In my case, it pretty much instantly turned to a crumbly mess. If I'd been trying to bring together a pie crust, it would have been awesome. As a soap, not so much.
My first shaving soap is a success!
- Thread starter songwind
- Start date
Help Support Soapmaking Forum:
In my case, it pretty much instantly turned to a crumbly mess. If I'd been trying to bring together a pie crust, it would have been awesome. As a soap, not so much.
fatfacedcharlie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 48
Mine went almost the same way, anywhere the lye hit the oils it went opaque and gloopy almost instantly, but after a bit of stirring and squidging with the spatula it looked almost like apple sauce, but started to separate very quickly. I set about it with my stick blender in short bursts for about 10 minutes and it all came together quite nicely. I delayed putting it in the oven for 10 minutes just to see what would happen and it seemed to stay emulsified ok, like a really thick custard. It would take a more patient man than me to CP it though, I guess with all KOH it would take ages.
That's very interesting. Maybe I'll try it again now that I have a stick blender instead of the paint mixer.
songwind - thanks so much for sharing your experience with this. I noticed on the B & B forum the original poster said he might cook his second batch longer than he did the first. Did you find 90 minutes to be about right or did it take longer? Was the crockpot on low or high?
Also, did you read on the other forum where the poster suggested making the soap unscented, shredding it, spritzing on essential oil, then packing the soap into PVC, then slicing into bars? I just can't imagine this working without reheating the soap, but I do think I might try it. I hope Lindy will see this and stop by to give her opinion about this. If I am remembering correctly, Lindy (genius that she is!) does make her shaving soap unscented, grates it, then custom blends scents to customer's specifications. I think, though, that she heats the mix before pouring it. I guess I could PM her with my questions or start a new thread, which I will do if she doesn't stop by.
I'm not interested in custom blending anything for customers (what customers???), I just am interested in the possiblity of using a little bit less essential oil than I would have to use if I put it in the crockpot with the original batter.
Okay, I think I might be babbling so I'll stop now. I'm going to try this shaving soap tonight!
Also, did you read on the other forum where the poster suggested making the soap unscented, shredding it, spritzing on essential oil, then packing the soap into PVC, then slicing into bars? I just can't imagine this working without reheating the soap, but I do think I might try it. I hope Lindy will see this and stop by to give her opinion about this. If I am remembering correctly, Lindy (genius that she is!) does make her shaving soap unscented, grates it, then custom blends scents to customer's specifications. I think, though, that she heats the mix before pouring it. I guess I could PM her with my questions or start a new thread, which I will do if she doesn't stop by.
I'm not interested in custom blending anything for customers (what customers???), I just am interested in the possiblity of using a little bit less essential oil than I would have to use if I put it in the crockpot with the original batter.Okay, I think I might be babbling so I'll stop now. I'm going to try this shaving soap tonight!
Yes, 90 minutes seemed to be fine. I used the high setting, and made sure to stir often enough that it didn't burn. It passed the zap test, then registered about a 9 on my litmus paper.
Also, did you read on the other forum where the poster suggested making the soap unscented, shredding it, spritzing on essential oil, then packing the soap into PVC, then slicing into bars? I just can't imagine this working without reheating the soap, but I do think I might try it. I hope Lindy will see this and stop by to give her opinion about this. If I am remembering correctly, Lindy (genius that she is!) does make her shaving soap unscented, grates it, then custom blends scents to customer's specifications. I think, though, that she heats the mix before pouring it. I guess I could PM her with my questions or start a new thread, which I will do if she doesn't stop by.
Well, this stuff is extremely soft. "Shredding" isn't going to happen. Scrapping up with a spoon and plunking back in the crock pot, maybe.
If you have to reheat the soap base, you may as well just add it during the original process as long as you wait for it to cool down appropriately. That's just IMO, though. Doing it so you can make a big batch of soap, then scent it as needed makes more sense to me.
I did see the post you mentioned, and I think that poster is basically an industrial process fan. He thinks you should be taking soap noodles, scenting them, and pressing them in molds. But that's just my take-away.
Hi Songwind, do you know where the person you got the recipe from found out that the MdC was all coconut and stearic? Im going to try it to recreate for someone who has used MdC and loved it, but i just looked on a site of theirs that was translated to english and on it they say they use olive and coconut. Do you know if they have multiple base formulas and maybe I missed it? I have no way of getting my hands on a pot to check the label myself. http://www.savonnerie-martin-de-candre.com/index.php?id_product=632&controller=product&id_lang=1
As far as I know, from the label.
In this thread the posted a picture. Edit: Found an even better one, from their unscented version. http://shavenook.com/thread-martin-de-candre-unscented-shaving-soap
Olive oil in general makes for mediocre shaving soap at best. Slippery, but no volume. I suspect whoever set up their website just cut and pasted standard promotional text onto the fougere page, because the traditional MdC shaving soap page doesn't say anything about olive oil.
Last edited:
cbrooks3949
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
BEAUTIFUL LATHER!! Would you have the same skin drying issues with such a high % of CO that gets warned about in CP (or HP, using NaOH)?
Mark the Box Guy
Well-Known Member
I was just about to try this, but when I ran the numbers, soapcalc reported that despite using KOH, it had a hardness factor of 89! Also strange were the low bubble figure (32) and the high cleansing (also 32).
Frankly, had I read this on soapcalc first, I wouldn't attempt it. It reads like a hard bar of skin-drying cleansing soap without any bubbles.
Would some of the veterans mind commenting on why there is such an apparent disparity between soapcalc and the finished product? Am I misinterpreting soapcalc?
I haven't made shaving soap, so keep that in mind, but I have spent a fair amount of time figuring out "the numbers".
The short-hand labels (cleansing, hardness, etc.) for "the numbers" are frankly misleading. The labels contain a grain of truth, but do not remotely tell the whole story. "The numbers" have their place in analyzing a recipe, but I hate their labels because they are often misleading, especially when you are evaluating a specialty soap such as shaving soap, salt bars, high-superfat coconut-oil bars, castile, etc.
Think, for example, of all the newbie soapers who agonize over the fact that castile a zero "cleansing" number, and thus they conclude that castile won't clean!
The "hardness" number is the sum of the average percentages of the lauric, myristic, and stearic fatty acids in the oils. An 89 hardness number is saying about 89% of the fatty acids in the recipe are lauric, myristic, and stearic fatty acids.
These are the fatty acids that are smaller and have a long, straight shape, so they tend to align themselves nicely when the soap solidifies (assuming it's a solid soap). This tidy geometric shape makes these soaps harder, especially initially. In industrial soap making, this is a critical quality -- one does not make money waiting for a soft goopy soap to harden sufficiently to unmold.
This issue is not as important for hand crafted soaps. A low "hardness" number may be a warning that your soap might be softer and more difficult to unmold initially, but it doesn't say much about long-term hardness. Hand crafted soap generally hardens up as time goes on and water evaporates out of the soap, so the hardness number is not as critical as it seemed to me at first. Again, the classic example here is castile -- often very soft in the mold, but brick hard after months of cure.
The "bubble" and "cleansing" numbers are the exact same number with two different labels. The 32 number is telling you that about 32% of the fatty acids are lauric and myristic. These fatty acids are, again, two of the short straight-chain fatty acids. Sodium soaps made from these fatty acids dissolve the easiest in water. More of the lauric and myristic soap will dissolve off the bar when you use the soap to wash (or shave) and these soaps also combine more easily with fats, so these soaps tend to remove more oils from your skin.
Sounds like a cut-and-dried issue, right? Except that curing the soap removes water and stabilizes the geometric structure of the soap, and less water inside the soap and a more regular structure means the soap is less soluble when you use it. Less solubility means less of these soaps get on your skin, and less soap on your skin makes the soap more gentle.
And finally, this recipe gets a big fat zero for the conditioning number. That value is the sum of the oleic, ricinoleic, and linoleic fatty acids. So does this recipe rip one's skin right off? I'd guess you wet shavers can irritate and remove skin far better with your sharp blades than this soap will do.
This soap is a special purpose soap, so the normal rules don't necessarily apply. It needs to make a thick lather to cushion the skin from the blade, and the "conditioning" fatty acids don't create that quality in a soap. I don't know if I would want to shower with shaving soap, but I certainly can appreciate why it has these unusual characteristics.
For conditioning purposes, the other additives that might be included have to be considered -- the extra glycerine, the super fat, any sugars or milks, etc. "The numbers" are silent on these additives which add skin protective qualities. And I would think the cure period will make the soap gentler to the skin as well.
The short-hand labels (cleansing, hardness, etc.) for "the numbers" are frankly misleading. The labels contain a grain of truth, but do not remotely tell the whole story. "The numbers" have their place in analyzing a recipe, but I hate their labels because they are often misleading, especially when you are evaluating a specialty soap such as shaving soap, salt bars, high-superfat coconut-oil bars, castile, etc.
Think, for example, of all the newbie soapers who agonize over the fact that castile a zero "cleansing" number, and thus they conclude that castile won't clean!
The "hardness" number is the sum of the average percentages of the lauric, myristic, and stearic fatty acids in the oils. An 89 hardness number is saying about 89% of the fatty acids in the recipe are lauric, myristic, and stearic fatty acids.
These are the fatty acids that are smaller and have a long, straight shape, so they tend to align themselves nicely when the soap solidifies (assuming it's a solid soap). This tidy geometric shape makes these soaps harder, especially initially. In industrial soap making, this is a critical quality -- one does not make money waiting for a soft goopy soap to harden sufficiently to unmold.
This issue is not as important for hand crafted soaps. A low "hardness" number may be a warning that your soap might be softer and more difficult to unmold initially, but it doesn't say much about long-term hardness. Hand crafted soap generally hardens up as time goes on and water evaporates out of the soap, so the hardness number is not as critical as it seemed to me at first. Again, the classic example here is castile -- often very soft in the mold, but brick hard after months of cure.
The "bubble" and "cleansing" numbers are the exact same number with two different labels. The 32 number is telling you that about 32% of the fatty acids are lauric and myristic. These fatty acids are, again, two of the short straight-chain fatty acids. Sodium soaps made from these fatty acids dissolve the easiest in water. More of the lauric and myristic soap will dissolve off the bar when you use the soap to wash (or shave) and these soaps also combine more easily with fats, so these soaps tend to remove more oils from your skin.
Sounds like a cut-and-dried issue, right? Except that curing the soap removes water and stabilizes the geometric structure of the soap, and less water inside the soap and a more regular structure means the soap is less soluble when you use it. Less solubility means less of these soaps get on your skin, and less soap on your skin makes the soap more gentle.
And finally, this recipe gets a big fat zero for the conditioning number. That value is the sum of the oleic, ricinoleic, and linoleic fatty acids. So does this recipe rip one's skin right off? I'd guess you wet shavers can irritate and remove skin far better with your sharp blades than this soap will do.
This soap is a special purpose soap, so the normal rules don't necessarily apply. It needs to make a thick lather to cushion the skin from the blade, and the "conditioning" fatty acids don't create that quality in a soap. I don't know if I would want to shower with shaving soap, but I certainly can appreciate why it has these unusual characteristics.
For conditioning purposes, the other additives that might be included have to be considered -- the extra glycerine, the super fat, any sugars or milks, etc. "The numbers" are silent on these additives which add skin protective qualities. And I would think the cure period will make the soap gentler to the skin as well.
Mark the Box Guy
Well-Known Member
DeeAnna, if there was such a thing as "Post of the Year" then I would nominate your response. It cleared up a great deal of confusion and changed my evaluations of many of the recipes I've found and considered in my short soaping career. Thank you. :clap::clap:
Last edited:
It would probably be a concern if I hadn't added so much glycerin. But as it stands, I'm pretty pleased.
Mark the Box Guy
Well-Known Member
I've made a batch and it's in the bowls and sitting on a shelf, but I must say that I deviated a bit from the various recommendations and am optimistic, because it looks exactly like my favourite shave creams. This should turn out well.
Many of the posts, on this forum and others, have said that cold process is not an option, and that a full hot process is the only way to go. But I seem to be having pretty good luck at my hot process, which in actuality is more of warm process (or a cold process with a hot head start). I use my usual crockpot to melt the oils and mix everything up to trace before moulding (or glopping) my soap. I turn off the crockpot as I approach trace, and allow the retained heat to help the saponification process along its merry way. And I only have one pot to clean up, which makes SHMBO very happy
In this case, the lye water and hot oils began tracing quickly, and without the time to stick blend (it was too thick for the stick anyway), I poured my glycerin and kept stirring. I didn't allow it gel. Soon it soon looked just like my Taylor of Bond St cream and was clearly at trace, so I made a quick decision glop the cream/soap into bowls (two ceramic ramekins and two short glass bowls) and put them on the shelf. Take a look; that's what proper shave cream looks like. This should be perfect in a few weeks.
Many of the posts, on this forum and others, have said that cold process is not an option, and that a full hot process is the only way to go. But I seem to be having pretty good luck at my hot process, which in actuality is more of warm process (or a cold process with a hot head start). I use my usual crockpot to melt the oils and mix everything up to trace before moulding (or glopping) my soap. I turn off the crockpot as I approach trace, and allow the retained heat to help the saponification process along its merry way. And I only have one pot to clean up, which makes SHMBO very happy
In this case, the lye water and hot oils began tracing quickly, and without the time to stick blend (it was too thick for the stick anyway), I poured my glycerin and kept stirring. I didn't allow it gel. Soon it soon looked just like my Taylor of Bond St cream and was clearly at trace, so I made a quick decision glop the cream/soap into bowls (two ceramic ramekins and two short glass bowls) and put them on the shelf. Take a look; that's what proper shave cream looks like. This should be perfect in a few weeks.
Mark the Box Guy
Well-Known Member
And where was your good friend Phil in all of this drama and excitement???
Berlin Phil is hairy and waiting.
Looking forward to hearing about how you like this one.
I agree about DeaAnna's post. I'm one of those people who has to know the why and the how of things, so I appreciate the scientific analysis of recipes and shared experiences.
I agree about DeaAnna's post. I'm one of those people who has to know the why and the how of things, so I appreciate the scientific analysis of recipes and shared experiences.
