I wan't suggesting anyone didn't know how to use a brush and I think these sorts of threads are great. Productive discussion even about negative experiences is better than people going off about a particular item or maker in a negative rant. This is useful.
I think its interesting that brush makers specify to use their brushes in a way that everybody knows nobody does. How do you make a lather if you don't swirl or move in circular motions. You don't have to mash and with softer soaps obviously don't want to but it just seems...silly? Ah, not so fast. I am in one of my secret identities, a lawyer and I have read some product liability cases specifically with respect to failures of certain building materials. Its a classic defence of a manufacturer to a lawsuit over building materials that have failed in application that the user did not use and or apply the material according to the specifications. Seems obvious enough right? Yes, however, in some instances the courts found upon closer reading of the specifications that it was actually impossible to comply with the specifications and therefore found the manufacturers liable for damages. The case I'm thinking of related to high tech spray on stucco. Damages can be direct, ie, the cost of the stucco and application thereof and indirect, ie, the cost to repair the damage to the building structure and contents when the exterior envelope was compromised leading to moisture incursion, damage, mould, health issues of occupants etc. The latter class of damages can be huge, potentially unlimited and ruinous to a business which is why limiting liability is always a big deal in contracts. But I digress... I believe that due to the uncertain nature of natural bristle brush materials and the manner of their use in the hands of the purchaser, brush makers have intentionally specified a proper manner of use that they know nobody will comply with as a defence to claims for shedding or otherwise defective brushes. Your bristles fell out? You didn't use it right. You abused it and therefore are the author of your own misfortune. Claim denied.
OK, to be fair, because I'm nothing if not fair, I've not seen this limitation of liability wording in any artisan brush makers documentation that I've looked at and only seen it in that of makers like Rooney, Simpson or Thater, Maybe a few others. But I don't think its necessarily unreasonable in this context. Brushes will lose some bristles and users will exercise a varying degree of care for their brushes. Some people (most people?) accept that they're going to lose some bristles and are fine with it while some people will literally lose their mind over the loss of a single bristle and unleash their furious wrath upon the maker. The makers are generally diligent and helpful and want to provide the best product they can but they need to protect themselves from the latter types of customers.
