Arctique V1 vs Arctique V2.
Lots of differences but good similarities. I think I read somewhere, or imagined, that Will was not satisfied with the V1 product. He came to the same conclusion I did when I used it, it was just too soft and pasty, more a cream than a soap. I think he mentioned something about the amount of menthol affected how the Tre Citta formula solidified, or prevented the solidification of the V1 soap. Pretty much, it was just an unstable combo. I agree. Using a badger brush just pushed it around in the tub. It was hard to get the correct amount loaded to work up a lather. In fact I even left mine open to the air to give it more time to cure. Having been a while since I got my V1, it firmed up fairly well. I could use a soft boar to work up a proto lather to finish face lathering. This brings me to problem #2 with V1, you have to load it alot, like twice his normal soaps. If not you get the Mystic Water disappearing lather trick. It was an unstable lather unless you took the time to fully load the brush. Someone who wants a quick happy meal TABAC level lather pop up wont get it and will dislike it. Those who are willing to stand there and work it will succeed. But V1 is sooo last yrs soap.
V2 is different, obviously. Will knew he had to make the change. I think last 2013 and 2014 were major leaps for menthol soaps. Alot of makers were cranking out new versions of hyper-mentholated soaps. I dont think V1 was a rush to market product, but you could tell there was much more refinement and time invested in V2. V2 is a tallow product and this helps. Not because I lean towards tallow, but it makes the lather more stable. You load a little bit, you get thin lather, you load alot, you get thick lather. V2 holds its form and consistency through the shave without a hint of the Mystic Water disappearing act. And that tallow, it just makes it super creamy and thick. I couldnt think of the term, but what is the opposite of liquid napalm? That would be my assessment of V2. Its thicker and stays with you longer. As opposed the the V1 that would trail off on coolness as the lather started to break down. Also, it did seem to take a little bit of time to build the proto lather in the tub. I dont know if this was due to the new "crust" of the new soap or inherent with V2, all the while still easier and quicker than V1. Another quirk I noticed about this soap. It has a weird shine to it. Kind of a fluorescent glow or sheen to it. Must be why its called a glissant base.
So which one is better? V2. How would I compare the menthol level? I would say V1=9 and V2=10. V2 gets the nod as colder even though I bet they have the same menthol level, owing to the V2 ability to stay together and last through the shave and continue to linger afterwards...again, what is the opposite of liquid napalm?
In terms of menthol level, comparing Arctique to other soaps, I would put V2 a notch or so above the Stirling line and miles apart from any other maker that just tried to cash in on the menthol craze with melt and pour soaps and gimmicky labels. I would rate Vostock and Iced Key Lime about the same as the Stirling offerings. They are my daily summer soaps, with V2 Arctique saved for the days when you almost had a heat stroke and need a punch in the face.
If I were to rate performance/slickness of these soaps, I would put Stirling first, then Vostok/Iced Key Lime, the Arctique. The glissant base surely helps the purformance.
Those of us who enjoy hyper-mentholated soaps consider the cooling factor almost as much, if not more than the performance of the shave soap itself. The casual user of TABAC and Proraso will not buy this soap without focusing more on its drawbacks, than the actual subzero temps you face will endure.
Also, I didnt buy the matching aftershave Will marketed with this soap. My aftershave of choice for menthol days is Snake Bite, with an occasional Vostock balm chaser.
