taconic and mama bear

[nicodemus38]

Both have the same ingredient list, the same references in parenthesis, both are "artisan"

The great moderator genius at the nook say those are the hallmarks of a melt and pour, so why hasn't anyone come out with Taconic as being a melt and pour medley?

[brothers]

PM sent to you nic. Best regards.

[CMur12]

I'm not familiar with Taconic soaps. Mama Bear soaps have been around for a long time. Though I haven't checked them out in recent years, Mama Bear soaps used to be of the glycerin-based melt-and-pour variety whose claim to fame were the many scents and fragrances. As I said in another thread, I don't think glycerin-based soaps are automatically bad. I have used a couple of them that I rather liked.

- Murray

[drmoss_ca]

Nicodemus,
We don't slag off other forums on SMF. WE simply hug our sense of superiority a little closer and have no need to say a word.

Having said that, I can't quite imagine why anyone would prefer a commercial-base melt-and-pour over a hard soap. Gary must be right, it has to be the range of scents.

C.

[Squire]

It's got to be the scents, which admittedly are more intense.

[nicodemus38]

Mama Bear still uses the SFIC melt and pour shave soap base. And Taconic is too considering they are using the exact wording used by mama bear and SFIC in listing the ingredients.

Its just that you can get kicked off other forums simply by asking, "if mama bear buys a great performing soap base to scent, then why is the other company that uses the identical soap base considered pure junk?"

I started shaving with glycerin bar soap. It worked fine.
It would have to be the scents I guess as its hard for most people to pay 14 dollars for a tin of pre de provence that will last half a year, but pay 18 for a 4 ounce tub of something that wont last 2 months according to reviewers.

[Squire]

Well, I don't speculate because I don't give a rip how somebody else spends their money.

[nicodemus38]

Its our right to ask these things. As consumers we have the right. As shavers we have the obligations.

I seem to be one of the few who get decent to good/great results from Williams. Others pay 12 times as much for the same amount of soap with a slightly better scent... just for the brand or fancy label picture.

there is a line of shaving soap that simply gets purchased because its found in a certain chain of "healthy food stores" and has a cute picture of a cartoon beaver wearing goggles.

Its not an issue with them not actually making the soap, having other companies make soap is very common. Look at the big 3 Ts... they have others make it for them under label. Its common all over the soap market and clothing markets and shoes and so forth.
Its just that the gripe, the issue, is that they refuse to say the truth about their products and claim hand made by them.

[CMur12]

Nicodemus38, this is hardly new information. It has been discussed on this forum for the nine years that I have been here. We are an informed group of consumers and we make our purchasing decisions based on this awareness and the performance of the product. This is old news and it causes no excitement here.

- Murray

[JayDee]

Taconic is artisan? I didn't know that.

[nicodemus38]

yeah some retailers say its a regular commercial brand, but some shaving websites put it directly into the artisan category.

[Squire]

Its our right to ask these things. As consumers we have the right. . . .

I would be obliged if you can provide me with any statute, court decision or regulatory agency ruling that says we have such a right.

[nicodemus38]

nader says so

[Squire]

What is a nader?