PAA General Thoughts?

We're getting off track again, folks. Let's get back to the OPs original intent. Thanks.

This reminds me of the film Groundhog's Day.   And yes, I know where the "back" button resides.  

That wasn't a slight at anybody either.  It is just amazing to me that people don't like honest discussion when it doesn't fit their own POV.

I didn't take it that way. I am just in a humorous frame of mind.

He is no longer going to be the spokesperson for them I hear.

The last commercial had a different douchebag that didn't look the part, lol....

I found this discussion about incorrect ingredient lists important because I have severe allergies to some common soap additives. If what he says is in there isn't all that's in there, I could have a very bad reaction--even life threatening--so I need to know this.
I know that he makes is own soap base. I also know that he claims they are all hot process. Technically, a glycerin based melt and pour type base can be done by hot process, so that may not be a complete prevarication. However, he claims they are hot process soaps, which means something else to the consumer. That sort of "slight of hand" isn't exactly lying, but it does make one wonder what else may not be quite as advertised. Perhaps the "buyer beware" caution is warranted; however, "one bad apple spoils the whole barrel." This sort of dishonesty has repercussions for other artisan makers who do try to be honest with their customers. It can call their integrity into question unnecessarily, and that is unfortunate.

:: sigh:: I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I'm compelled to state the following:

When the whole issue went down, I had recently graduated and still had access to a mass spectrometer. I sent a sample of Synergy 1.0 for a test and the overwhelming component was glycerine, with some samples showing only trace amounts of other compounds. It doesn't mean the soap was melt and pour, but it did validate that the soap was not homogeneous. All ingredients listed were present, but many in insignificant quantities (>1.5% by mass).

Once Douglas reopened as PAA, I sent a sample of the first PAA soap (that I bought) through the spec, and the ratio of ingredients then made much more sense. Everything was present, in sufficient quantities to be considered valid.

That is to say that: his latest formulation that I have tried (the original PAA formulation) had sufficiently presented a fair amount of all listed compounds as indicated on the ingredient list. The Synergy 1.0 did present all ingredients listed, although the ratio of presence for some compounds would have rendered their effect negligible.

:igh:: I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I'm compelled to state the following:

When the whole issue went down, I had recently graduated and still had access to a mass spectrometer. I sent a sample of Synergy 1.0 for a test and the overwhelming component was glycerine, with some samples showing only trace amounts of other compounds. It doesn't mean the soap was melt and pour, but it did validate that the soap was not homogeneous. All ingredients listed were present, but many in insignificant quantities (>1.5% by mass).

Once Douglas reopened as PAA, I sent a sample of the first PAA soap (that I bought) through the spec, and the ratio of ingredients then made much more sense. Everything was present, in sufficient quantities to be considered valid.

How about the aftershaves? I like those.

:igh:: I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I'm compelled to state the following:

When the whole issue went down, I had recently graduated and still had access to a mass spectrometer. I sent a sample of Synergy 1.0 for a test and the overwhelming component was glycerine, with some samples showing only trace amounts of other compounds. It doesn't mean the soap was melt and pour, but it did validate that the soap was not homogeneous. All ingredients listed were present, but many in insignificant quantities (>1.5% by mass).

Once Douglas reopened as PAA, I sent a sample of the first PAA soap (that I bought) through the spec, and the ratio of ingredients then made much more sense. Everything was present, in sufficient quantities to be considered valid.

How about the aftershaves?  I like those.

Sorry, never ran those. Their ingredients are pretty simple, though. He could only omit witch hazel. The alum has a distinct feel and alcohol has a smell.

Woweee this has generated many responses. As the OP I'm glad this has actually stayed civil for the most part. I also feel a little validated that there are numerous others out there that reach for one of these soaps or aftershaves and go meh average performance and way too too spendy...... The fact I have four or five soaps and the same number of aftershaves might be an indication his webcast and Ronald McDonald stuff works.... But I won't rebuy again..... There is a lot better out there.

:igh:: I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I'm compelled to state the following:

When the whole issue went down, I had recently graduated and still had access to a mass spectrometer. I sent a sample of Synergy 1.0 for a test and the overwhelming component was glycerine, with some samples showing only trace amounts of other compounds. It doesn't mean the soap was melt and pour, but it did validate that the soap was not homogeneous. All ingredients listed were present, but many in insignificant quantities (>1.5% by mass).

Once Douglas reopened as PAA, I sent a sample of the first PAA soap (that I bought) through the spec, and the ratio of ingredients then made much more sense. Everything was present, in sufficient quantities to be considered valid.

How about the aftershaves?  I like those.

Sorry, never ran those. Their ingredients are pretty simple, though. He could only omit witch hazel. The alum has a distinct feel and alcohol has a smell.

Sweet. The ones I like are $19.95. I will continue to buy those then.

Just tried PAA "9" and thought it was an exceptional shave soap. I got a bit of the Hoppes in there...to me it smells a bit like an old hunting store in the country.