SMF

You guys are making me wonder how old the Salter soap is. I thought it a fairly recent phenomenon. Anyone have any idea?

On another note, it's good to know it smells like the old T&H Luxury soap. I think there is something about those scenting ingredients that don't agree with my skin. I also have to old formula Culmak soap - same scent and nearly the same ingredients as the old potassium stearate version of No. 89 soap that Buzz used (and that I had). Fantastic lather but something in those soaps (T&H and Culmak - with Culmak being the better of the two) irritated me. I'm going to dig out the Culmak and give it a whirl again. If it's still a no-go I'll refrain from the Salter's begrudgingly.

Chris

Interestingly, though I'm sensitive to most fragrances, I got along fine with the old T&H Luxury Soap.

- Murray

Chris, the Salter soap is one I haven't seen in ages. But yeah, about 8 years ago theirs, the Vintage Blades, and the T&H soaps were clearly all the same: same ingredients and sized the same, shallower and with wider diameter than Taylor or Harris soaps of the same weight. Notably, they all contained paraffinum liquidum, I.e. mineral oil. That's a culprit for some skin, too, although of course the fragrance is always a possible candidate. Still, there's always a chance that this petrolatum and potassium-salt-heavy version will work better for you, though I understand not wanting to take a risk.

I wonder if Salter has had a hard soap in production all this time or if they quit offering it for a while? I haven't been following that stuff at all the past 5 or 6 years. Anyway, I've got three pucks incoming (had to order enough to justify the shipment from Connaught. Picked up a puck of Harris Almond, too, one of the other quintessential British soap scents IMO). First new soap I have bought in 4 or 5 years. I'm hopeful about scent and performance both. I'll report back, of course, as Gary has already helpfully done.

I was able to locate a discussion of the current Salter soap vs. the old Salter soap.
http://www.theshavingroom.co.uk/communi ... low.43572/

I poked around in the shelves of shame today (I used C&E Sandalwood soap for the shave and was wondering what to go for tomorrow). I found one of my generic eBay wooden bowls labelled Cyril Salter soap with a barely used cake of what smells exactly like the old T&H soap. I must have been content to give away the T&H knowing I had a duplicate with a different name. I don't know how old this is but I'd guess >5 years. Probably going to be a palm oil soap but I'll give it a whirl tomorrow.
Checking into my soap making supplies, I see I had printed out a SoapCalc recipe for a hard (NaOH) olive oil/coconut/castor oil soap that I had promised the wife. I may have to do that before trying a soft shaving soap version. Bugger.

Having been made to get on and do something, here is the result of my attempt to make a hard bath soap with (mostly) olive oil:







I'll let it cool overnight and then chop it up into cakes. I don't quite see why every recipe for olive oil soap recommends an extended curing time - even up to nine months! Chemistry is chemistry, and if you cook it to a pH of 7-8, I don't see why you should have to wait for months to try it out. Maybe that was based on recipes from the Mediterranean where indicator paper wasn't available?

This was 1kg of fat, using 780g olive oil, 180g coconut 76º, and 40g castor oil. The recipe determined at soapcalc.net allowed for 5% superfat, and 31g of fragrance oil. I wouldn't want an olive oil bath soap to be scented of any of the fake oil scents I have, so I added 31g of stearic acid to make up for that. The only lye used was NaOH 137g and water 380g. It came out a mustard yellow, so 16 drops of blue food colouring made it pretty close to British Racing Green. I have no problem with that kind of colour!

Tomorrow there may be photos of the sliced up cakes that result.

C.

My soaps that used olive oil as an ingredient (all of them, actually) were ready to use in about 2 weeks, but I could have used them once they cooled down to room temperature. Not sure why there is a cure time recommendation that long, either.

Hot process shouldn't require actual time to cure, but most recipes are written for cold process. Then, too, the longer it sits, the firmer it gets - and even relatively mild soaps seem to become milder with time. Nevertheless, you should be good to go once it cools. Looks terrific!

Out of the mold and ready to firm up:
C.

TRBeck wrote: ↑Sun Apr 15, 2018 6:37 pm Chris, the Salter soap is one I haven't seen in ages. But yeah, about 8 years ago theirs, the Vintage Blades, and the T&H soaps were clearly all the same: same ingredients and sized the same, shallower and with wider diameter than Taylor or Harris soaps of the same weight. Notably, they all contained paraffinum liquidum, I.e. mineral oil. That's a culprit for some skin, too, although of course the fragrance is always a possible candidate. Still, there's always a chance that this petrolatum and potassium-salt-heavy version will work better for you, though I understand not wanting to take a risk.

I wonder if Salter has had a hard soap in production all this time or if they quit offering it for a while? I haven't been following that stuff at all the past 5 or 6 years. Anyway, I've got three pucks incoming (had to order enough to justify the shipment from Connaught. Picked up a puck of Harris Almond, too, one of the other quintessential British soap scents IMO). First new soap I have bought in 4 or 5 years. I'm hopeful about scent and performance both. I'll report back, of course, as Gary has already helpfully done.

Tim, you're jogging my memory now. Yes, I remember the Salter's cake. BUT at the time I always considered it a copy of the T&H which I already had and thus didn't need to acquire it. It was just another private labeling of the same cake, I thought.

When I read of the Salter's soap in this thread I immediately imagined a MWF cake with different scenting. Because you jogged my memory I am wondering if what I thought at the time was true. My T&H soap was veggie and good (though still somewhat irritating). Was the Salter's at the time also veggie based? I'm thinking that if it was otherwise I might have tried it. I know I tried the Culmak because the ingredients were different and more skin friendly to my thinking. With that in mind I might still give it a go if my Culmak soap doesn't irritate me (I just gotta find it).

Chris

Chris, interesting point. I have a list of the old VB ingredients in my notes from when I was accumulating soap recipe information, but not of the Salter. I'm wondering now if I just assumed they were the same. One of the soaps just came wrapped in wax paper. No ingredients, no nothing. Was that Culmak or Salter or someone else?

I used my old Salter soap yesterday and I'd swear it is the same as T&H (or at least, as T&H used to be since that's probably changed too in the interim).

C.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing, Chris? I remember the old T&H as absolutely top tier, but years and many other products and lathers have passed in the interim, and the newer T&H stuff is awful.

Ah, my memory hasn't completely abandoned me, Gordon to the rescue! There is an eight year old thread here somewhere where Gordon hints about the scuttle version of these type soaps and the Culmak. He knows who makes the T&H, Vintage Blades etc but being the Gentleman he is he explains he can't divulge the information. T&H and Vintage Blades soap are the same though, Culmak and the scuttle soaps are not.

I wish I could relocate the thread at the moment but I can't. I saw it earlier today between customers while researching the topic.

Anyway, according to that thread the scuttle soaps and the Culmak ARE different and probably from a different manufacturer.

I can tell you this, I located my Culmak cake today. It was in a pewter mug stored away in a bin. I know the ingredients on this thing are nearly identical to the old No. 89 Floris soaps of old, down to the petrolatum (Paraffinum liquidum in this case). I remember they make the same lather - "that lather" like crazy.

Well, I used it for today's shave. I did not shave yesterday so I was good to go. My memory was confirmed. Culmak is NOT the same as T&H or Vintage Blades in performance though the scent is near identical with the Culmak being a bit more herbal and the lavender being the dominant note. The lather was fantastic! Same as the old Floris No. 89. It was slick, thick, and protective. The second pass with water only revealed this to be a notch above even the best veggie based soaps of yore.

I didn't get any irritation BUT I did get a hint of disagreeableness that I used to get with it and the T&H. I think it's the geranium in the scenting. If I continued to use it I'd probably get slightly irritated after an unknown number of shaves. Since I do water only on the second pass the number is unknown since I used to do a full re-lathering in the old days which brought any irritation to the fore more quickly.

Just fantastic stuff though. And from my research today I didn't see any reformulation information - it still seems to be offered in the full potassium stearate/coconut iteration - no palm whatsoever. I remembered seeing it reformulated some years ago but maybe I am mis-remembering. If you can get your hands on a cake of this I'd highly recommend it.

Chris

Is this it?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=37334&p=432454&hili ... ak#p432454

Good info in this thread, too. I love SMF:

viewtopic.php?t=42449


And these two have some nice tidbits about T&H and the other similar soaps as well as "that lather" and potassium stearate.

viewtopic.php?t=50186

viewtopic.php?t=43784&p=509296

read through the old posts...(what memories)...Thanks Tim

clive

TRBeck wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:33 pm Good info in this thread, too. I love SMF:

viewtopic.php?t=42449


And these two have some nice tidbits about T&H and the other similar soaps as well as "that lather" and potassium stearate.

viewtopic.php?t=50186

viewtopic.php?t=43784&p=509296

That's it.

Chris

TRBeck wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:47 am Is that a good thing or a bad thing, Chris? I remember the old T&H as absolutely top tier, but years and many other products and lathers have passed in the interim, and the newer T&H stuff is awful.

I wasn't very impressed. A rather thin and 'crisp' lather, not the shiny, gooey thick stuff I like. I used Speick today (sliced and cut into a wooden bowl - much like the way one used to cut a rope of twist tobacco) and re-confirmed my opinion that it is probably the best performing shaving soap I have ever met. The scent is a bit clinical/disinfectant - rather like the room at school where the district MOH would come and give us needles which was thick with the miasma of carbolic acid) but the lather is thick and creamy. I have a couple of unsliced sticks, but I'm not a big fan of stick soap. Am I right in remembering that Irisch Moos was supposed to be the same soap? It's right next to the Speick and up for use next, and I'm guessing there was a reason why I placed them next to each other on the Shelves of Shame.

I believe Irisch Moos was supposed to be the same as Tabac.

That said, Speick and Tabac have almost identical ingredients list, with the only difference being the proportion of water. I've always thought they were probably the same soap. Probably/possibly all coming out of the same German production facility.

I agree about Speick, but alas, the scent was too much for me to overcome. Gooey, rich, thick lather. I find Palmolive sticks yield the closest thing to the German trio with slightly different ingredients and a better scent. For me the Palmolive-Speick lather is what I picture when I think about "that lather."