- Thread starter
- #21
I'm confused. What did she say about updating her "wet shave soap" line after I bought it? Also, I checked her website again and I don't see a new version of sandalwood.
Mitchell's Wool Fat (MWF): Optimization Results Help SOLVE the MYSTERY!
- Thread starter ShavingByTheNumbers
- Start date
I'm confused. What did she say about updating her "wet shave soap" line after I bought it? Also, I checked her website again and I don't see a new version of sandalwood.
Fickle soap, cool jar though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is the only soap or shaving product I ever bought that I never got to work well at all. No matter what I did and how the lather looked on the puck or in a bowl once on my skin it would slowly dissipate and was too thin to use so I would have to finish with something else. I tried Silvertip, Boar, Synthetic, loading it to death, using little water and going slow, soaking the puck beforehand. I even shaved a layer off the puck to get a fresh piece (Like cold-cuts). Nothing.
I wonder if I got a bad batch because it makes no sense that so many people love it and and mine wouldn't work to save my life, however I don't want to waste any more time playing with this soap...
I wonder if I got a bad batch because it makes no sense that so many people love it and and mine wouldn't work to save my life, however I don't want to waste any more time playing with this soap...
The only time I got the same disappointing results as those reported in table was when I was lathering MWF incorrectly and it didn't take an overly complicated and an unnecessarily analytical process to figure it out. I've had both poor results and fantastic results with MWF. My method of getting great results is simple:
1. Fill my synthetic brush with water. When the excess water ceases to flow out of the brush...
2. Squeeze the water out of the brush onto the puck and let it sit for a few minutes.
3. Swirl the brush on the puck around 50 swirls.
4. Pour the excess soapy water into my lathering bowl and proceed to lather.
What I've been getting with this approach is a thick, slick, cushiony lather. How much water am I using? I don't know. What is the proportion of water to soap in the brush and in the swirled water? I don't know. What is the water and soap mass I'm using? I don't know. What is the cost per shave? I don't know. To be honest, I couldn't care less about any of those things. As is the case with any soap, a little simple trial and error puts one on the path to figuring out what it takes to make that soap work. The lanolin in MWF works well on my skin. It leaves one of the best face feels of all the soaps I use but then again, I really like all the soaps (5) that I'm using.
1. Fill my synthetic brush with water. When the excess water ceases to flow out of the brush...
2. Squeeze the water out of the brush onto the puck and let it sit for a few minutes.
3. Swirl the brush on the puck around 50 swirls.
4. Pour the excess soapy water into my lathering bowl and proceed to lather.
What I've been getting with this approach is a thick, slick, cushiony lather. How much water am I using? I don't know. What is the proportion of water to soap in the brush and in the swirled water? I don't know. What is the water and soap mass I'm using? I don't know. What is the cost per shave? I don't know. To be honest, I couldn't care less about any of those things. As is the case with any soap, a little simple trial and error puts one on the path to figuring out what it takes to make that soap work. The lanolin in MWF works well on my skin. It leaves one of the best face feels of all the soaps I use but then again, I really like all the soaps (5) that I'm using.
I’ve bought 3 pucks of MWF over the years and each one has ended up being used as shower soap. I have never been able to realize the awesome power of the fat.
www.lisasnaturalherbalcreations.com/collections/shaving-soaps-butters-oils-and-bowls/products/frankincense-myrrh-shaving-soap-lots-of-lather-made-with-moroccan-red-clay
it's the faux sandal and here's the link to the shaving soap category, you'll find it there. www.lisasnaturalherbalcreations.com/collections/shaving-soaps-butters-oils-and-bowls
- Thread starter
- #27
Thanks! It's good to know that there is a new sandalwood version, and it's with essential oils, which I really like. Different scents being available within the same line of soaps is why my table doesn't include scent anymore. I don't see anything about Lisa's "wet shave soap" being updated, so it appears that my evaluation still applies for her current "wet shave soap" lineup.
It's clear there's at least one other factor here contributing to the disparity between 'Fat lovers and haters and I'm not sure this analysis helps bring it to light. I'm a big fan of the Fat and having used it daily since discovering it several months ago, I'm surprised at the different opinions. Each person I ask about this soap has a different opinion on it's effects, ranging from "Why did I bother?" to "I'll never use any other soap ever again!"
Possible causes include:
- Water quality
- Production consistency
- Ageing (oxidisation, evaporation, heat exposure, warehousing, etc.)
- Reformulation (either for different batches or markets)
Each of the steps taken to quantify the results here serve to highlight the fact that the cause of this variation on performance is largely outside of the users control. By this I mean, within the sphere of the particular sample space (Grant, this particular puck, the local water, etc.) the results appear to follow a consistent path. However, what we can't know is if that result is typical. If we had a statistical view of who/where/when the lovers/haters are it might be possible to deduce more about the missing factor. Maybe the production process has poor QA, in which case we may never know, just good luck?
For example:
Or, we could say YMMV and leave it at that, I suppose.
*shrugs*
Great work Grant.
Possible causes include:
- Water quality
- Production consistency
- Ageing (oxidisation, evaporation, heat exposure, warehousing, etc.)
- Reformulation (either for different batches or markets)
Each of the steps taken to quantify the results here serve to highlight the fact that the cause of this variation on performance is largely outside of the users control. By this I mean, within the sphere of the particular sample space (Grant, this particular puck, the local water, etc.) the results appear to follow a consistent path. However, what we can't know is if that result is typical. If we had a statistical view of who/where/when the lovers/haters are it might be possible to deduce more about the missing factor. Maybe the production process has poor QA, in which case we may never know, just good luck?
For example:
None of these statements bears even a passing resemblance to my experience with MWF... why is that? I can't believe that I know better, I haven't been at this long enough to know better that anyone around these parts. It's certainly no reflection of the work done by Grant.
Or, we could say YMMV and leave it at that, I suppose.
*shrugs*
Great work Grant.
- Thread starter
- #29
Thanks for sharing your method. The OP offers some good reasons why MWF doesn't work for some guys who really try to make it work. Claiming that "a little simple trial and error" will work with "any soap" to "make that soap work" puts all of the blame on the user and discounts all of the work that others actually do put into making soaps work for them without much reward. Some soaps just don't work for some people. Different chemical reactions of soap and skin alone support that.
- Thread starter
- #30
Or, maybe MWF is awesome for some but not awesome for others. You don't have to punish yourself by putting the blame on you. Maybe you and MWF don't get along and that's that.
- Thread starter
- #31
Thanks, Dave. You're right about other factors. That can always be the case, right? I addressed water quality briefly, in that water quality didn't save MWF for me, but production consistency, aging, and reformulation could matter. Maybe I got a bum puck last year? To me, MWF explodes when in contact with water. If that is the universally accepted reaction, then my analysis might stand, but maybe it would change with a different puck if the lanolin percentage were significantly different. (Then again, if the amount of lanolin were much less, would it still be "wool fat" soap?) I got my puck through Amazon from the user "Mitchell's". It wouldn't be a bad idea to try a different puck of Mitchell's Wool Fat from a different source in the future. At this point, though, I'm going to move on with other soaps. I gave MWF my best. It didn't work out.
Look at her current ingredients and compare with what you are evaluating, not the same and like I said it's been more than 6 months since her improved recipe has been out so it's not brand spankin new.
- Thread starter
- #33
Whoa! The ingredients are different! You're right! Good catch! Thanks!
(I hope that you can understand why I didn't think that there was any difference. The webpage text looks very similar to what I've seen many times, and the picture that she has also looks identical to before and the same as what I have. Also, I don't see anything said about a new formulation.) I'll modify the table for next time. I might just take out Lisa's then. On the other hand, maybe I'll leave it in and make it clear that the soap is from a certain date and not made with the current formula. I'm leaning towards the latter.
I've got a puck of MWF that I've used for the past 2-3 winters. It is my second puck of MWF. It has been my absolute favorite soap for many, many years, and I've never encountered any of the lathering problems that seem to plague so many; in fact, for me, MWF has always produced a thick, slick, rich lather with tremendous ease. This year, I pull the MWF out of storage on 12/1, fill it's ceramic bowl with water, and soak the puck overnight to "wake it up", as it dries out and cracks over time. The first shave with it next day was a struggle, as I got nothing but a very thin bubbly, sudsy lather. I soaked it another night, and got the same results the next day. I set it aside and tried again a few days later, and despite my best efforts, got the same result again. I tried several more consecutive days, trying various lathering methods, still with poor results. Other than those experimental attempts, I'm doing nothing differently than I've done in the past with MWF, or any other soap. I feel like my best, long time friend has let me down! Frustrating and disappointing. A real head-scratcher.
- Thread starter
- #35
Wow! That is confounding. It sounds like the aging of the soap changed it. Did anything else significant change with your recent attempt that might explain the difference?
Not that I can think of. Not giving up yet, though. All thoughts and suggestions welcome.
AimlessWanderer
Remember to forget me!
I'm not going to take anything away from the fact that these are YOUR results, but the people who have great results have varying methods. Some succeed with high soap quantities, and I succeed with low.
You have mentioned disappointment with light airy lather, but that is what I need to start with. If my lather isn't light and airy with big bubbles, by the time I have worked it into my face, the lather is dry and not slick enough. Maybe there is different responses of the lather to different skin.
Lather = soap + water + agitation
You have been precise as regards two of the three ingredients. I use a boar brush. If I changed brushes, maybe I would need a different soap and water mix, or need different agitation. Another thing I should mention is that the lather I get that works great for me, doesn't "survive" on the brush between passes, and I need a couple more seconds work to refresh the brush for subsequent latherings. I have put this down to the boar robbing the lather of moisture, but don't put too much faith in that as I might be way off the mark.
You have mentioned disappointment with light airy lather, but that is what I need to start with. If my lather isn't light and airy with big bubbles, by the time I have worked it into my face, the lather is dry and not slick enough. Maybe there is different responses of the lather to different skin.
Lather = soap + water + agitation
You have been precise as regards two of the three ingredients. I use a boar brush. If I changed brushes, maybe I would need a different soap and water mix, or need different agitation. Another thing I should mention is that the lather I get that works great for me, doesn't "survive" on the brush between passes, and I need a couple more seconds work to refresh the brush for subsequent latherings. I have put this down to the boar robbing the lather of moisture, but don't put too much faith in that as I might be way off the mark.
I didn't like this soap last week, and now I'm reaching for it every day- since finding it works with face-lathering-with-too-much-product.
AA
AA
Great analysis!
My take away is that getting the optimal water to MWF ratio is tricky! It is. But once I figured that out MWF performed for me! YMMV for sure!
My take away is that getting the optimal water to MWF ratio is tricky! It is. But once I figured that out MWF performed for me! YMMV for sure!
- Thread starter
- #40
What you said about different soap quantities makes sense. Differences in water also matter. Any one person's overall optimum composition for a given soap will thus involve a certain amount of soap and a certain amount of water to make the right total amount and lather composition for that person's shave, skin, etc. There are many factors which are alluded to in the general notes under my optimum lather table. Relative humidity should matter, but I haven't experienced any issues with that yet, as far as I'm aware. Water-to-soap ratios (and total masses, too) would be expected to vary from person to person. Maybe someday others will have similar results for comparison.
Regarding agitation, I start with a dry synthetic brush and bowl lather in a normal way. Lather building continues with swirling and back-and-forth motions until the lather doesn't seem to be changing, as documented in the link in the first general note under the table. Some soaps are quicker to build than others, so my timer results vary from soap to soap. However, for each particular soap, the timer results do not vary much, which helps support the fact that I'm being consistent when building lather. The whole process is quite unremarkable. Overall, I take a few minutes to build lather and I haven't had any stability problems with lather in the lathering bowl.
