6th Addition to Optimum Lather Table: Mitchell's Wool Fat (MWF) Comes in Last . . . and It's Not Even Close
Purchase Date: June 26, 2016
Container: I purchased the 3 in., 125 g refill puck of MWF shaving soap, shredded the soap, and pushed it down into the bottom of a plastic container, as shown above with a large majority of the soap having been used by the time of the picture.
Ingredients: Sodium Tallowate, Potassium Stearate, Sodium Cocoate, Sodium Stearate, Aqua, Potassium Cocoate, Glycerin, Parfum, Alpha-Isomethyl Ionone, Hexyl Cinnamal, Limonene, Linalool, Hydroxycitronellal, Lanolin, Titanium Dioxide, Sodium Chloride, Sodium Gluconate, Sodium Silicate, Tetrasodium EDTA, Magnesium Sulphate, Tetrasodium Etidronate
Appearance: Off-white with a bit of yellow
Scent: The scent is difficult for me to describe, but it kind of reminds me of baby powder. When I started using the soap on June 29, 2016, the scent was present enough and lingered enough on my face to make me notice, which I didn't care for. With time, the scent has diminished, but it is still there.
Hardness: Hard, at least harder than average, based on my limited experience
Loading and Building: MWF creates a sparkly foam with relatively large bubbles upon agitation with water, and due to this behavior, loading MWF into a brush can be frustrating. Regardless of the rate at which water is added and whether the lather is built in a bowl or on the face, MWF does not produce a thick, rich lather. MWF naturally produces an airy, foamy mass. These statements are based on my past experimentation using a natural-hair brush, non-measured soap and water masses, bloomed and non-bloomed soap, generally warm water, and bowl and face lathering, as well as the strict exact-lather tests presented here that involved a synthetic-hair brush and measured soap and room-temperature water masses with bowl lathering. Water hardness was also briefly examined using extremely soft water (distilled) and extremely hard water (1000 mg/L as CaCO3), the latter making even airier lather with MWF. Out of five important points listed by @Marco about MWF (B&B URL), which have all been addressed here, the fifth point about face lathering working "much better" and bowl lathering "fail[ing] miserably" is the most pertinent here. Making exact lathers involved bowl lathering, but when applying lather to the face, the lather would deflate somewhat under scrubbing and painting actions. Nevertheless, the applied lather was still less dense compared to lather with other soaps and less aeration did not alter the soap and water masses. Just about the only positive thing that I can say about building lather with MWF was that, as proven with timer results, it was relatively quick. At the optimum water-to-soap ratio, it took roughly 45 seconds for the soap on the bottom of the lathering bowl to be scraped off during lather building, which was reasonable.
Optimization Results with Exact Lathers: In optimizing Mitchell's Wool Fat (MWF), twenty-one (21) daily shaves were conducted from November 17, 2017, to December 7, 2017, with total mass (as soap mass plus water mass) ranging from 6.48 g to 8.16 g and water-to-soap ratio (as water mass divided by soap mass) ranging from 9 to 50. Due to the low soap masses, I quickly switched from my usual heavier plastic lathering bowl and a 0.1 g resolution scale to a disposable lightweight plastic bowl and a 0.01 g resolution scale to accurately measure mass. It didn't take long to figure out that the best mass was roughly around 7 g. Water-to-soap ratios in increments of 5 were generally used due to the relatively large values, but in bouncing around different values while zeroing in on the best one, the optimum water-to-soap ratio of 25 was found to within roughly 3 increments.
The following table summarizes key results for lathers made with MWF soap over various water-to-soap ratios, or water-to-MWF ratios in this case:
Water-to-MWF Ratio | Rinsing from Chrome | Slickness | Cushion | Post-Shave |
---|---|---|---|---|
10 | Not Good Due to Significant Sticking | Bad or Really Bad | Very Little | Good, but with Very Noticeable Irritation |
15 | Okay with Some Sticking | Bad Overall, but Ranged from Awful to Okay | Very Little | Pretty Good, but on Dry Side with Some Irritation |
20 | Fairly Easy with Tiny Bit of Sticking | Bad Overall, but Ranged from Awful to Okay | Very Little | Kind of Dry with a Little Irritation |
25 (Optimum) | Easy | Okay Overall, Ranging from Awful to Pretty Good with a Little Stick-Slip | Very Little | Kind of Dry |
30 | Easy | Ranged from Awful to Pretty Good with Significant Stick-Slip Reached in 3rd Pass | Very Little | Kind of Dry |
35 | Easy | Ranged from Awful to Pretty Good with Significant Stick-Slip Reached in 2nd Pass | Almost Nothing | Kind of Dry |
50 | Easy | Stick-Slip Almost throughout Entire 1st Pass | Almost Nothing | Unevaluated, since Shaving with MWF Ceased |
Lather made with MWF is quite aerated, making application to the face not luxurious and producing very little cushion for reasonable water-to-soap ratios, and with increasing water-to-soap ratio, the lather changes from rinsing poorly to rinsing easily from a chrome-plated safety razor. The lather seems to dissipate or collapse somewhat by the end of each pass. MWF was found to produce lather with a slickness that is, at best, okay overall and ranges from awful to pretty good at various times during passes with a little stick-slip being possible. Blade buffing was hindered by the lack of residual slickness. Personally, I experienced irritation that eventually disappeared with a large enough water-to-soap ratio, but others might not experience such overall post-shave irritation. Outside of irritation, the post-shave transitioned from good to kind of dry with increasing water-to-soap ratio.
Ranking Results: Directly after finishing the optimization process with the optimum lather for MWF, the optimum lather for Lisa's Natural Herbal Creations (LNHC) was used in the next day's shave. This ranking test made it clear that LNHC and MWF are worlds apart. It wasn't even close. MWF lost by a wide margin. The only downsides of LNHC compared to MWF were the irritation felt right before shaving the third pass and the dry post-shave. Otherwise, LNHC produced lather that was definitely much better than with MWF. This made it difficult to objectively evaluate LNHC, but the soap surely behaved the same as before, as amazingly indicated by the same irritation and post-shave as recorded in the past. Thus, LNHC maintains its current ranking position and MWF becomes the new last-place soap.
General Discussion about Performance of MWF: Most of the performance characteristics of MWF are believed to be related to a relatively large fraction of lanolin that shrinks as the water-to-soap ratio increases. It makes sense that Mitchell's Wool Fat would have a relatively high amount of lanolin considering that "wool fat" means "lanolin". Lanolin is actually not a fat, but a thick sticky wax, and as such, it generally improves the post-shave of a lather at the expense of decreasing slickness and possibly making the shave feel closer than it really is. With a large amount of lanolin, the overall slickness may be significantly impaired. I believe that this is what happens with MWF, and in order to drop the lanolin percentage in the lather and increase the slickness to some sort of reasonable level, the water-to-soap ratio had to be driven to a relatively large value. Unfortunately, the post-shave became kind of dry in the process and whatever slight amount of cushion that previously existed at lower water levels became virtually nothing with more water.
Regarding the overall post-shave irritation that I felt with MWF at lower water-to-soap ratios, it is possible that I could have a sensitivity to lanolin. However, in the past, I actually did a patch test with pure lanolin left on my skin without any bad reaction. A better possibility for my irritation to MWF seems to be that coconut oil was used to make the soap, maybe more than most other soaps, which I think would help explain the airiness of the lather. Based on my recorded results with other soaps, it does seem like my skin is reacting to coconut oil, but it might just be coincidence.
Sensitivity of Performance of MWF: Mitchell's Wool Fat has a reputation for being difficult to lather, and a reputation for invoking strong opinions. The difficulty of building lather with MWF is surely due, at least in large part, to the large optimum water-to-soap ratio of 25 and the smaller optimum total mass. Both factors contribute to a relatively small amount of soap compared to lathering with other soaps. This makes controlling the amount of soap more difficult, more sensitive to the amount of loading time and other loading factors. Another factor that makes building lather with MWF more difficult is that there are really no visual indicators from the lather regarding the right amount of water for the given amount of soap. The lather just always looks like a sparkly foam for reasonable water-to-soap ratios. Measuring mass, or possibly volume, ensures consistency of the water-to-soap ratio and repeatable lather performance, but one cannot be expected to build lather beyond loading a brush and face or bowl lathering with additions of water in the normal manner.
The small amount of soap and the relatively large amount of water that must be used to build the optimum lather for Mitchell's Wool Fat, coupled with a potentially disappointing optimum performance and the lack of visual feedback with respect to sheen and texture, makes MWF a "sensitive" soap. Thus, some users might never have any problems with MWF just based on the odds or out of sheer luck, while others might never get MWF to work for them even after trying hard to make it happen and getting inconsistent results or consistently disappointing results.
Final Thoughts: I hate Mitchell's Wool Fat. There, I said it. The truth is that not much has really changed about that. Before I started reevaluating MWF, I had already used up most of the puck that I bought last year when trying to make MWF work for me. It never happened. I followed one tip after another and nothing worked. Eventually, I ranked MWF at the bottom of my private soap ranking, put it aside, and moved on. This time around with measured soap and water masses, exact lathers, and thorough recordkeeping, I wasn't sure if I'd be able to figure out MWF, but I knew that I was more prepared to tackle the problem. As shown above, I've tackled MWF as best as I can and, lo and behold, it's at the bottom of my list again. Optimizing MWF was unpleasant, to say the least.
MWF could perform better with a different razor that reduces friction, but the same could be said for any soap. Also, others might not shake off excess water from their razors before strokes and/or they might rewet the face at times, and both of these techniques can be helpful for increasing slickness. It should be kept in mind that my evaluations are tough and do not include these variables. Lather is applied before each pass to my face that has been allowed extra time to effectively dry, the razor is quickly shaken once or twice after each rinse during passes to reasonably remove excess water, and water is not added by any other means during each pass. These factors alone might explain the difference between my evaluation of MWF and another's evaluation of MWF.
There are many fans of Mitchell's Wool Fat out there and I'm not trying to change their minds. I just hope that the results and analysis presented here will help settle the mystery and confusion that surrounds MWF, why it works for some but not others. This post doesn't fully explain MWF, but it does help solve the mystery that is MWF.
Questions? Comments? Constructive feedback is always welcome.
Optimum Lather Table
Performance Ranking | Soap/Cream | Soap/Cream Mass (g) | Water Mass (g) | Total Mass (g) | Water-to-Soap/Cream Ratio | Soap/Cream Price (USD) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Stirling Soap Co. Shave Soap | 1.0 | 9.0 | 10.0 | 9.00 | 0.08 |
2 | Declaration Grooming (Formerly L&L Grooming) Shaving Soap | 1.0 | 8.5 | 9.5 | 8.50 | 0.16 |
3 | The Sudsy Soapery Shave Soap | 0.8 | 7.6 | 8.4 | 9.50 | 0.09 |
4 | Barrister & Mann Latha Shaving Soap | 1.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 | 8.00 | 0.10 |
5 | Lisa's Natural Herbal Creations Wet Shave Soap | 0.8 | 7.2 | 8.0 | 9.00 | 0.06 |
6 | Mitchell's Wool Fat Shaving Soap | 0.27 | 6.75 | 7.02 | 25.00 | 0.03 |
- As documented on August 27, 2017, soap/cream and moderately hard water masses, at room temperature, were directly measured in a smooth lathering bowl and lather was built using a dry synthetic brush, so as to make exact lather for each shave. Masses were measured using either a 0.1 g resolution scale with a heavier lathering bowl or a 0.01 g resolution scale with a lighter lathering bowl.
- Based on slower three-pass shaves with blade buffing using chrome-plated DE safety razors with agreeable blades and blade exposures, water-to-soap/cream ratio was generally optimized to the nearest 0.5 value while total mass was simultaneously optimized as precisely as could be accomplished by varying soap/cream and water masses from day to day. Lather from inside the brush was used as much as possible in order to effectively eliminate the influence of the brush on total mass.
- Rankings were aided by revisiting previously determined optimums and comparing optimum lathers in sequential shaves.
- Prices are current median values among the available versions of each soap and cream.
- The table is sortable such that clicking on a column heading sorts the rows according to that column's data, and clicking on the column heading again reverses the sorting order. Product names are links to full review and optimization results for the particular versions of the soaps and creams used.
- Stirling Soap Co. Shave Soap: Lather builds faster than average. Sheen is pretty good or good. Lather is soft and uniform with some yogurt-like behavior and only a few small bubbles. Adhesion and application are pretty good or good. Slickness is generally good, but there is typically some friction near the end of passes. Cushion is okay or pretty good. Post-shave is fairly good, but a little on the dry side.
- Declaration Grooming (Formerly L&L Grooming) Shaving Soap: Lather takes time to build up, but it has some yogurt-like behavior and only a few small bubbles. Adhesion and application smoothness are pretty good or good. Slickness is okay to good, mostly good, with friction near the end of passes. Cushion is pretty good. Post-shave is good.
- The Sudsy Soapery Shave Soap: Lather builds faster than average. Sheen is not good because lather has more of a matte finish. Lather is noticeably airy with a uniform cell structure and foam-like behavior, as opposed to yogurt-like behavior, but there are only a few larger bubbles. Adhesion and application are okay, at best. Slickness is okay to good, mostly good, but there is significant friction at the end of passes and slickness seems to deteriorate with blade buffing due to a lack of residual slickness. Cushion is not much, and the lack of protection is noticeable. Post-shave is okay, but it is kind of dry.
- Barrister & Mann Latha Shaving Soap: Lather is neither like yogurt nor creamy, but lather is uniform with respect to very small air cells. Lather does not have much adhesion to skin during application. Sheen is nice, but not brilliant. Slickness is mostly good with some very good moments, but there is some friction near the end of passes. Cushion is not much, although it is fine. Post-shave is kind of dry with some overall irritation.
- Lisa's Natural Herbal Creations Wet Shave Soap: Lather is airy with uniformly tiny air cells and few visible small air bubbles. Sheen is okay, but not good or brilliant. Adhesion to skin is pretty good. Application is smooth enough, but not very smooth. Slickness is okay overall, with some good moments and virtually no stick-slip, but there is friction at times and near the end of passes. Cushion is okay, but it is not much. Post-shave is fairly dry with some irritation that probably corresponds with the irritation felt during and after application for the third pass.
- Mitchell's Wool Fat Shaving Soap: Lather builds relatively quickly to a sparkly foam that collapses to some degree during application and dissipates somewhat during passes. Slickness is okay overall, ranging from awful to pretty good with most times being okay or pretty good, but a little stick-slip might be experienced. Cushion is very little. Post-shave is kind of dry. (The water-to-soap ratio is optimized to within roughly 3 increments.)