Bufflehead

I just wanted to point out that the quote in post #78 is not mine, I never wrote that. I looked back a little through the thread and didn't notice anyone having said that. Am I missing something?

See post #75. I don't know how you got quoted as saying that though.

See post #75. I don't know how you got quoted as saying that though.

Something like this?

Lol, yeah don't know how I missed that.

Haha, good one @iamsms.

Stuff happens, typo I guess. It was someone else

The biggest reason for the price of Bufflehead (shipping aside) is that I make so few tins that it doesn't make sense to stock large scale amounts of supplies and ingredients. That and cage free/cruelty free duck fat and blush kaolin clay (~$3.50/oz) are pricey as is. It's mostly an economy of scale issue.

Simple economics would suggest I continue to raise prices until the demand levels off, but that's not what I'm about.

The biggest reason for the price of Bufflehead (shipping aside) is that I make so few tins that it doesn't make sense to stock large scale amounts of supplies and ingredients. That and cage free/cruelty free duck fat and blush kaolin clay (~$3.50/oz) are pricey as is. It's mostly an economy of scale issue.

Simple economics would suggest I continue to raise prices until the demand levels off, but that's not what I'm about.

The prices listed are perfectly reasonable to me.

The price/ounce comparison doesn't make sense to me. The price and volume of two soaps can be the same, but the density and/or latherability can lead one soap to last 2x as long. These soaps wouldn't represent the same value.

Price/shave makes the most sense. Absent of any usage data, I would think that price/gram could be reasonable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The price/ounce comparison doesn't make sense to me. The price and volume of two soaps can be the same, but the density and/or latherability can lead one soap to last 2x as long. These soaps wouldn't represent the same value.

Price/shave makes the most sense. Absent of any usage data, I would think that price/gram could be reasonable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You've touched on another subject.

The 3.5 oz measurement I'm listing is a measurement of net weight (total weight - the weight of the tin); or 100g. The jars artisans put soap in are measured in fluid ounces. Since soap is put into jars in a near liquid state, it's plausible that other artisans are listing the measurement as volume. It's much easier/quicker to fill a tub to a certain level and call it 4 oz than it is to fill a tub and weight it.

Public perception of ounces as it pertains to shaving soap is all over the place. And the truth is, I'm not sure which is necessarily correct. Shaving soap/cream starts to occupy this grey area between fully solid and fully liquid in a lot of instances.

I chose to list Bufflehead in terms of weight because I think it's a more relevant measurement (as you've pointed out).

Simple economics would suggest I continue to raise prices until the demand levels off, but that's not what I'm about.

The market always sorts things out.

Price/shave makes the most sense. Absent of any usage data, I would think that price/gram could be reasonable.

You've touched on another subject.

Absolutely correct. Standards are all over the place. Some people get hung up on acquisition cost but fail, for example, that some soaps sell as 7 oz, not 4 oz. And some list in fl oz and not weight oz. It also fails to recognize that some are more concentrated than others. Or that some people use more per use than others.

So here is the bottom line. You take the container the product is in. Weigh it. When done, you weigh it again. Do the math and you cost cost/shave.

I agree this is the ONLY way to compare the relative cost of these consumable products. It's a LONG process and you have to actually consume the products. That is why is this thread https://damnfineshave.com/thread-shaving...ss-results I only look at the technical attributes, for myself, of a product. I will go back in a year and discuss money, the cost/shave.

However, even when presented with cost/shave numbers, its the actual cost to acquire that people do look at. If it costs $20 to ship something from France, then you can't ignore that. Similarly, if a products sells dirt cheap on Amazon or shipping is free if you buy $50 of product, you can't ignore that either. Actual cost/shave means just that ... cost/shave.