Trumpers creams

[Craig_From_Cincy]

Gordon, Your post brings something else to mind. Wet shaving has becoming very popular in recent years, Trumper and the other 'prestigious' old school English firms could be selling so many soaps to so newcomers that they really don't care about retaining older soap customers. If this is the case it will be self defeating in the end as those new customers won't buy these soaps more than once. I see evidence of this over at B&B where I've read thread after thread from new wet shavers who have bought soaps from one of these firms based on their reputations and then can't figure out why they are unable to get them to perform. Word is getting around about how awful these soaps are thanks to the internet. Hopefully these firms will learn their lessons before its too late.

[Squire]

Yes, the beer that made Milwaukee famous went from top drawer to bottom shelf in short order. The decision makers responsible for cheapening the brew to turn a quick quarterly profit could have not made a more complete mess if they had done so intentionally.

[Ken]

Gordon wrote:

"Yes, Bob and Chris were two, Ken was another [who never received a bad Trumper's pot]. As you can tell from that linked thread from '07 Ken initially was inclined to think that I was being a tad paranoid, or at best, had simply gotten the odd 'off' pot. But as the thread continued ( and we exchanged a few PMs ) he had to conclude that something untoward had, indeed, happened even though he himself had not gotten any bad creams."

Gordon, I would never accuse you of paranoia. Perhaps of some other things such as...er...well...never mind....

While I agreed with you that there may possibly have been some problems with Creighton and, hence, bad pots, I continue to maintain that there was no reformulation of the Trumper creams at that time (except possibly for the Violet scent). I also believe that most of the reports of "bad pots" in that period were simpIy variations normal to the product, which can occur as a result of batch production, storage conditions, transportation, and so forth. Your infamous, and especially bad, Limes pot (which you kindly sent to me to try) was so far "off" that I did not see how it could have been the product of a reformulation that any company such as Trumper's would send out to the public.

Fortunately, it seems undisputed that the Trumper creams are fine today. Would that the soaps were as well.

Ken

[harper]

Craig, Gordon, others, you can be sure that Trumper and the rest of the high-end Brit companies read these forums with care (the Trumper people confirmed that they do in an e-mail to me) and are aware of what is being said. However, they do not respond because they say that anything they say one way or another will only create more problems for them (I agree with that strategy and in the past advised some clients to follow it) because sometimes trying to respond to concerns only makes the problem worse: their view is that no matter what they say they will be criticized by someone and then another series of discussions will begin and it will just keep going on and on. If the soaps are as bad as reported then they will know how some shavers on SMF, B&B and likely other forums feel about them and will either find out why and have appropriate changes made to the soaps or will assume that the posters on SMF, etc., are an overly finicky group and continue as they have. While our opinions do matter to us and probably to other shavers, too, we are a small part of their overall market so we may not be of much concern to them. I doubt this is the case because I don't think any of the high-end Brit companies are large enough to discard any part of the total wet shave market. However, the real test of the public's acceptance of their shaving soaps will come in the marketplace and not in what we say: if they stop buying them then the companies will do something to change them; if they continue selling they will ignore what the forums say.

I might add that the few times I have contacted Trumper by e-mail I have received prompt and reasonable and courteous responses, something I gather has not been the same that other members of SMF received. I can't believe it is my charm.

[Squire]

Oh it's your charm Bob, trust me, you're just too close to the source to realize it.

[harper]

Squire, I would like to think you're right but I would have to have Gordon's vote, too. My wife, who uses disposables, is ineligible. Fortunately!

[Gareth]

I remember the 'Crack of Doom' thread from when I first joined SMF and got into this. The creams have definitely improved significantly from the off tubs that were around in '06 and '07, and certainly from what I've read, they're pretty much back to where they were before the reforumlation. It's a real shame the soaps have gone bad this time (and they definitely have, judging from a few I've had recently), but I can see Trumper putting it right.

Unfortunately some of these old fashioned, traditional English firms are not always quick to adapt, but generally speaking, they get their in the end.

Gareth

[Craig_From_Cincy]

Harper,

It would be one thing if the criticisms of Trumper's et al soaps was limited to SMF, but it's not. I read the same criticisms, and indeed many more of them, at B&B, Shave Nook, and on UK wet shaving forums such as The Shaving Room (this thread for instance: http://www.theshavingroom.co.uk/forum/thread-15673.html ) too. The problem isn't us-it's them. It's good to hear that the producers are reading these forums they have to be aware of the quality issues we are bringing up by now. You are right that it's the sales performance that will ultimately decided the fate of these soaps, if sales are robust then there's no incentive for the brand owners to change the production and/or formulation of their soaps. If sales fall hopefully (unlike Schlitz) they realize the errors of their ways and change course.

[brothers]

Good point, Craig. I have heard that for a business to take certain customers for granted, so to speak, might be a sign of decay and mismanagement within. On the other hand, I know it can be a slow process to change a product while it's in production. Perhaps GFT has a strategy in place to alter the product for the better without openly discussing it. That's my guess what's going on here, and through time I suppose the product can become better in an unceremonious fashion. Optimists should hold to that opinion, and the GFT soap line is worth the effort it might take to fix it.

[Squire]

My wife, who uses disposables, is ineligible. Fortunately!

Women . . . I take their counsel but don't count their vote.

[harper]

Squire, I presume your wife does not read SMF; fortunately!

cheers

bob

[Squire]

Ignorance is bliss Bob.

[harper]

Squire, you are getting into dangerous territory here. I bet you have told her there is nothing better in the world for a woman's
shaving needs that disposables!

cheers

bob

[Squire]

Merely suggest Bob, I've got better sense than to tell her anything.

[bernards66]

Bob, I cast my vote with Squire regarding the 'charm' bit ( chuckle ), and your post was certainly to the point. Yeah, we've pretty well known for years that these firms do, indeed, check in on these forums. In a few cases, like Barry Klein from Taylors, they have even occasionally posted here directly. Granted, that has not happened in a number of years now and they're probably right to be wary of responding to any of us either here or in private. Still, 'stonewalling' us doesn't make them look to good either....like they don't care or think we're idiots even if they really don't think either one. In any case, I certainly do hope that Trumper and the others reconsider their connection with Soapworks as it can't possibly be in their best interests in the long run to continue trying to sell such inferior hard shave soaps.

Ken, Well, I agree. As it turned out, it is unlikely that Trumper changed their shave cream formula during that period around '07. Eventually it became clearer that the problem was at the Creighton's end. But it was another case of them remaining tight lipped in their traditional fashion and pretending as if there was no problem when clearly there was. Gentlemen who had been using the stuff for decades were complaining to their local stockists and some of those stockists also agreed that something was wrong. It might have been better if they'd just said, "well, we apologize for any inconvienance but there seems to be some issues at our suppliers at the moment but we are confident that it will be cleared up shortly...", or something to that effect. Or, perhaps not, maybe silence was their best policy...I don't really know. But I do know that I AM glad that it turned out to be a manufacturing snafu and not a reformulation afterall.
Regards,
Gordon