I Got Enough Lather for 3 Passes plus Touchup

Most of your reply has nothing to do with my point, which is your tone in addressing others.  and yes, I do find it derogatory.

I guess that's your choice to decide. It might not be the intention but you also know intentions are hard to discern in non-verbal, non-line of sight conversations.

I presume the point is to say:  "For some standard amount of brush loading time, this soap produces a lot of nice lather. " I wouldn't read any more into it than that.  Clearly, if one loads the same brush for say 15 seconds, some soaps will produce more lather than others.  With some soaps, the lather will dissipate in the brush between passes more than others.  Therefore, I would imagine the purpose is simply to communicate:  "Wow!  This soap lathers like a beast and I like it a lot. "

This I believe

How many people legitimately save money switching to traditional methods?

Probably far far more than those that consider it a hobby and spend time talking about it. You know very well that the primary purpose people switch is $$$. They don't switch because they think its fun. They get sick of the $5 cost of a cartridge. I can easily google and find financial analysis on website of the cost/shave trying to persuade people to JOIN - to switch. The propaganda is all throughout forums. Switch from "canned goo". They denigrate the consumable products used by the cast majority of shavers to further their cause using words carefully chosen to make them look bad.. I seen time and time again the emphasis is on saving money.

Some find what they are looking for and just do their thing never to be seen again.

Some proclaim the are done. There is no need to buy "artisan" products. Generic store bought stuff is good enough

And some are hobbyists and money is a non-issue.

Regardless, time and time again I see the same propaganda said over and over again. A Primary reason for traditional wet shaving is to save money. Well we know the hobbyists aren't saving money. They are "collecting" and thats fine because some hobbies collect stuff. But for those who want to save money, looking holistically at the entire process is paramount - or your just kidding yourself. Penny wise - dollar foolish.

@"Uzi" probably got it, right. The stock in trade phrase is trying to demonstrate the ability of the product. The guy in the blog - who knows and I really don't care anymore. I was just curious.

If it were really and truly about saving money, people would be using cheap, disposable bics and Barbasol. Maybe some Old Spice afterwards. Because at the end of the day, I can pick up a bag of 25 disposable razors for $5, a can of Barbasol that lasts a month for $3, and a bottle of Old Spice that lasts a month for $10. That's less than $20 for a month + of shaves. And no one would be spending their time discussing how great their SOTD was with that gear, because every day would be the same shave. There are vastly superior means to save money on shaving. Heck a quality electric razor only costs $25 these days and will last you for 5-10 YEARS of daily shaves. The cost analysis is incomparable, to even the most frugal of tradional wet shavers.

Clearly, the people that are participating on forums, have given up the ghost, as it were, when it comes to "saving money".

Even the most frugal of traditional wet shavers can't compete with a $2.50 annual investment for an electric razor.

So it MUST be some other aspect that causes people to switch to traditional methods. Is it a sense of nostalgia? A sense of pampering ones self? A feeling of connection to a past? Maybe a connection to a gone relative? Whatever it is, cost is not the primary motivation to switch to these methods.

And you say you don't care about the guy in the blog, but at least 3 different times you stated that his "waste of money" was the "real issue". You have to reconcile that for yourself...

If it were really and truly about saving money, people would be using cheap, disposable bics and Barbasol.

They do. In fact many prefer electric. Here is a review of the OneBlade. It didn't go over too well http://dailytekk.com/2015/10/30/is-a-300...g=continue

Today I tested a $300 single blade razor: the OneBlade. …   electric razors … are faster and less messy than traditional razors. If you’re in a hurry (which I am every day) they’re the fastest possible way to get shaved and out the door. And you don’t have to mess around with shaving cream, either. … Whereas traditional razors are cheap, you’ve got to continue buying the blades: and that’s where companies rake in the profits
“…what problem does it solve in my life? …

I simply don’t want to pay $30 a month for blades. … I resent [buying blades]
I’ll be sticking with my electric.


Google saving money with wet shaving. There are many, many articles touting the virtues of saving money

Money Magazine, 4/29/10 http://time.com/money/2792995/spend-less...ose-shave/

Spend Less on a Close Shave

“Buy a safety razor — yes, the kind Grandpa used. While the razor costs about five times more than the typical multiblade cartridge kind, its blades will run about $30 a year, vs. $50 and up for cartridge refills.”

Shaving 101 10/14/10 http://www.shaving101.com/index.php/educ...wrong.html

It's important to look at the monetary costs …  .

Lifehacker 7/18/09 http://lifehacker.com/5313711/learn-the-...et-shaving

Shaving cartridges are expensive—the current crop of Gillette's razors, for example, cost over $2 a pop to refill. Refilling a traditional razor, on the other hand, can cost mere pennies and shave just as well.

Wisebead 1/18/12 http://www.wisebread.com/save-money-with...-wet-shave

The Art of Manliness 1/4/08 http://www.artofmanliness.com/2008/01/04...r-grandpa/

The traditional wet shaving advocates continually use "saving money" as the primary reason for switching. Some do mention other things like "irritation" but when push comes to shove, its always about money.

But nm, it is what it is.

No, not wet shaving advocates...journalists. Journalists are saying you will save money. Paid reviewers for men's health and fashion blogs, that were assigned a task. It's not a reliable subset to claim that money savings is a "primary motivating factor". Most of us know better.

The real question is simple...how many of those journalists actually use the traditional wet shaving gear they claim will save you money? My guess is very few, if any, make it beyond the week it took to get enough experience to not sound foolish in the articles they write...

The reality is this: Traditional wet shaving takes more time than cartridges and electrics. The cost savings of using even Barbasol with a DE is minimal at best, but the time expenditure is pretty big. Even with the canned foam or gel, you still spend more time at the sink with traditional gear. And it still has to be done every other day or so. And what are you saving over cartridges? MAYBE $20 a year? And for that you spend an extra 10 minutes at the sink 3 days a week, which is a half an hour per week times 52 weeks in the year...that's more than a day a year "wasted" at the sink...shaving...

The people that stick with traditional wet shaving...the people that allow this to be a market...aren't saving money. By a long shot. They aren't saving time...by a long shot. They are enjoying a hobby that costs both a significant amount of money AND time...

So the motivation must be something else...otherwise, artisans would all go bankrupt inside of a month of opening their doors, ATT and Wolfman would not exist, and we would not see a new crop of updated tools being introduced and improved upon every year...

No, not wet shaving advocates...journalists. Journalists are saying you will save money. Paid reviewers for men's health and fashion blogs, that were assigned a task. It's not a reliable subset to claim that money savings is a "primary motivating factor". Most of us know better.

So I can't quote paid journalists. So I only have left users, people who actually do this.  Although I don't want to link elsewhere, the data is elsewhere and I asked the general public the actual question. Almost 200 people responded and 18% said they saved substantial amounts of money.  They indicated they WERE FRUGAL.

Link to DATA.

[i]... Saved a considerable amount over the years (i.e., I’m frugal and this is part of being frugal)

18% is not inconsequential and 29% said they saved some money.  I don't know who else you want to ask. The motivation for that poll came from Post 19,  

This case is somewhat unique in that a major selling point to the public, at least from advocates of this hobby, is that you save money. I am looking to see if that is really true from real live people, or if that is a myth, urban legend, etc, and a poll is the best tool I have at the moment, no matter how unscientific.

Of course, one person has a point. Go to a car forum and ask them if they like cars. The results were bound to be shifted toward spending hobby levels of money.

The bottom line, outside of hobbyists, for the most part it is to save money. Sure some might get less irritation but in the end, for the non hobbyists, its about money. whether its journalists trying to sell you a lifestyle or companies trying to get you to sell money or members of the hobbyist set trying to get you to join, it always comes back to "saving" money as a primary factor. Now whether you save or not is up to you.

I never denied that money CAN be saved, I merely pointed out that saving money is not the PRIMARY MOTIVATOR, as you claimed earlier.

The entire topic has revolved around the "waste of money" for people that lather more than necessary. The justification for starting the topic has been maintained, by you, that the primary motivator for people using traditional tools, is to save money.

18% is not "primary". 29% is not primary. 47% is not primary. It's only a strong factor to a very small percentage of the community...

I would like to add, in the way of anecdotal evidence, that it is amusing to watch the response of wet shavers when a "newbie" goes to the forum you linked to and says they started this to save money. Invariably the response is one of humorous knowing..."Just wait..." is quite frequently the response. Invariably, there are multiple response referencing various rabbit holes, roundabouts, and pitfalls that make the "saving money" aspect of this hobby not only moot, but non-existent.

The only way to make this hobby about saving money is to calculate the penny-per-shave cost of each stroke of the blade, in order to justify the actual expenditure.

And I AM one of those extremely frugal traditional wet shavers...

You edited out your numbers, but looking at the actual poll you have a total of 27% that say they have saved some money, and a total of 64% saying no way no how.

I cannot fathom how that translates into a primary factor...

Even if someone uses saving money as a reason for making the switch, that'll vastly go out of the window once someone sees the vast array of product offerings on the market today.

JMHO, of course.

OK, I give up. Interpret things however you want. From my view from the outside looking in, advocates of traditional wet shaving push the concept that you WILL shave money. The fact that a smaller subset of the full set of traditional set shavers push the limited by turning a task into a hobby is fine, but doesn't change the fact that as I viewed this from the outside, the "Push" was to sell it with the concept it was cheaper to get 10 shaves with one $0.25 blade than 7 shaves from one $5 cartridge. The emphasis on the financial is throughout the literature from websites pushing a lifestyle to virtual social media.

If one accepts that, then its not a giant leap to discuss the amount of lather one generates in that the entire process must be analyzed and not just a single facet of the process. But thats fine, thats how I looked at this industry. Your POV might be different.

I'm not here to save money. And I deliberately always make extra lather by overloading my brush. Better to be in the safe side.
I have soaps & creams coming out my ears any ways