What is the definition of an Artisan?

One encounter the occasional garden variety troll that wants to detail a thread with utter nonsense. Did I just said that? My bad Mickey! Lol.....

Back to shaving!

I'm a watch collector, this is my personal definition:

Rolex- Non Artisan
Romain Jerome- Artisan

I also collect watches and I own a Rolex. Rolex makes every part of the watch in house. They have their own foundry to produce gold for their higher end pieces. The cases are hand-finished. The markers on the dial are applied by hand. Their in house-produced movements are not only COSC certified, but they go through additional Rolex testing for accuracy. The pieces are put together by skilled watchmakers, many of whom have been doing this for decades. It is documented that Romain do not produce all parts of the watch in house. They are also horribly overpriced for what many consider the most hideous-looking fashion pieces out there.

This is the problem with the artisan debate. Back to soap, I believe that even if it is mass-produced, if it is done with the highest quality materials by skilled craftsmen, it has more of an artisan quality than some dude making soap in his basement or garage, scenting it with fragrance oils out of the yankee candle catalog, or worse in my opinion, directly copying famous scents for their own personal profit. These people deserve no praise in my book.

I don't see a problem with soap makers offering scents that are inspired by higher end fragrances and offering them at a lower price. Some of the popular scents that are inspired from other well-known fragrances are not offered in a shaving soap, such as Polo Blue and Old Spice original, and the ones that are offered often cost much more than the average income earning wet-shaver can afford to pay for a soap.

Some people can afford $100+ soaps and aftershaves, but why shouldn't those who can't afford the high end fragrances be able to at least experience a close match while shaving. Also, what is wrong with making a profit? Why are there so many people on these boards that seem to have a problem with profit? Should the soap maker sell the soaps cheap enough to break even? And last I checked most of the high end fragrance inspired scents are sold by soap makers that have very reasonable prices.

It never ceases to amaze me how many members on these boards love to criticize artisans or small business soap makers. These soap makers are working hard to make an honest living making products that provide a lot of enjoyment for those of us who appreciate their products. I happen to make bath soaps and a few other products, yet I will not be making shaving soaps because I love how much enjoyment I get every time I receive a new scent from my favorite artisans. I tried most of the commercial and high end luxury shaving soaps, but I still prefer the smaller artisan soaps. I like that they are packed full of quality ingredients and don't contain any chemicals like the vast majority of commercial soaps. It's the same with bath soaps too.

One encounter the occasional garden variety troll that wants to detail a thread with utter nonsense. Did I just said that?  My bad Mickey! Lol.....

Back to shaving!

Hector, you started us down this path with your insults, I defended my position, and now you just continue with your insults and take a holier than thou approach while you're at it. This is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm a watch collector, this is my personal definition:

Rolex- Non Artisan
Romain Jerome- Artisan

I also collect watches and I own a Rolex. Rolex makes every part of the watch in house. They have their own foundry to produce gold for their higher end pieces. The cases are hand-finished. The markers on the dial are applied by hand. Their in house-produced movements are not only COSC certified, but they go through additional Rolex testing for accuracy. The pieces are put together by skilled watchmakers, many of whom have been doing this for decades. It is documented that Romain do not produce all parts of the watch in house. They are also horribly overpriced for what many consider the most hideous-looking fashion pieces out there.

This is the problem with the artisan debate. Back to soap, I believe that even if it is mass-produced, if it is done with the highest quality materials by skilled craftsmen, it has more of an artisan quality than some dude making soap in his basement or garage, scenting it with fragrance oils out of the yankee candle catalog, or worse in my opinion, directly copying famous scents for their own personal profit. These people deserve no praise in my book.

I don't see a problem with soap makers offering scents that are inspired by higher end fragrances and offering them at a lower price. Some of the popular scents that are inspired from other well-known fragrances are not offered in a shaving soap, such as Polo Blue and Old Spice original, and the ones that are offered often cost much more than the average income earning wet-shaver can afford to pay for a soap.

You can afford a Rolex so I assume you can buy the $100+ soaps and aftershaves. But why shouldn't those who can't afford the high end fragrances be able to at least experience a close match while shaving. Also, what is wrong with making a profit? Why are there so many people on these boards that seem to have a problem with profit? Should the soap maker sell the soaps cheap enough to break even? And last I checked most of the high end fragrance inspired scents are sold by soap makers that have very reasonable prices.

It never ceases to amaze me how many members on these boards love to criticize artisans or small business soap makers. These soap makers are working hard to make an honest living making products that provide a lot of enjoyment for those of us who appreciate their products. I happen to make bath soaps and a few other  products, yet I will not be making shaving soaps because I love how much enjoyment I get every time I receive a new scent from my favorite artisans. I tried most of the commercial and high end luxury shaving soaps, but I still prefer the smaller artisan soaps. I like that they are packed full of quality ingredients and don't contain any chemicals like the vast majority of commercial soaps. It's the same with bath soaps too.

Hobbyist - I appreciate your response. Yes, I do own some high end soaps, as do many others on this forum. I see an enormous problem with other soap makers copying scents made famous by others and selling the products for less, and no I do not think that not having the money to buy something is a worthy excuse to give money to others who produce blatant rip-offs, some even using the name used by the famous maker on their own label. I am by no means wealthy, far from it, actually, but I do have respect for companies that take the time, effort, and money to develop and market a product. I do not respect the talentless purveyor who swoops in, copies, and sells to the masses is the name affordability.

Can you honestly tell me if you invented a product and sold it for $50 and someone else came in and made a virtually identical copy of your work and sold it for $5, you wouldn't mind at all?

With regard to profit, I have no problem with soap makers, whose ideas are innovative and ORIGINAL, reaping a profit from their work. They deserve it. I think that too many soap makers nowadays come up with a soap base and in an effort to keep the $$$ flowing, resort to copying scents instead of coming up with their own. Fortunately for them, there will always be hordes of people willing to open their wallets so they will just keep making soap and profiting at the expense of other producers.

It's over.

For the record, I wasn't trying to start any sort of argument. I was merely pointing out that there are occasions where a mass-produced product can fit the mold of what some consider artisan quality, alternatively just because something is made in small batches, or is "hand made" doesn't mean it warrants the praise it deserves by virtue of the fact that the producer claims the product is "artisan made."

It is unfortunate that I had to withstand personal abuse from a member of this community in order to share this opinion.

I agree.

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.

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.

I also collect watches and I own a Rolex. Rolex makes every part of the watch in house. They have their own foundry to produce gold for their higher end pieces. The cases are hand-finished. The markers on the dial are applied by hand. Their in house-produced movements are not only COSC certified, but they go through additional Rolex testing for accuracy. The pieces are put together by skilled watchmakers, many of whom have been doing this for decades. It is documented that Romain do not produce all parts of the watch in house. They are also horribly overpriced for what many consider the most hideous-looking fashion pieces out there.

This is the problem with the artisan debate. Back to soap, I believe that even if it is mass-produced, if it is done with the highest quality materials by skilled craftsmen, it has more of an artisan quality than some dude making soap in his basement or garage, scenting it with fragrance oils out of the yankee candle catalog, or worse in my opinion, directly copying famous scents for their own personal profit. These people deserve no praise in my book.

I don't see a problem with soap makers offering scents that are inspired by higher end fragrances and offering them at a lower price. Some of the popular scents that are inspired from other well-known fragrances are not offered in a shaving soap, such as Polo Blue and Old Spice original, and the ones that are offered often cost much more than the average income earning wet-shaver can afford to pay for a soap.

You can afford a Rolex so I assume you can buy the $100+ soaps and aftershaves. But why shouldn't those who can't afford the high end fragrances be able to at least experience a close match while shaving. Also, what is wrong with making a profit? Why are there so many people on these boards that seem to have a problem with profit? Should the soap maker sell the soaps cheap enough to break even? And last I checked most of the high end fragrance inspired scents are sold by soap makers that have very reasonable prices.

It never ceases to amaze me how many members on these boards love to criticize artisans or small business soap makers. These soap makers are working hard to make an honest living making products that provide a lot of enjoyment for those of us who appreciate their products. I happen to make bath soaps and a few other  products, yet I will not be making shaving soaps because I love how much enjoyment I get every time I receive a new scent from my favorite artisans. I tried most of the commercial and high end luxury shaving soaps, but I still prefer the smaller artisan soaps. I like that they are packed full of quality ingredients and don't contain any chemicals like the vast majority of commercial soaps. It's the same with bath soaps too.

Hobbyist - I appreciate your response. Yes, I do own some high end soaps, as do many others on this forum. I see an enormous problem with other soap makers copying scents made famous by others and selling the products for less, and no I do not think that not having the money to buy something is a worthy excuse to give money to others who produce blatant rip-offs, some even using the name used by the famous maker on their own label. I am by no means wealthy, far from it, actually, but I do have respect for companies that take the time, effort, and money to develop and market a product. I do not respect the talentless purveyor who swoops in, copies, and sells to the masses is the name affordability.

Can you honestly tell me if you invented a product and sold it for $50 and someone else came in and made a virtually identical copy of your work and sold it for $5, you wouldn't mind at all?

With regard to profit, I have no problem with soap makers, whose ideas are innovative and ORIGINAL, reaping a profit from their work. They deserve it. I think that too many soap makers nowadays come up with a soap base and in an effort to keep the $$$ flowing, resort to copying scents instead of coming up with their own. Fortunately for them, there will always be hordes of people willing to open their wallets so they will just keep making soap and profiting at the expense of other producers.

Good points and thank you for commenting on each. I should have clarified what I meant, so I'll do that now. I used the word "inspired " because that is different from copying. The few scents that I bought are inspired by Creed as stated by the soap maker. However, the are a couple others that don't mention Creed but are obviously inspired by it as well, and those list the notes. Instead of a direct copy they used a couple different EO/FOs, and that seems fair to me. There are so many companies making fragrances, and with only so many EO/FOs to use, eventually there will be some scents that have the same notes. Yet even if one copies the entire fragrance note by note, the artisan still doesn't know how much to used of each, so the best he or she can do is try to match it by scent.

Copying the exact name may be illegal I would guess, but not sure about the fragrance itself. I doubt it is illegal to copy the fragrance notes; however, it may be if one found the actual formula and recipe and copied the fragrance exactly that way. We have to consider how fewer fragrance designers and scents there would be if it were not permitted. For example, consider how many sandalwood and cedarwood scents are available, or Fougeres, or the poplar citrus scents, or cedar and vanilla, or peppermint/tea tree/menthol, or lavender, and many others. Thus, at what point should it be consisted wrong to use the same EOs or FOs?

I don't know if any scents inspired by others are very accurate. The one I have is not, but it defintely can remind me of the other fragrance. I have a few more on the way which I shall soon find out hire chose they are. Since I have GIT by Creed and a couple others in fragrances I can compare some, and I highly doubt if any are exact. Yet I don't want exact anyway; I can enjoy a nicely inspired scent just as much.

Others are entitled to their opinion hrfdez. nervosa1901@ offered his opinion and you respond with "get a life"... really? I'm not sure why you are responding with such hostility.

Anyway, I can understand where nervosa1901@ is coming from on that. I've never been a fan of knockoffs or imitations since they are profiting off of the form and function of another product. Ethically, I am opposed to knockoffs. If the fragrance is compared to another fragrance or inspired by it I have no objection, but if it openly is marketed as a knockoff, that's something else entirely. From what I have tried of the Mystic Water scent, it is certainly different in character and is inspired by Green Irish Tweed rather than a copy of it.