LOL
You have no idea how glad I am that no one was around me to hear my response to that
New Penhaligons soaps here yet?
- Thread starter slickster514
- Start date
LOL
You have no idea how glad I am that no one was around me to hear my response to that
...Jim, please pass the tissues.....
+1 Thankfully I now have 2 NOS/unopened back up/refill pucks of the original Tallow formula!
Used the new formulation Pen's English Fern this morning.. Not a "great" shave, but not bad. First, the scent.. To my nose it doesn't smell anything like the AS and EdT.. If anything, it smelled very similar to the Imperial Leather bath soap that I use. So, anyone who wished they had an Imperial Leather scented shave soap might want to look into this..
Took a bit to find the right water-to-soap ration. Soaked the brush while I was in the shower and once out, I put some hot water on the puck as I was filling up the sink. I shook out the brush and gave it a light squeeze and hit the puck (after pouring off the water).. An airy, bubbly mess erupted that was completely unsuitable for shaving.. My second attempt -after rinsing the brush and getting most all the water out - yielded better results though not great by any means. Despite all this, I was able to get a fairly good shave. The lather was adequately slick but didn't offer much cushion. Not gonna pass judgment on it just yet. We all know some soaps require time in order to learn their little nuances. Hell, I'm still trying to find the sweet spot with my Knize 10 soap! However, I will say first impressions were not the best.
Took a bit to find the right water-to-soap ration. Soaked the brush while I was in the shower and once out, I put some hot water on the puck as I was filling up the sink. I shook out the brush and gave it a light squeeze and hit the puck (after pouring off the water).. An airy, bubbly mess erupted that was completely unsuitable for shaving.. My second attempt -after rinsing the brush and getting most all the water out - yielded better results though not great by any means. Despite all this, I was able to get a fairly good shave. The lather was adequately slick but didn't offer much cushion. Not gonna pass judgment on it just yet. We all know some soaps require time in order to learn their little nuances. Hell, I'm still trying to find the sweet spot with my Knize 10 soap! However, I will say first impressions were not the best.
is that a new puck stamp? did that bowl come with the soap?
Seems so.. IIRC the old pucks had a stamp similar to the logo design.Samouraï;1680179 said:
No, that was a bowl I already had.
I wonder if the old soap smells different from the AS or cologne. I got some English Fern Type cologne from theshaveden and it doesn't smell like the soap. Wonder if Joanna was basing her scent off of the real cologne instead of off the soap
The soap has similar notes to the cologne, but it isn't exact... I like both, but the soap is much cleaner and more refreshing IMO
richmondesi said:
This is how I feel about it as well. When I was new to soap I thought more highly of it than I do now. I like the scent (not love it) and thought it a solid performer. However, after perfecting my lathering technique and having time to test the waters with other soaps, I'd take Pens, Harris, GFT and a few others over Tabac any day!
- Thread starter
- #89
Finally got my English Fern Soap & Bowl.
Just a few observations while I get better aquainted with the product.......
The bowl is of lesser quality than the original pre-formulation, visually at least. The current bowls are branded with "Penhaligon London" only, the English Fern design type logo has been removed. I'm guessing this is for standardization between EF and BB soaps they offer, less bowls to stock since they're interchangable. The old bowl just looks better. We're paying for it-----come on! The BB shave cream has a silver plated lid and cost the same as their shave bowls.....am I missing something?!
After my 1st initial use:
Since this is my very first Penhaligon soap, I can't compare it to the older formulation. However, I can compare to T&H, D.R.H, and Trumpers. EF is what I like to refer to as a "creamier" lather. Seems more consistant and lasts longer while you shave. So yes, it is better to some degree to all the others that I've had the fortune of using. Certainly not twice as good as the other I've mentioned, and shouldn't cost twice as much, but it does smell quite nice. Good thing soaps last a long long time.....
Just a few observations while I get better aquainted with the product.......
The bowl is of lesser quality than the original pre-formulation, visually at least. The current bowls are branded with "Penhaligon London" only, the English Fern design type logo has been removed. I'm guessing this is for standardization between EF and BB soaps they offer, less bowls to stock since they're interchangable. The old bowl just looks better. We're paying for it-----come on! The BB shave cream has a silver plated lid and cost the same as their shave bowls.....am I missing something?!
After my 1st initial use:
Since this is my very first Penhaligon soap, I can't compare it to the older formulation. However, I can compare to T&H, D.R.H, and Trumpers. EF is what I like to refer to as a "creamier" lather. Seems more consistant and lasts longer while you shave. So yes, it is better to some degree to all the others that I've had the fortune of using. Certainly not twice as good as the other I've mentioned, and shouldn't cost twice as much, but it does smell quite nice. Good thing soaps last a long long time.....
Last edited:
The change to the wooden bowl is a bit of a disappointment. I have one on order and really liked the upscale look of the bowls that matched the labeling of the cologne and aftershave. At least the quality of the soap hasn't been cheapened as well.
Maybe someone on B&B would be willing to part with their well kept but presently empty old style EF wooden bowl?
Last edited:
Not to encourage your depression further, but this is incorrect. The "wool fat" refers to lanolin, not tallow. Mitchell's uses the lanolin as an emollient added into the soap to make it more conditioning to the skin; it is not part of the soap base itself. It is entirely possible (although hopefully not likely) that Mitchell's could reformulate to a veggie base and still add the lanolin, and thus keep it as "wool fat" soap. A similar example is Trumper's goat milk bath soap: it used to be tallow based, but is now veggie based; they still add goat milk solids to it, so they can call it "goat milk" soap. Ditto with C&E's goat milk soap.
While this may seem counter-intutive - why add an animal product to a vegetable soap? - it makes a little more sense when you consider the sources. Tallow is rendered from animal tissue (i.e., meat), meaning it takes a dead animal to get it. Lanolin comes from sheep's wool, which doesn't require the killing of sheep to obtain. Obviously milk can also be obtained without killing the animal. Thus, lanolin and milk are more tolerated by certain animal-friendly types than is tallow - assuming politics is the reason for the reformulation, which is debatable.
This sucks =/
- Thread starter
- #93
In all honesty, the new EF soap is better than D.R. Harris soaps which have a tallow derivative. Veggie soap can be good too, one shouldn't assume solely on the ingredient list.
Agreed. I actually prefer the Trumper veggie soap to MWF (allow me to duck the flying beer cans thrown my way). Having said that, the tallow-laden AOS is probably the single-best soap I've used (not including the scent, which annoys me), although I don't know if that's due to the tallow or just a good overall formulation. T&H Luxury Soap, also veggie, is generally outstanding too.
The change to the wooden bowl is a bit of a disappointment. I have one on order and really liked the upscale look of the bowls that matched the labeling of the cologne and aftershave. At least the quality of the soap hasn't been cheapened as well.
Maybe someone on B&B would be willing to part with their well kept but presently empty old style EF wooden bowl?
I recently saw pictures of the new bowl and puck beside the old bowl and puck. First thing I noticed is that the new bowls look rough while the old bowls look smooth and refined. It also seems that Penhaligon's has changed the size of the pucks. The new ones have a bigger circumference so they won't fit in the old bowls without trimming the puck to make it fit. I wish this wasn't the case as I have several of the old bowls and was planning on using them again for the new formulation. Now, it may be too much of a PITA to mess with.
Picks? Link? I'd like to see a side by side as well.
Thanks!
I've been following this thread for some time and, lo and behold, I happened to be in a local shop that carries Penhaligons and noticed that the only two soaps they had left were the BB and EF display models. The EF had potassium tallowate as the first ingredient and the BB had sodium tallowate as the first ingredient (I believe this is the previous version).
So, after asking myself "What would Jim do in this situation", I promptly convinced the owner to sell me both soaps! I've never paid this much for soaps before, but figured it was now or never, so I bit the bullet.
While I think we should wait for more feedback on the new soaps, the new bowls look much cheaper than the very high class bowls that came with the old soap. I also think that the inclusion of tallow is what made the Pens soaps so special and why people were willing to spend so much for a product that probably cost about $1 per puck to make (I'm guestimating here, but I suspect box the soap comes in costs as much as the soap).
Once you take away the tallow and cheapen the bowl so that you don't get the same sense of luxury, I'm not sure why there's any reason to buy the new formulations other than for the sake of curiosity or if someone feels that having a soap in BB or EF is worth the very steep premium Pens charges for these products.
I know I'd never spend $70 on a veggie soap in a generic bowl that, from the pictures, seems to be of mediocre quality.
Its clear that Penns was willing to sacrifice its shaving soap line for the sake of maintaining its royal warrant.
So, after asking myself "What would Jim do in this situation", I promptly convinced the owner to sell me both soaps! I've never paid this much for soaps before, but figured it was now or never, so I bit the bullet.
While I think we should wait for more feedback on the new soaps, the new bowls look much cheaper than the very high class bowls that came with the old soap. I also think that the inclusion of tallow is what made the Pens soaps so special and why people were willing to spend so much for a product that probably cost about $1 per puck to make (I'm guestimating here, but I suspect box the soap comes in costs as much as the soap).
Once you take away the tallow and cheapen the bowl so that you don't get the same sense of luxury, I'm not sure why there's any reason to buy the new formulations other than for the sake of curiosity or if someone feels that having a soap in BB or EF is worth the very steep premium Pens charges for these products.
I know I'd never spend $70 on a veggie soap in a generic bowl that, from the pictures, seems to be of mediocre quality.
Its clear that Penns was willing to sacrifice its shaving soap line for the sake of maintaining its royal warrant.
I think you've likely hit the nail on the head. Be sure to let us know what you think of the EF. I love BB but I've never tried the EF.
