Oleo is good. Its optimum lather comes in at 5th place out of 18.

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

Introduction

Back in June, I acquired a sample of Oleo Soapworks canard shaving soap from @shavefan through a trade in the BST. (Thanks for the trade!) Then, less than three weeks ago, I received a generous sample of West Coast Shaving (WCS) duck fat shave soap from @johnwick. (Thanks, John!) WCS duck fat shaving soap is made in collaboration with Oleo using the same formula, so given that the particular Oleo fragrance was causing a burning feeling for me, the timing of receiving a different scent was very fortuitous. Optimization of Oleo transitioned from using the explicit Oleo duck fat soap to using the same formula under the WCS label, which worked well with my skin.

Below is my optimum lather table and my review of Oleo's canard shaving soap. Overall, Oleo is good. The slickness is generally good to very good, cushion/protection is okay, and the post-shave is pretty good with respect to both moisture and comfort. Currently, Oleo's duck fat base ranks right below Barrister and Mann's classic formula. Not bad!

Optimum Lather Table

PR	Performance Ranking
PD	Purchase Date (YYYY-MM-DD)
SCM	Soap/Cream Mass (g)
WM	Water Mass (g)
TM	Total Mass (g) = SCM + WM
WSCR	Water-to-Soap/Cream Ratio = WM / SCM
SCIT	Soap/Cream-Incorporation Time (s)
LBT	Lather-Building Time (s)
SCP	Soap/Cream Price (USD)

PR	Soap/Cream	PD	SCM	WM	TM	WSCR	SCIT	LBT	SCP
1	Nanny's Silly Soap (NSS) Original Shaving Soap	2017-04-23	1.20	9.60	10.80	8	30	45	0.15
2	Declaration Grooming (DG) Shaving Soap, Premium Bison Tallow Base	2017-08-11	0.81	8.91	9.72	11	20	60	0.15
3	Proraso Single Blade (PSB) Shaving Cream	2018-01-12	0.95	7.60	8.55	8	3	60	0.07
4	Barrister and Mann (B&M) Shaving Soap	2017-10-19	0.71	8.52	9.23	12	25	30	0.12
5	Oleo Soapworks Shaving Soap, Canard Base / West Coast Shaving (WCS) Duck Fat Shave Soap	2018-11-23	0.75	9.00	9.75	12	40	60	0.12
6	Cold River Soap Works (CRSW) SELECT Shaving Soap	2017-12-15	0.86	9.46	10.32	11	6	60	0.15
7	Stirling Soap Co. Shave Soap	2017-08-14	0.53	9.01	9.54	17	20	30	0.04
8	Saponificio Varesino (SV) Shaving Soap	2017-12-01	0.64	8.32	8.96	13	90	90	0.15
9	Barrister's Reserve Shaving Soap	2017-06	0.96	11.52	12.48	12	45	60	0.15
10	Proraso Red Shaving Soap	2017-11-27	0.82	8.20	9.02	10	5	75	0.06
11	Martin de Candre (MdC) Shaving Soap	2018-05-31	0.70	7.70	8.40	11	45	60	0.16
12	Mike's Natural Shaving Soap	2017-09	0.75	9.00	9.75	12	60	60	0.07
13	Arko Shaving Soap	2018-04-04	0.51	7.14	7.65	14	75	75	0.02
14	Barrister and Mann (B&M) Latha Shaving Soap (Discontinued)	2018-01-30	0.75	9.75	10.50	13	10	30	0.07
15	Floris Shaving Cream	2018-02	0.98	6.86	7.84	7	1	60	0.29
16	The Art of Shaving (AOS) Shaving Cream	2018-01-03	1.00	7.00	8.00	7	3	45	0.19
17	Mystic Water (MW) Shaving Soap	2018-01-27	0.70	9.10	9.80	13	30	30	0.07
18	The Sudsy Soapery Shave Soap, Vegan Base	2018-02-05	0.46	8.28	8.74	18	10	60	0.05

Oleo Soapworks Shaving Soap, Canard Base / West Coast Shaving (WCS) Duck Fat Shave Soap

Top label (stained), side label with ingredient list, and close-up of soap in small jar​

Top label, ingredient list on side label, and close-up of soap in small jar​

Note: The soap maker of Oleo Soapworks has confirmed that the same formula is used in her collaboration with West Coast Shaving

Version Names: El Caballero by Oleo Soapworks and Fougere by West Coast Shaving

Purchase Dates: April 4, 2018, for El Caballero and November 23, 2018, for Fougere. A sample of El Caballero was acquired from @shavefan through a trade in the BST on June 28, 2018 [8], and on December 4, 2018, I received a generous sample of Fougere from @johnwick. The samples were then placed in small white jars and photographed. Photographs of the original containers were taken by @shavefan and @johnwick.

Review Period: November 30 to December 20, 2018. 8 optimization shaves for El Caballero and then 10 optimization shaves and 2 ranking tests for Fougere.

Manufacturing Location: Oak Park, IL, USA

Ingredients: Stearic Acid, Water, Kokum Butter, Potassium Hydroxide, Palm Kernel Oil, Duck Fat, Sodium Hydroxide, Castor Oil, Glycerin, Jojoba Oil & Sodium Lactate [Note: Jojoba oil comes before glycerin in El Caballero, which was purchased before Fougere]

Appearance: El Caballero is brown. Fougere is brownish yellow.

Scent: El Caballero is described as "a bridge between Bay Rum and gentleman's cologne". Fougere is described as "an herbaceous forest scent".

Hardness: Softer than average

Optimum Lather Overview: Sheen is okay to pretty good. Lather has some good "peaking" and yogurt-like behavior of "stringiness". Adhesion and application are pretty good. The scent is not noticed much. Slickness is generally good to very good, mostly good, with a little pretty good slickness. Cushion/protection is okay. Post-shave is pretty good with respect to both moisture and comfort.

Optimization Details: Optimization began with El Caballero, when that was the only sample of Oleo Soapworks's duck fat base that I had. The slickness was good, but El Caballero caused a burning feeling during the shave, more so with later passes and with higher soap concentrations. Due to good luck and the generosity of @johnwick, I soon obtained a sample of West Coast Shaving's duck fat shaving soap, which is made using the same base formula. Thankfully, my skin was fine with the fragrance ingredients of Fougere. Performance was similar, but not precisely the same, between the two samples, so El Caballero was abandoned and optimization was restarted with Fougere. Over the water-to-soap range of 6 to 22, slickness and post-shave quality increased, peaked, and deteriorated, while cushion/protection decreased. The optimum water-to-soap ratio was found to be approximately 12, at which point the slickness and post-shave quality were near their peaks with the best balance of cushion/protection, adhesion, and application. The optimum lather-building time was determined as around 60 seconds because that was enough time to incorporate the soap and build a stable lather without the loss of slickness felt with 90 seconds of building time.

Ranking Details: Two ranking tests were performed after estimating where Oleo ranked. The first ranking test was against Barrister and Mann (B&M). Adhesion and application were better with Oleo, but more importantly, slickness was better with Oleo since B&M didn't provide as much very good slickness and yielded more okay or pretty good slickness than Oleo did. Despite the thinner lather, B&M provided some protection, as evidenced by the lack of nicks/cuts. Post-shave moisture with B&M was better and post-shave comfort was a little better. Overall, B&M won due to more balanced performance, but it was close. The second ranking test was against Stirling. Slickness with Stirling was not as good overall compared to Oleo. Also, cushion/protection was not as good with Stirling, as evidenced by blade feel and nicks/cuts. Post-shave moisture was similar, and post-shave comfort with Stirling was not bad, but it wasn't as good as with Oleo. Overall, Oleo won, as expected. A ranking test against Cold River Soap Works (CRSW) SELECT was not performed due to not having enough of that soap. Based on past results, though, Oleo was ranked above CRSW SELECT due to Oleo's better slickness and performance profile.

 

[BigJ]

Great review!! Thanks!

 

[johnwick]

Well done Grant! This one ranks up there pretty high. It seems WCS chose wisely when they picked Oleo to manufacture their soaps!

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

Great review!! Thanks!

Thanks! Next up is Rockwell shaving cream.

Well done Grant! This one ranks up there pretty high. It seems WCS chose wisely when they picked Oleo to manufacture their soaps!

Thanks, John! I think that you're right. Oleo was a good choice by WCS.

 

[steffenapelz]

For me, Oleo is one of the slickest soaps I have ever used and the best post-shave for my skin of all the soaps I have tried. Excellent stuff.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

For me, Oleo is one of the slickest soaps I have ever used and the best post-shave for my skin of all the soaps I have tried. Excellent stuff.

Cool. Oleo might not get the love and support that it deserves.

 

[steffenapelz]

Cool. Oleo might not get the love and support that it deserves.

It definitely feels like it doesn't. I think that is partly attributable to the vast number of great soaps available these days, and partly due to the fact that scents can be very hit and miss. So far, I have like only Don Luis, El Caballero and Jacmel. And I tested over a dozen samples...a lot of very artificial scents which did not agree with me.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

It definitely feels like it doesn't. I think that is partly attributable to the vast number of great soaps available these days, and partly due to the fact that scents can be very hit and miss. So far, I have like only Don Luis, El Caballero and Jacmel. And I tested over a dozen samples...a lot of very artificial scents which did not agree with me.

Good point. I tried El Caballero and had that burning feeling during the shave, but the WCS Fougere scent worked fine with my skin. Scents really can be hit or miss.

 

[steffenapelz]

Good point. I tried El Caballero and had that burning feeling during the shave, but the WCS Fougere scent worked fine with my skin. Scents really can be hit or miss.

So Jacmel gives me zero burn. El Caballero and Don Luis give a tiny bit of burn after pass 3...but I have never gotten irritation from those latter two soaps.quite the contrary...best post shave in my den. And I have gotten used to the minimal burn after pass 3.

Providence however burned my face like crazy starting on application and lit my face on fire and caused irritation big time.

I have had the same thing happen with CRSW (Lavish) and GD (Neroli di Bois) but not with any other soap I have ever used.

Whatever Vida does with the scents is what seems to be causing it given that I react to some soaps to varying degrees and not at all to other soaps of hers.

With Oleo, I would suggest sampling all the scents one is interested in and ordering full tubs only if the scent is good to one's nose and the face feel is comfortable.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[dmshaver]

Thank you for your continued work. I just got a tub of Oleo & am looking forward to trying it this week.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

Thank you for your continued work. I just got a tub of Oleo & am looking forward to trying it this week.

Thanks! I hope that the scent reacts well with your skin. As @steffenapelz discussed above, and as I experienced, the scent might react well or it might not.

 

[dmshaver]

Thanks! I hope that the scent reacts well with your skin. As @steffenapelz discussed above, and as I experienced, the scent might react well or it might not.

My skin didn't have a reaction to the Oleo, but my nose certainly did. I didn't care for the Sandlewood scent at all. I won't be using that soap again. I'll be looking to trade it to someone that enjoys the scent. Soap scents, & AS scents, are truly different for each person. Or in the vernacular of B & B, YMMV!

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

My skin didn't have a reaction to the Oleo, but my nose certainly did. I didn't care for the Sandlewood scent at all. I won't be using that soap again. I'll be looking to trade it to someone that enjoys the scent. Soap scents, & AS scents, are truly different for each person. Or in the vernacular of B & B, YMMV!

Sorry to hear about that. Thanks for the update. You're right. Scents are very personal.

 

[Clay S]

@ShavingByTheNumbers, I assume you have different areas that you rank the soaps in, weight the areas, and then either total or average the numbers. Providing those results in a table, and your weightings, would, IMO, make the rankings more impactful for readers. The lather optimization is interesting, and would allow someone receiving vastly different results could try comparing their lathering stats to your to insure they are "preparing" the same way. But having a side-by-side columnar scores of Lather stability, ease of lathering, cushion, slickness, residual slickness, fragrance, or lack there of, or strength of, would allow people to weight the soaps for their preferences, allowing them to use your testing results to better suit themselves. Of course the final result is only ever revealing in the actual trying of an item. Just food for thought.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

@ShavingByTheNumbers, I assume you have different areas that you rank the soaps in, weight the areas, and then either total or average the numbers. Providing those results in a table, and your weightings, would, IMO, make the rankings more impactful for readers. The lather optimization is interesting, and would allow someone receiving vastly different results could try comparing their lathering stats to your to insure they are "preparing" the same way. But having a side-by-side columnar scores of Lather stability, ease of lathering, cushion, slickness, residual slickness, fragrance, or lack there of, or strength of, would allow people to weight the soaps for their preferences, allowing them to use your testing results to better suit themselves. Of course the final result is only ever revealing in the actual trying of an item. Just food for thought.

I totally agree, Clay. Thanks, buddy. This is something that I've thought and talked about outside of the Internet. The problem, though, is that I haven't started assigning numbers to the individual metrics that are needed. Also, the weighted score would have to be right for me so that my rankings make sense with the metrics. Someone else, as you point out, could have a very different weighted score that works for him. That's all great, and I'd like to get to that point someday, but I haven't taken the time to figure it out.

 

[Clay S]

slickness is generally good to very good, cushion/protection is okay, and the post-shave is pretty good with respect to both moisture and comfort. Currently, Oleo's duck fat base ranks right below Barrister and Mann's classic formula. Not bad!

I haven't started assigning numbers to the individual metrics that are needed

okay=3, good=4, pretty good=3.5 or 4.5, depending on meaning, very good=5, etc. The hard part is trying to keep the numbers consistent over time.

I think I might use a middling soap, that is "okay" at just about everything, and set that as a baseline, with everything being zero. Then every so often, you can use again to adjust/re-attune your metrics. Then you better than or less than from there. Since you have tried several soaps, you could then try them, and set several things from them, the best would have several things around 5, the worst at -5. Later, when you find better and worse, just go higher lower. You just have to revisit soaps every so often to re-attune.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

okay=3, good=4, pretty good=3.5 or 4.5, depending on meaning, very good=5, etc. The hard part is trying to keep the numbers consistent over time.

I think I might use a middling soap, that is "okay" at just about everything, and set that as a baseline, with everything being zero. Then every so often, you can use again to adjust/re-attune your metrics. Then you better than or less than from there. Since you have tried several soaps, you could then try them, and set several things from them, the best would have several things around 5, the worst at -5. Later, when you find better and worse, just go higher lower. You just have to revisit soaps every so often to re-attune.

Clay, we are very much in sync. I've had the same type of thoughts in converting from my word scores to numbers. Also, yes, I'd probably have to take time to reevaluate the soaps and creams to get it all moving in the right direction and nail down what my weighted function is. It's subjective, and I've never quantified it, but it's there. It is kind of funny that I've avoided the numbers. It's against my username.

 

[Clay S]

Clay, we are very much in sync. I've had the same type of thoughts in converting from my word scores to numbers. Also, yes, I'd probably have to take time to reevaluate the soaps and creams to get it all moving in the right direction and nail down what my weighted function is. It's subjective, and I've never quantified it, but it's there. It is kind of funny that I've avoided the numbers. It's against my username.

Well, it can be very difficult to quantify preferences. I like aromas, but cushion and slickness are most important to me. But if I don't like the aroma, it is a deal killer. So on a scale of 0-5, once aroma dropped less than 3, it becomes a zero. Rose would be a 2 for me. I don't mind it much in a room, but on me? nope, a zero! I don't care for overly sweet, especially floral. You might dock significant points for irritation, rather than lowering a specific metric. They would see it might irritate them, but has a mild/medium/strong woodsy/herbal/fruity aroma. I think general broad brushes are best if your going to describe scents, or leave it to the maker. If they give a romanticized description though, some real description would be appreciated by many. Just dropping ideas. I would cluster the weightings on how strongly it affects you, don't start at x7, then x6, x5, etc. it should be x6, x6, x3,x3, x2, x1 or similar. The stair step weights are linear, and don't reflect preferences well. Might try some non-shave soaps, to get some extreme ratings, and also to see if some adjustment is in order. Cremo and shave oils can be very slick, perhaps super/uber/lather. Once you find the slickest, assign a 9 at most if a 1-10 scale. Never know what is coming out. I'm prejudiced against non-lathering, so would apply a blanket deduction, or weigh lathering stats very heavily.

 

[ShavingByTheNumbers]

Well, it can be very difficult to quantify preferences. I like aromas, but cushion and slickness are most important to me. But if I don't like the aroma, it is a deal killer. So on a scale of 0-5, once aroma dropped less than 3, it becomes a zero. Rose would be a 2 for me. I don't mind it much in a room, but on me? nope, a zero! I don't care for overly sweet, especially floral. You might dock significant points for irritation, rather than lowering a specific metric. They would see it might irritate them, but has a mild/medium/strong woodsy/herbal/fruity aroma. I think general broad brushes are best if your going to describe scents, or leave it to the maker. If they give a romanticized description though, some real description would be appreciated by many. Just dropping ideas. I would cluster the weightings on how strongly it affects you, don't start at x7, then x6, x5, etc. it should be x6, x6, x3,x3, x2, x1 or similar. The stair step weights are linear, and don't reflect preferences well. Might try some non-shave soaps, to get some extreme ratings, and also to see if some adjustment is in order. Cremo and shave oils can be very slick, perhaps super/uber/lather. Once you find the slickest, assign a 9 at most if a 1-10 scale. Never know what is coming out. I'm prejudiced against non-lathering, so would apply a blanket deduction, or weigh lathering stats very heavily.

Thanks for the advice. When I eventually get around to including number ratings and a weighted scale, I might not even include scent at all. I rate on performance, even though I include scent information and a cost evaluation.