|
Thread Number: 48396
Oldest All detergent stiil in existence? |
[Down to Last] |  |
Post# 701266 9/4/2013 at 23:36 (3,885 days old) by Supersuds  (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
 | ||
|
|
Post# 701267 , Reply# 1 9/4/2013 at 23:37 (3,885 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
Thee cardboard boxes... | ||
|
Post# 701268 , Reply# 2 9/4/2013 at 23:38 (3,885 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
| ||
|
Post# 701269 , Reply# 3 9/4/2013 at 23:39 (3,885 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
Packed in your new automatic washer, perhaps | ||
|
Post# 701270 , Reply# 4 9/4/2013 at 23:41 (3,885 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
But of course it's good for ALL cleaning chores | ||
|
Post# 701271 , Reply# 5 9/4/2013 at 23:43 (3,885 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
Just to ram to point home | ||
|
Post# 701272 , Reply# 6 9/4/2013 at 23:44 (3,885 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
And a booklet.. | ||
|
Post# 701273 , Reply# 7 9/4/2013 at 23:45 (3,885 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
Who will need plenty of time... | ||
|
Post# 701274 , Reply# 8 9/4/2013 at 23:46 (3,885 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
More background | ||
|
Post# 701275 , Reply# 9 9/4/2013 at 23:48 (3,885 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
But a breakthrough... | ||
|
Post# 701276 , Reply# 10 9/4/2013 at 23:49 (3,885 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
Hard water problems... | ||
|
Post# 701277 , Reply# 11 9/4/2013 at 23:51 (3,885 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
No other water softener needed | ||
|
Post# 701278 , Reply# 12 9/4/2013 at 23:53 (3,885 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
And if that isn't enough... | ||
|
Post# 701279 , Reply# 13 9/4/2013 at 23:55 (3,885 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
But what if I want some old-fashioned suds? | ||
|
Post# 701282 , Reply# 14 9/4/2013 at 23:57 (3,885 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
I don't know exactly how old all this is, but it has to be before 1957, when Monsanto sold All to Lever Brothers. The drawings look more late 40s - early 50s than mid-Fifties to me, but that's just a guess.
Anyway, it's old. The contents are partly solidified, but I think with a little massaging could be brought back to pourable condition. I'm not going to try using it, though, tempting as it is. | ||
| Post# 701319 , Reply# 15 9/5/2013 at 05:52 (3,885 days old) by gorenje (Slovenia) | ||
 | ||
| Post# 701321 , Reply# 17 9/5/2013 at 05:54 (3,885 days old) by gorenje (Slovenia) | ||
|
Pic. # 2 | ||
| Post# 701324 , Reply# 18 9/5/2013 at 06:17 (3,885 days old) by danemodsandy (The Bramford, Apt. 7-E) | ||
This Is One....
....Of the detergent smells I wish I could experience again. I've mentioned my grandmother's use of Oxydol here before, but All brings back memories of my great-aunt Aena. I still remember one particular visit, sitting in the kitchen of her house in Grant Park, having something good to eat and enjoying the smell of All permeating the room while she did some laundry.
This would have been somewhere around 1955-56; I even remember that my great-uncle Duel was watching Arthur Godfrey that day. | ||
|
Post# 701338 , Reply# 19 9/5/2013 at 08:06 (3,885 days old) by gansky1 (Omaha, The Home of the TV Dinner!) |
||
Super cool find, even in their mailing boxes! I have a couple of vintage all boxes but none are from the original Monsanto Co., I didn't realize they were the original inventor of this detergent. Fascinating.
We used all from time to time when Dash wasn't on sale for our GE Filter-Flo. I had an aunt that used it almost exclusively and still remember the smell of laundry day at her house. all, Clorox and Downy - great memories. | ||
|
Post# 701447 , Reply# 20 9/5/2013 at 19:55 (3,884 days old) by d-jones (Western Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh Area)) |
||
 One pretty reliable way to determine the approximate age of vintage laundry detergents (and many other household products) is to look through the advertising literature for that product that's frequently listed on eBay. As the graphics on the actual product packaging changed every few years, the ads were generally updated to reflect the change. So if you should find vintage ads from 1957, 1958 and 1959 that show packaging with the same graphics found on the item you have, but the graphics in the ads from 1956 and 1960 are different, you can be fairly certain your item was made between 1957 and 1959. It's not foolproof, but it does tend to work.
Based on the advertising that's currently listed on eBay I'd guess that Ingemar's box of "all" was made after 1949, but prior to 1953. The ad seen below is from 1953 and the box the woman is holding has a great deal in common with Ingemar's. In fact, the only noticeable difference is the use of a stylized version of the name "all," which would indicate that his is older, especially since the stylized "all" would continue to be used in one form or another for decades to come. Also noteworthy is that in reply 8 and 9 above, Ingemar's box of "all" can be seen on the pages of the pamphlets John has. So all in all (no pun intended) this is a very interesting and fun find. 
This post was last edited 09/06/2013 at 01:14 | ||
|
Post# 701490 , Reply# 21 9/5/2013 at 23:23 (3,884 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
Great detective work there, David It appears the weight of the evidence is greatly towards Ingemar having the oldest box. Oh, well...couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
Tom, I used dishwasher All till they quit making it. It seemed to work just as well as anything and usually cost less. Lever seemed to decide to put all their weight behind Sunlight dishwasher detergent and forgot about All.
Sandy & Greg: The scent of vintage All brings back memories for me too...at least of the late Sixties version (I don't know if it was different in the Fifties). My mom and favorite aunt both used it much of the time, although we only briefly had a frontloader. (It leaked so much we spent more time at the laundromat than at home).
Those buckets of All show up frequently on eBay, empty of course. | ||
| Post# 701491 , Reply# 22 9/5/2013 at 23:25 (3,884 days old) by whirlcool (Just North Of Houston, Texas) | ||
|
What I want to know is if low suds-no suds detergents were being touted so much in the early 50's why do we still have high sudsing detergents today? Don't people learn anything? | ||
|
Post# 701493 , Reply# 23 9/5/2013 at 23:32 (3,884 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 701507 , Reply# 24 9/6/2013 at 01:01 (3,884 days old) by gorenje (Slovenia) | ||
|
| ||
|
Post# 701510 , Reply# 25 9/6/2013 at 02:42 (3,884 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
What I want to know is if low suds-no suds detergents were b
Simple; ever since persons have been washing/cleaning with soap high levels of froth equated with good cleaning action.
Soap performs many functions when in comes to cleaning, especially for laundry. In addition to removing dirt and other soils it also softens water; not very effectively nor cheaply for that matter but there you are. When soap meets hard water minerals more product must be added to replace the amount softening water. The most reliable visual indicator of how most soaps are performing is via the level of suds. Long as you see froth in great numbers it means there is sufficient product to water ratio to ensure good cleaning. This is why you see adverts for soap based laundry products go on about "thick, rich, billowy and lasting suds". It also explains why dosage amounts tended to be rather loose with follow-up cautions to always maintain a "one inch" layer of froth and or that suds reach half-way up a washing machine's door window. It was against this backdrop that P&G launched Tide detergent, and sales initially bombed. Housewives in the 1940's had learned to do wash using soap and thus equated froth with cleaning action. The original Tide was very low sudsing so consumers avoided the stuff in droves. P&G was forced to reformulate Tide to add froth intensifiers and *THEN* sales took off. Tide became the top ranking laundry product in sales over any other detergent and certainly soap. A spot it has held ever since. Because American's by and large stuck with top loading washing machines with central beaters, high sudsing detergents could still be used, and were often preferred regardless of what Monsanto, Lever Bros and others tried to do in order to convince them otherwise. Even today most American housewives (or anyone else doing the wash) believes large amounts of froth equal good cleaning action. In Europe Henkel and other detergent makers realized after the War front loading washing machines were where the domestic laundry market was heading. Yes, there were twin tubs, some top loaders, etc... but by and large H-Axis washers came to dominate the market. This meant detergents had to be low sudsing for all the reasons Monsanto, Lever Bros, etc.. had been saying for years. There is not such thing as "HE" detergents in Europe as most all laundry detergents are low sudsing. Those that aren't tend to fall into special groups such as twin-tub products. It will be interesting to see how much longer the United States detergent market remains divided between high and low suds detergent. With front loaders and low water use top loaders pushing out older water hungry machines, there is really no need for high froth detergents. | ||
|
Post# 701668 , Reply# 27 9/6/2013 at 22:51 (3,883 days old) by Supersuds (Knoxville, Tenn.) |
||
|
| ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
