• Domain Change - We have moved to https://paste-and-cut.com as our new domain.

    If you are using shortcuts or bookmarks for the old paste-and-cut.com.au domain, you need to update these or they will cease working from the 25th January, 2025. Please check the notice post for more details on this change to the forum.

Lanolin irritation and Mikes Natural

Holiday said:
Thank you all for the good advice.

Yes, but I thought everybody found scritchy wool irritable

As suggested by @nsavage in very small quantities with someone around.

Thanks @Monsta_AU will investigate options.
Click to expand...
I'm going to go one step further and offer some additional words of caution.

Back of your hand (which I previously suggested) is a good option but bear in mind that the skin there may not be as sensitive (the exact reason why it is a good starting point). This does not mean however that you will not have a reaction on your face. After a successful test on the back of your hand I would suggest behind your ear. This is a little more risky but is also considered a relatively safe spot. That may not ultimately mean that having lanolin exposed to skin that has been damaged by the act of shaving will not be an irritant.

The ultimate way to find out would be a prick test as suggested by @Monsta_AU.

I do have to say I am interested that you do not have a reaction with Stirling soaps. They use lanolin and they use fragrance oils.
 
Holiday said:
Thank you all for the good advice.

Yes, but I thought everybody found scritchy wool irritable

As suggested by @nsavage in very small quantities with someone around.

Thanks @Monsta_AU will investigate options.
Click to expand...

I find most upper first layer of wool itchy (but I have high end wool first layer from Norway not itchy, it cost me a liver and half a lung), but never an issue with soap with lanolin, sometimes with clay I got bad shaves AFAICT.
 
@Holiday if you want to try the Mike's, we could do a short-term swap of something? I'll send you my last tin of Orange & Peppercorn to try for a week, you send me something cool like Stirling or Tcheon Fung Sing? Hit me up with what you got if you want to have a crack.
 
nav1 said:
Stirling has lanolin doesn't it?
@Holiday aren't you using Stirling without issue?
Click to expand...
Most non-Vegan appear to have some lanolin, apparently refinement of natural free alcohols in Lanolin to below 3 % will reduce allergic reaction.
Gargravarr said:
Maybe Stirling is just nicer. ;)
Click to expand...
(y)
Mong. said:
@Holiday if you want to try the Mike's, we could do a short-term swap of something? I'll send you my last tin of Orange & Peppercorn to try for a week, you send me something cool like Stirling or Tcheon Fung Sing? Hit me up with what you got if you want to have a crack.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the offer @Mong. postage back and forth would not be cost effective. At the time I was looking for a Bay Rum to replace Col Conk but am happy using the one tub of Ogallala with both aftershaves for now.
 
Ogallala is good stuff. No worries mate. (y)
 
Holiday said:
Most non-Vegan appear to have some lanolin, apparently refinement of natural free alcohols in Lanolin to below 3 % will reduce allergic reaction.
Click to expand...
Have you tried Whispers From The Woods? No lanolin there. I found her Lavande a touch drying, but All Things Nice gets a lot of loving around here, so others clearly don't have that problem...
 
Gargravarr said:
My bad, I was under the impression that all of her soaps were vegan, but maybe it's only the Lavande. That might explain my minor drying issues...
Click to expand...

The B&M reserve line of soaps are lanolin free. Did you get rid of one recently?
 
rhodes96 said:
The B&M reserve line of soaps are lanolin free. Did you get rid of one recently?
Click to expand...
Yes, I traded my new B&M Waves with @Rabid Badger. Hope he likes it... :) I hadn't even noticed they were lanolin-free, I just took it for granted that anything with the B&M name on it would perform perfectly.
 
Haven't proven it is a Lanolin irritation yet, I'm just not masochistic enough to cause pain to myself o_O and waste money doing it :greedy:
 
Holiday said:
Haven't proven it is a Lanolin irritation yet, I'm just not masochistic enough to cause pain to myself o_O and waste money doing it :greedy:
Click to expand...
I waste enough money buying soaps I don't end up liking (sigh...) :rolleyes:

Oh for an internet smellogram, so we can sniff before we buy...
 
Gargravarr said:
I waste enough money buying soaps I don't end up liking (sigh...) :rolleyes:

Oh for an internet smellogram, so we can sniff before we buy...
Click to expand...

True would generate savings in the long run. To think how frugal I was in the early days always smelling before buying
 
Should bring back the sample trade. Chuck a 20c piece sized soap sample in some backing paper, whack it in an envelope and pay $1.10 postage. exchange samples so someone isn't copping the cost of sending product and postage.
 
Wilkshire13 said:
Should bring back the sample trade. Chuck a 20c piece sized soap sample in some backing paper, whack it in an envelope and pay $1.10 postage. exchange samples so someone isn't copping the cost of sending product and postage.
Click to expand...
This was done before? Bloody good idea...
 
Gargravarr said:
This was done before? Bloody good idea...
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t think so, if, some arsehole from the Aussie Post pick up a weird scent from the envelope or small package. Chances are he/she may open it without your approval, or, pass it to the bloody dog for caution and stuffing drugs detection custom swat.
 
SpeedyPC said:
Wouldn’t think so, if, some arsehole from the Aussie Post pick up a weird scent from the envelope or small package. Chances are he/she may open it without your approval, or, pass it to the bloody dog for caution and stuffing drugs detection custom swat.
Click to expand...
A Ziploc bag might do it. A small vacuum pack definitely would, though I would guess that a lot of us wouldn't have a vac-packer. Writing "soap sample" on the envelope might help.
 
Gargravarr said:
This was done before? Bloody good idea...
Click to expand...

And now if the item is too thick to fit through a mail opening you will have no choice but to pay a min of $8.95 regards of the weight. I got slugged this the other day for posting something 15mm thick weighing 30grams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top