If you continue to have issues with it you may want to try grating it and then press the shavings into whatever vessel you might choose. Maybe being hydrated then completely drying out for multiple cycles over time has hardened it and made it more difficult to lather.
Mitchell's Wool Fat (MWF): Optimization Results Help SOLVE the MYSTERY!
- Thread starter ShavingByTheNumbers
- Start date
If you continue to have issues with it you may want to try grating it and then press the shavings into whatever vessel you might choose. Maybe being hydrated then completely drying out for multiple cycles over time has hardened it and made it more difficult to lather.
- Thread starter
- #62
It's fine not to read the entire post or even any of it at all, but if one is going to ask questions and make statements about the OP, then one should check the OP first.
This is exactly the same way I go about lather MWF. Until I read this thread I wasn't aware there could be an issue with creating a perfectly fine lather. I guess sometimes ignorance is bliss.
- Thread starter
- #64
Wow. This thread is as polarizing as a pepperoni pizza at a health spa. Gee, fellas, it is soap. Just soap. My experience is MWF likes not too hard water, appreciates a bit of blooming, and prefers stiff brushes. It does not like my tuxedo synthetic; it plays well with boar and cuddles up with pure badger. But that is at my home. This month. My impressions. No lab mice were harmed in this evaluation.
Based on the OP with different results for water-to-soap ratios, and given that MWF doesn't really give any visual feedback on the amount of water, at least from my experience, is it possible that you tend to use more water than needed? All of the water would be in the lather when using a synthetic-hair brush, but some of the water could be stolen by a boar or badger brush, making the lather have the right amount of water for you with those natural-hair brushes.
Clearly the course paid off, that's a very concise - if brief - summary. Yeah, it's a short read, but that's not exactly a blurb, is it?
Agent: "So, I've got this book from Hemingway..."
Publisher: "Oh! Let's hear about it then!"
Agent: "It is about an old guy who catches a fish."
Publisher: " .... are there any dragons?"
Sorry Mac, I laughed when I read your post and couldn't help having a little dig.
So could we sum up this entire thread with:
Tried it, didn't like it, YMMV?
Tried it, didn't like it, YMMV?
- Thread starter
- #67
So could we sum up this entire thread with:
Tried it, didn't like it, YMMV?
You could pretty well sum up all reviews as "Tried it, liked it / didn't like it, YMMV".
I hope that readers get more out of the thread than that, though. 
MWF's apparently high optimum water-to-soap ratio and significant lack of visual feedback while lather building seem to confirm MWF's reputation as a tough soap to lather. That alone would help explain why some people get frustrated with MWF and can't seem to make it work despite their best efforts. Even someone like me who measures soap and water masses for total consistency might not like MWF. From feedback here, it sounds like there might even be an aging problem with MWF pucks. Maybe my analysis in the OP involved an "old" inferior puck. I have no idea. MWF Soap, Ltd. haven't responded yet.Me either. It does sound odd when so many people, myself included, have absolutely no trouble getting stellar performance from it. Equally as odd that many more can't get it to work at all
You could pretty well sum up all reviews as "Tried it, liked it / didn't like it, YMMV".
Unfortunately by taking a methodical and scientific approach it could appear to be trying to disprove the YMMV principle. Which if it were succesful might not be such a bad thing. It's occurred to me several times that it should be easy to quantitatively prove various things such as sharpest blade etc. But then the anecdotal evidence of peoples own experience will constantly disagree with it and we're back to square one
I've read and enjoyed many of your blade comparisons so I'm certainly not adversed to your methods, strangely some things just seem to defy rational explanation it would appear
If we don't have a handle on all of the variables it's almost impossible to get a clear outcome. Grant's doing an awesome job of locking down as many as he has control over, unfortunately some are out of our control and others we may not even perceive. For instance, shipping and storage we have little to no control over, while we have practically no visibility with respect to batch consistency or manufacturing variation. This applies to all products because we naturally assume that the sample we have, if similarly labelled and acquired, is the same as the next person.
Consider the Phrase:
"Any technology, if sufficiently advances, is indistinguishable from magic."
The same is true here because we simply can't perceive all the possible variables.
Ultimately the best solution to this particular problem (MWF) might be to have someone with a 'good' puck donate it to Grant for objective analysis. Of course, I can completely understand him not wanting that.
Couldn't agree more, hence why the scientific approach may sometimes be doomed to failure due to lack of enforceable consistency in some areas. YMMV wins again.
Problem there is he hates it so probably wouldn't want it and the person with the good sample probably loves it and wouldn't let it go!
Ultimately the best solution to this particular problem (MWF) might be to have someone with a 'good' puck donate it to Grant for objective analysis. Of course, I can completely understand him not wanting that.
Problem there is he hates it so probably wouldn't want it and the person with the good sample probably loves it and wouldn't let it go!
That's the thing really, isn't it. There's more than enough anecdotal evidence (at least in my opinion) regarding inconsistency of the product to suggest that qualification be used in statements. Instead of "MFW" as a general statement, perhaps it should read "my sample of MWF" instead.
And there's the risk that shipping will ruin the sample... maybe let's not, yeah? YMMV wins!
- Thread starter
- #72
I hear you. I wasn't trying to disprove YMMV, because that's always there, but I was trying to share my finding that MWF is really more difficult to lather, at least for my possibly "old" puck. You're right about personal experiences with the soap. Some love it. Some don't. It's always that way with soaps and blades and razors. MWF is one of those things with the most divided opinions, and it seems to me that this is due in large part because of MWF's thirstiness and lack of feedback when lathering to see and feel that the lather is "right".
Thanks! Blade surveys and measurements have been on hold for a long time now. I plan on eventually getting back to that in the future, but I don't know when.
- Thread starter
- #73
Couldn't agree more, hence why the scientific approach may sometimes be doomed to failure due to lack of enforceable consistency in some areas. YMMV wins again.
Problem there is he hates it so probably wouldn't want it and the person with the good sample probably loves it and wouldn't let it go!
You know, the same thought crossed my mind earlier today about someone sending me an allegedly "good" sample of MWF, one that is claimed to provide a rich, thick, dense lather and all that. It's not a bad idea.
- Thread starter
- #74
Yes, I should have qualified my statements in the OP. I'm going to do that from now on with soap reviews. At the time of the OP, I thought that what I got was THE soap. Oh well.
With other soaps that I've bought more of much later on, I haven't experienced any noticeable differences, so I thought that the soap was the soap and that was that unless the formulation was changed. How much can weather affect soap? I've heard of really hot weather melting soap or making it really soft. Is the performance of the soap really changed in that event after the soap has returned to room temperature? What about freezing cold temperatures? Can a soap be ruined by temporary freezing and thawing?
Grant,
Interesting observations and methodology, but in my opinion it still leaves unanswered the question of why some people get great results from MWF and others get poor results from it.
I guess that it goes to show that there is Art and there is Science. I loved your "by the numbers" analysis of shaving angles and blade exposure. That analysis was cut and dried, so to speak, informative, and straightforward to replicate. A good application of the scientific method.
It would seem to me that building lather is more Art than Science. Those who get poor results from MWF seem to have little understanding of how others can get great results from the same product, and vice versa. Also, people seem to get emotionally attached to their opinions. So whether you love it or you hate it, it's hard to be objective. You have tackled an elusive question.
As for the question of the age of the puck, my shave log shows that I have been using the same puck of MWF on and off since 2010. I bought it on B/S/T, so I don't really know how old it is. I still get great results from that puck. But I can't explain why I do, and I can't explain why you get poor results from yours.
Chuck
Interesting observations and methodology, but in my opinion it still leaves unanswered the question of why some people get great results from MWF and others get poor results from it.
I guess that it goes to show that there is Art and there is Science. I loved your "by the numbers" analysis of shaving angles and blade exposure. That analysis was cut and dried, so to speak, informative, and straightforward to replicate. A good application of the scientific method.
It would seem to me that building lather is more Art than Science. Those who get poor results from MWF seem to have little understanding of how others can get great results from the same product, and vice versa. Also, people seem to get emotionally attached to their opinions. So whether you love it or you hate it, it's hard to be objective. You have tackled an elusive question.
As for the question of the age of the puck, my shave log shows that I have been using the same puck of MWF on and off since 2010. I bought it on B/S/T, so I don't really know how old it is. I still get great results from that puck. But I can't explain why I do, and I can't explain why you get poor results from yours.
Chuck
- Thread starter
- #76
Thanks, Chuck. If you followed the methodology that I do, you'd be amazed at how REPEATABLE RESULTS are. That satisfies the scientific method. I'm trying my best to keep things consistent and results are very consistent because of that. That's not to say that other's results would be the same. Certainly not! Skin is different from person to person, for one thing. However, if someone else were to also make exact lathers and keep records and figure out each soap and what the optimum is for each soap, then he could also compare optimums and truly determine which soap is best for him. That's what I'm trying to do. I got tired of "flying blind", so to speak.
That's very interesting. Great data point! Thanks! Soap age hasn't been a problem for you, but it has been for @MrMoJoe, so what are we to think? I guess that age MIGHT be a problem.
Grant,
Repeatable for you. But you are only 1 data point. The scientific method generally requires more than 1 data point, so there is a problem if you try to extend your results past your own experience.
This topic has been batted around many times over the years on B&B. Here are two poll results I found in a quick search that add a few more data points:
MWF Lathering Poll
WEEKEND POLL! This week = MWF!
It would appear that those who get good results from MWF outnumber those who do not by 2-to-1 or so.
- Thread starter
- #78
Yes. I agree. Even the OP acknowledges that the analysis doesn't fully explain things with MWF, but that it helps to solve the mystery. There is still plenty of mystery left to solve with MWF.
- Thread starter
- #79
I am not one data point. I am a person doing research, collecting many data points regarding the research subject, MWF in this case. Results are repeatable for me because I'm following a rigorous lathering methodology and controlling the variables during shaves. I'm being scientific about it. When I wasn't scientific about making lather, results varied all over the place, even when I was trying to be consistent. The biggest variables were eliminated when I finally started measuring mass directly in the lathering bowl and started using a synthetic-hair brush to eliminate the water-transfer issue with natural-hair brushes. Shaving results then became amazingly repeatable. Anyone who follows the same method should also find how much more repeatable their lathers and shaves become. When you measure masses and are consistent with everything else, controlling the variables, you get repeatable results. You don't have to believe me. You could try it for yourself. At this point, it's hard for me to imagine going back to the way things used to be. I don't get frustrated with lather anymore because of what I did or didn't do. Whatever frustration I get now with lather is the soap's fault.
Thanks for the polling information. It sounds like there are many more fans of MWF than haters of it.
Water quality and volume variables from shaver to shaver, brush, technique, and related factors make for more YMMV and less scientific proof.
At the end of the day, if it isn't a soap you love, PIF it.
At the end of the day, if it isn't a soap you love, PIF it.
