GREAT shave with Taylor's reformulated Avocado

[Lotus Driver]

My Taylor's Avocado from TGS arrived the very day the controversy over the reformulated Taylor's Avocado began. I must say that I lamented having ordered it given the very negative comments made by some members of this board.

Well today I finally gave it a try. I applied "New" avocado to one side of my face and "Old" to the other. New was applied with a Simpson and Old with a Dovo. I did not ascertain any difference at all in the quality of the shave nor in how my skin felt post-shave. It was the usual great Taylor Avocado shave. There is a difference in scent. Frankly, I prefer the scent of the Old, but I hardly find the New to be offensive. The only other noticeable difference was that the pot was full to the rim, unlike any other Taylor's cream I've purchased in the past.

The bottom line for me is that I will buy it again. And those of you who are fans of Old avocado should at least get a sample of the New before swearing off it forever.

[Austin]

Thanks for the review. I have to agree with you. Slight change in the scent but not the overall shaving experience.

[notthesharpest]

Good to hear. They may be tweaking the new formula as they go along, in response to customer acceptance and/or complaints.

We still don't know the real reason they changed it in the first place (I mean to say the specific prohibited ingredient has never been named) - unless I missed something?

[baldchin]

I tried out the Avocado and found it dried out a little quickly - but I've since found it goes better whipped up in a mug rather than directly applied to the old mush.

I'd call it an excellent product. If the older formulation is better it must have been pretty damn good.

I personally wouldn't buy again, but only because the lavender and rose seem to suit my skin better. If they want to change those they should mute the colours - unattractive in my view.

[notthesharpest]

I have the lavender - the colour is horrible-looking, isn't it? I've noticed that I can still see a hint of lavender colour in the lather on my face while I shave. Maybe that was their point. In any case, half the colouring they use now would be more than sufficient for me.

[bernards66]

Nott, I agree, and that's also my only beef with the otherwise superb D R Harris's Lavender, too intensely colored. While, ideally, I'd prefer that they drop the coloration entirely, at least Coate's and T&H use much less. They are kind of a light faded blue, as oppossed to screaming purple.
Regards,
Gordon

[gruffydd3]

Gordon,

That's odd. I have a pot of Coates lavender, and it's a deep purple color. It was a little dried when I got it. I wonder if that could have intensified the color?

Rick

[Steve]

This may clear things up regarding Taylor's creams:

http://www.shaveblog.com/

[Sam]

yeah steve, clears it up for me. he complains that we DEMAND samples. better that he prostitutes himself as a tout, so he can get Barry Klein to offer him some freebies. would hate to think that corey would write something unkind about taylors.

i wonder what would happen to his blog if he did not patronize the forums? i guess when you have to turn to an internet-based blog to support yourself when your network gig dries up because you showed a tremendous lack of self-restraint in your personal dealings?

this whole thing just goes to show that sometimes, bad things can happen to good people. i dont think corey is inherently evil, but sometimes, he says things that might better be reviewed before he posts them. i know he did something nice for gordon, but when he refers to all of us as shavegeeks and says that his readers want him to make fun of us, well, gordon is a moderator and he therefore makes fun of gordon. i wonder if he ever privately apologizes to gordon for lumping gordon in with the rest of us. and to think at one time he habituated these same forums, and geeked himself on national tv.

i guess forums and chat rooms dedicated to discussions of topics is so geeky that probably half the US is a geek? and the bloggers aren't? like who cares what one person has to say each day about anything?

but i dont bear corey any ill will. i am free to read or not read his blog and until that post steve linked to, i had not read a corey blog for what, 6 months? and it was only the 3rd time. i have to stop myself from reading links blindly and look and see what the link says at the bottom of my screen before i click. i just don't care to go read someone say something, even if it is salient and clearly on point, when he loves to castigate the guys here. maybe its me, but i just dont care to do it. dont like what happened to joe lerch and i dont like what happened to jerry and well, i need to be careful of my language.

sam

[JackieMartling]

yeah steve, clears it up for me. he complains that we DEMAND samples. better that he prostitutes himself as a tout, so he can get Barry Klein to offer him some freebies. would hate to think that corey would write something unkind about taylors.

Sam, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. Did it ever occur to Corey that maybe he should turn down freebies for the sake of his credibility? I guess that whole debacle with the Apple payola didn't teach him much.


Nathan

[English]

I don't use Taylor's products. I don't find them to be of the same quality as some other bespoke suppliers. My choice, my money.

However, since Taylor's are now putting more in the tub and since they are allowing the cream to cure for longer, and since they are using real essence instead of synthetics, I wonder if the price will rise. Like night follows day.

On the subject of colouring, some lather fell from my brush, as it does, and landed on a fresh white towel. It was a little bit that had not wipped up fully. The dye in the lather coloured the towel lilac.
My good lady was not amused. But it did come out in the wash I'm pleased to report. So there you have it, Trumpers lilac cream does have a problem after all. Otherwise its pretty good stuff. But generally speaking, dyes are not good chemicals and would probably be best left out of soaps and creams. Miind you, I don't know that white is the natural colour of shaving cream or how a white colour is achieved.

[JackieMartling]

Miind you, I don't know that white is the natural colour of shaving cream or how a white colour is achieved.

Art of Shaving claims to have natural, skin-friendly products, without dyes or fragrances. Their creams are white, but their shaving soaps are medium tan in color.


Nathan

[Climb14er]

yeah steve, clears it up for me. he complains that we DEMAND samples. better that he prostitutes himself as a tout, so he can get Barry Klein to offer him some freebies. would hate to think that corey would write something unkind about taylors.
i wonder what would happen to his blog if he did not patronize the forums? i guess when you have to turn to an internet-based blog to support yourself when your network gig dries up because you showed a tremendous lack of self-restraint in your personal dealings?
sam

I was wondering why Nancy Dude didn't call Charles at www.qedusa.com and buy a pot of Avocado and Lavender from him. This where I got my Taylor pot of Avocado (bad) and Mr. Taylors (good).

Then again, if he gets them direct from Taylors, don't you think Mr. Klein himself will be checking the batch and the pot(s) to make sure the best is sent to the U.S. as a 'sample'.

Perhaps Nancy Dude has made it a habit of obtaining free shave stuff from all the vendors and manufacturers. How can anyone really objectively comment or offer an opinion on a product if you get the merchandise continually for free?

Kind of reminds me of the following:

KURTZ: Welcome back to RELIABLE SOURCES. You have seen the segments on local TV, on cable, on the network morning shows. Some expert telling you about the best computers, snazziest camera or coolest music player. But "The Wall Street Journal" discovered that some NBC contributors who tout these products with Matt and Katie on the "Today Show" and on local stations are paid as much as $15,000 a pop by the manufacturers.

James Oppenheim got paychecks from such companies as Microsoft and Kodak. He was fired by "Child" magazine after the disclosure. Corey Greenberg, "Today's" tech editor, received payments from the likes of Sony and Apple. Greenberg told me he was not paid to place a product on NBC or say nice thing to any program, just to act as a well-informed spokesman. NBC says it has tightened its ethics rules. Still with us, CNN special correspondent Frank Sesno, and joining us now from Boston, Robin Liss, the publisher of camcorderinfo.com and digitalcamerainfo.com. Welcome.

Robin Liss, does it surprise you that some of these TV experts are getting big bucks from the tech companies?

ROBIN LISS, CAMCORDERINFO.COM: You know, Howard, sadly it doesn't surprise me. It is really a systemic problem in the technology review industry that a lot of our competitors accept gifts, bribes, or have an inappropriate relationship with the companies they cover financially.

KURTZ: And how do they get away with that?

LISS: You know, the problem is people aren't looking into it and the industry isn't policing itself. What people do is, for example, the same person who is writing a review will also be selling the advertising, because you have some very small companies here. Or with these local satellite media tours, which Corey Greenberg and Mr. Oppenheim were going on, it's just not disclosed by the local television stations as it should be.

KURTZ: It sure isn't. Now, speaking of Corey Greenberg, who is the tech editor of "Today," he took money, as I mentioned, from companies such as Apple and Sony and Hewlett-Packard and then for example, he went on the "Today Show" and talked about Apple's iPod being the coolest looking thing around and a great portable music player.

But he tells me that the money that he was paid by Apple and other companies was for the satellite tours of local media, local TV stations, so he could do one after the other after the other, and that not to talk about "Today." But do you buy that distinction? After all, he is still taking this money from the companies.

LISS: You know, Howard, no, if it looks like payola, if it talks like payola, it's payola. As long as there is an inappropriate relationship. Listen. Reviewers have an implied trust relationship with our audiences. They trust that we are making recommendations about the best products that are in their best interest, and in exchange they make purchases based on our recommendations. In this case, Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Oppenheim made recommendations not based on the best interests of their viewers, but on their best financial interest. The separation is just not enough.

KURTZ: And that, Frank Sesno, brings us to the subject of disclosure. Now, NBC says it didn't know about the payments to these and other experts. Greenberg told me that he told the network five years ago when he started his relationship with "Today." But if NBC officials didn't know, as they maintain, and were misled, why haven't they gotten rid of these guys?

SESNO: Well, possibly they should. I think they need to look very hard at what their disclosure procedures are and how they are vetting everybody they bring in. And it is not just the tech reviewers -- but certainly them -- but all the experts and the guests. There is a whole industry now of bringing in experts to talk on all- talk TV and all-talk radio. And as journalists and as responsible purveyors of information, we need to know who you are, what your agenda is, and are you getting money anyplace else?

Because we're putting you forth to ...

LISS: Absolutely.

SESNO: ... the public as a -- as a detached, dispassionate expert.

KURTZ: This has certainly come up on CNBC, where some of these people also made appearances, because they have stock analysts on, they have fund managers on, and they have rules, very strict rules about requiring disclosure, but I don't think it didn't seem to apply in this case, perhaps because they didn't know about it.

SESNO: They need them.

KURTZ: Robin Liss, do you feel tainted by this story, and neither you nor your publications engage in this practice, but doesn't this make everyone think that a lot of experts might or might not be getting money from some of these companies?

LISS: You know, Howard, it's a real stain on the technology industry as a whole. When I go on television for camcorderinfo.com or digitalcamerainfo.com now, to recommend a product, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to say, no, no, I'm not being paid to do this. We're recommending these products based on their own merits.

Corey Greenberg is a very well-known technology editor. He has the NBC News institution behind him, and every PR person knows that, you know, he's one of these people that you can kind of pay to get your product promoted. They all know who does it and who doesn't, and it stains our industry, and it makes our recommendations a lot less believable ...

(CROSSTALK)

SESNO: It stains your industry and it stains our industry, the media as well.

LISS: Absolutely.

SESNO: And you know what, you should go on, and when you do go on, you should say, oh, by the way, I'm not being paid by anybody. I mean, be as -- you should be as transparent as you possibly can be every time you are on the air.

LISS: Right. There is many times I've been offered trips or inappropriate things from companies, and we turn them down, and we really trumpet that fact because, sadly, we're somewhat unique in the niche technology sphere in having very strict ethics standards. Come on, this is journalism ethics 101. KURTZ: Interesting that you have gotten those offers. Last question, Robin Liss, why do networks do these sort of hot new products segments, anyway? It seems to me like they are often one long commercial for lots of brand name things. You never hear anybody say, this is bad, don't buy it.

LISS: Well, you know, Howard, a lot of people are buying these new products like digital cameras and camcorders, and it is good through these media outlets for people to learn about them, and I think they're very valuable.

However, when they become a commercial like they did in the case of "Today," that's a problem, that's a serious problem and it needs to stop.

KURTZ: I think it will be a valuable consumer service if we hear about the ones that are not so great as well as the ones...

SESNO: Yeah, go on the air and say this one stinks, stay away from it.

LISS: That's what we do at camcorderinfo.com.

KURTZ: All right. Well, that was a paid political announcement. Robin Liss, Frank Sesno, thanks very much for joining us.

[JackieMartling]

Now why does Nancy Putz want to go picking fights when all of his skeletons are so easily accessible and brought to people's attention? Doesn't he know people in glass houses shouldn't shower with the lights on? Really, Nancy, quit while you're ahead. You've got way too much dirt under your fingernails to be talking trash with anybody.


Nathan

[reginald-van-gleason]

Art of Shaving claims to have natural, skin-friendly products, without dyes or fragrances. Their creams are white, but their shaving soaps are medium tan in color.


Nathan

Nathan, I just tried a sample of the AOS Lemon cream and it definitely had a slight yellow tinge to it. Could it be that they've started adding dyes or is this simply from the EO?

Raffi

[JackieMartling]

Raffi, your guess is as good as mine. The base cream is pretty white, though, so if lemon EO has a yellow tint (it makes sense that it would), the cream base would show that quite readily, I would think. On the other hand, if they're putting a coloring agent in it, it should say in the ingredients list. I'll try to remember to take a look the next time I'm passing by a store that sells AOS stuff.


Nathan

[Sam]

jerry, excellent point in the taylor situation. the blog was a diatribe against us. if he wanted to weigh in on the reformulation, he could have ordered it. but when you pimp yourself out, it is hard to break old habits. heck, if mr. klein wants to send me some free stuff, ill take it. but i am not gonna agree to write a review. take people like sue or colleen. sure, they have asked us if we want to sample stuff, and i have for colleen, and i have written my opinion. and ill give corey the point that a tub of two scents of cream are de minimus in cost. but i dont hold myself out as trying to attract 30,000 hits a day.

jerry, when you come here and post and we see you post in other situations, we begin to garner a certain feeling about you. same as i have formed an opinion about dr. chris, and nathan, and randy and mahesh and tony and makr and gordon and a whole slew of others. see, when you are part of a community, we get a sense of the person we are talking with. but when you are outside and you just hit on one post, sure, you can come to a different assumption of that person. your post on the taylor was just your experience. you did not call any body names and were just trying to see if it was a bad pot, or if this was a new change or whatever. i think you handled it with class.

sam

[honkdonker]

dont like what happened to joe lerch sam

What happened to Joe Lurch? I always found his posts to be passionate and pure.

[bernards66]

Evening, I have to say that I have found parts of this thread to be disturbing. While sections of the latest shaveblog may have mocked us ( I assume I'm included, as I'm an active member here ) unnecessarily harshly, really, there is nothing much more there then 'Chicken Littles', and overlly excitable 'shavegeeks'. And the 'attack' ( if anyone insists on looking at it that way ) was generic, it was leveled at the group as a whole. To me, that does not justify a personal, and much heavier come-back, using terms like "pimp" and "payola". Those are serious adult terms, and there's no way to interpret them as somehow amusing. No one on this forum really knows all the ins and outs of what that whole Apple business was all about. We only know what was chosen to be put in the papers, and an interview with someone who is essentially a competitor of the persons she's talking about, I do not see as disinterested, or the last word on the subject. Regardless of our individual views on that matter, I do not think it belongs in the public parts of this forum.
Regards,
Gordon

[JackieMartling]

Gordon, I think you raise a valid point, and I respect your sense of decency. However, let us not forget that Corey has, at times, picked on individual members of this forum and named them publicly, sometimes more than once. I don't see him as being above all of this, even if his latest attack doesn't name anyone in particular. Most of us are fine with letting sleeping dogs lie, until he ends up stirring up trouble once again. Despite some of the strong words here, nobody has pointed out anything that hasn't continued to be available for public consumption for the better part of a year; I certainly wasn't the first person to use the word "payola" in reference to his dealings.

I also do not see all of what we are pointing out as unwarranted, purely malicious backlash. There is something smug about a guy who rips on a group of people who want samples of a given product - one that cannot easily be sampled at a nearby store - then openly thanks the maker of that product for sending him free supplies of it - and not just samples, but full-sized tubes. (You'll notice Klein did not offer Jerry any free goods following their conversation. Could it be that Corey gets this consideration because of his ability to offer good press?) This, following his unquestioning acceptance of what that maker has to say about questionable changes in that product, completely overlooking any ambiguities or shortcomings in the explanation. That at least takes on the appearance of payola, even if it is on a small scale. Does Corey expect that no one will raise an eyebrow over that? If he doesn't want people thinking in those terms, why doesn't he take more care to avoid the appearance of impropriety? I think there is merit to questioning the ethics of that sort of behavior, although, admittedly, we are doing it in a rather mean-spirited fashion. I guess we're sinking to his level.

You point out that he is attacking us as a group, generically, while we are attacking him directly. That is by his own design. He routinely takes ideas various individual persons have come up with on this forum, and passes them off as his own. He then turns around and blasts us a collective group of brainless ninnies, while extolling the virtues of his ingenious insights. His latest post is a perfect example of this. He attempts to use the group's output to make himself, as an individual, look better. As such, he puts the focus on himself, and that works both ways. Corey makes the choice to put himself out there as a public figure, and then uses his position to trash other individuals and groups, all while gladly accepting the perks his position begets for him. I don't see why any of us should feel sorry for him if some of us take umbrage over such behavior and choose to speak out about it.

Perhaps our reactions do not belong in the public parts of this forum, but Corey has insulated himself from any comebacks on his own turf. He has set up a blog where no one can respond to his outrageous statements; indeed, he doesn't even list an e-mail address. Where else are we supposed to air our grievances? He's taking aim directly at this community; ergo, this community seems as good a place as any to respond to his attacks. If nothing else, I see the reactions here as a reminder that if Corey doesn't want people fighting back, he shouldn't start the fights to begin with. He really has no one to blame but himself.


Nathan