03-20-2016, 04:39 PM
#1
  • Mouser
  • Senior Member
  • Forest City, Florida U.S.A.
User Info
There's a puck of the above named soap at the nameless Site, bidding starting at $80. First of, anyone here after it I'll back down, probably will anyway, but what price range would be a fair mark for all concerned? I'm looking for an education more than an acquisition.

7 2,322
Reply
 03-20-2016, 04:50 PM
#2
User Info
A few years ago when Bullgoose sold those unearthed vintage tallow pucks, I believe they sold for $55 each. Ive since seen them sold on the BSTs for between $80 and $110. So if this one is unused, I think that's a fair price.

Also FYI I believe that Pens has discontinued EF and will not be bringing back. When Barrister & Mann was developing their fougeres I had an interesting conversation with Will Carius and he said that new EU regulations effectively banned several of EF's ingredients as being irritants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

84 1,505
Reply
 03-20-2016, 04:52 PM
#3
User Info
Ouch, who wants to shave with soaps that irritate?  Not me Biggrin

What was the deal?  Which ingredients they consider irritants?  If you recall.

61 3,796
Reply
 03-20-2016, 05:01 PM
#4
  • evnpar
  • Emeritus
  • Portland, Oregon
User Info
While the tallow versions of EF and BB are certainly much better than today's versions, they were never stellar performers. I do enjoy pulling out one of my vintage pucks now and then, but there are many other soaps that I much prefer based solely on performance. It's just hard to beat the EF scent, although I would never pay what they are now going for.

38 5,104
Reply
 03-20-2016, 05:11 PM
#5
User Info
I'm not exactly sure about how the EU policy affected Pen's EF, but the current EU policy requires potentially irritating parfum/fragrance additives to be labelled - for example, cinnamal (found in cinnamon oil).

0 484
Reply
 03-20-2016, 06:10 PM
#6
User Info
I believe the "offending" ingredient is oakmoss which has either already been banned or is on the inevitable path to being banned (I'm not at a computer right now to do undergo any extensive research, but based just on what I can pull up on my phone, the EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Products issued an opinion that oakmoss is an allergen in 2014 and from what articles I've read oakmoss was banned in 2015 but I don't know if that means all products with oakmoss were banned or that starting in 2015, production of such products would be banned).

It could be that Pen's saw the writing on the wall and figured it wasn't worth it to source a synthetic or alternate source. Maybe EF just wasn't a big seller anymore. But that would seem strange since EF along with Blenheim Bouquet are the flagship for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

84 1,505
Reply
 03-20-2016, 07:42 PM
#7
User Info
Just did a bit of digging...

IFRA Code of Practice (08.2015) policy:
1.) , atranol and chloroatranol (substances, present in Oakmoss and Treemoss) are banned. (Supposedly ~1-3% of the population are sensitive to these particular banned substances.)
2.)   "However, if the levels of the banned substance as such are assessed as being of no concern or can be reduced to a safe level, then an IFRA Standard will be established to allow the use of the chemical or natural complex substance by setting a limit for the presence of the banned substance (e.g. Atranol and Chloroatranol in Oakmoss and Treemoss, or Toluene as a solvent residue). " 

In other words, if a certain level of these banned substances is shown to be "safe," then these banned substances can be used, up to a limit; and/or, Oakmoss/Treemoss is permitted if modified, i.e. atranol and chloroatranol are removed.

In any case, I'm not entirely sure why Pen's no longer carries an EF soap though, since they still carry the (modified/unmodified) EF fragrance - which could be put into their current soap base.

0 484
Reply
 03-21-2016, 06:50 AM
#8
User Info
Thanks for the information gents.

61 3,796
Reply
 03-21-2016, 07:50 AM
#9
User Info
(03-20-2016, 05:01 PM)evnpar Wrote: While the tallow versions of EF and BB are certainly much better than today's versions, they were never stellar performers. I do enjoy pulling out one of my vintage pucks now and then, but there are many other soaps that I much prefer based solely on performance. It's just hard to beat the EF scent, although I would never pay what they are now going for.

This perfectly sums up my opinion on these soaps as well.  To say I was disappointed in their performance would be an understatement.  All thought they are lightyears ahead of the reformulated versions, I haven't found the tallow to be all that great.  On the other hand, if you shaved on scent alone, it would be near impossible to beat either EF or BB.

74 2,271
Reply
 03-21-2016, 08:19 AM
#10
User Info
ditto with the exception of some glass jars with metal lids add just a little more

73 1,295
Reply
 03-21-2016, 09:03 AM
#11
User Info
Obviously each person's experience is different, but for me nothing else equals the vintage tallow Penhaligon's soaps.  And whether they are worth their cost is another open question.

207 12,257
Reply
 03-21-2016, 09:21 AM
#12
User Info
(03-20-2016, 07:42 PM)ask4Edge Wrote: Just did a bit of digging...

IFRA Code of Practice (08.2015) policy:
1.) , atranol and chloroatranol (substances, present in Oakmoss and Treemoss) are banned. (Supposedly ~1-3% of the population are sensitive to these particular banned substances.)
2.)   "However, if the levels of the banned substance as such are assessed as being of no concern or can be reduced to a safe level, then an IFRA Standard will be established to allow the use of the chemical or natural complex substance by setting a limit for the presence of the banned substance (e.g. Atranol and Chloroatranol in Oakmoss and Treemoss, or Toluene as a solvent residue). " 

In other words, if a certain level of these banned substances is shown to be "safe," then these banned substances can be used, up to a limit; and/or, Oakmoss/Treemoss is permitted if modified, i.e. atranol and chloroatranol are removed.

In any case, I'm not entirely sure why Pen's no longer carries an EF soap though, since they still carry the (modified/unmodified) EF fragrance - which could be put into their current soap base.

OK, I'm finally at a place where I can do some research.  The IFRA represents various fragrance, cosmetics, and toiletries groups and is not a governing body like the EU.  The EU's original regulation (No. 1223/2009 on cosmetic products) allowed for oak moss to be present in cosmetics so long as it was properly labelled (any product with over 0.001%).  However, in 2014 there was a proposal to ban oak moss all together and after public comment it appears that it was ultimately decided to follow through with that ban.  It even referenced the IFRA standards, which allowed for permissible amounts to be used, in deciding to ban oak moss.  The only faction to comment against the ban were consumers, and some EU members even commented that a two-year phaseout of oak moss products was too long and recommended a one-year phaseout.  

I can't ultimately find the actual document referencing the vote, but considering the EU has very strong opinions about banning oak moss ("[atranol and chloroatranol]...were found to be unsafe should be banned from cosmetic products") and considering the many articles discussing the impending ban of oak moss, its fairly safe to assume that the EU decided to vote to ban oak moss.

84 1,505
Reply
 03-21-2016, 10:30 AM
#13
  • blzrfn
  • Butterscotch Bandit
  • Vancouver USA
User Info
These soaps absolutely suck, especially the tallow first versions.  They should all be collected and buried, in fact I will volunteer to head this operation.  Anybody with a tallow Penhaligon's soap please PM me for instructions, together we can rid the world of this terrible, terrible soap! 

Angel

144 2,743
Reply
 03-21-2016, 11:01 AM
#14
User Info
(03-21-2016, 09:03 AM)churchilllafemme Wrote: Obviously each person's experience is different, but for me nothing else equals the vintage tallow Penhaligon's soaps.  And whether they are worth their cost is another open question.

Also not to derail the scintillating EU policy/regulations conversation ( Biggrin) but I agree.  It might not be the top soap performance-wise (that's too subjective to determine) but the scent is unique.  It is not like many other fougeres and really makes you feel like you are out for a walk in the English countryside.  I can't think of another soap that has the same scent so that makes the EF tallow-first soap pretty unique.

84 1,505
Reply
 03-21-2016, 02:59 PM
#15
  • Nero
  • Ban Groupthink from Earth
  • le montagne
User Info
(03-21-2016, 10:30 AM)blzrfn Wrote: These soaps absolutely suck, especially the tallow first versions.  They should all be collected and buried, in fact I will volunteer to head this operation.  Anybody with a tallow Penhaligon's soap please PM me for instructions, together we can rid the world of this terrible, terrible soap! 

Angel

Haha. Thank you, I was beginning to wonder if I was in a dream. I've never seen anything but superlative reviews of tallow Pen's EF, including my own, until this thread.

59 2,802
Reply
 03-21-2016, 04:00 PM
#16
  • Steelman
  • SUPPORT OUR POLICE OFFICERS
  • Delaware
User Info
Back to the OP's question anything in the $80-100 range is a fair price for an unused puck.

BTW I own 4 vintage tallow pucks as well as the vintage aftershave balm and EdT. To me, the original version of EF is the finest scent in my shave den and worth every penny.

168 1,376
Reply
 03-21-2016, 05:11 PM
#17
  • Steve56
  • Senior Member
  • Knoxville, TN
User Info
My advice is to get any other soap of your choosing and a $65 bottle of EF from fragrance.net. You'll be richer and happier.

Cheers, Steve

7 522
Reply
 03-21-2016, 07:17 PM
#18
User Info
(03-21-2016, 09:21 AM)jpakstis Wrote: jpakstisI can't ultimately find the actual document referencing the vote, but considering the EU has very strong opinions about banning oak moss ("[atranol and chloroatranol]...were found to be unsafe should be banned from cosmetic products") and considering the many articles discussing the impending ban of oak moss, its fairly safe to assume that the EU decided to vote to ban oak moss.
It's clear that atranol and chloroatranol are substances the EU is looking out for, but I don't think it's oak moss (as a whole)
It seems that (at the very least) if the potential irritants are extracted from oak moss, then the (remaining) oak moss is allowed. (Of course, that would invite the question of the feasibility and effectiveness of oak moss/tree moss stripped of atranol/chloroatranol.)

As an aside, I found compelling, this comment (from your first media article): "Cigarettes can kill you, but they're not banned."

0 484
Reply
 03-22-2016, 07:25 AM
#19
User Info
(03-21-2016, 07:17 PM)ask4Edge Wrote: It's clear that atranol and chloroatranol are substances the EU is looking out for, but I don't think it's oak moss (as a whole)
It seems that (at the very least) if the potential irritants are extracted from oak moss, then the (remaining) oak moss is allowed. (Of course, that would invite the question of the feasibility and effectiveness of oak moss/tree moss stripped of atranol/chloroatranol.)

As an aside, I found compelling, this comment (from your first media article): "Cigarettes can kill you, but they're not banned."

Well in many of the documents that the EU has released, including studies and answers to the question of whether to ban oak moss, they refer to oak moss and oak moss extracts specifically so in my opinion that's splitting hairs.  It seems to me that the EU has intended to ban oak moss and all its derivatives.  

Also this has probably reached the end of my ability to decipher (and I'll admit I can barely decipher the EU legislation) but I doubt that someone can really remove atranol/chloroatranol adequately from oak moss to the tolerances (a National Institutes of Health study showed that people can have an allergic reaction to 0.15 micrograms/ml) and even if they could, I wonder if it would even retain enough the characters of oak moss to make it worth it?  

In the end, if there is a way to adapt (that Independent article mentions that Guerlain was able reformulate using oak moss but without atranol/chloratranol and Chanel No. 5 is being reformulated as well) and there is money to be made the manufacturers will do it.  I wonder how much oak moss was being in EF, though, since it has a very distinctive earthy/moss/fern scent and whether they could even try to go the reformulation route and whether it was financially conceivable to do it.

84 1,505
Reply
 03-22-2016, 10:17 AM
#20
  • RobinK
  • I like things that work.
  • Munich, Germany
User Info
I was able to get one for US$10 a few years back. I tried it, and I liked it very much. So I gave it to the father-in-law.

I do not know how well the fragrance will hold up, but performance wise, I would definitely not pay more than US$25 for one. Which is the price of another range of soaps I like as much, if not better, and whose scents I find more appealing. 

So, no. US$80 is a price that does not make any sense, unless you must have the scent. That said, I wish Penhaligon's had not changed their formulae, because their new soaps are mediocre, at best.

0 197
Reply
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)