bald as
ARKO! dealer & walking ECG
Yesterday @alfredus and I got together with a few brushes, a scuttle and various commercial and non commercial soaps to see some of the characteristics that each one offered.
We looked at how easily or not each soap loaded, how damp or wet a brush needed to be and how much work was needed to get a good lather.
The brushes used were a badger, synthetic and a boar. With the correct amount of water on the brush to load and the correct addition of water during the lather creation all brushes performed similarly. The type of lather produced was different with the synthetic though [in my opinion] producing a tighter drier lather with very small bubbles. Water content was the key with all brushes to the point we kept adding water and most soaps just kept making better lather. The key thing really from my observation was a just damp brush to load, plenty of product but excess water initially created with most soaps large bubbles that failed to produce the cushion and glide later on. With plenty of product and the slow addition of water as the brush and soap work together, the reward was plenty of long lasting excellent lather.
All of our experiments were done in a bowl but the same principles apply with face or palm lathering. With all soaps we continued adding water until the lather broke down. This breakdown point incrementally was harder to reach - the wetter lather was still very good - whereas accepting poor lather from a lack of work and water as the lather was being built could be a temptation to save time and consequentially less than the full potential of the soap being used.
Mike's was one such soap that require a fair amount of work to get the final lather but the end result was excellent and certainly worth the effort. All of the soaps produced good to excellent lather. All produced very good to excellent results when we worked with their need for the correct amount of water and the right length of time in making the lather.
A fun afternoon.
Steve
We looked at how easily or not each soap loaded, how damp or wet a brush needed to be and how much work was needed to get a good lather.
The brushes used were a badger, synthetic and a boar. With the correct amount of water on the brush to load and the correct addition of water during the lather creation all brushes performed similarly. The type of lather produced was different with the synthetic though [in my opinion] producing a tighter drier lather with very small bubbles. Water content was the key with all brushes to the point we kept adding water and most soaps just kept making better lather. The key thing really from my observation was a just damp brush to load, plenty of product but excess water initially created with most soaps large bubbles that failed to produce the cushion and glide later on. With plenty of product and the slow addition of water as the brush and soap work together, the reward was plenty of long lasting excellent lather.
All of our experiments were done in a bowl but the same principles apply with face or palm lathering. With all soaps we continued adding water until the lather broke down. This breakdown point incrementally was harder to reach - the wetter lather was still very good - whereas accepting poor lather from a lack of work and water as the lather was being built could be a temptation to save time and consequentially less than the full potential of the soap being used.
Mike's was one such soap that require a fair amount of work to get the final lather but the end result was excellent and certainly worth the effort. All of the soaps produced good to excellent lather. All produced very good to excellent results when we worked with their need for the correct amount of water and the right length of time in making the lather.
A fun afternoon.
Steve
