If Kent is supposedly relabeled Mitchell's Wool Fat, how come Kent is so much cheaper? Do they leave anything out in the formula? Is it not as good of a shave?
Kent Vs. MWF
- Thread starter ChrisG
- Start date
Shaves exactly the same for me but then again perception is 85% of reality, (me)
Shaves smells and looks exactly the same. The only difference is that the pucks are slightly different sizes in the thickness and diameter department. This is so that they fit properly into their respective wooden/Kent or porcelain/MWF bowls.
.40
.40
- Thread starter
- #4
hmm, I found it odd that Kents with a bowl was 15 and MWF with a bowl is 45, given MWF is ceramic that is a huge difference.
MWF in the bowl is $35 at www.westcoastshaving.com. A puck of MWF without the bowl is only about $13, so the price difference isn't really that great, just that the ceramic MWF bowl is expensive.
I prefer the ceramic bowl. When I had a wooden bowl of Kent, the bowl warped after a while. To be fair, I accidentally left the bowl on a wet counter for a couple of hours. The wooden bowl didn't like the extra moisture. I don't buy wooden bowls any more, if I have another option.
There is a vendor on ebay selling MWF for $27.50 plus $5.75 shipping. It is a Buy it Now sale, so I will post the link.
- Thread starter
- #8
Content is the same and cost the same.
- Thread starter
- #10
Well I saw Kent w/ a bowl on ebay for 15 shipped from the UK. MWF is 48 shipped from westcoastshaving.com
Yes. Do you have a reason. I refer to the cost of content. 
- Thread starter
- #12
Ahh I misunderstood you buddy. Sorry!
Over here - Kent (120g declared weight) is £5.50, Mitchell's (125g declared weight) commonly £4.00-4.40...
It is exactly the same stuff - the difference is that one of them (I think Kent) is about 1/16" thicker and 1/8" smaller diameter
Similar threads
- Article
