The great shrinking epidemic continues... Are you, too, annoyed at how the ply of toilet paper is getting ever thinner?. A 2-ply roll used to give you nice, thick paper. Now, even when I buy a 3-ply roll, it’s thinner than the 2-ply paper sold in the past.

On another forum, someone else seeks confirmation of their experience with thinning toilet paper and one of the responses says:
“The evil entity I work for sells toilet paper by the case. It IS getting thinner. It is also getting smaller. The owner started in the biz back in the 40's. Early on the standard sheet of toilet paper was 4.5"x4.5". Over the years, manufacturers have slowly shaved off tiny amounts from each dimension. Same price, less paper.”


I’ve bought a 3-ply pack today and if I separate each ply out, there’s no way I could use the resulting 1-ply or 2-ply for anything, they’re SO thin…one little drop of moisture and they’d turn to fairy dust.

“Two-ply toilet paper consists of two layers of 10 thickness paper. One-ply is made of a 13 thickness paper, and so, two-ply is not necessarily twice the thickness.”
(From [www.toiletpaperhistory.net] )

So, following the logic of the above, does it mean that each individual ply of 3-ply paper is even thinner than 10 thickness paper? The roll I’m holding in my hand would seem to confirm it.

Here, many people vent about all the tricks toilet paper manufacturers think they’re pulling off – smaller, thinner, etc:
[webcache.googleusercontent.com] (Note - this page takes a long time to load - you'll get a black screen for anything from 40 to 65 seconds before it loads properly.)


A student (in 2001) did a toilet paper strength experiment -
[www.umd.umich.edu]

Going by all that, I just might be checking out the 1-ply toilet paper next time I’m in town.

I tend to buy thick-ish paper but my gripe is that the inner roll is very large these days....bigger tube to make the roll look just as big :-(

They are doing this with just about every product available. Icecream now comes in 1.6L tubs for the same price as a 2L tub, biscuits are in smaller packs, probably paper towels as well. Its all about supply and demand. They are the company that makes the rules about what they sell and we are gonna keep buying it.

Its all about price!!!

On the topic of the shrinking ice cream tubs, what Kiwi ice cream has done over the last year is change almost all their line to "frozen dessert" instead of true ice cream. I imagine it is a cost saver somehow as they are still at 2L tubs and therefore seem to be a better deal than the 1.6L TipTop.

Personally I find the frozen dessert horrible feeling in the mouth and the taste is quite different. I only figured it out after I bought my kids a tub last year and had a bite, only to be surprised at the texture, so had a good stare at the label.

For whatever reason, their orange choc chip and plain/french vanillas are still ice cream though.

...how strange, I wasn't aware of that as I only ever buy French Vanilla. What about our iconic Hokey Pokey, don't tell me they've meddled with that...?

Regards,

Barbie Girl

I'm fairly certain Hokey Pokey is now a frozen dessert. I went to Kiwi's website to see if I could find out for sure, but they are not specifically listed as such. In fact, they are all under a header "Kiwi Ice Cream" -- which is a little misleading IMO. I suppose they'd say that "Kiwi Ice Cream" is the brand name rather than a product description though. Still feels a little sour though.

In thinking about it (and trying to be generous to Kiwi), I did wonder if somehow it was the added "stuff" (hokey pokey, choc bits, jelly swirls etc) that altered the overall composition of the total product so it could no longer be called ice cream. But it really does seem as though this is a new thing, and I don't believe other manufacturers have stuff-filled ice cream listed as FD instead. It seems like the label would state the contents seperately, as in "ice cream (milk, sugar etc), compound chocolate pieces (cocoa, vegetable fat etc).

Also, their neopolitan is a FD.. and that has no added bits at all! They have re-branded their premium lines into "Much Moore" brand though - hiked the price and it has remained ice cream.

I think I'm probably putting way too much thought into it all, really!

Back to the OT though, that is very interesting about the different ply thicknesses. I always compare sheet size and # sheets per roll when looking at on-sale toilet paper - to ensure I'm actually comparing apples to apples. I can't stand being ripped off by sneaky little changes like that, and therefore resent the amount of extra time I have to spend in the supermarket staring at 6pt print on a variety of items to try and ensure I'm not being done over. Yes it may only be 50c difference, but its the principle of the matter!

...yes, I was thinking that we had wandered off topic, but perhaps there is a connection between the two :-).

Jenna, as the queen of fine print, and still on the subject of bathroom tissue, as it used to be delicately called, do you know if the so-called 'double roll' is indeed twice the length of a regular roll? I've never actually taken the time to compare.

...or it is just another marketing ploy?

Regards,

Barbie Girl



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2011 05:20AM by barbie girl.

The Purex "mega long" rolls, at 500 sheets, are more than double their standard 220 sheet roll, so when they're on sale they make good, and convenient, buying. The Cotton Softs double rolls are 440 sheets, so exactly twice their standard roll. Again, depending on the current pricing they may or may not be worth buying. I haven't bought Cottonelle or Sorbent in some time, so am not familiar with their roll lengths.

Edited to Add: I just looked on Sorbent's website, and their standard roll is only 180 sheets and their "long roll" is 270 - so 1.5 standard rolls. I couldn't find any info on Aus/NZ Kleenex Cottonelle, only the US website the products aren't quite the same.

I think the main trap when buying toilet paper is the large bulk packets of 18 rolls or more. Several brands put shorter 180-190 sheet rolls in these packets, vs the 220 sheets in their 4-12 roll packs. So if you're comparing price per roll, you can end up in the trap of it being less per roll, but you're also getting less paper per roll.

For some reason I can't quite bring myself to get to the level of price per sheet, so I just stick with up to 12 roll packets, and then you're usually, depending on the brand, getting the full size roll.

Oh the sadness of my life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2011 05:59AM by Jenna.

Thank you Jenna - a very comprehensive response. You have confirmed my suspicions that the more rolls in a packet, the smaller the roll. Like you I get very annoyed when I am taken for an idiot and they end up getting more money out of me by sleight of packaging and pricing.

Speaking of which and going off topic for a moment, I always keep an eye on the little shelf stickers which tell you the price per 100g or 100 ml of a product, so at a glance you can see which is the better buy, regardless of packaging and between brands. Sometimes you find that so-called specials are still more expensive than regular priced comparative brands or packages.

So....perhaps we should insist on a 'per sheet' price of all toilet paper brands and packages in our supermarkets, so that we can uncover the evil tricks of the toilet paper manufacturers and bring some happiness to your life, dear Jenna.

Regards,

Barbie Girl



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2011 06:26AM by barbie girl.

Still, and even so, after doing internet searches on Make Your Own Toilet Paper and Alternatives to Toilet Paper, one remains reluctantly grateful for small mercies.....

Oh to have the time to be able to make your own TP.....

Yes, very glad for the nicely bagged up rolls, even if the mfr endeavours to fleece of our pennies here and there ;-)

...indeed, they've got us by the short and curlies!

Maybe some lateral thinking needs to be applied here :-) - A double-sided roll? A washable and reuseable roll? Any more ideas??

Regards,

Barbie Girl.

ummmm........ what about expired telephone directories? We've got a few sitting around doing nothing. Just rip off a few pages, screw em up to make em soft and krinkly, straighten them out again and you're away laughing eh. (Don't worry about the black smudges, no-one see's em).
Regards,
Dawn.
(just joking)! Actually are their any good uses for the old directories?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2011 11:05AM by Dawn.

Gosh if you did that Dawn, your number might come up. Imagine the news ink on your cough cough.

Seriously now - I always put our old ones in the recycling bin.

Oh Irene, it may give the Professional People a different slant on things!

However, I do know that the fairy dust paper as J1 puts it which seems to have gotten into the shopping basked for our little room which was 'on special' nz made two ply with little green flowers sprinkled all over it. Won't be buying that again, takes half the roll to build up a decent thickness.
Regards,
Dawn.

Dawn, I read somewhere that old telephone directories are great for doing Achilles tendon stretches - the Auckland one especially. Many are used to elevate the computer screens of the land. I think they will soon become relics of the past as so few people use them for the intended purpose with White and Yellow pages now being accessible on-line. The sector of the population that may not have a computer probably can't read them because the print is so small. I know they're still delivered to all households up this way - perhaps they should be available on request, rather than delivered routinely.

Sorry, off topic again.

Regards,

Barbie Girl

I agree with you Barbie Girl, mostly telephone books are fast becoming white elephants! What a waste of trees and energy and all the black stuff that gets spread all through them.

But back to the topic of toilet paper, perhaps some of those telephone directories do go into meltdown and come back up as organic? toilet paper? Or egg cartons?
Regards,
Dawn.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2011 03:23AM by Dawn.

Yessss, since 3-ply paper is obviously more useless than 1-ply and 2-ply, I've decided the only way to find value for money is to measure how much you pull from the roll before you feel you have enough in your hand to keep you happy.

So it's no longer about sheet size or sheet numbers per roll or even ply, but how much you grab before you're happy.

So, given that stand-alone 1-ply is apparently thicker than the ply used in 2-ply and 3-ply, there could be reason to believe that less toilet paper would be used when using a doubled-over lot of 1-ply paper than when seeking the happy handful amount of 2-ply. I have trouble believing that but, who knows, maybe it's what Mona Lisa's smiling about.


Edited note: Ah, something about ply I wasn't aware of but makes perfect sense once you know - the first layer of ply needs to be thicker than the rest because it forms the base, so to speak. The layer/s after that can be much thinner because their grain/pattern is different than the first layer and the strength lies in the difference rather than the thickness.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2011 10:28AM by J1.

And then the eternal debate begins of whether to fold or scrunch.......

Oh heck, I'm definitely a very neat folder!
Regards,
Dawn.

Concertina here - is that because I learnt the piano accordion in my childhood years?

For some Friday evening entertainment on toilet paper -v- men, see [forums.plentyoffish.com] BUT NOTE!!! - if you're easily offended/grossed out DO NOT read it!!

Good one for a weekend laugh J1! It makes me shudder to think how many deem it unnecessary to wash hands after visiting a urinal.

On another note - a sign for Male and Female toilets:
Flip Dry. Drip Dry.
Regards,
Dawn.

A bidet is the way to go. Will pay for itself eventually esp where big jobs are concerned.