Angela asks: I recently read about Plank’s Cor Soap and I’m intrigued. Does it live up to its claims? Is this bar of soap so fantastic that it’s worth $125? Thanks for any answers you may be able to provide. Here are the claims:
“Cor utilizes the unique properties of silver…and its healing properties speed cell growth and repair. Cor also contains four different types of Collagen; Chitosan, to even out skin tone and balance oil levels; and Sericin, a silk extract, to lock moisture in and keep UV rays out. This one product cleanses, removes makeup, evens out the skin tone, fades sun spots, maintains the skin’s natural moisture factor, replenishes lost
collagen, and has UV protection.”
The Right Brain CORresponds:
Hang on Angela, I’ll answer your question as soon as I finish this phone call. “Hello? Yes, I’d like to buy 10,000 shares of Plank, the company that makes Cor soap. Why? Because they found a way to convince people to spend $125 on a bar of soap and I want a piece of that action!” Ok, now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s look at ingredients you asked about.
Cor’s Silver Bullet?
The antimicrobial properties of silver are well documented (it works by denaturing the sulfide bonds in bacterial proteins, according to at least one theory.) However, these properties are more relevant to wound care than skin cleansing. As we recently blogged, you don’t need to use antibacterial soaps because regular soap does a fine job as long as you wash properly.
Collagen can’t cut it
Collagen is an important structural protein that gives the deeper layers of your skin structure. Since it’s a very large molecule, collagen can’t penetrate the skin from the outside. So a soap or skin lotion with collagen does nothing to replenish the skin’s native collagen.
Chitosan is questionable
Chitosan is an effective film former and can be part of an effective moisturizing lotion formula. But at best it’s questionable that it can do anything to to “balance out oil.” At worst, chitosan can’t be delivered from a rinse of product so it won’t do anything from this soap.
Silk is not sun safe
Sericin is not an effective UV absorber. Protein molecules just don’t work that way. Secondly, since this is a rinse off product, there are very few sunscreen ingredients that can be delivered from a rinse off product. (See our previous post on Freeze 24/7 for an example of a rinse off sunscreen that really works.
The Beauty Brains Bottom Line
The ingredients used in Cor do not justify its high price tag. Furthermore, some of their supposed benefits (like fading sun spots and providing UV protection) border on being drug claims yet their not using active ingredients that will deliver those benefits. But if you’re determined to throw your money away, you can get a sample of Cor soap for mere $12.
Loading ...
TailFeather Says:
Man, if P.T. Barnum was still alive he’d be in the beauty business.
LuckyGirl Says:
OMG, TailFeather, I was thinking the same thing. It’s a shame that the beauty industry puts bottom-line revenue over honesty. Big bucks for them; big rip-off for us!
Kirsten Says:
also what hasn’t been published is the accumulative effect of silver exposure over time, which may lead to argyria.
The Beauty Brains » Blog Archive » How Pricey Products Baffle Your Brain Says:
[...] The Beauty Brains are often asked if expensive beauty products are worth the money. We’ve blogged about high priced hair lines like Alterna and Kerastase as well as prestige skin care products like IS Clinical and Cor, the worlds most expensive soap. [...]
maggie, soap bartender Says:
not all silver exposure leads to argyria, but yeah, this cor soap is a crock of b.s. (and I’ve been making soap for 13 years!)
Summer Says:
Have any of you actually tried it? I’ve had skin problems my entire life and this soap has actually been working and also works on sun spots. Trust me, its cheaper than visiting a dermatologist multiple times if you have serious skin problems.
Tantrum Says:
It’s clear you haven’t tried it.
Your science is good, but sometimes things are more than the sum of their parts. This soap rocks.
I had vicious folliculitis for 6 years, and it was literally making me suicidal.
My sample cor soap cleared it up and I have the glow of a two year old. As far as cost goes, I think most beauty industry prices are unconscionable.
One bar of soap lasts 6 months, Yes it really does. If you have problem skin how much do you think is okay to spend on a cleanser toner wtf.. ever else, that doesn’t actually work?
Think it through, it’s actually a bargain. I’ve tried La mer Z Bigatti and they didn’t impress me a bit. I’m no price sucker. Science is not the authority, especially when it comes to why things work when scientifically they should not
Why hummingbirds don’t burn up when they fly. Seriously, according to science they should.
Tantrum Says:
Btw
I’ve never paid more than 80.00 for it.
I know it still *sounds* pricey
but 14 dollars a month is a lot less than I was paying before, and that’s for face and body, and all the times I went “damn, I dropped in the sink full of water***again**
It doesn’t disintegrate like other soap.
Left Brain Says:
Don’t be silly. Science doesn’t say hummingbirds should burn up when they fly.
You like the soap, that’s fine. Continue to use it.
But we know the ingredients and based on them, you’re spending too much.
Tantrum Says:
Excuse me?
Silly Not
Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant.
One cannot derive why something works from what Science deems possible.
It wasn’t long ago that scientists said that nothing applied topically would be absorbed into the body. That animals didn’t feel things.. bottled milk was as good as Mothers milk..
Additionally, the hierarchy of Science research and journal publications, can be compared to the mafia. If a new theory is presented, and proven, rather than being embraced, the “old network”
will at all costs try to keep the information from disturbing the established. How much that was deemed nonsense and ‘old wives tales”
has now been “proven” by science to have medical value. Garlic, Chicken soup for a cold, ..it goes on and on.
My husband is a Scientist.
From
Hummingbirds (Float Like a Butterfly)
John Dreves
Science Editor of the apologists.
John Morton, of Wildbirds Unlimited in Vancouver, Canada, was quoted in the same article: “Were we to implement standard scientific measure, at the 50 mph rate of speed, a heart would beat 1,260 times a minute, body temperature would rise to 385 C and then would burst into flames” (as quoted in Dreves).
As for your final comment.
Thats standard for the beauty industry.
Suzi Says:
The soap is worth it!! I love not having to go through multiple steps of a complicated skin care regime. My skin looks better than ever and has a luminous glow that I did not get when using La Mer. Loveit, love it, love it!!
Gabbi Says:
Oh not me no, I’d rather pay for something that doesn’t work so well for me as long as I’m told it “should work”
I love the soap too, actually you never see an ad for it, at least I never did, I was given a sample, and I’ve never been so gushy about anything I’ve tried.
I’m sure that’s why they don’t need to advertise.
Btw. Tantrum
Those are good points. I’m consistantly amazed that people still regurgitate scientific proof, as gospel. Good lord, how many hideous mistakes does it have to make or theories does it have to scoff at and then 10 years later say “OOPS y’all were right sorry’bout the thalidomide thing”
before people realize that it is only one tiny but very arrogant stick, digging for facts in what is unfathomably complex.
thebeautybrains Says:
John Morton is not a scientist (at least not that I could find). And it doesn’t matter if he was a scientist. Hummingbirds obviously don’t burn up and no scientist would claim they do. I am completely missing the point you are trying to make. Science doesn’t claim to be able to predict everything that happens in the world. It just looks at the world, describes it, and makes theories about what other things may or may not be expected to be true.
When did science say nothing applied to the body would be absorbed? Please site a source. Where did science say animals had no feelings? I’ve never heard these things so unless you can site some scientific research, I have to conclude that you are just making these things up or repeating something you misheard.
I’m offended by your characterization of scientists. How is science research compared to the Mafia? Are we killing people?
True, the “old network” may require lots of proof to accept new theories but eventually, Einstein’s radical new theories were accepted, Darwin’s theory was accepted, etc. Science doesn’t depend on the people involved, just the strength of the evidence presented.
There’s no evidence that this soap generally performs better than other soaps you could buy for much less money. I don’t know, perhaps your skin is unique. But more likely is that you stopped trying other soaps once you got positive results with this one
Science is not perfect. Half of all things written in peer reviewed, scientific journals were found to be incorrect within 10 years of publication. No one is claiming that it is perfect. But science is the best we’ve got. It is a self-correcting system that can be temporarily fooled until new evidence is discovered that changes the way we think about the world. Each discovery leads us closer and closer to the truth.
Incidentally, chicken soup doesn’t cure colds.
Tantrum Says:
I did not claim that scientists say hummingbirds burn up. Honestly I feel silly even having to write that.
Using calculations of speed, rate of wing movement, and science theory, science would predict that a hummingbird would burn up in flight. However obviously they do not.
I did not say scientists say they burn up, anywhere
Chicken soup does not cure colds however it has been discovered anti inflammatory properties, which help clear the nasal passages and relieve pain.
I did not say “cure” anywhere.
I compared science research to the mafia, indirectly it has killed people, but that was not what I was trying to say. It was an exaggeration to make a point. It’s very difficult and get can ugly when an attempt is made to have new research published, when it goes against the grain.
I’m quite surprised at the liberties you took with what I said, considering your claim to be science minded.
Science being the “best we’ve got” is certainly debatable, and something I don’t wish to get into especially here.
As for things being applied topically not being absorbed, and animals not having feelings. If you truly are interested, the (mis) information is very easy to find.
This is my last post on this subject
please don’t take my lack of response to what you may say as agreement.
I think your last sentence is true, yet you don’t preface any of your claims with “According to present scientific bresearch, this is a false claim” or any other disclaimer, you make the statements conclusive.
Incidentally, “An unbiased scientific way” is self contradicting. I’m sure the bias you speak of is that of the cosmetic companies, but there is a little thing called the “scientific bias” you may have heard of, one which dismisses anecdotal evidence, until it can be “proven” by scientific discipline.
If you have not heard of it, please dont’ ask me “where I got it from”
It’s as easy to find as the other statements that you didn’t know the source of.
Left Brain Says:
Of course, taking into account the hummingbird’s cooling system explains exactly why they don’t burn up.
Thanks so much for your comments as you’ve provided me the opportunity to think about my own positions and clarify my thoughts on the subject.
You and I will just have to agree to disagree. I think science is unbiased. Anecdotal evidence is inherently unreliable. While it can direct scientific inquiry and provide interesting ideas to investigate, it is worthless for determining what is true or not.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Tantrum Says:
You’re welcome : )
I always like having new thoughts thrown my way too, well not *always* sometimes I think I’d like to be sure of something.. anything..
Tantrum Says:
Sorry!
I sincerely thought that it was well known that skins impermeability was considered “a given”
You asked me to site a source so I will
maybe it’s because I’m older than you.
I really don’t want to get heavy, but I also have a dislike for claims made without sources. Probably cause my mom does the “Well they say that…”
never defining “they” okay have I gone on long enough.
Here’s one source, I could find more, but
hey, I’m tired, and it’s a beauty site.
I don’t want to suck the fun out of it
If you ask me to phrase it according to the proper format I will yell! I haven’t been in school for a while, so I just forgot.
From Pharmacology and Science.
by H. Richard Adams - 2001 - Medical - 1201 pages
Prior to the 20th century,scientists believed that skin was an impermeable barrier to all substances, except possibly gases
Okay now lets get back to bubble and creams and all things that make us feel lovely.
Karen Says:
OMG LOL!!!! Left brain
I don’t have your willpower Tantrum
I can’t let invented facts (ironic)
and definitive untrue statements go unchecked.
A “hummingbird cooling system” That would be the legendary cooling system yes.
Lets see you googled hummingbird and picked up the first line of every search. You know how I know, because that’s what I did. I knew birds don’t have cooling systems.
Too bad you didn’t read to find out the cooling system they were talking about was electric and used for aviaries
Birds don’t have “cooling systems” That’s why they take bird baths, it’s why some migrate, as do hummingbirds.
As for anecdotal evidence being worthless. I’m going to mimic your extreme statement by saying that’s stupid. No scientist worth their salt would dismiss anecdotal evidence as worthless. You are I think referring to things like someone saying I rubbed an egg on my head every day for a week and I am cured, when the cure would have happened anyway.
Anecdotal evidence is often what is known before science deems it worthy by finding out the reason, or partial reason for it.
Any mother would tell you a baby needs to be held to thrive.
it’s hard to believe but science denied that basic fact.
Twelve years ago, a hospital in Chicago ran short of incubators and women volunteers were asked to hold the babies and keep them warm around the clock. Guess what?
The babies that were held, did better than those kept in incubators, and the medical profession was so surprised by this that a study was done to find out the reason. That part shouldn’t be surprising, up until the early 1980’s surgery was done on babies without anesthetic.
In some cases it’s because of the risk of the anaesthetic itself,
the other reason given was that babies didn’t feel pain the way adults do. That has been proven false, thanks to the outcries of parents.
Essential oils people used them for centuries as curative. Science deemed it, worthless. Now it’s widely accepted that essential oils are indeed able to disinfect, and have curative powers.
Many psychiatrists will tell you they learn from their patients what works for people, in cases of depression for instance. They’ve also been quoted as saying
“We don’t know why, but it works”
Fire burned people long before science could tell you why.
It’s extremely nieve to think that science is unbiased. When cosmetic companies, and pharmaceutical companies
want a product put on the market, data is forged, studies are ‘rigged’ and it’s killed people. New silver bullet non addictive drugs are coming out all the time.
A few years later cases of rushed and improper studies will come to light, showing that potentially fatal side effects, were swept under the rug, or the studies were done in third world countries where people’s lives are more expendable. ie. Depo Provera
I know you asked Tantrum to site a source, I’m not going to, all one has to do is read, and employ some critical thinking skills.
Tantrum Says:
Funny! the cooling system I got when I googled was referring to the hummingbird machine engine. Thats a little scary coming from a fact finder.
Hummingbirds have more trouble staying warm than cool, more so than any other bird, they definitely don’t need a system. It’s also why they migrate to warm temperatures.
Thanks for the indirect validation Karen, but I think it’s time to close this topic
Tasha Says:
Thanks for a most interesting and unexpected discussion all of you. There’s a soap I’m thinking about buying now, but a book I most definitely will not be. I’m disappointed.
thebeautybrains Says:
@Karen
http://www.nhm.org/birds/guide/pg004.html
Birds have a cooling system. The air sacs around their lungs.
Yawn. Your arguments are boring, simplistic, and unsupportable.
You want to waste your money on overpriced soap, go ahead. There is nothing anyone could say to convince you otherwise.
And I never said anecdotal evidence was worthless. I said “it is worthless for determining what is true or not.” Please read what is written.
This is just silly. “Any mother would tell you a baby needs to be held to thrive. it’s hard to believe but science denied that basic fact. Twelve years ago, a hospital in Chicago ran short of incubators and women volunteers were asked to hold the babies and keep them warm around the clock”
If science denied it, why would a SCIENTIST do the study in the first place? It’s because a scientist was curious and they pursued their curiosity. That’s what science does. It looks for questions that it can’t answer, and finds an answer.