Paul
Vendor Sponsor
- Messages
- 726
- Location
- Suffolk, England
They are not supposed to do that. Batches are for quality control & any health issues that may be reported.
Who's afraid of Virginia Woolfat?
- Thread starter pjgh
- Start Date
- Messages
- 1,300
- Location
- North London
- Messages
- 338
The MWF is the new version, but Kent is the old tallow version according to the label.
I hope they have not used old stock labels.
I hope they have not used old stock labels.
- Messages
- 5,069
- Location
- London
Do you have the new non tallow version as well and the tallow one? They both smell different. But I hope the ones we received are the tallow ones.
I wanted the tallow one.
- Messages
- 1,300
- Location
- North London
Am I missing something. The picture of yours lists Tallow as the first ingredient, seemed to be next to a MWF box. Yet same batch as @pjgh palm version.
- Messages
- 338
I'm sure a MWF group buy with a rose scent was mooted several years ago, but quickly died a death as the minimum batch size made it impossible.
That along with Cyril Salter are AFAIK made by Culmak, who also churn out a very useable vege soap formulation e.g. TOBS, Floris and newer T&H
OP
- Messages
- 15,922
- Location
- Halifax, Republic of Yorkshire
- Thread Starter
- #313
Quite! It's a good long while since I worked in industrial production (breakfast cereals, as it happens) ... and yes, you'd increment batch numbers on the packing line with each distinct batch of product made. In our case, the same product (from a single batch) was often dropped into several different customer packaging but the batch numbers were incremented regardless. Those batch numbers tagged back to the same common inventory that producted the batch.
Here, we're seeing distinct customers and distinct batches of product. It can't have the same batch number ... because it's a different batch!
Unless it isn't, and (as suggested) they're using old stock labels for the Kent
- Messages
- 338
Mine smell the same.
- Messages
- 1,300
- Location
- North London
Or new labels for the old formula. They ran out of old labels before they started on the new runUnless it isn't, and (as suggested) they're using old stock labels for the Kent
- Messages
- 870
Hope so. My Kent arrived today also. Only purchased one just in case new version was delivered.
- Messages
- 3,769
- Location
- Edinburgh Scotland
I love tallow and never want to be without it but it’s not the be all & end all.
Signature & Wickham’s have proved that
Signature & Wickham’s have proved that
- Messages
- 338
How can one confirm it is tallow?
OP
- Messages
- 15,922
- Location
- Halifax, Republic of Yorkshire
- Thread Starter
- #320
... and/or if it is a good one, or a dud?
MWF 8287 [purchased Summer 2020] - Dud ... absolutely incapable of a stable lather @pjgh (purchased by @NatJag)
MWF 8345 [purchased October 2020] - Good < confirmed by @jimmyc
Kent 8419 [purchased September 2020] - Good < confirmed by @NatJag
Kent 8923 [purchased December 2022 & January 2023] - Dudder than a dud thing from Dudville < confirmed by @Gairdner
MWF 9027 [purchased September 2022] - Dud. It's okay, but not up to usual standard @pjgh (purchased by @exists)
Kent 9029 [purchaed December 2022] - Good < confirmed by @donnie_darko @exists
Kent 9139 [purchased November 2022] - Good < confirmed by @NeilJ
MWF 9139 [purchased February 2023 - Shaving Shack] - Good < confirmed by @Blademonkey
MWF 9223 [purchased February 2023 - Executive Shaving Company via Amazon] - Good < confirmed by @mfurie2540
MWF 9223 [purchased February 2023 - English Shaving Company via Amazon] - Good < confirmed by @Zorro
MWF Veg 9265 [purchased May 2023 - Connaught Shaving] - Good < confirmed by @pjgh
Kent 9265 [purchased May 2023 - ???] - ??? < confirmed by ???