Their customer service may be fine, but their quality control is not.
Reformulated C&E, GFT and Penhaligon shaving soaps
- Thread starter s869010
- Start date
I agree. Wish they were good soaps. The scents to me are the best.
I love the old C&E sandalwood ASB and the matching cologne, but the soap was sub par. As for the reformulated Trumper soaps I'll never try them again. I mailed their customer service and got a reply containing basic lathering instructions. I've been wet shaving since 2008. No Trumpers no more. [emoji35]
I would actually expect the lathering ability of the soap with potassium palmate as the first ingredient to be significantly better than the one with sodium palmate as the first ingredient. The K-salts just move into lather so much more easily and with less time and effort.
having said that, in general I avoid shave soaps that have any kind of saponified palm oil as their first ingredient.
having said that, in general I avoid shave soaps that have any kind of saponified palm oil as their first ingredient.
I am sad to say I have to agree with that statement. Geo. F. Trumper used to be the necessary English brand in any discerning gent's toiletry locker. Even as little as ten years ago they had a LOT more products including different hair dressings, Wild Fern aftershave in both glass crown topped bottles and plastic refills, and a number of other distinctive items that made them special. The soaps and creams were the stars alongside the fragrances. Now the lathers are sub par and as a confirmed Anglophile, this distresses me. I really hope they get this soap issue sorted.
The old C&E tallow soaps were nothing to write home about either. Williams lathers and shaves better than the old C&E sandalwood. I'm guessing it is my hard water, with soft water they might be totally different. But most people have hard water, of course.
C&E sandalwood with the tallow produces a pretty lather that was dry to shave with.
C&E sandalwood with the tallow produces a pretty lather that was dry to shave with.
I had a puck of reformulated GFT Rose and it lathered well for me; however, I am willing to believe that that is not the common experience of GFT soaps!
As for Penhaligon's, I've only tried Bayolea, which was a great performer - right up there with D R Harris.
Incidentally, D R Harris has been my go-to soap in recent months (their Sandalwood soap) and it's never let me down!
As for Penhaligon's, I've only tried Bayolea, which was a great performer - right up there with D R Harris.
Incidentally, D R Harris has been my go-to soap in recent months (their Sandalwood soap) and it's never let me down!
- Thread starter
- #28
Today I grated C&E Moroccan myrrh and molded with Vitos green.
Scent decreased but overall lather quality improved.
I will do the same to other expensive poor lathered soaps.
Completely disagree. Williams, while it lathers just fine, has nothing of the buttery slickness and post shave that the old C&E pucks do.
I've been having a heck of a time getting GFT to lather.
I have Oxford blue, officers and gentleman, and sandlewood. Oxford blue is the only one I can come close to lathering, but wouldn't use it. It dries and/or dissipates too fast
I have Oxford blue, officers and gentleman, and sandlewood. Oxford blue is the only one I can come close to lathering, but wouldn't use it. It dries and/or dissipates too fast
I've been wondering if it might be a good idea if B&B would have a "black list" where vendors that have a documented really bad reputation and products that are a total waste of money could be listed until they bettered themselves. I guess that is a rather controversial idea though. Even so it would save the members a lot of trouble and money. Feel free to torch me.
This might be nice, but I don't feel it would fit in well with the Gentleman ideal that B&B enjoys.
Like everything, soaps are a YMMV thing. What works for some will not work for others. Edwin Jagger and Stiriling do not work for me for example. If you make a blacklist of soaps people have issues with, there will be very few soaps left.
Following your reasoning, you can add MWF, Stirling, Tabac, Proraso, Arko, Williams, VDH, etc to your list as waste of money, as all have had posts saying they would not work for some.
There's a whole list of reviews, most of which seem fairly helpful. At the time years ago when I was just getting into it I jumped the gun and just bought soaps and creams that seemed appealing (or were the only choices available). I even assumed that more expensive soaps would work better. Now I do a bit of research first.
It should be perfectly OK to talk about disappointing products. A great product should be able to produce good results for most people and shouldn't require arcane techniques compared to similar products.
I don't want to hijack this thread but even so I'll give a short answer.
Pepin: I agree that every product, and vendor has its followers and those who can't get anything good out of them. My point was that there are some that undisputable and objectivally have passed the point of acceptable performance by a very broad margin. In the small country where I live, the culture is a bit different, which explains why I have a view that doesn't fit into this forum. A view that I'm sorry I brought up. I do apologise.
We have a public institution "The Consumers Board" whose function is to guide and help consumers and mediate in conflicts. They give legal help, and publish a much read magazine "Advice and Findings". They also blacklist companies, warn about harmful or useless products and gives motivation to why. Then again, being Scandinavian I live in a bit different culture.
Pepin: I agree that every product, and vendor has its followers and those who can't get anything good out of them. My point was that there are some that undisputable and objectivally have passed the point of acceptable performance by a very broad margin. In the small country where I live, the culture is a bit different, which explains why I have a view that doesn't fit into this forum. A view that I'm sorry I brought up. I do apologise.
We have a public institution "The Consumers Board" whose function is to guide and help consumers and mediate in conflicts. They give legal help, and publish a much read magazine "Advice and Findings". They also blacklist companies, warn about harmful or useless products and gives motivation to why. Then again, being Scandinavian I live in a bit different culture.
Firedragon76: I totally agree with you. If each and everyone took their time to read the reviews and go through the discussions they soon enough would get all the information they need, but then again we have this very thread that perhaps is the fourth or fifth, during the last year, that discusses the total lack of performance of Trumper soaps. I guess that the conclusion is that each one that doesn't do his homework only has him self to blame. It sounds quite OK to me.
My opinion as well; if I had read the reviews before buying, I probably would not have gotten the GFT coconut soap. I am to blame for that, and not the manufacturer.
Where GFT is to blame, is lack of product testing and quality control. If so many people complain about their soaps, I can only conclude that these soaps have quality issues.
- Thread starter
- #37
I've got a chance to buy old formula non-tallowed C&E soaps.
The "Sienna" is reformulated version and ingredients started with "sodium palmate", poor lahered.
But the other two "nomad", "sandalwood" started with "potassium palmate" and lathered well.
I think I will avoid buying any "sodium" initialed soaps later.
The "Sienna" is reformulated version and ingredients started with "sodium palmate", poor lahered.
But the other two "nomad", "sandalwood" started with "potassium palmate" and lathered well.
I think I will avoid buying any "sodium" initialed soaps later.
Similar threads
