Mitchell's Wool Fat (MWF): Optimization Results Help SOLVE the MYSTERY!

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

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.

Chuck: You're right. I apologize for what I wrote earlier in response to this. I misunderstood your point. Your point is valid. Nevertheless, I wasn't trying to extend my results to others. I collected many repeatable data points in optimizing my sample of MWF. That result was mine and not anyone else's. I'm well aware that there are those that love MWF. It would have been foolish to write the OP without acknowledging that. However, there are those that hate MWF, too, and my results seem to offer one explanation for why some people can't get MWF to work for them even when they're really trying to figure it out.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

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.

Good points. Water hardness was discussed briefly, since that alone can significantly affect results. Lather volume is whatever it is when the lather doesn't seem to change anymore and I stop building it. There are a lot of factors involved, and I tried to cover them in the notes under the optimum lather table but I'm sure that my notes are incomplete. At least when I'm evaluating a soap, I'm controlling things to gauge the changes of soap and water masses, since I'm trying to figure out the optimum lather for me. Results are very repeatable.

 

[Macfrommichigan]

Indeed, sir, and thank you for your efforts. Of course, this is not quite as rigorous as a lab controlled drug trial with strict protocols, but nevertheless interesting and valuable. May your holidays be merry and your shaves close.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

Indeed, sir, and thank you for your efforts. Of course, this is not quite as rigorous as a lab controlled drug trial with strict protocols, but nevertheless interesting and valuable.

If there is something about my protocol that you think has been overlooked or is incorrect, please let me know. I'm open to improving the process.

May your holidays be merry and your shaves close.

You, too!

 

[Macfrommichigan]

Honestly, it is challenging to draw scientifically valid conclusions from one sample under less than controlled conditions. A sample size would need to be much larger and multiple controls in place to be sure of results, don't you think? User bias, soap batch, or humidity levels could alter the data, right? However, the results of this testing may be very valid for one puck, and I thank you for sharing this information. Very interesting.

 

[ackvil]

Grant, if you haven't already done so, I would love to see your analysis of Williams. That is probably the most polarizing soap around.

 

[Saltchuck]

Grant, if you haven't already done so, I would love to see your analysis of Williams. That is probably the most polarizing soap around.

Grant,

If you do decide to take that project (Williams) on, I suggest that you first

1) Put on an asbestos suit, and
2) Do a "literature search" of past B&B discussions on the subject.

In that order. And don't take any of the responses you get personally.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

Honestly, it is challenging to draw scientifically valid conclusions from one sample under less than controlled conditions. A sample size would need to be much larger and multiple controls in place to be sure of results, don't you think? User bias, soap batch, or humidity levels could alter the data, right? However, the results of this testing may be very valid for one puck, and I thank you for sharing this information. Very interesting.

You're welcome, Mac. What you and @Saltchuck have said is true. You can't take the result for me and apply it to others. We can't take my one overall optimum and extrapolate that to others. (I believe, though, that the general trends that I've found in how lather changes from low to high water-to-soap ratios would be observed by others.) I wasn't implying that in my review, but I can understand why people got that impression, so I've written a "General Statement" that will prominently appear near the top of my next review to avoid any confusion. My reviews are like other reviews in that we all offer our opinions for others to consider, but my reviews involve optimizations so that I can be really fair about what is best for the soaps and creams (in my opinion) and how they rank against one another (in my opinion). Before I started the optimization process, I had a general list of what I preferred, but it was getting more difficult to rank soaps as I tried more and I was getting lost. One perfect example is how I bought more of one soap to reevaluate and really didn't get anywhere. I plan on buying that soap for a third time and applying the optimization process for the first time to it. That will solve that problem.

Yes, user bias, soap batch, and humidity levels could alter the results. One can never say how good or bad their samples are, so that issue is always there. Humidity matters with respect to water evaporation rate and post-shave feel, but I haven't experienced anything yet that I'd account to changes in humidity. What matters most is comparing the soaps to one another, so drier weather should make both lathers dry faster and very likely yield the same ranking order. Regarding user bias, I've actually written about that, how I've had to get over my own bias. It took awhile to get over my bias for thicker lather. I still like thicker lather, and I also like slicker lather, but I've learned through the optimization process to really pay attention to all parameters and make an overall judgment based on the shave result. Subjectivity is built in there, but I've gotten over my own biases, I think. Anyone else who tries to optimize lather should encounter the same issues in developing their own optimums.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

Grant, if you haven't already done so, I would love to see your analysis of Williams. That is probably the most polarizing soap around.

Grant,

If you do decide to take that project (Williams) on, I suggest that you first

1) Put on an asbestos suit, and
2) Do a "literature search" of past B&B discussions on the subject.

In that order. And don't take any of the responses you get personally.

I'm up for it, but after going through MWF, I better hold off on Williams. I just started evaluating B&M, and after that, I'm going to work on L'Occitane Cade to finish evaluating all of the soaps that I have on hand. Then, I'd like to buy more Mystic Water and run that through the ringer since I never optimized it.

 

[shavefan]

Wow, leave it to a thread about 'The Fat' to get so many varied responses. MWF has to be one of the most controversial soaps (right after MdC i would guess) on all the shaving forums. Some people absolutely love it and for others it doesn't work for squat.

My experience was pretty much the same as the OP's. After about a month of failure I simply chucked it and moved on. For me there are so many other choices that I enjoy it wasn't worth the effort. I have one fond memory of almost spitting up my coffee while reading a forum post on how to lather Mwf, the OP gleefully claimed that lathering was easy and it only took him 8 minutes to get a good useable lather. Ummmm, no thanks...

This proves again that this hobby is about as YMMV as it gets...

 

[carofe]

I didn't think I had any problem lathering MWF, until today when I used it with my shavette. When I shave with my DE I get it done so quickly that I don't notice anything with the lather. But, when I use my shavette I shave slowly so I did notice that the lather starts disappearing. So, apparently, I was not doing a good job lathering MWF. It seems that MWF will need more work than I thought.

 

[Hannah's Dad]

I was out of bath soap this morning and grabbed my MWF puck. Holy Moses does this stuff lather well in the shower. And such a clean, fresh scent. Do they sell a bath soap? I’m in!

 

[bberg100]

K.I.S.S.

It is shaving, not a doctoral thesis.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

I was out of bath soap this morning and grabbed my MWF puck. Holy Moses does this stuff lather well in the shower. And such a clean, fresh scent. Do they sell a bath soap? I’m in!

You're in luck! They do!

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

I didn't think I had any problem lathering MWF, until today when I used it with my shavette. When I shave with my DE I get it done so quickly that I don't notice anything with the lather. But, when I use my shavette I shave slowly so I did notice that the lather starts disappearing. So, apparently, I was not doing a good job lathering MWF. It seems that MWF will need more work than I thought.

The OP mentions some lather dissipation during passes, which were on the slower side, and lather was built with a good chunk of time in a bowl without any stability problems, so the problem that you experienced might be due to your puck of MWF, not you.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

Wow, leave it to a thread about 'The Fat' to get so many varied responses. MWF has to be one of the most controversial soaps (right after MdC i would guess) on all the shaving forums. Some people absolutely love it and for others it doesn't work for squat.

My experience was pretty much the same as the OP's. After about a month of failure I simply chucked it and moved on. For me there are so many other choices that I enjoy it wasn't worth the effort. I have one fond memory of almost spitting up my coffee while reading a forum post on how to lather Mwf, the OP gleefully claimed that lathering was easy and it only took him 8 minutes to get a good useable lather. Ummmm, no thanks...

This proves again that this hobby is about as YMMV as it gets...

Chucking the soap was understandable. Life is too short for bad shaves. In my case, the engineer or scientist in me insisted that I put up with them to complete the experiment.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

K.I.S.S.

It is shaving, not a doctoral thesis.

Thanks for the advise, Bill. The OP was long. Still, I get satisfaction out of optimizing soaps.

 

[rockviper]

Re-reading the opening post, it seems as if the old adage of "use more product" might apply. Airy/foamy proto-lather generally indicates too much air, which needs to be worked out by continuing to load (not whip) until you have an nice proto-lather with very few bubbles.

A few of the pics in this thread (https://www.badgerandblade.com/forum/threads/how-to-make-great-lather-from-a-soap-tutorial.21136/0 are indicative of what you should be looking for in a well-loaded brush.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

Re-reading the opening post, it seems as if the old adage of "use more product" might apply. Airy/foamy proto-lather generally indicates too much air, which needs to be worked out by continuing to load (not whip) until you have an nice proto-lather with very few bubbles.

A few of the pics in this thread (https://www.badgerandblade.com/forum/threads/how-to-make-great-lather-from-a-soap-tutorial.21136/0 are indicative of what you should be looking for in a well-loaded brush.

Thanks, Sam, but I bowl lathered with measured masses of soap and water. When I used to load a brush with MWF and bowl lather that way, I had similar issues of the lather getting too airy for my taste. Nevertheless, regardless of the aeration, the ratio of water to soap was optimized to around 25 and the amount of lather was optimized to about 7 g, which is on the low side of optimum total masses found for other soaps. The extra aeration made the total mass lower. However, Lisa's soap, as listed in the table, was optimized with a total mass of about 8 g, and it performed significantly better for me.

 

[rockviper]

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you're trying to say. I doubt that the weight of air bubbles would affect the weight of the overall lather produced. If you're using too little product, your lather will not be good. Plain and simple.