Shave Soap---Stratified

 I have found out that many companies in Great Britain such as DR Harris, G Trumper, Edwin Jagger, etc do not make their own products they are mainly marketing  

I think we talked before about SJOL, GFT, T&H, and TOBS? all being made by Creightons. Regardless, all the formulas are different. They are merely being outsourced, no different than any other company outsourcing the work.

There were recent interviews with Rockwell Razors. Who makes them? Some company they outsource the machining to.

LPL had an interview where he said he might need to outsource his soap making. Will he no longer be an artisan?

I'm not sure what this has to do with social status based upon the cost of soap so I guess I reject the initial post as the premise of assumption, IMO, is incorrect.

It's soap. Its gets flushed down the drain. It's consumed. It's not hardware. If you told me that someone only bought the rarest unicorn hair from the high mountains of Nepal and owned 20 of these unicorn brushes and each was only used every blue moon, it still would not indicate social stutus NOR income.

Its indicates ... disposable income priorities. That guy buys brushes. The next guy buys golf clubs. His friend buy cars. Another buys yachts. Another buys expensive vacations. But I just can't see the price of a soap indicating "social or income" status. I can see it identifying "spending priorities"

IMO

 I have found out that many companies in Great Britain such as DR Harris, G Trumper, Edwin Jagger, etc do not make their own products they are mainly marketing  

I think we talked before about SJOL, GFT, T&H, and TOBS? all being made by Creightons. Regardless, all the formulas are different. They are merely being outsourced, no different than any other company outsourcing the work.

There were recent interviews with Rockwell Razors. Who makes them? Some company they outsource the machining to.

LPL had an interview where he said he might need to outsource his soap making. Will he no longer be an artisan?

I'm not sure what this has to do with social status based upon the cost of soap so I guess I reject the initial post as the premise of assumption, IMO, is incorrect.

It's soap. Its gets flushed down the drain. It's consumed. It's not hardware. If you told me that someone only bought the rarest unicorn hair from the high mountains of Nepal and owned 20 of these unicorn brushes and each was only used every blue moon, it still would not indicate social stutus NOR income.

Its indicates ... disposable income priorities. That guy buys brushes. The next guy buys golf clubs. His friend buy cars. Another buys yachts. Another buys expensive vacations. But I just can't see the price of a soap indicating "social or income" status. I can see it identifying "spending priorities"

IMO

Frankly, I am not sure what you are getting at with your paragraphs that are irrelevant to me. This is the last time I respond to you. However, if you continue to respond to my replys that are not directed to you go at it. Good bye. I think you just like to argue but not with me. See ya.