maranatha
Well-Known Member
No comment so far about Mitchell's Woolfat, this legendary soap. Let's start here, of course, with the current version, the new tallow-free one.
In most English-speaking forums, the tallow version was already buried in May last year. And of course there has been a lot of moaning and discussion about why tallow soaps are dying out all over the world. Soap makers have had a lively debate about why replacing tallow with palm oil makes no sense and can only be a deterioration, only to be told in return that this is nonsense, as there are plenty of soaps that prove the opposite. Threads have been opened that provocatively ask whether a reformulated, former tallow soap could ever keep up with its predecessor, only to be followed by Tabac, Haslinger or the fairly new Floris, which have won over many die-hard fans of the original version. A back and forth between tallow fanatics and opponents, the opinions of some soap makers and self-proclaimed recipe professionals. And in the middle of it all are those who are deliciously entertained and amused by the whole story. It's fun to have a look.
I love tallow soaps myself. For a long time I convinced myself that nothing could be better. I still love them, but now more because I like the creamy, greasy yoghurt consistency of most tallow soaps. I also find the sheen of the lather unique. In terms of shaving, I have discovered many a tallow-free soap, but all tallow soaps have to stretch themselves to get there. I also classify some creams at the same level. However, these attributes that I like so much about tallow soaps were not at all fulfilled by MWF. In my opinion, it never had the greasy, shiny lather that many soaps, especially overseas soaps, have. The properties, on the other hand, were always top league, the aftercare phenomenal, but at some point too much for me. My skin isn't dry and doesn't absorb everything that comes with highly nourishing soaps. That is the main reason why it has disappeared from my cupboard in recent years.
Now the cards have been reshuffled. The MWF has not only been changed, but has been given a completely different basis. The first impression is the trial sample. The Fat has its very own scent, which I find wonderful. Soapy fresh, slightly spicy woody. Very weak, roughly on a par with Harris Marlborough or Almond RS, perhaps even a little stronger. Mitchell's was often said to have no scent at all, which is definitely not true. Anyone who has used it for at least a week in a row knows the scent and will be able to distinguish it from all other soaps. This slightly woody freshness is even very present to my nose during shaving. It's the familiar MWF scent. If it's changed, it's almost lost. I am very sensitive to that. A fragrance that I associate with a soap must remain, otherwise the soap usually disappears. The new Tabac serves as a negative example for me, but the Haslinger is a positive one. Mitchell's has obviously decided not to touch the familiar scent. Very sensible! A very positive decision that gives the soap every chance with me. My nose identifies the scent as identical in type and strength. I'll stick to that, even if overseas forums denounce the loss of the fragrance or the change to floral. Perhaps the desire to give the new version a whirl is enough motivation to notice a change in scent. I don't smell any change.
The next point is the foaming behavior. A tricky issue with the old MWF, in the past it has presented even experienced experts with no small problems. At least if you get a puck from a difficult batch. Often nothing worked at all, even with all the soaking and other tricks. It was still possible to shave almost as well with the plonk as with the fine lather, which the Mitchell's can also do, but it's no fun for anyone. Improving this discipline was not particularly difficult. Hundreds of formulas can do this better than a problematic Woolfat. And, as expected, that was successful. This puck here easily generates the best lather from little material. Just like a working copy of the old version. And just as spoiled soap critics like us would expect. Problem-free, simple and tolerant on average to the addition of water. After about twenty shaves, I can say that this point is unbelievably stable.
The shaves are simply wonderful. The soaking, protective and gliding effects are top notch. Compared to the previous Fat, I could perhaps detect a small deficit in terms of residual smoothness, i.e. the famous "ghostlather". But I would have to test again to see if I remember it correctly. Right away, the Talg-Mitchell's seems to be a touch better. The shave did not suffer any disadvantages. The result was very smooth (almost everywhere) and the aftershave was as quiet as I am used to from all successful shaves.
To be honest, the aftercare was almost the most exciting thing for me apart from the fragrance. The reviews from other forums indicated that the shaving properties have not deteriorated. For some even better. Only those who obviously don't want to accept a tallow-free MWF found enough points of criticism about the shaving properties. I can't confirm this for myself, but I had expected it a little. This made me all the more curious about the final result in terms of the skin's appearance after shaving. Finally, like many days this year, it was not the most used AS of the past years (Speick), but the Windsor water from Harris. It gives me an even better velvety skin texture than the Speick. However, as I consider it to be disproportionately expensive, I don't use it regularly. This is only by the way. The aftercare result in combination with Mitchell's is very pleasant. No over-creamed, creamy skin feeling, as I am used to from Mitchell's. For me, this is wonderful and a welcome improvement on the tallow version. Conversely, however, this could mean that the new version could represent a deterioration for some people who love the perhaps richer care provided by the old version. I can't say for sure, everyone has to try it out for themselves anyway. I myself very much welcome this change, which is quite small to be honest. It brings MWF much closer to me than it has been in previous years
All in all, I can say from my point of view that this reformulation has been a complete success. At least that's how I feel at the moment. In fact, the change is so successful that I would say it would perhaps hardly have been noticed if they had forgotten to correct the list of ingredients on the packaging. Everything is moving in small, possibly barely noticeable ways and I could imagine that some people who vehemently criticize the new version could have been given a puck of the new version without noticing. Some people might just have wondered why the lather is suddenly not quite as shiny or why the Woolfat is suddenly completely easy to lather. But it might have been. We only notice many differences when we are told in advance that changes have been made.
For me, there is nothing to be sad about here. On the contrary, the Mitchell's Woolfat could have been given a new lease of life for me personally
In most English-speaking forums, the tallow version was already buried in May last year. And of course there has been a lot of moaning and discussion about why tallow soaps are dying out all over the world. Soap makers have had a lively debate about why replacing tallow with palm oil makes no sense and can only be a deterioration, only to be told in return that this is nonsense, as there are plenty of soaps that prove the opposite. Threads have been opened that provocatively ask whether a reformulated, former tallow soap could ever keep up with its predecessor, only to be followed by Tabac, Haslinger or the fairly new Floris, which have won over many die-hard fans of the original version. A back and forth between tallow fanatics and opponents, the opinions of some soap makers and self-proclaimed recipe professionals. And in the middle of it all are those who are deliciously entertained and amused by the whole story. It's fun to have a look.
I love tallow soaps myself. For a long time I convinced myself that nothing could be better. I still love them, but now more because I like the creamy, greasy yoghurt consistency of most tallow soaps. I also find the sheen of the lather unique. In terms of shaving, I have discovered many a tallow-free soap, but all tallow soaps have to stretch themselves to get there. I also classify some creams at the same level. However, these attributes that I like so much about tallow soaps were not at all fulfilled by MWF. In my opinion, it never had the greasy, shiny lather that many soaps, especially overseas soaps, have. The properties, on the other hand, were always top league, the aftercare phenomenal, but at some point too much for me. My skin isn't dry and doesn't absorb everything that comes with highly nourishing soaps. That is the main reason why it has disappeared from my cupboard in recent years.
Now the cards have been reshuffled. The MWF has not only been changed, but has been given a completely different basis. The first impression is the trial sample. The Fat has its very own scent, which I find wonderful. Soapy fresh, slightly spicy woody. Very weak, roughly on a par with Harris Marlborough or Almond RS, perhaps even a little stronger. Mitchell's was often said to have no scent at all, which is definitely not true. Anyone who has used it for at least a week in a row knows the scent and will be able to distinguish it from all other soaps. This slightly woody freshness is even very present to my nose during shaving. It's the familiar MWF scent. If it's changed, it's almost lost. I am very sensitive to that. A fragrance that I associate with a soap must remain, otherwise the soap usually disappears. The new Tabac serves as a negative example for me, but the Haslinger is a positive one. Mitchell's has obviously decided not to touch the familiar scent. Very sensible! A very positive decision that gives the soap every chance with me. My nose identifies the scent as identical in type and strength. I'll stick to that, even if overseas forums denounce the loss of the fragrance or the change to floral. Perhaps the desire to give the new version a whirl is enough motivation to notice a change in scent. I don't smell any change.
The next point is the foaming behavior. A tricky issue with the old MWF, in the past it has presented even experienced experts with no small problems. At least if you get a puck from a difficult batch. Often nothing worked at all, even with all the soaking and other tricks. It was still possible to shave almost as well with the plonk as with the fine lather, which the Mitchell's can also do, but it's no fun for anyone. Improving this discipline was not particularly difficult. Hundreds of formulas can do this better than a problematic Woolfat. And, as expected, that was successful. This puck here easily generates the best lather from little material. Just like a working copy of the old version. And just as spoiled soap critics like us would expect. Problem-free, simple and tolerant on average to the addition of water. After about twenty shaves, I can say that this point is unbelievably stable.
The shaves are simply wonderful. The soaking, protective and gliding effects are top notch. Compared to the previous Fat, I could perhaps detect a small deficit in terms of residual smoothness, i.e. the famous "ghostlather". But I would have to test again to see if I remember it correctly. Right away, the Talg-Mitchell's seems to be a touch better. The shave did not suffer any disadvantages. The result was very smooth (almost everywhere) and the aftershave was as quiet as I am used to from all successful shaves.
To be honest, the aftercare was almost the most exciting thing for me apart from the fragrance. The reviews from other forums indicated that the shaving properties have not deteriorated. For some even better. Only those who obviously don't want to accept a tallow-free MWF found enough points of criticism about the shaving properties. I can't confirm this for myself, but I had expected it a little. This made me all the more curious about the final result in terms of the skin's appearance after shaving. Finally, like many days this year, it was not the most used AS of the past years (Speick), but the Windsor water from Harris. It gives me an even better velvety skin texture than the Speick. However, as I consider it to be disproportionately expensive, I don't use it regularly. This is only by the way. The aftercare result in combination with Mitchell's is very pleasant. No over-creamed, creamy skin feeling, as I am used to from Mitchell's. For me, this is wonderful and a welcome improvement on the tallow version. Conversely, however, this could mean that the new version could represent a deterioration for some people who love the perhaps richer care provided by the old version. I can't say for sure, everyone has to try it out for themselves anyway. I myself very much welcome this change, which is quite small to be honest. It brings MWF much closer to me than it has been in previous years
All in all, I can say from my point of view that this reformulation has been a complete success. At least that's how I feel at the moment. In fact, the change is so successful that I would say it would perhaps hardly have been noticed if they had forgotten to correct the list of ingredients on the packaging. Everything is moving in small, possibly barely noticeable ways and I could imagine that some people who vehemently criticize the new version could have been given a puck of the new version without noticing. Some people might just have wondered why the lather is suddenly not quite as shiny or why the Woolfat is suddenly completely easy to lather. But it might have been. We only notice many differences when we are told in advance that changes have been made.
For me, there is nothing to be sad about here. On the contrary, the Mitchell's Woolfat could have been given a new lease of life for me personally