gel to my shave mug, so that might have masked any difference.. who knows.

 

[Greybeard]

All possible.

I am waiting impatiently for my shot at the vintage Williams puck pass. Although I have used Williams off and on for about 45 years, I still want to try vintage up against current Williams when I get my turn.

Geez. You're as old as I am. I used Williams briefly 40+ years ago and then not again until a year ago. Thanks to two fellow Canucks I got to try a couple of different vintage Canadian Williams pucks recently. There is a noticeable difference and both were different formulations than the present version. There were a couple of recent threads about it but I don't have the links on hand.

It was quite interesting.

 

[Schwert]

There have been several people try out a vintage puck of Williams here:

http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php?t=134391

I found the modern version compared to the vintage passaround version to be quite different soaps. I find modern Williams to be an acceptable shave, but the old version was a superior product no doubt about it....thick rich creamy lather that modern Williams just cannot deliver. Old Williams was on par (in my view at least) with all the top end soaps I have used (except for scent).

If the loss was as recent as 2005 then that really is too bad...and one that could be recovered if Combe was forced into it.

 

[Little Joe from Mexico]

Thanks to two fellow Canucks I got to try a couple of different vintage Canadian Williams pucks recently. There is a noticeable difference and both were different formulations than the present version. There were a couple of recent threads about it but I don't have the links on hand.

It was quite interesting.

Are these the threads? Very interesting indeed.

http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php?t=138298

http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php?t=138858

 

[michiganlover]

As promised, I have taken photos of my collection of Vintage Williams. I will post them from newest to oldest.

First up, is the Combe Williams you are all familiar with. It is tallow second. The most distinguishing feature over all the other boxes of Williams I own, is that the word "mug" is white lettering outlined in black.

 

[michiganlover]

Next up, we have a puck of Williams dating from the SmithKline Beecham era (which was at the earliest 1989). It is tallow first, has a bar code, and a pricing circle:

 

[michiganlover]

Next up we have a puck of Williams Menthol, also from the SmithKline Beecham era. It is tallow first, has a bar code, and also has a pricing circle.

 

[michiganlover]

Now we have a puck of Williams from either 1975, or 1976, that is offering a promo to save $4 off of a Pewter Mug celebrating the nation's bicentential. It is tallow first, has no bar code, and has a pricing circle.