I think that’s a term that a soap maker came up with when responding to some negative feedback about the quality of the lather their soap produced.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
+1! My best guess also!!
Low structure?
- Thread starter raiden
- Start date
+1! My best guess also!!
I think the point is not that no unsaponified ingredients belong in there, but that putting loads of them in a soap doesn't justify creating unnecessary jargon in a hobby already full of jargon.
I have made lots of "low-structure" soaps, and they can produce a good shave, but they are in essence a hybrid of brushless cream and shave butter. They don't lather so much as load easily due to high solubility and then spread out as water is added. I like the slickness but not the greasy feel post-shave nor the pipe-clogging potential of 10%+ superfat.
My all-time favorite soaps can be lathered any which way, from yogurty to foamy, pasty to runny, and still work. Speick, La Toja, Stirling, Palmolive, and Mike's come to mind, for instance.
I have made lots of "low-structure" soaps, and they can produce a good shave, but they are in essence a hybrid of brushless cream and shave butter. They don't lather so much as load easily due to high solubility and then spread out as water is added. I like the slickness but not the greasy feel post-shave nor the pipe-clogging potential of 10%+ superfat.
My all-time favorite soaps can be lathered any which way, from yogurty to foamy, pasty to runny, and still work. Speick, La Toja, Stirling, Palmolive, and Mike's come to mind, for instance.
Last edited:
I don't shave with pictures and would much rather have slick stuff than meringue peaks. 
No. If it floats your boat then row with joy in your heart. I just feel adding pseudoscientific terms to a crowded lexicon just mystifies shaving even more for new guys trying to learn the basics.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't shave with pictures and would much rather have slick stuff than meringue peaks.
Put me in the “low structure” camp as well! [emoji12]
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".
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".
Sounds good to me. I never understood “cushion” either.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would be more than ok if both of those terms died a quiet death!
Being able to describe stuff is pretty pointless. 
How many terms are actually used to describe lather?
The Inuit have how many terms for snow? Because it is important to them.
How many terms are actually used to describe lather?
The Inuit have how many terms for snow? Because it is important to them.
Thank you - I'm stealing that line ;-)
Cushions are for butts ;-)
Agreed & I’ll offer residual slickness while we’re at it.
I’ll never understand why some ppl make this a big deal. I’ve prob got 50 yrs worth of shaving soaps - why do I need to shave without lather? If I need an additional touch up or full pass - plenty of soap/lather to go around. Why inflate the value of soap that leaves my face slick after I’ve shaved the area?
I get it, that some ppl want to buff a bit - if that’s all, why is residual slickness heralded like it’s of significant importance?
Maybe it’s just me?
To be honest, I actually prefer "low structure" soaps. I just think that the term is pretty stupid.
Yes I agree as well. Definitely prefer a dense well hydrated Elmer’s glue/ yogurty lather to big fluffy/airy foam any day.
I've been bouncing this topic around in my head for a while now - a long while actually. In general, I prefer hard puck soaps, not croaps or whatever the majority of so-called 'artisanal' soaps are these days. Then, while web-searching the term 'low structure', I came upon this thread. Old as it is, and as feathers will be ruffled, I felt like adding to it anyway.
When I lather up an older soap, let's say Yardley for example, I expect, and receive a certain type of lather that has qualities I look forward to. I am not a chemist, or a soap maker, so maybe I don't have the full vocabulary on hand but at the same time it's just shaving. I didn’t' sign up for a lesson in quantum physics. Accurate terms or not, there are times when I either just want to like something or not like it. I do not believe in needing to study up on a a dozen scientific topics to understand how to shave.
I believe the term cushion and structure could be related, depending on one's point of view. I don't have anything against either term actually, but neither are particularly helpful when I comes to understanding anything. One is borderline technobabble, the other is layman's subjectivity. Either are fine, acceptable in casual conversation I guess, but neither actually explain a damn thing. Low/High structure resonates like marketing fluff. Cushion reminds me of something a dad might say to his son when explaining lather technique.
My take on this low structure thing is in line with the well versed 'brushless cream and shave butter' reference.
I do not understand the concept/claim/assumption that these low-lather soaps are 'superior' in that they permit shaving actions that a 'higher structure' soap does not. It's not like I don't shave, haven't shaved, haven't been shaving with shaving soap for close to 20 yr…. On a daily basis, I shave with a killer sharp straight razor that is fresh off the hones and I can/could buff if needed after soap is gone and I also shave very quickly. Never, not once, have I ever 'needed' a soap that is loaded with added grease to get any of that done. Never. I usually shave with vintage Williams which is pretty much straight up plain old soap. My shaves using any popular 'low structure' whatever it is - are not better, often they are more irritating due to the presence of more chemistry, and in general the stuff is a pita to get into a shave ready state. To be honest, I think it's easier to miss patches in trouble spots due to the excessive lubricity. I wonder if this factors into the claims of needing to buff and buff and buff. Generally, I go 3 passes and then review and clean up stragglers I may have missed. Buffing is possible but not needed 99.9% of the time.
Lather quality is not a polar or binary scenario - there are variations upon the theme. I do not subscribe to things being either low or high structure. When I shave, I change the density as I go, usually finishing with slightly thicker lather but starting with thinner stuff that is fairly wet. I have never had dry lather, except from a can - and even that stuff can be 'wetted' into submission easily enough.
I use 'regular' (non-low structure) soap and it's not dry, not airy, not lather porn meringue, and it's not incapable of anything the purveyors of $35 dollar tubs of soft serve face butter claim only their soaps can do. In fact, my soaps are extremely versatile and I can create yogurt or puffy foam instantly or easily.
I like lather, I dislike a brush full of what appears to be something squeezed out of a tube bought at Lush. I like some 'puff' in lather, I dislike a'greasy smear'. I enjoy lift and hydration as opposed to thin slimy impregnation. I like a soap that responds to water joyously and instantly instead of something that turns into a gooey glop that needs to be futzed with a particular way or it won't behave 'as intended'. I like soap to feel like soap, and not like a science project or something from my wife's makeup case.
When I lather up an older soap, let's say Yardley for example, I expect, and receive a certain type of lather that has qualities I look forward to. I am not a chemist, or a soap maker, so maybe I don't have the full vocabulary on hand but at the same time it's just shaving. I didn’t' sign up for a lesson in quantum physics. Accurate terms or not, there are times when I either just want to like something or not like it. I do not believe in needing to study up on a a dozen scientific topics to understand how to shave.
I believe the term cushion and structure could be related, depending on one's point of view. I don't have anything against either term actually, but neither are particularly helpful when I comes to understanding anything. One is borderline technobabble, the other is layman's subjectivity. Either are fine, acceptable in casual conversation I guess, but neither actually explain a damn thing. Low/High structure resonates like marketing fluff. Cushion reminds me of something a dad might say to his son when explaining lather technique.
My take on this low structure thing is in line with the well versed 'brushless cream and shave butter' reference.
I do not understand the concept/claim/assumption that these low-lather soaps are 'superior' in that they permit shaving actions that a 'higher structure' soap does not. It's not like I don't shave, haven't shaved, haven't been shaving with shaving soap for close to 20 yr…. On a daily basis, I shave with a killer sharp straight razor that is fresh off the hones and I can/could buff if needed after soap is gone and I also shave very quickly. Never, not once, have I ever 'needed' a soap that is loaded with added grease to get any of that done. Never. I usually shave with vintage Williams which is pretty much straight up plain old soap. My shaves using any popular 'low structure' whatever it is - are not better, often they are more irritating due to the presence of more chemistry, and in general the stuff is a pita to get into a shave ready state. To be honest, I think it's easier to miss patches in trouble spots due to the excessive lubricity. I wonder if this factors into the claims of needing to buff and buff and buff. Generally, I go 3 passes and then review and clean up stragglers I may have missed. Buffing is possible but not needed 99.9% of the time.
Lather quality is not a polar or binary scenario - there are variations upon the theme. I do not subscribe to things being either low or high structure. When I shave, I change the density as I go, usually finishing with slightly thicker lather but starting with thinner stuff that is fairly wet. I have never had dry lather, except from a can - and even that stuff can be 'wetted' into submission easily enough.
I use 'regular' (non-low structure) soap and it's not dry, not airy, not lather porn meringue, and it's not incapable of anything the purveyors of $35 dollar tubs of soft serve face butter claim only their soaps can do. In fact, my soaps are extremely versatile and I can create yogurt or puffy foam instantly or easily.
I like lather, I dislike a brush full of what appears to be something squeezed out of a tube bought at Lush. I like some 'puff' in lather, I dislike a'greasy smear'. I enjoy lift and hydration as opposed to thin slimy impregnation. I like a soap that responds to water joyously and instantly instead of something that turns into a gooey glop that needs to be futzed with a particular way or it won't behave 'as intended'. I like soap to feel like soap, and not like a science project or something from my wife's makeup case.
From my experience, low structure just means the lather is low structure from beginning to end. High structure is where it's fluffy but once enough water is added, it's also low structure like wet paint.
My 70+ soaps are about 50/50 milled soaps and non-milled artisan soaps. The milled soaps definitely start off high structure and need a lot of water added for the lather to become dense and heavy and low structure.
Doesn't bother me which type it is but I must say the low structure soaps are nicer in that the initial lather doesn't tend to fling around when I'm adding water and working it on the face.
My 70+ soaps are about 50/50 milled soaps and non-milled artisan soaps. The milled soaps definitely start off high structure and need a lot of water added for the lather to become dense and heavy and low structure.
Doesn't bother me which type it is but I must say the low structure soaps are nicer in that the initial lather doesn't tend to fling around when I'm adding water and working it on the face.
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.
