Barrister and Mann

Will,

I've a sneaking suspicion Marko likes Kyovu.
Per chance, have you noticed as such too ?

Upon a serious note, it surprises me that it is not more popular, considering the issues you have with international freight and alcohol in products.

Holy crap, I hadn't realized there was talk of a reformulation. I was just shaving with Hallows today thinking I've encountered plenty of good soaps, a few great soaps, but only one beats them all. My initial reaction is one of alarm and makes me want to scream, "Sacrilege!". I saw some of Eric's review which was reassuring.

It will be very interesting to compare the new formula if I ever get to the bottom of my current supply.

Holy crap, I hadn't realized there was talk of a reformulation. I was just shaving with Hallows today thinking I've encountered plenty of good soaps, a few great soaps, but only one beats them all. My initial reaction is one of alarm and makes me want to scream, "Sacrilege!". I saw some of Eric's review which was reassuring.

It will be very interesting to compare the new formula if I ever get to the bottom of my current supply.

Barrister and Mann is my favorite Artisan. If Will is reformulating an already outstanding soap, I'd have to trust his judgement. I'll definitely be buying the new soap, looking forward one that outperforms the current formula.

Will, I was wondering if I could pick your brain once more - there's a thread on off the wall scents in shaving soaps somewhere on this forum and one of the members (Number 6) has included B&M 42 on his list of off the wall scents.  I shaved with 42 today (and it was awesome) to see whether or not I agreed with Number 6 and I don't.  I find it to be different from the mainstream, naturally as it is a B&M soap and contains panGalactic gargleblast, however not so far off that I'd call it off the wall - I find it a hopeful, optimistic scent and not dark and foreboding like some of your other soaps that I would say are off the wall.  What were you going for when you came up with 42?

Thanks,
Mark
aka, lover of Kyovu

Ok Mark now I have to revisit 42.

Thanks Will, the labels are nice, staid, serious and traditional.  Thats my interpretation in any case.  Is there any significance to your new logo?  I've been involved in the branding process in previous lives and sometimes names/logos have deep significance and sometimes they're chosen just because they're cool.  Eventually they come to be associated with the company and/or its products and form part of the goodwill like that little apple with the bite taken out of it.
Mark

There is, actually. An extremely talented team of designers is currently working on helping us spruce up the branding for B&M a bit and the logo is the first of their deliverables. It's a nod to my interest in aromachemistry and to the Theory of Vibrational Olfaction proposed by Dr. Luca Turin in the mid-90s. The symbol represents the vibrational bond between two molecules, which Turin theorizes is what allows the brain to interpret what a specific aromachemical should smell like.

The vibrational theory of olfaction is an interesting one, but I'm not convinced. Comparisons are made to the senses of sight and hearing but this to me seems apples to oranges. Sight and sound are responsive to frequencies because the stimulus is merely energy distributed over a continuous dimension (~350-750nm sight; 20Hz-20kHz sound). there is no receptor/ligand interaction with these senses. On the contrary, smell results from the interaction between volatile compounds and their receptors. I'd be wary of drawing too many comparisons between the spectral senses with olfaction. There doesn't seem to be a need for spectral system with odor since there isn't a continuous dimension as with vison or sound. I'm also skeptical of some of the experiments used to support Turin's theory, specifically the deuterated compounds. The assumption is that the shape of the deuterated molecule remains the same while the differing vibration frequency accounts for the observation of a different smell. The problem is that deuterating the compound affects other physical properties which could also affect how the compound might bind to a receptor. Enantiomers are another challenge which hasn't been adequately addressed. I imagine this could be a fun chat over a beer or a scotch.

Crystal structures of the receptor in the bound and unbound state to various ligands could go a long way to resolving the issue.


The foregoing notwithstanding, I have a greater appreciation for the new branding Will - kudos for subtle inclusion of science.

Of course, I'm not nearly as familiar with olfaction as you are Will, but you've piqued my interest and I'm keen to read more.

Thanks Will, the labels are nice, staid, serious and traditional.  Thats my interpretation in any case.  Is there any significance to your new logo?  I've been involved in the branding process in previous lives and sometimes names/logos have deep significance and sometimes they're chosen just because they're cool.  Eventually they come to be associated with the company and/or its products and form part of the goodwill like that little apple with the bite taken out of it.
Mark

There is, actually. An extremely talented team of designers is currently working on helping us spruce up the branding for B&M a bit and the logo is the first of their deliverables. It's a nod to my interest in aromachemistry and to the Theory of Vibrational Olfaction proposed by Dr. Luca Turin in the mid-90s. The symbol represents the vibrational bond between two molecules, which Turin theorizes is what allows the brain to interpret what a specific aromachemical should smell like.

The vibrational theory of olfaction is an interesting one, but I'm not convinced.  Comparisons are made to the senses of sight and hearing but this to me seems apples to oranges.  Sight and sound are responsive to frequencies because the stimulus is merely energy distributed over a continuous dimension (~350-750nm sight; 20Hz-20kHz sound).  there is no receptor/ligand interaction with these senses.  On the contrary, smell results from the interaction between volatile compounds and their receptors. I'd be wary of drawing too many comparisons between the spectral senses with olfaction.  There doesn't seem to be a need for spectral system with odor since there isn't a continuous dimension as with vison or sound.  I'm also skeptical of some of the experiments used to support Turin's theory, specifically the deuterated compounds.  The assumption is that the shape of the deuterated molecule remains the same while the differing vibration frequency accounts for the observation of a different smell.  The problem is that deuterating the compound affects other physical properties which could also affect how the compound might bind to a receptor.  Enantiomers are another challenge which hasn't been adequately addressed. I imagine this could be a fun chat over a beer or a scotch.

Crystal structures of the receptor in the bound and unbound state to various ligands could go a long way to resolving the issue.


The foregoing notwithstanding, I have a greater appreciation for the new branding Will - kudos for subtle inclusion of science.

So it's not just me.

All evidence has been buried, all tapes have been erased.

There is, actually. An extremely talented team of designers is currently working on helping us spruce up the branding for B&M a bit and the logo is the first of their deliverables. It's a nod to my interest in aromachemistry and to the Theory of Vibrational Olfaction proposed by Dr. Luca Turin in the mid-90s. The symbol represents the vibrational bond between two molecules, which Turin theorizes is what allows the brain to interpret what a specific aromachemical should smell like.

The vibrational theory of olfaction is an interesting one, but I'm not convinced.  Comparisons are made to the senses of sight and hearing but this to me seems apples to oranges.  Sight and sound are responsive to frequencies because the stimulus is merely energy distributed over a continuous dimension (~350-750nm sight; 20Hz-20kHz sound).  there is no receptor/ligand interaction with these senses.  On the contrary, smell results from the interaction between volatile compounds and their receptors. I'd be wary of drawing too many comparisons between the spectral senses with olfaction.  There doesn't seem to be a need for spectral system with odor since there isn't a continuous dimension as with vison or sound.  I'm also skeptical of some of the experiments used to support Turin's theory, specifically the deuterated compounds.  The assumption is that the shape of the deuterated molecule remains the same while the differing vibration frequency accounts for the observation of a different smell.  The problem is that deuterating the compound affects other physical properties which could also affect how the compound might bind to a receptor.  Enantiomers are another challenge which hasn't been adequately addressed. I imagine this could be a fun chat over a beer or a scotch.

Crystal structures of the receptor in the bound and unbound state to various ligands could go a long way to resolving the issue.


The foregoing notwithstanding, I have a greater appreciation for the new branding Will - kudos for subtle inclusion of science.

So it's not just me.

All evidence has been buried, all tapes have been erased.

For those not aware, Erlenmeyer has a Ph.D in chemistry.

Erlenmeyer, you make some excellent points and I definitely think that there is quite a lot to be hashed out regarding the mechanism of olfaction yet. I agree that there are problems with Turin's hypothesis and his paper, but I also think that to declare that olfaction is based purely on shape-oriented ligands is alarmingly limiting for a mechanism that's so poorly understood. At any rate, I think that the idea that our noses contain tiny TEMs is extremely interesting even as a thought experiment, despite any problems that may arise. And you're 100% right that crystal structures would help quite a bit, but I'm unaware of anyone currently conducting that kind of work. It's really unfortunate; there's so much to be learned yet!