Musgo Soap is a fraudulent dud so beware

[Whitmore]

basically the EU is a half assed version of a federal government, the council can issue directives regarding any topic from equality to food additives and the member states are obliged to put these directives into law or face heavy financial fines, currently health and safety is one of their biggest concerns however, from what I've been seeing in the area, they're missing the common sense factor and going nanny state in many respects. If you think cosmetics are bad you should see pesticides, most of the european pesticide control agencies find themselves preoccupied with trying to make sure suppliers and users have disposed of all the many formulations that are banned each year so much so that other important tasks like monitoring for proper use of protective equipment and dosage levels become secondary.

There's not a single EU directive I know of that's in any way connected to the quality of a soap, cream or any other cosmetic product. So far they're mostly going after minor ingredients like cheap colorants with questionable or simply undefinable formulations. No proud soapmaker needs these (as tons of quality products prove each day).

Bottom line: a substandard European soap / cream / aftershave / product sucks because the manufacturer isn't on top of his game, not because of rules and regulations.

Regarding the Musgo soap: please, please please let's not give Claus Porto a hard time. They've produced excellent products for decades, and whatever may be wrong with their new soap - I'm sure they'll fix it. They've always listened to customer feedback, so let's stay constructive, tell them what isn't working for us and hope they'll come up with a soap wetshavers will enjoy for decades to come.

[sfcablecar]

I was aware that the German shaving forum first sounded the alarm about this a couple of weeks ago. I was stubborn and decided to try it for myself. I did everything right because I was forewarned. Distilled water, Rooney Finest brush, loaded the brush for a full two minutes on the soap before moving to the lather bowl for a full four minutes. All I got was big bubbly brown suds, a lot of suds. I left the brush sitting in the bowl and the suds immediately began to dissipate, and after a minute or so, even the suds had all but disappeared. I've suggested to the vendor that he should return the shipment to the factory and get a refund. This soap shouldn't be on the market. The insult is emphasized by the glowing language on the box about how wonderful the lather and shave are going to be. That's either dishonest or gross incompetence.

I also tried the soap and I feel that Gary was actually restrained in his assessment of the new Musgo soap. The soap is utter crap and an embarrassment for the company. How this got passed any testing is beyond me. What is inexcusable is that they actually packaged it and are selling it. I only wish I saw Gary's post before wasting my time and money. Caveat emptor.

[brothers]

I guess someone tried to shave with a Musgo Real Oil soap and it didn't work. No surprise here, for most of us...

Nope, it was the shave soap, brand new product on the market. Maybe the factory made a mistake and put bath soap in a shave soap box. That would explain a lot. However, and quite unfortunately, I'm afraid the mistake was made in the decision to put it out on the market. If they want to recall it and take another crack at it, I'll give them a second chance.

[lt114]

I won't dispute that it is possible to make a great soap while abiding by EU rules and regulations, but why should soap manufacturers have to?
If a product has less than stellar, or even questionable, ingredients the answer is simple: I won't buy it.
It's like saying anyone can be a great golfer only using 7 clubs in any given round, but that misses the point entirely.

[SliceOfLife]

Because the rules exist to protect the consumer from products which some believe to be dangerous. I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to be putting blame on a government agency without pointing out exactly what banned product manufacturers must work around that was so necessary to produce shaving soap. Take your time.


Wait I know, it was human tissue right? Diesel fuel? Arsenic? Am I getting warmer or colder? Did any of you even read the list of banned cosmetic additives before making these accusations?

[TallyShave]

There's not a single EU directive I know of that's in any way connected to the quality of a soap, cream or any other cosmetic product. So far they're mostly going after minor ingredients like cheap colorants with questionable or simply undefinable formulations. No proud soapmaker needs these (as tons of quality products prove each day).

I haven't read the list of substances or researched much about the EU practices, but I tend to think common sense answers are generally correct, and this post is chock full of common sense. Blaming the EU seems like a real red herring here.

I also think using the term "fraudulent" to describe a soap was a desperate cry for attention (that worked) and pretty tasteless. This company which has supplied a century worth of great products is now out to defraud us all with its shave soap? Really?

[dashmaverick]

I also think using the term "fraudulent" to describe a soap was a desperate cry for attention (that worked) and pretty tasteless. This company which has supplied a century worth of great products is now out to defraud us all with its shave soap? Really?

I dunno, I think the term 'fraudulent' was used more as a refined, gentlemanly way of saying sucks, garbage, crap, or useless.

Off tangent, but if I read another review where lather is described as 'exploding' I think my head is going to do just that. Come on gents, let's extend our vernacular!

[DMT]

There's not a single EU directive I know of that's in any way connected to the quality of a soap, cream or any other cosmetic product. So far they're mostly going after minor ingredients like cheap colorants with questionable or simply undefinable formulations. No proud soapmaker needs these (as tons of quality products prove each day).

Bottom line: a substandard European soap / cream / aftershave / product sucks because the manufacturer isn't on top of his game, not because of rules and regulations.

Regarding the Musgo soap: please, please please let's not give Claus Porto a hard time. They've produced excellent products for decades, and whatever may be wrong with their new soap - I'm sure they'll fix it. They've always listened to customer feedback, so let's stay constructive, tell them what isn't working for us and hope they'll come up with a soap wetshavers will enjoy for decades to come.

Rules on what you can and cant put into soaps leads to new formulas and reformulation there's bound to be trial and error leading hiccups and duds along the way

[TonyJoe]

OK. I mashed my grated sample into a small Gladware container, wet it with a little water, and formed it into a solid mass and let it dry overnight. This morning I did a test lather with my old stiff VDH boar brush. I chose this brush because it chews up anything I feed it, so loading it isn't really an issue. I put some water on top of the soap to let it soak while the brush soaked in a bowl. After about 6-7 minutes I closed the drain in the sink, dumped the water from the bowl into the sink and squeezed most of the water out of the brush. Then I dumped the excess water from the soap into the sink.

I began loading the brush...and loading...and loading...and loading. It seemed like I was barely getting anything on the brush. I tried adding a little water. This caused some suds to whip up, but it still didn't look like there was as much soap on the brush as there should be for the time I had spent. I finally decided to start trying to whip something up in the bowl. I've bowl lathered with this brush before, and it's totally capable of being used this way. As I start, it definitely seems like there just isn't enough soap on the brush. I loaded some more and hit the bowl again. Usually at this stage I'll get a thick, low-volume "proto-lather" going and then start adding water. The proto-lather was sparse and as I added water I got a bunch of thin albeit voluminous sudsy "lather." So I squeezed what was in the brush into the bowl of suds and went back to the soap to see if loading more would help. I got some more soap on the brush - how much more I can't say - and tried mixing that with the suds in the bowl. More suds. I've used this method to lather VDH, Mike's, Tabac, Cella, Palmolive Stick, Mama Bear's and modern Williams and all of these soaps produced better lather than the Musgo, including Williams.

I also tried face lathering after loading more soap on the brush and it definitely felt like the brush just didn't have enough soap on it. So I'm currently letting the soap sit in a sealed container with some water on top of it to see if softening it up in this way might help. I'm going to let it sit until later tonight and try again then.

[brothers]

I haven't read the list of substances or researched much about the EU practices, but I tend to think common sense answers are generally correct, and this post is chock full of common sense. Blaming the EU seems like a real red herring here.

I also think using the term "fraudulent" to describe a soap was a desperate cry for attention (that worked) and pretty tasteless. This company which has supplied a century worth of great products is now out to defraud us all with its shave soap? Really?

Tally, I was using the dictionary definition of fraud to mean "breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit". I wasn't attempting to define "soap". I was describing Claus Porto's actions. Why argue and fight, and attack each other? The soap's not a fit product.

[Beezerpuppy]

Thanks for the "heads-up". I'll wait until they fix the formulation before I try it.

[Bobtrumpet]

Defend him from what exactly, did I accuse him of telling a lie?
No I did not; in fact I opened my post by be expressly stating that I wasn't accusing him of that and apologizing in advance in case it came across that way.
Like I said I'm so used to hearing good things about MR products and have good experience, that his description of the soap took me by surprise. I've heard of soaps producing weak and unstable lather but never scummy sounding brown suds, I simply wanted to see the results without paying for a product that I'd end up throwing in the bin.

You haven't been on the forums for long, and likely haven't read a lot of older posts and gotten an idea as to the history here (most people don't). I was just letting you know that Gary is a very experienced wet shaver and has posted a lot of his experiences, verified by others, as to the quality of various shaving creams and soaps.

If you were offended by my post, I'm sorry, as no offense was intended. Just trying to be informative.

[beginish]

Guys, let's stick to the soap's performance, avoid anything remotely personal and leave the merits of EU regulations to another thread.

I will just say that I am deeply disappointed to hear this about the performance. I had high hopes.

[TallyShave]

Tally, I was using the dictionary definition of fraud to mean "breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit". I wasn't attempting to define "soap". I was describing Claus Porto's actions. Why argue and fight, and attack each other? The soap's not a fit product.

That is what I understood you to say. Fraud implies an intent and I guess I just don't think a company with a tradition like CP is going to intentionally put out a terrible product to defraud its customers. The product may be terrible, but I don't think that was their intent. Regardless, I don't mean to argue, just think it was a little over the top. If they correct the issue and the next version is great, then all is well. It looks like they might have missed with this one. Life goes on.

[brothers]

It's a shame because the soap smells so good!

[Sir_Eider]

Yeap, I agree with your impressions

Some users from a portuguese shaving forum have tested this soap and found it a totally crap, so fortunately I read that in time and didn't buy it (I like much Musgo Real scent and was waiting for this soap).

A shame, but when a factory makes a mistake, people must say it. If your soap is not suitable for shaving, please don't sell it like a shaving soap, cut the price and put it like a bath soap, it's simple...

It the same thing with an Alep soap than Alepia.com sells like a expensive shaving soap: simply fradululent, it doesn't make more foam than a regular Alep bath soap (and this kind of soaps does very little foam because is high percentage of olive oil).

Cheers!

[lt114]

I almost bought some of this a few days ago. Thankfully I read this thread first.

[Marco]

Let's hope for a quick reformulation and a huge come back. Fingers crossed, my friends.

[El-a-Menthol]

Let's hope for a quick reformulation and a huge come back. Fingers crossed, my friends.

Well said.

[brothers]

Yeap, I agree with your impressions

Some users from a portuguese shaving forum have tested this soap and found it a totally crap, so fortunately I read that in time and didn't buy it (I like much Musgo Real scent and was waiting for this soap).

A shame, but when a factory makes a mistake, people must say it. If your soap is not suitable for shaving, please don't sell it like a shaving soap, cut the price and put it like a bath soap, it's simple...

It the same thing with an Alep soap than Alepia.com sells like a expensive shaving soap: simply fradululent, it doesn't make more foam than a regular Alep bath soap (and this kind of soaps does very little foam because is high percentage of olive oil).

Cheers!

Excellent point about not selling it as a shave soap. In my case, it's now in line to be used as a very fragrant bath soap in the shower. The message about not selling it as a shave soap should apply first and foremost to the manufacturer. Before they had been informed of the problem, selling it around the world as a shave soap was/is understandable. But now, they have been placed on notice that there's a serious problem. If they sell one cake of this product representing it as a shave soap with wonderful results after they have been informed that is not a true statement definitely crosses the line. How a business deals with correcting errors is a critical measure of the motives ot the company. Is the company looking to maximize sales and profit, or is it paying attention to customer satisfaction? I'm wondering if they're still selling and shipping this batch of unsuitable soap to unsuspecting retailers and consumers. We may not be entitled to a blow by blow description of what they're doing internally, but eventually it'll either be dealt with quietly and remedied, or ignored. I suspect it'll be dealt with internally and corrected with as little publicity as possible. I believe the notice factor clearly applies to our trusted retailers. Why sell this stuff if it's known to be defective? Perhaps one or more retailers returning their entire shipment for credit would be helpful.