Low structure?

[nav]

I mostly concur. My experience is that, once you add enough water, everything that is basically well formulated performs about the same. For most soaps this is a hydration level between the point where the lather takes on a sheen and the point where the lather starts dripping off the blade on the first stroke.

I will also note that Modern Williams has among its (imo few) virtues outstanding 'residual slickness', despite being probably about zero superfat and having no milks or whatever in the formula and having decently high lauric/myristic acid content, so I don't think the prevailing theories about what causes 'primary' and 'residual' slickness are quite right.

Yah, I also don't believe it's a certain ingredient that allows for better residual slickness.

I find that basically any decent soap hydrated enough gives me an the residual slickness I need.

 

[dundak]

The “low structure” super fatted soaps don’t cut as close for me. I like to know where my edge is and have no need for a “post shave feel” from a soap. Some I’ve tried feel like shaving with mayonnaise. Not my cuppa.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bluesman 7]

super fatted soaps don’t cut as close for me. Some I’ve tried feel like shaving with mayonnaise. Not my cuppa.

That's my take too.

 

[samhain666]

I don't shave with pictures and would much rather have slick stuff than meringue peaks.

THANK YOU!!!

When I began shaving I fell for lather porn pics and specially lather reviews from Nickshaves on YT...I chased fluffy peaky lather which dried on my face before I made 1st pass! It took me a lot of time and bad shaves to figure out that at least for me youghurt-like lather is better

 

[samhain666]

+1! I have found because of the performance increase in areas of both primary & residual slickness & protection, it allows me to do what I couldn't normally do with higher structure lathers--such as more blade buffing, touch ups where there is no visible lather, or moving the razor along faster, etc.... However, I still have & use plenty of other soaps with no problem, I just need to be a little more attentive.

My first introduction to this type of lather was Declaration Grooming (bison base), B&M Reserve, & Midnight &Two--still all phenomenal soaps! But at this moment in my opinion, the new WK Bufala base and also the newest base from A&E Signature are leading the pack in low structure lathers!

Here's a borrowed pic from a member here that I've used many times & it is exactly what I strive for in a lather. Here is a low structure lather:
View attachment 970087

Please tell me what on this green Earth did you use and how much time it took you? The way it looks you probably didn't fel the blade at all

 

[ShavePastor]

Please tell me what on this green Earth did you use and how much time it took you? The way it looks you probably didn't fel the blade at all

Heavy loading of soap & slowly adding water a little bit at a time (not the other way around-- small load with large amounts of water, no-no!)

 

[rockviper]

Please tell me what on this green Earth did you use and how much time it took you? The way it looks you probably didn't fel the blade at all

I know! I would love to get this with under a minute face-lathering.

 

[Marcos1]

I think of low structure as less foam and more of a sludgy latex paint type lather. I do prefer it this way as I think it’s much more dense at its most hydrated shave ready point. I do think tthe term is a bit silly sounding though.

 

[karacha]

I think of low structure as less foam and more of a sludgy latex paint type lather. I do prefer it this way as I think it’s much more dense at its most hydrated shave ready point. I do think tthe term is a bit silly sounding though.

I know this was posted a month ago, but it is exactly how I feel. I don't care that much about terminology, but this is a type of lather I like - a wet, slippery, paint-like lather. Good stuff, feels great on my face and it's never messy. Now, I could make it like that with most creams/soaps (not all), but some do work better than other or simply require less work to get them in that state.

 

[kingfisher]

It seems to me that the amount of added glycerin is one of the main things that leads to that yogurt-like, high sheen lather that so many people enjoy. Superfatting and use of lots of butters, etc probably contribute, as well, but a lot of it is simply the glycerin.
Look at the ingredients list of these soaps. Glycerin is high on the list for virtually every one of them. You can also add glycerin to any of your regular soaps and you end up with lather that pretty closely resembles that of one of the "low structure" artisan soaps.

 

[sugardaddy]

I know that Will from Barrister and Mann noted that the Reserve base is fairly low structure because of the amount of castor oil in it . I guess those types of ingredients can weigh a lather down.

Sent from my phone using Tapatalk

 

[sugardaddy]

And I'm not bothered at all by the term "low structure". It seems to describe the condition pretty well. Some lathers don't puff up but instead are more gluey . If someone wants to come up with a better term , feel free.

Sent from my phone using Tapatalk

 

[SterFry]

I don't want to be confrontational when I say that's you opinion. You're stating the two points above as fact, when in reality they don't apply to everyone.

There are so many posts that say I can't lather Low Structure Soap X and I can lather any other soap. It's not insurmountable, but those soaps are more finicky to lather and take longer. I don't want to take 4+ minutes to lather a soap when I can lather Chiseled Face soaps in under 2.

Now your performance point. Higher performance by who's standard? What defines higher performance? I'll use CF soaps as a reference again. To my face, CF is just as slick and gives me just as good a face feel as any low structure soap. Maybe low structure is better for people with uber dry skin, but for many regular Joes, they're no better.

If they're so much better, no one would use the regular higher structure soaps once they try the low structure stuff and that's not the case. The world needs variety, and low structure soaps give us another perfectly viable option ... not necessarily a better or worse, just different.

Which part was subjective and therefore just an opinion? There are general consistencies to soaps physical attributes that aren't mitigated by skin type and acknowledging them doesn't make it just an opinion. I have immensely in oily skin and I find everything they said to be spot on and I've tried lots of soaps. I very consistently get better (specifically slicker) lather with low structure soaps (Mike's, Barrister Reserve etc) and haven't had to spend any extra time building the lather.

Plenty of people choose soaps based on non performance related characteristics. Namely scent. Also a lot of people choose soap that is fluffy and volumous photo shoot lather because it's fun ...often at the cost of performance, So I don't think everybody not switching to low structure once they've tried it discounts anything.

 

[SterFry]

And I'm not bothered at all by the term "low structure". It seems to describe the condition pretty well. Some lathers don't puff up but instead are more gluey . If someone wants to come up with a better term , feel free.

Sent from my phone using Tapatalk

Ok, how about we get rid of the silly term "cushion" to describe shave soap, then we'll have room for the use of "low structure".

Right? People are getting hissy about a term that's actually informative yet have been using mythical descriptions like "cushion" for years.