Mitchells Wool Fat Shaving Soap is no longer Tallow based

[ChriWilson]

I do too. I never thought I would see the day when it might be necessary to start hoarding Proraso, but it may yet come.

I'm curious as to why ? Their croap is tallow free. If anything, I'd think the Single Blade formulas could be vulnerable

I believe "1893" refers to the formula number, not the year. Does anyone have definitive information on this?

So like WD-40 ?

I thought about getting a spare bowl. I figure if I need one down the road, I'll wind up with a puck of the new stuff. I've been using my bowl for about 15 years and it hasn't broken yet. *Knock on wood*

7 backup pucks of tallow ought to see me through the future.

I'd be sure to tell you that the MWF Ceramics of today are not comparable. I've had 3 within the past 1.5y and 2/3 have been dodgy in the fit and finish. I have experienced inconsistent bead thickness along the base and unlevel lids.

I doubt if it will get a fair trial!! It may well be awful but surely you can t say it will just because other soaps were after tweaking........ it may have gone through 100 tweaks and be superior..

I'll sit and wait on consensus. My current puck took a loooooong time to get to where it is now. So many times I almost gave up on it. My next MWF (new) puck may start out hydrating more; though I used a similar but conservative approach using a 4oz tub from Maggards.

Actually, I'm a bit surprised that 32 pages of discussion has not been sufficient to bring a response from a spokesperson at Mitchells... They must be aware by now of this discussion?

I'm sure Kent has made them aware. Perhaps they're secretly lurking awaiting positive review of the new soap

 

[CzechCzar]

Actually, I'm a bit surprised that 32 pages of discussion has not been sufficient to bring a response from a spokesperson at Mitchells... They must be aware by now of this discussion?

 

[ZeelandsRoem]

Actually, I'm a bit surprised that 32 pages of discussion has not been sufficient to bring a response from a spokesperson at Mitchells... They must be aware by now of this discussion?

To be honest, I am not sure they care that much to create an account and come with a statement, let alone be up to date with discussions on forums.

Perhaps someone made them aware by sharing the link to the thread, maybe they read some bits, but I expect that’s where they will stop. An employee does not have the time to read a 32 pages thread on a forum.

 

[EclipseRedRing]

View attachment 1666736

I sent several enquiries to that email address and never received a reply which is one of the reasons I ceased using their products. I called the number and it was never answered. I will not patronise any company that offers a method with which to engage with its customers and then refuses to do so; their soap was good but was never that good, now it is worse.

 

[EclipseRedRing]

An employee does not have the time to read a 32 pages thread on a forum.

An employee at Kent has managed to find the time and also to engage with B&B members, despite simply reselling MWF soap.

 

[ZeelandsRoem]

An employee at Kent has managed to find the time and also to engage with B&B members, despite simply reselling MWF soap.

I should have mentioned “a MWF employee”, since they don’t even answer their e-mails, let alone read forums.

 

[PLANofMAN]

I'd be sure to tell you that the MWF Ceramics of today are not comparable. I've had 3 within the past 1.5y and 2/3 have been dodgy in the fit and finish. I have experienced inconsistent bead thickness along the base and unlevel lids.

I was worried when I read your reply, because I do have another ceramic dish in the mail...

But then I remembered my bowl from 2012 that I've been using (and still use) for the last 10 years. Off center stamping, and an unlevel lid. Some things never change.

It's quite likely the new bowl will be an improvement over this one.

Even dug out the box for it...

Hmm. Batch number 5185. I purchased it in August of 2012. Since the ceramic sells slower than the pucks, I assume a production date between 2010 and summer 2012. That means that since production started around 1980, they've sold almost as much soap in the last 10 years, as they did in the previous 30. (Probably more, in fact. I doubt early batches were 10,000 at a time like they are now). Still, looking at something like 90 million+ pucks sold over the years.

...something to think about, and blame the internet for.

Edit: I'm not a hoarder, I swear. It's a carry over from when I would move fairly frequently. I like to put breakable stuff back in it's original boxes for the move. Cuts down on having to replace it as often.

 

[ChriWilson]

I was worried when I read your reply, because I do have another ceramic dish in the mail...

But then I remembered my bowl from 2012 that I've been using (and still use) for the last 10 years. Off center stamping, and an unlevel lid. Some things never change.

It's quite likely the new bowl will be an improvement over this one.
View attachment 1666742View attachment 1666743
Even dug out the box for it...
View attachment 1666753
Hmm. Batch number 5185. I purchased it in August of 2012. Since the ceramic sells slower than the pucks, I assume a production date between 2010 and summer 2012. That means that since production started around 1980, they've sold almost twice as much soap in the last 10 years, as they did in the previous 30. (Probably more, in fact. I doubt early batches were 10,000 at a time like they are now).

...something to think about, and blame the internet for.

Edit: I'm not a hoarder, I swear. It's a carry over from when I would move fairly frequently. I like to put breakable stuff back in it's original boxes for the move. Cuts down on having to replace it as often.

I still have one stashed away encased in its plastic - so not quite sure on that one. I was just thrilled that they arrived from Connaught's unbroken. After the first one, I assumed it was a fluke and chalked it up to it being handmade. When I ordered next go around, I included the wooden bowl option which is home to some D.R. H iirc.

It doesn't bother me nearly as much as I thought it would.

 

[PLANofMAN]

To be honest, I am not sure they care that much to create an account and come with a statement, let alone be up to date with discussions on forums.

Perhaps someone made them aware by sharing the link to the thread, maybe they read some bits, but I expect that’s where they will stop. An employee does not have the time to read a 32 pages thread on a forum.

An employee at Kent has managed to find the time and also to engage with B&B members, despite simply reselling MWF soap.

Kent is a 400 year old business, and understands the importance of customer service. Mitchell's is only 100 years old, and obviously doesn't. Besides, what could they say? "Sorry we screwed you guys over, and shafted Kent? We think the new formula is good enough, and you all need to get over it."

There is nothing they can say that results in a better outcome than what they are already facing.

At this point, all I want to hear from them is "we are working on adding slickness to the current formula to bring it up to the standards of our previous formula." Or, "we have switched suppliers and are going back to the old tallow formula."

 

[Mike M]

Having lurked on this thread a while I have always found MWF to be an excellent soap, even if it didn't get the use in my den that it should have. My puck celebrated its fourth birthday on May the 19th. MWF is the soap that restored my faith in shaving soap after taking a serious dent using a Wilkinson Sword blue puck a couple of years before. I have been 3017ing it and thought about replacing it when I heard it was being reformulated. Having read this thread though I am loath to buy another puck in case Mitchell's get the idea that this is in some way a reasonable way for a company to behave.
I have been impressed however with the response from Kent and would definitely seek them out for purchases in the future based on their responses to this thread alone.
Alas once my puck is finished I will not now be replacing it

 

[AndyPanda]

I just cracked the seal so I could check the batch number on a Mitchell's of an unknown age and it has six digits starting with 00. Any ideas what year this was?

 

[Cleanface]

I just cracked the seal so I could check the batch number on a Mitchell's of an unknown age and it has six digits starting with 00. Any ideas what year this was?
View attachment 1666807

Dinosaur tallow was in use

 

[CzechCzar]

A somewhat related question. With all that MWF has done to garner ill-will recently, why not just use Kent soap? Does it even smell that much different from MWF? If Kent's is still tallow-based, why would we ever give MWF another dollar?

 

[PLANofMAN]

I just cracked the seal so I could check the batch number on a Mitchell's of an unknown age and it has six digits starting with 00. Any ideas what year this was?
View attachment 1666807

2018-2019

 

[brucered]

2nd shave with MWF batch 8923....no issues to report.

Last shave on Thursday, then I'll put it away and officially declare 8923 good to go.

Spoiler

Boar brush, normal load, 2 pass, creamy, no disappearing lather.

I applied the left over lather to my face during cleanup of sink, brush, razor etc. Same as I do with other moisturizing soaps like PdP and Haslinger. Warm rinse, cool rinse, no AS needed.

Brush after applying 1st pass of lather.

Brush after applying 2nd pass of lather

 

[brucered]

A somewhat related question. With all that MWF has done to garner ill-will recently, why not just use Kent soap? Does it even smell that much different from MWF? If Kent's is still tallow-based, why would we ever give MWF another dollar?

Why do people still use and support HTGAM/PAA?

Some forgive, some don't care, some don't want to know, some only care about the end product.

Take your pick.

 

[PLANofMAN]

Why do people still use and support HTGAM/PAA?

Some forgive, some don't care, some don't want to know, some only care about the end product.

Take your pick.

Ooo...good point.

They make my wife's favorite aftershave (on me). If it weren't for that, they still wouldn't get any money from me.

I still refuse to support The Holy Black.

What MWF did to Kent is arguably worse than what htgam/ppf (PAA) ever did, though to be fair, PAA has kept their nose clean since being reborn from the ashes of htgam/ppf. The scandal destroyed How to Grow a Mustache and Petal Pusher Fancies... I don't see Mitchell's dying over this.

 

[PLANofMAN]

A somewhat related question. With all that MWF has done to garner ill-will recently, why not just use Kent soap? Does it even smell that much different from MWF? If Kent's is still tallow-based, why would we ever give MWF another dollar?

Well, Kent and MWF is the exact same soap, as far as I know. The only difference is the puck size. If Kent does end up finding another supplier (*Culmak*) to produce tallow soap, it will likely be a completely new formulation and scent.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, imo.

 

[Doc Dan]

Vegan Speick is surprisingly good. If you were not already familiar with the tallow stick, you wouldn't notice a thing.

I noticed. I tried it. I tossed it. Terrible with a straight razor.

 

[ChriWilson]

Well, Kent and MWF is the exact same soap, as far as I know. The only difference is the puck size. If Kent does end up finding another supplier (*Culmak*) to produce tallow soap, it will likely be a completely new formulation and scent.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, imo.

Same soap
Kent SB2 = MWF

However, Kent offers/offered a mug sized puck in their SB4

I noticed. I tried it. I tossed it. Terrible with a straight razor.

C’est la vie