What is the definition of an Artisan?

let's get this thread back on track and end of the nonsense of snide remarks that aren't even shaving related.

I am perplexed by Hobbyist 's statement about artisan soaps not containing chemicals. Soap, aftershave balm, colognes, are nothing but chemicals. I don't think this can be a criterion for whether something is artisanal or not. I mean, all visible matter is composed of chemicals.
nervosa1901@ , The soap makers, balm makers, etc. that I know of usually market their own take on higher end scents, e.g. Mystic Waters Irish Traveler. It's similar to Green Irish Tweed, but it isn't exactly the same. I like it better than Creed's version. It's also relevant that some design houses license frantrance makers to make duplicates of their products. One can buy them readymade from fragrance suppliers.

If a soap maker pays a license fee to make a copy, I'm all for it. If they are stealing the work of another to make a profit, that's no good in my book. And one other thing that I take issue with is the manner in which the copying is characterized. Saying that a soap is a soap maker's "take" on a famous fragrance or is "inspired by" is just a polite way of saying the fragrance is a copy. Now I am not familiar with the Mystic Waters product, so if the scent of the soap you referenced has some originality to it, then perhaps your characterization is apt.

I tried a seasonal soap by another soap maker awhile back, not knowing what it was at the time. That soap smelled EXACTLY like Green Irish Tweed. When I used the soap, I was afflicted with the same allergic reaction (redness) I got when using Green Irish Tweed, which I sadly could no longer use because of it. That soap was as direct a copy of a scent as I had ever smelled, right down to the ingredients used to make the fragrance used in the soap. It was this incident that made me wake up to the fact that soap makers were not playing ball when it came to being original.

just about everything in this world is a copy of something else: razors, brushes, computers, recipes for food, etc., etc. there is typically an extreme amount of labor, time and money that goes into reverse engineering a product and then improving upon (usually) said design.

I am perplexed by Hobbyist 's statement about artisan soaps not containing chemicals. Soap, aftershave balm, colognes, are nothing but chemicals. I don't think this can be a criterion for whether something is artisanal or not. I mean, all visible matter is composed of chemicals.
nervosa1901@ , The soap makers, balm makers, etc. that I know of usually market their own take on higher end scents, e.g. Mystic Waters Irish Traveler. It's similar to Green Irish Tweed, but it isn't exactly the same. I like it better than Creed's version. It's also relevant that some design houses license frantrance makers to make duplicates of their products. One can buy them readymade from fragrance suppliers.

If a soap maker pays a license fee to make a copy, I'm all for it. If they are stealing the work of another to make a profit, that's no good in my book. And one other thing that I take issue with is the manner in which the copying is characterized. Saying that a soap is a soap maker's "take" on a famous fragrance or is "inspired by" is just a polite way of saying the fragrance is a copy. Now I am not familiar with the Mystic Waters product, so if the scent of the soap you referenced has some originality to it, then perhaps your characterization is apt.

I tried a seasonal soap by another soap maker awhile back, not knowing what it was at the time. That soap smelled EXACTLY like Green Irish Tweed. When I used the soap, I was afflicted with the same allergic reaction (redness) I got when using Green Irish Tweed, which I sadly could no longer use because of it. That soap was as direct a copy of a scent as I had ever smelled, right down to the ingredients used to make the fragrance used in the soap. It was this incident that made me wake up to the fact that soap makers were not playing ball when it came to being original.

just about everything in this world is a copy of something else: razors, brushes, computers, recipes for food, etc., etc. there is typically an extreme amount of labor, time and money that goes into reverse engineering a product and then improving upon (usually) said design.

Very true, but to me reverse engineering a product in order to make an improvement is substantively different from attempting to reverse engineer a product in order to produce a knockoff. Simply copying a product in order to mass produce a cheap imitation and benefit from another's labor is ethically akin to stealing, at least from my perspective. On the other hand, making improvements to a classic design (for instance, what we see from brands like Above the Tie) is both acceptable and ethically laudable.

If a soap maker pays a license fee to make a copy, I'm all for it. If they are stealing the work of another to make a profit, that's no good in my book. And one other thing that I take issue with is the manner in which the copying is characterized. Saying that a soap is a soap maker's "take" on a famous fragrance or is "inspired by" is just a polite way of saying the fragrance is a copy. Now I am not familiar with the Mystic Waters product, so if the scent of the soap you referenced has some originality to it, then perhaps your characterization is apt.

I tried a seasonal soap by another soap maker awhile back, not knowing what it was at the time. That soap smelled EXACTLY like Green Irish Tweed. When I used the soap, I was afflicted with the same allergic reaction (redness) I got when using Green Irish Tweed, which I sadly could no longer use because of it. That soap was as direct a copy of a scent as I had ever smelled, right down to the ingredients used to make the fragrance used in the soap. It was this incident that made me wake up to the fact that soap makers were not playing ball when it came to being original.

just about everything in this world is a copy of something else: razors, brushes, computers, recipes for food, etc., etc.  there is typically an extreme amount of labor, time and money that goes into reverse engineering a product and then improving upon (usually) said design.

Very true, but to me reverse engineering a product in order to make an improvement is substantively different from attempting to reverse engineer a product in order to produce a knockoff. Simply copying a product in order to mass produce a cheap imitation and benefit from another's labor is ethically akin to stealing, at least from my perspective. On the other hand, making improvements to a classic design (for instance, what we see from brands like Above the Tie) is both acceptable and ethically laudable.

but to make a copy of something, you first need to understand how it works, especially as thing can tend to become complex. anyway, the point is: something new always comes from something old.

before the thread gets too political, I'll leave it at that.

I am perplexed by Hobbyist 's statement about artisan soaps not containing chemicals. Soap, aftershave balm, colognes, are nothing but chemicals. I don't think this can be a criterion for whether something is artisanal or not. I mean, all visible matter is composed of chemicals.
nervosa1901@ , The soap makers, balm makers, etc. that I know of usually market their own take on higher end scents, e.g. Mystic Waters Irish Traveler. It's similar to Green Irish Tweed, but it isn't exactly the same. I like it better than Creed's version. It's also relevant that some design houses license frantrance makers to make duplicates of their products. One can buy them readymade from fragrance suppliers.

If a soap maker pays a license fee to make a copy, I'm all for it. If they are stealing the work of another to make a profit, that's no good in my book. And one other thing that I take issue with is the manner in which the copying is characterized. Saying that a soap is a soap maker's "take" on a famous fragrance or is "inspired by" is just a polite way of saying the fragrance is a copy. Now I am not familiar with the Mystic Waters product, so if the scent of the soap you referenced has some originality to it, then perhaps your characterization is apt.

I tried a seasonal soap by another soap maker awhile back, not knowing what it was at the time. That soap smelled EXACTLY like Green Irish Tweed. When I used the soap, I was afflicted with the same allergic reaction (redness) I got when using Green Irish Tweed, which I sadly could no longer use because of it. That soap was as direct a copy of a scent as I had ever smelled, right down to the ingredients used to make the fragrance used in the soap. It was this incident that made me wake up to the fact that soap makers were not playing ball when it came to being original.

just about everything in this world is a copy of something else: razors, brushes, computers, recipes for food, etc., etc.  there is typically an extreme amount of labor, time and money that goes into reverse engineering a product and then improving upon (usually) said design.

I understand that there are only so many ways you can make a product until invariably it begins to resemble something already in existence. I think there is still room for creativity when it comes to scenting a shaving soap or making an aftershave. On the off chance a scent is similar to another and that similarity was not by design, then fine, no harm intended. Marketing something as "inspired by Aventus," for example, is what I find particularly offensive. The sales are driven by using the comparison. I will reference Mr. Fine aftershaves as an example only because another member brought it up. Not having tried their products, I cannot attest as to whether or not they bear any resemblance to the fragrances they are trying to mimic, but even if they do not, people are buying them because Mr. Fine is telling them that they can expect to receive a product that is similar to a famous scent. I would argue people would be less inclined to purchase the aftershaves if the description stated "a light, woody pineapple fragrance" as opposed to "inspired by Aventus."

Would it be ok for a new razor manufacturer to come along and start making razors "inspired by Wolfman" at 1/5 the selling price? People on this and other forums would flip out because they would think the new razor manufacturer was trying to steal his designs and perhaps take away from his sales. The new razor manufacturer would be labeled an imposter and would likely be driven out of business before he even got off the ground. Why should shaving soap be any different?

If a soap maker pays a license fee to make a copy, I'm all for it. If they are stealing the work of another to make a profit, that's no good in my book. And one other thing that I take issue with is the manner in which the copying is characterized. Saying that a soap is a soap maker's "take" on a famous fragrance or is "inspired by" is just a polite way of saying the fragrance is a copy. Now I am not familiar with the Mystic Waters product, so if the scent of the soap you referenced has some originality to it, then perhaps your characterization is apt.

I tried a seasonal soap by another soap maker awhile back, not knowing what it was at the time. That soap smelled EXACTLY like Green Irish Tweed. When I used the soap, I was afflicted with the same allergic reaction (redness) I got when using Green Irish Tweed, which I sadly could no longer use because of it. That soap was as direct a copy of a scent as I had ever smelled, right down to the ingredients used to make the fragrance used in the soap. It was this incident that made me wake up to the fact that soap makers were not playing ball when it came to being original.

just about everything in this world is a copy of something else: razors, brushes, computers, recipes for food, etc., etc.  there is typically an extreme amount of labor, time and money that goes into reverse engineering a product and then improving upon (usually) said design.

I understand that there are only so many ways you can make a product until invariably it begins to resemble something already in existence. I think there is still room for creativity when it comes to scenting a shaving soap or making an aftershave. On the off chance a scent is similar to another and that similarity was not by design, then fine, no harm intended. Marketing something as "inspired by Aventus," for example, is what I find particularly offensive. The sales are driven by using the comparison. I will reference Mr. Fine aftershaves as an example only because another member brought it up. Not having tried their products, I cannot attest as to whether or not they bear any resemblance to the fragrances they are trying to mimic, but even if they do not, people are buying them because Mr. Fine is telling them that they can expect to receive a product that is similar to a famous scent. I would argue people would be less inclined to purchase the aftershaves if the description stated "a light, woody pineapple fragrance" as opposed to "inspired by Aventus."

Would it be ok for a new razor manufacturer to come along and start making razors "inspired by Wolfman" at 1/5 the selling price? People on this and other forums would flip out because they would think the new razor manufacturer was trying to steal his designs and perhaps take away from his sales. The new razor manufacturer would be labeled an imposter and would likely be driven out of business before he even got off the ground. Why should shaving soap be any different?

do you happen to use a PC that's NOT an IBM? because if you do, you're using an IBM clone....

I believe each 'inspired by' soap has its own differences in the fragrance make up.

just about everything in this world is a copy of something else: razors, brushes, computers, recipes for food, etc., etc.  there is typically an extreme amount of labor, time and money that goes into reverse engineering a product and then improving upon (usually) said design.

I understand that there are only so many ways you can make a product until invariably it begins to resemble something already in existence. I think there is still room for creativity when it comes to scenting a shaving soap or making an aftershave. On the off chance a scent is similar to another and that similarity was not by design, then fine, no harm intended. Marketing something as "inspired by Aventus," for example, is what I find particularly offensive. The sales are driven by using the comparison. I will reference Mr. Fine aftershaves as an example only because another member brought it up. Not having tried their products, I cannot attest as to whether or not they bear any resemblance to the fragrances they are trying to mimic, but even if they do not, people are buying them because Mr. Fine is telling them that they can expect to receive a product that is similar to a famous scent. I would argue people would be less inclined to purchase the aftershaves if the description stated "a light, woody pineapple fragrance" as opposed to "inspired by Aventus."

Would it be ok for a new razor manufacturer to come along and start making razors "inspired by Wolfman" at 1/5 the selling price? People on this and other forums would flip out because they would think the new razor manufacturer was trying to steal his designs and perhaps take away from his sales. The new razor manufacturer would be labeled an imposter and would likely be driven out of business before he even got off the ground. Why should shaving soap be any different?

do you happen to use a PC that's NOT an IBM?  because if you do, you're using an IBM clone....

I'm typing on a Macbook Pro at this very moment....

just about everything in this world is a copy of something else: razors, brushes, computers, recipes for food, etc., etc.  there is typically an extreme amount of labor, time and money that goes into reverse engineering a product and then improving upon (usually) said design.

I understand that there are only so many ways you can make a product until invariably it begins to resemble something already in existence. I think there is still room for creativity when it comes to scenting a shaving soap or making an aftershave. On the off chance a scent is similar to another and that similarity was not by design, then fine, no harm intended. Marketing something as "inspired by Aventus," for example, is what I find particularly offensive. The sales are driven by using the comparison. I will reference Mr. Fine aftershaves as an example only because another member brought it up. Not having tried their products, I cannot attest as to whether or not they bear any resemblance to the fragrances they are trying to mimic, but even if they do not, people are buying them because Mr. Fine is telling them that they can expect to receive a product that is similar to a famous scent. I would argue people would be less inclined to purchase the aftershaves if the description stated "a light, woody pineapple fragrance" as opposed to "inspired by Aventus."

Would it be ok for a new razor manufacturer to come along and start making razors "inspired by Wolfman" at 1/5 the selling price? People on this and other forums would flip out because they would think the new razor manufacturer was trying to steal his designs and perhaps take away from his sales. The new razor manufacturer would be labeled an imposter and would likely be driven out of business before he even got off the ground. Why should shaving soap be any different?

do you happen to use a PC that's NOT an IBM? because if you do, you're using an IBM clone....

I'm not sure I have the technical knowledge to be able to properly respond to that analogy, but to use one of my own, the difference I make is between original Gucci bags versus the cheap $5 ripoff Gucci bags that are sold on some side streets in Shanghai. I can understand a design that is somewhat reminiscent of the original Gucci that alters or improves on the design in some significant way (which is how knowledge progresses), but the blatant ripoff is a blatant ripoff.

I understand that there are only so many ways you can make a product until invariably it begins to resemble something already in existence. I think there is still room for creativity when it comes to scenting a shaving soap or making an aftershave. On the off chance a scent is similar to another and that similarity was not by design, then fine, no harm intended. Marketing something as "inspired by Aventus," for example, is what I find particularly offensive. The sales are driven by using the comparison. I will reference Mr. Fine aftershaves as an example only because another member brought it up. Not having tried their products, I cannot attest as to whether or not they bear any resemblance to the fragrances they are trying to mimic, but even if they do not, people are buying them because Mr. Fine is telling them that they can expect to receive a product that is similar to a famous scent. I would argue people would be less inclined to purchase the aftershaves if the description stated "a light, woody pineapple fragrance" as opposed to "inspired by Aventus."

Would it be ok for a new razor manufacturer to come along and start making razors "inspired by Wolfman" at 1/5 the selling price? People on this and other forums would flip out because they would think the new razor manufacturer was trying to steal his designs and perhaps take away from his sales. The new razor manufacturer would be labeled an imposter and would likely be driven out of business before he even got off the ground. Why should shaving soap be any different?

do you happen to use a PC that's NOT an IBM?  because if you do, you're using an IBM clone....

I'm typing on a Macbook Pro at this very moment....

My point is that several soap makers try to get sales by associating their product with a famous product. Yes IBM invented the first PC and many others came after. Someone invented the first fragrance centuries ago, but the soap makers are not going out of their way to say "my product is scented," they are stating that "my product is like a well-known, highly regarded scent." It would be like a Chinese auto manufacturer marketing a SUV as "inspired by" the Range Rover Sport, except in that case the Chinese manufacturer would have been promptly sued.

I understand that there are only so many ways you can make a product until invariably it begins to resemble something already in existence. I think there is still room for creativity when it comes to scenting a shaving soap or making an aftershave. On the off chance a scent is similar to another and that similarity was not by design, then fine, no harm intended. Marketing something as "inspired by Aventus," for example, is what I find particularly offensive. The sales are driven by using the comparison. I will reference Mr. Fine aftershaves as an example only because another member brought it up. Not having tried their products, I cannot attest as to whether or not they bear any resemblance to the fragrances they are trying to mimic, but even if they do not, people are buying them because Mr. Fine is telling them that they can expect to receive a product that is similar to a famous scent. I would argue people would be less inclined to purchase the aftershaves if the description stated "a light, woody pineapple fragrance" as opposed to "inspired by Aventus."

Would it be ok for a new razor manufacturer to come along and start making razors "inspired by Wolfman" at 1/5 the selling price? People on this and other forums would flip out because they would think the new razor manufacturer was trying to steal his designs and perhaps take away from his sales. The new razor manufacturer would be labeled an imposter and would likely be driven out of business before he even got off the ground. Why should shaving soap be any different?

do you happen to use a PC that's NOT an IBM?  because if you do, you're using an IBM clone....

I'm typing on a Macbook Pro at this very moment....

ah..the OS that was built on top of another piece of software out there.

I guess you can see where I can continue to go with this, but this is straying entirely too far from the point of the OP.

I understand that there are only so many ways you can make a product until invariably it begins to resemble something already in existence. I think there is still room for creativity when it comes to scenting a shaving soap or making an aftershave. On the off chance a scent is similar to another and that similarity was not by design, then fine, no harm intended. Marketing something as "inspired by Aventus," for example, is what I find particularly offensive. The sales are driven by using the comparison. I will reference Mr. Fine aftershaves as an example only because another member brought it up. Not having tried their products, I cannot attest as to whether or not they bear any resemblance to the fragrances they are trying to mimic, but even if they do not, people are buying them because Mr. Fine is telling them that they can expect to receive a product that is similar to a famous scent. I would argue people would be less inclined to purchase the aftershaves if the description stated "a light, woody pineapple fragrance" as opposed to "inspired by Aventus."

Would it be ok for a new razor manufacturer to come along and start making razors "inspired by Wolfman" at 1/5 the selling price? People on this and other forums would flip out because they would think the new razor manufacturer was trying to steal his designs and perhaps take away from his sales. The new razor manufacturer would be labeled an imposter and would likely be driven out of business before he even got off the ground. Why should shaving soap be any different?

do you happen to use a PC that's NOT an IBM?  because if you do, you're using an IBM clone....

I'm not sure I have the technical knowledge to be able to properly respond to that analogy, but to use one of my own, the difference I make is between original Gucci bags versus the cheap $5 ripoff Gucci bags that are sold on some side streets in Shanghai. I can understand a design that is somewhat reminiscent of the original Gucci that alters or improves on the design in some significant way (which is how knowledge progresses), but the blatant ripoff is a blatant ripoff.

there's a difference between a $150 bag and a $5 bag: quality. the former will probably far exceed any measurement against it while the latter will just suffice to get you by, so to speak.