This was posted 7 months 7 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Bamboo Toilet Paper - 48 Double Length Rolls $52.80 (20% off) + Delivery ($0 to Most Areas) @ Who Gives a Crap

813
Bamboo Toilet Paper - 48 Double Length Rolls $52.80 (20% off) + Delivery ($0 to Most Areas) @ Who Gives a Crap
Go to Deal
Cashback
Hardearnedcash on 20/09/2023 - 16:56 au.whogivesacrap.org (2088 clicks)
Last edited 20/09/2023 - 21:40 by 1 other user
BAMBOO20

The company is called "Who Gives a Cr@p". The company rarely discounts and the code should apply at cart across the product range. There is also 2.1% shopback.

The company say they use renewable and sustainable bamboo and the company claims 50% of profits are donated. Seems pretty worldly to me. Read more here on their impact to earth: https://au.whogivesacrap.org/pages/our-impact

100% money back guarantee. Carbon neutral shipping. For skeptics of the claims, it would pretty much ballpark with other TP brands you source at your local TP provider.

In a jiffy, it feels more like Quilton than Kleenex but stronger than both based on folding three sheets and giving yourself a wipe. Your experience may differ but let's just say Earth had never reached Uranus, unlike other TP brands. No concerns about leaving behind an asteroid belt.

Let the cr@p jokes begin…it's only Wednesday.

Referral Links

Referral: random (73)

Referrer and referee get $10 credit, after referee spends $58 or more.

Home & Garden Toilet Paper

Related Stores

Who Gives a Crap
Who Gives a Crap

closed Comments

  • M00Cow on 20/09/2023 - 17:00
    +11

    Good find, excellent description.

  • PVA on 20/09/2023 - 17:01
    -2

    Folding sheets? Should be scrunching…

    • AustriaBargain on 20/09/2023 - 17:21
      +5

      Yup. The scrunch provides folds which lets you scrape the shit off your cheeks. Folding produces a flat surface area which just ribs the shit in. I love that we can say shit on OZB.

      • WorstAgreeableRadish on 21/09/2023 - 07:15

        Only a problem if you tp is too smooth. Some brands feel like the receipts you get at Coles.

    • cheaptech20 on 20/09/2023 - 19:43
      +7

      It’s been proven that folders use 50 perfect less toilet paper overall than scrunchers - so as an ozbargainer you should be a folder!

      • viper8548 on 20/09/2023 - 21:58
        +1

        what about fold then scrunch?

  • Junglegreen on 20/09/2023 - 17:03
    -2

    ahh the real bathroom deal. These rolls last a long time and I can personally vouch for the paper quality.

    Plus, by the time you go through a box of these, you have paid twice this much on Quilton/Kleenex.

    • bienvenu on 20/09/2023 - 17:14
      +17

      Plus, by the time you go through a box of these, you have paid twice this much on Quilton/Kleenex.

      I don't think so:

      • Amazon Quilton 45x 180 sheet rolls $21.60 with S&S
        45*180 = 8100 sheets
        $2.67 / ksheet
        Each sheet is 11x10cm

      • This is 48x 370 sheet rolls for $52.80
        48*370 = 17760 sheets
        $2.97 / ksheet
        Each sheet is 10x10cm (smaller)

      Not saying this is a bad deal, but it isn't saving you money (just the planet maybe?).

      • incipient on 20/09/2023 - 17:17
        +37

        Not really saving the planet. Definitely better off buying Australian made toilet paper rather than shipping it from china (this is Chinese toilet paper).

        • get-innocuous on 20/09/2023 - 17:26
          +5

          It does seem to be more complex than that but yes ideally it wouldn't be shipped from China, even though the shipping is fully carbon offset.

          • 1st-Amendment on 20/09/2023 - 17:42
            +19

            @get-innocuous:

            shipping is fully carbon offset.

            Which is yet another feel good scam…

            • get-innocuous on 20/09/2023 - 18:29
              +2

              @1st-Amendment: it obviously depends on the offset provider (they do detail the ones they use here) but i suppose this is ozbargain so why expect anything other than a "(profanity) you got mine" attitude

              • 1st-Amendment on 20/09/2023 - 18:57
                +1

                @get-innocuous:

                it obviously depends on the offset provider

                The very concept itself is flawed. How can you possibly measure the success or failure of such a scheme by any tangible outcome?

                i suppose this is ozbargain so why expect anything other than…

                Honesty?

                If something is a scam then it would be irresponsible not to call it out. What's interesting is that your attitude seems to suffer from the very thing you are protesting against.

                If you want more evidence of this being a feel good scam, see if you can tell me what is wrong with the claims on this page: https://support.whogivesacrap.org/hc/en-au/articles/11940805…

                • gmatht on 20/09/2023 - 19:42

                  @1st-Amendment: Well, it suggests that TP would cause deforestation, whereas I assume most TP comes from pine plantations? That may be misleading marketing, but your previous post kind of reads as if carbon offsetting is a scam in general.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 21/09/2023 - 08:53
                    +4

                    @gmatht:

                    it suggests that TP would cause deforestation, whereas I assume most TP comes from pine plantations?

                    Correct! And using their numbers, the amount of global TP supply could be provided Australia plantation timber alone. ie It's a non-problem made to sound like a problem to part you with your money.
                    2nd interesting point. Plantation timber products that end up in landfill (like TP) is actually a form of carbon sequestration. So if that's your thing, then growing existing plantation forests and burying the output is actually removing more CO2 than if you did nothing.
                    And if you scratch deeper, they are actually adding to the problem by sourcing from countries with the worst reputation for pollution.

                    So sure it feels good and it sounds nice, but what actually is being achieved?

                    your previous post kind of reads as if carbon offsetting is a scam in general.

                    It is.
                    It cost money it gives you nothing measurable in return, That is the definition of a scam.
                    I'm happy to be shown some evidence that carbon offsetting does something tangible but I'm yet to see it.
                    For a multi billion dollar industry, the returns are shockingly poor.

                    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed…

            • dubo1981 on 20/09/2023 - 22:37
              +3

              @1st-Amendment: Why does this guy pop up on every 'deal' with an agenda and an irrelevant opinion to any deal? The milliseconds we cumulatively waste skimming past the useless words are a waste of everyone's time.

              This site is not a mini-soapbox for micro opinions. Those who think so would be better served moving back to Twitter or that other garbage anti-social media platform where folks like to spout culture war outrage,

              • ssfps on 21/09/2023 - 02:24
                +6

                @dubo1981: The OP and commenters have made environmental claims about the toilet paper, and the environmental aspect is at the core of the brand. It's on topic, even if you don't like @1st-Amendment 's opinion and want to belittle them by calling them "micro opinions" and "soapboxing".

              • 1st-Amendment on 21/09/2023 - 08:57
                -1

                @dubo1981:

                This site is not a mini-soapbox for micro opinions

                Yet here you are sharing your micro opinion.

                I'm sure the irony of this is lost on your micro intelligence…

                • dubo1981 on 21/09/2023 - 15:37

                  @1st-Amendment: How informative and insightful your response is!

                  Let's do a ctrl-f and search for how many posts 1st-Amendment has made on this thread alone. Maybe let's do it also across the rest of the deals on this site.

                  Hmmmmm, someone spends a lot of time on here posting unhelpful advice.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 22/09/2023 - 10:52

                    @dubo1981:

                    someone spends a lot of time on here posting unhelpful advice.

                    Thanks for your sharing your micro opinion once again. For someone who is protested against the sharing of micro opinions you sure seem keen to keep sharing yours. 🤣

              • stjep on 21/09/2023 - 10:12

                @dubo1981: Why do you take offense at the environmental claims being challenged? Greenwashing is often nothing more than marketing for a more expensive product that achieves nothing environmental.

                • dubo1981 on 21/09/2023 - 15:31

                  @stjep: I don't take offence at all, it's a perfectly valid criticism….from someone other than 1st-Amendment.

                  Look at the history of that blokes posts - excessive, irrelevant to the majority of deals, and just mindless opinion pieces trying to ram an agenda. A one-trick pony, lacking humour or wit, without any real consideration of the individual company or their products.

                  The posts are basically just OzBargain pollution.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 22/09/2023 - 10:55

                    @dubo1981:

                    it's a perfectly valid criticism….from someone other than 1st-Amendment.

                    So you can't fault anything I said, you just don't like that fact that it's me saying it because… reasons.

                    The posts are basically just OzBargain pollution

                    Thanks again for sharing your micro opinion. For someone who is protested against the sharing of micro opinions you sure seem keen to keep sharing yours. 🤣

                • Igaf on 21/09/2023 - 17:06

                  @stjep: He's not challenging anything, he's making statements of opinion based on ignorance and dare I say it - ideological blindness. It's his "schtick."

        • competitions on 20/09/2023 - 17:37

          Damn mobile, sorry I accidentally negged, don't know how to remove and give it a positive

        • Gorby on 21/09/2023 - 09:28

          It's not quite as simple as that. Trucking interstate would very likely be more carbon intensive than shipping internationally and trucking locally from a major port. Such is the efficiencies of those international shipping economies of scale.
          Sometimes farmers' markets are ironically the worst on carbon because loading up a whole ute/van/what have you and travelling from whatever farm to sell a few dozen kilos of produce is super carbon intensive.

        • oldrocker on 21/09/2023 - 12:07

          Good Lord, even toilet paper we have to source from China??? No thanks!!!

      • 1st-Amendment on 20/09/2023 - 17:35
        +4

        it isn't saving you money (just the planet maybe?).

        Almost all of these 'saving the planet' schemes are scams of some kind. Because how do you measure planet savings exactly?

        • RhythmicJAY28 on 20/09/2023 - 17:43
          +3

          You don't, it's bs marketing. There are carbon estimates but they don't represent the whole picture.

        • Igaf on 20/09/2023 - 23:32

          Because how do you measure planet savings exactly?

          10 minutes of searching and half an hour of introductory reading on carbon credit schemes would give you the answer you so urgently desire /s.

          We know there have been scams involved in purchasing offsets ("carbon credits"), just as we know some offsets (up to 75% according to some estimates) promoted by the previous conservative federal governments and still supported by Labor and Bowen could be regarded as essentially "junk" as far as carbon pollution reduction goes - eg taxpayer and industry payments and credits based on not removing trees which were unlikely to be removed anyway.

          • 1st-Amendment on 21/09/2023 - 08:44

            @Igaf:

            10 minutes of searching and half an hour of introductory reading on carbon credit schemes would give you the answer you so urgently desire

            I see you never answered my question. I already know that carbon credit is a sham. If you believe different then I'd love to see some evidence. Specifically how much planet saving has occurred? What even is the SI Unit for planet saving? How do you even measure it unless you have standard units?

            • Igaf on 21/09/2023 - 11:17

              @1st-Amendment: Spoonfeeding stopped in primary school for most. Unsurprisingly, I'm not inclined to continue it for the likes of you. Your gross ignorance of carbon offsets is amply displayed in your puerile questions, Try asking yourself smarter questions then googling and finding the answers - or not in your case. You could start with 'why are carbon offsets important during transitional stages'. Offsets aren't a panacea, nor obviously are they perfect in practice - and no-one suggests they are. They're a small part of a very big picture you clearly struggle with.

              Here's a couple of very basic clues. (1) You'll find more information if you open both eyes and at least a small part of your brain. The latter is - like many addiction withdrawal processes - a tough ask when it's addicted to opinionated ignorance. (2) Try asking, for example, what role carbon sequestration and trees might play in ameliorating global warming. Then you could move along to the equally basic role of remote sensing in measuring such things.

              Your cynicism about pretty much anything your ignorance tells you to shun is extreme. The only way out of that rabbit hole is to read, learn and accept that your opinion (and mine) is ludicrously inadequate when judged against the weight of massive, credible expert knowledge. It's never too late.

              • 1st-Amendment on 21/09/2023 - 13:24

                @Igaf:

                I'm not inclined to continue it for the likes of you.

                Can't provide a single shred of evidence to support your opinion. As expected…

                • Igaf on 21/09/2023 - 13:44

                  @1st-Amendment: That type of argument work in your circles normally does it? No surprise there. Doesn't cut it in a rational adult world but given my previous comment it is a classic example of irony writ large. You understand that simple concept presumably?

                  I could fill your brain with all matter of "evidence" but apparently it's full of other stuff already, and I question why you'd think an anonymous Ozbargain commenter has more cred than the myriad reputable sources of information and knowledge you already choose to ignore.

                  I think I've already suggested it in another way but to put it in terms you might understand - I'm not your nappy changer/ nose wiper.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 21/09/2023 - 13:58

                    @Igaf:

                    That type of argument work in your circles normally does it?

                    You mean requiring evidence? Yes it is how all science works. All claims require evidence. When you reach year 10 high school you'll learn all about it.

                    Doesn't cut it in a rational adult world

                    Lol https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

                    What a spectacular own goal. I can hear the cognitive dissonance coming from here…

                    an the myriad reputable sources of information and knowledge you already choose to ignore.

                    Where specifically? You have provided zero so far only waffle. The only sources provided so far is this thread is one link to the website exposing their fraud and then my own link exposing the carbon credit fraud.
                    Here is some actual evidence to show you how it works: https://www.source-material.org/vercompanies-carbon-offsetti…

                    I could fill your brain with…

                    So many excuses… but not a shred of supporting evidence to back any of it up… We know exactly how this plays out…

                    • Igaf on 21/09/2023 - 16:28

                      @1st-Amendment: You clearly wouldn't have a clue how science works, you've been denying it for years on this site alone. Pandemics, climate change, and now carbon offsets. Your CV is as threadbare as some of the tree planting/forest saving schemes apparently being rorted by a small number of fraudsters. But as a cherry picker you're right up with the worst of them if that's any consolation.

                      Carbon credits are simple sub-contracts if that helps you understand the concept. Still not penetrating that steel trap of yours?

                      I said I wouldn't change your nappy but it appears laziness in another of your much cherished traits and you can't phone a friend so here you go, here's a tissue for your dribbling. Took all of 10 secs to compose a question (which barely scratches the surface as you - cough - know) and get some links. Google laughably reckons there are 62M relevant pieces of "information": https://www.google.com/search?q=do+carbon+credits+work

                      There are myriad better (more informative and in-depth, less "involved") sources but the authors of google's very first search result (you know how that works right?) seem to disagree with your highly valued opinion. No surprises there for anyone who has done even basic reading on the topic.

                      Carbon credits are a transparent, measurable and results-based way for companies to support activities, such as protecting and restoring irrecoverable natural carbon sinks, like forests or marine ecosystems and scaling nascent carbon removal technology, that keep global climate goals within reach.

                      Compensating remaining emissions through carbon projects:
                      - catalyses faster climate action on the way to net zero,
                      - ensures companies are measuring their footprint and putting a price on the damage they are creating,
                      - attracts funding to eligible and deserving projects that dramatically reduce emissions and facilitate sustainable development.

                      Just by the by, any opinion on why the Chubb Report may have disagreed with Prof Macintosh?

                      • 1st-Amendment on 21/09/2023 - 18:27
                        -1

                        @Igaf:

                        You clearly wouldn't have a clue how science works

                        Because you said so lol…and that is how science works… I said it so it's true!

                        Watching you flop about with logical fallacy after logical fallacy is fun to watch though…

                        Carbon credits are simple sub-contracts

                        Cool story. I know what they are that's how I know they are a scam. Zero points for reading the actual question.

                        apparently being rorted by a small number of fraudsters.

                        Not a small number, 90%+ among which are the largest carbon credit schemes in the world. Zero points for reading.

                        I said that most of these are scams, then posted a direct link to actual scientific research which supports that claim. If you had read that before replying you wouldn't look so foolish now posting Googles result to something completely irrelevant.

                        that keep global climate goals within reach.

                        So your reference actually supports my argument.
                        They do not achieve anything of tangible substance that is measurable in any way to 'saving the planet', they merely box ticking exercise for a spreadsheet somewhere that costs billions of dollars.

                        • Igaf on 22/09/2023 - 11:57

                          @1st-Amendment: The irony has jumped from mere palpability to unconscious comedy gold. According to you there is no way of measuring offsets - or by proxy the effects of various environmental systems on climate - yet the whole premise of the link you posted was based on (hotly contested) measurements.

                          What you posted was a journalistic interpretation of one set of opinions - not peer reviewed science - the details and conclusions of which have been disputed as you'd know if you read "your ABC" ( https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-08-25/forest-conser… ) or were curious to see Verra's response for balance.

                          As far as the latter goes you might want to take a seat or look away because you won't like their comments. Excerpt:
                          "There is compelling evidence proving the effectiveness of REDD+ projects. A September 2022 study by the University of Cambridge of 40 REDD+ projects found that, in the first five years of implementation, deforestation within project areas was reduced by 47%, and degradation rates were 58% lower. The study concluded that incentivizing forest conservation through voluntary site-based projects can slow tropical deforestation. In addition, an August 2023 peer-reviewed study by the University of Chicago demonstrated that carbon markets are one of the most effective tools available to prevent deforestation.
                          The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself has stated that the VCM [voluntary carbon markets] is essential to addressing climate change.                          " ( https://verra.org/statement-vcm-stakeholders-latest-guardian… )

                          Irrespective of who is closer to the truth in the projects studied by Guardian et al, that particular opinion doesn't support your strident claims that credits are scams or can't work as proposed. The studies were specific inventory checks on compliance and outcomes. Unsurprisingly the conclusions have been disputed, as have Prof Macintosh's claims by the Chubb report as you no doubt know /s. As is often the case, the truth is likely to be somewhere in between. Irrespective the notion/your implication that there is no merit in attempting offsets is an exemplar of the baby and bathwater idiom. Thankfully for most of us people with actual knowledge and understanding manage and work through these systems, not unqualified, apoplectic, anonymous conservatives on a deals website.

                          Out of interest, when did the 'science is right' [subtext - when it suits my argument] epiphany happen for you? Clearly post covid. I suspect it actually hasn't happened and that like most of your cohort you only use it (without understanding how it really works, and the lack of certainty involved) when you think it can make your opinion appear valid to equally badly informed readers.

                          • 1st-Amendment on 22/09/2023 - 13:13

                            @Igaf:

                            According to you there is no way of measuring offsets -

                            Didn't say that. Try reading what I actually said then come back. It's right there a the top of this thread if you forgotten…

                            The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself has stated that the VCM [voluntary carbon markets] is essential to addressing climate change.

                            Ah well the IPCC said so, so it's true. The argument from authority logical fallacy again… entirely predicted…

                            your strident claims that credits … can't work as proposed.

                            Didn't say that either.

                            Irrespective the notion/your implication that there is no merit in attempting offsets

                            Nor that…

                            equally badly informed readers.

                            You certainly know a lot about that.

                            I can only imagine how much time it took you to scratch up opinions that match you own to rebut something I never said.
                            Even after saying you wouldn't do it, now watching you do it wrong is icing on the cake.
                            Perhaps you could read what I actually wrote next time then you wouldn't waste so much time digging your hole deeper…

      • Junglegreen on 20/09/2023 - 19:16

        Up vote for the math! Okay twice as much might be a stretch but if you compare both, i find I use less sheets of these because of the quality? Ymmv

  • belongsinforums on 20/09/2023 - 17:03

    Research quotation marks

  • bienvenu on 20/09/2023 - 17:05
    +10

    the company claims 50% of profits are donated

    <cynic>
    It's always easy enough to jack up the exec salaries until there's only $3.50 left in the company at the end of the reporting period!

    • tessel on 20/09/2023 - 19:06
      +1

      Bro, you've seen and done things, haven't you. Respekt.

  • FutureTech on 20/09/2023 - 17:08
    +17

    "50% of profits are donated"

    if they don't have any profit…

    It's also a proprietary company (Good Goods Pty Ltd ABN: 67 154 870 452) which means that it has no obligation to disclose to the public/regulator how much profit they made (or get their accounts audited, for that matter). It is also not registered with ACNC despite presenting itself like a charity/non-profit by using the .org domain.

    Lastly if they actually donate anything, they can claim a tax deduction which means it's not going to cost them as much as the headline figure.

    Happy to buy if the price is low or quality is good, but take a grain of salt with all the do good deed stuff - doesn't really mean much.

    • get-innocuous on 20/09/2023 - 17:22
      +20

      $13M so far

      • Igaf on 20/09/2023 - 23:59
        +4

        Pshaw. Bothersome facts have a habit of regularly getting in the way of ignorant rants, especially on this website.

        There's plenty of credible evidence outside wgac's own website which he (/she) could have found in the time it took to write that tawdry tirade.

        Nothing wrong with informed cynicism. It's healthy when based on curiosity and a thirst for knowledge. Ignorant cynicism on the other hand is childish and dangerous, as it can infect other credulous fools.

        • Igaf on 21/09/2023 - 11:27

          Correction: Nothing wrong with informed ~~ cynicism~~ skepticism.
          Important distinction because the sort of rabid cynicism above and regularly found (among a certain Ozbargain cohort) is a disease.

  • King Steuart on 20/09/2023 - 17:13
    +1

    Nice bum

    • Hardearnedcash on 20/09/2023 - 17:14
      +1

      Did someone say Bumboo after having so much KFC? That ad on YouTube…

      • King Steuart on 20/09/2023 - 17:15
        +4

        That would have been a more clever code. BUMBOO20, or, heaven forbid, BUMPOO20

  • ConsumerAffairs on 20/09/2023 - 17:26

    Are these actually flush safe? Claims it's 'Biodegradable and plays well with most septic tanks' but I can't find anywhere saying its flush safe for the sewers.
    And what the hell does 'plays well with most septic tanks' mean? It doesn't give much confidence that this product should be getting flushed just like the 'flushable' wipes.
    If people are this concerned about the environment to buy these they should be installing bidets on their toilets.

    • Shrynx on 20/09/2023 - 21:23
      +1

      Yes. I've been using the bamboo for years. It's fine. My parents have 2 tanks- an old one that is basically a cement tank in the ground, and a newer one that has a pump and two chambers or something and it's been fine for those as well.
      It's toilet paper in a cute wrapper made from bamboo fibres instead of wood fibres.

  • Rhys96 on 20/09/2023 - 17:43
    +5

    I've found the quality of these to be real bad, paper rips way too easily

    • Zak on 20/09/2023 - 19:47
      +5

      You might be confusing the premium bamboo paper with their cheaper recycled paper. The recycled stuff is poor quality, but the bamboo is fantastic.

  • Jaduqimon on 20/09/2023 - 17:51
    +8

    as a male ozbargainer, you should be chucking your shit at work. never need to buy toilet paper.

    • Chicken Kyiv on 20/09/2023 - 18:01
      +6

      1 ply and sitting where dozens of bums have touched, no thanks

      • Stopback on 20/09/2023 - 18:43
        +1

        The 1 ply will continue until morale improves.

        Oh so they make it 1 ply. So people shit at home and save the

      • greatlamp on 20/09/2023 - 22:11

        You don't line the public toilet with paper first?

    • johnno07 on 21/09/2023 - 07:20

      I'm curious why shitting at work is reserved for males?

    • Subere on 21/09/2023 - 08:23

      WFH has saved companies so much money on toilet paper 🤣

  • gruffjaguar on 20/09/2023 - 18:02
    +3

    Missed opportunity for promo code BAMBPOO20

  • Binchicken22 on 20/09/2023 - 18:10
    +8

    Made in China.

    I like to support Australian made where I can, costs no more to buy Aus made TP.

  • RolandWaites on 20/09/2023 - 18:15
    +4

    What an I missing? What's wrong with Kleenex or Quilton, both of which are cheaper?

    • ToyotaCrownHybrid on 20/09/2023 - 18:28
      +15

      The marketing hype.
      Pretty much everything has been debunked and then when you consider other brands you end up with Quilton or Kleenex both of which are cheaper and much higher quality.

      • Maychance on 20/09/2023 - 18:57
        +1

        What's been debunked?

        • Tiggrrrrr on 20/09/2023 - 19:29
          +4

          Apparently:
          Bamboo toilet paper production releases 30 percent fewer carbon emissions than virgin-pulp toilet paper.
          Bamboo is much more renewable, as it regenerates quickly, and can grow up to 36 inches per day

          Both seem accurate.

          However "Bamboo toilet paper is softer and more absorbent than traditional toilet paper, making it more comfortable to use."
          Not the bamboo paper I tried (ecocheeks).

          • Hardearnedcash on 20/09/2023 - 21:30
            +1

            @Tiggrrrrr: I find quilton to be ideal in feel but unless they make equally worldly claims, bamboo's slight compromise in feel is bested by toughness. Anyone dare to go 2 sheets same strength?

      • Johnsmithaus on 20/09/2023 - 19:18
        +4

        Agree, not a fan of these. Very hyped, but the product is weak and not pleasant to use. What is wrong with normal toilet paper brands?

      • caitsith01 on 20/09/2023 - 19:26
        +10

        What has been debunked? This is a not for profit that uses sustainable inputs. Please link to where Quilton or Kleenex meet either of those criteria.

  • MR-AM on 20/09/2023 - 18:20
    -1

    This must be the toilet paper they use in the Eastern Suburbs :)

  • brandonstrandy on 20/09/2023 - 18:28
    +1

    Good idea "on paper" ;) but frankly the quality is borderline unusable. You can double up on the ply count but texture is just too rough.
    If you're used to Quilton these are a hard no.

    • Zak on 20/09/2023 - 19:53
      +4

      You might be confusing the premium bamboo paper with their cheaper recycled paper. The recycled stuff is poor quality, but the bamboo is fantastic.

    • Hardearnedcash on 20/09/2023 - 21:32
      +1

      I usually stick to quilton but I found moving from quilton to the bamboo to be quite okay. I haven't used the recycled paper version from this company before but if it's anything like public recycled paper, I would say the bamboo is a completely different product.

      • Igaf on 20/09/2023 - 21:54

        I haven't used the recycled paper version from this company

        It's perfectly fine.

  • MrThing on 20/09/2023 - 18:44
    +1

    Cheapo aldi shitroll here

    You wipe shit off ur ass with it, doesnt need to be expensive

    • belongsinforums on 20/09/2023 - 18:45
      +3

      Aldi sell this brand lol

      • MrThing on 20/09/2023 - 18:46

        Really, never seen it there

        Is it in the middle junk zone?

        • belongsinforums on 20/09/2023 - 18:50
          +1

          Nope. Wouldn't recommend it though. I like that it's all paper packaging but the quality is shit

    • Hardearnedcash on 20/09/2023 - 21:34

      You mean crap quality gets shit done?

      • MrThing on 21/09/2023 - 03:20
        +2

        Crap quality gets a finger in the bum

  • frugalftw on 20/09/2023 - 18:48
    +1

    They sell these at Aldi now, you can buy some and test.

  • psyren89 on 20/09/2023 - 19:00
    +2

    I started with this brand, then changed to Spacewhite because I found them to be better quality (also they claimed to donate 100% of their profits to eliminating single use plastics). They abruptly stopped selling toilet paper, so now I've moved onto Aldi's Confidence brand.

  • sween64 on 20/09/2023 - 19:09

    The non-bamboo is cheaper.

    • Zak on 20/09/2023 - 19:49

      This kind is crappy quality though, sadly.

      • sween64 on 20/09/2023 - 21:56

        I use it without issue.

      • ConsumerAffairs on 21/09/2023 - 07:49

        As a Victorian, I'm sure he'd like it nice and rough down there

  • twotwotwo on 20/09/2023 - 19:15
    +1

    Thanks! Bought 3x 48.

    Premium 100% Bamboo Toilet Paper - 48 Double Length Rolls
    3 $198.00Scroll for more items
    Cost summary
    Description Price
    Subtotal $198.00
    Discount BAMBOO20 - $39.60$39.60 off total order price
    Shipping Free
    Total
    Including $14.40 GST
    AUD $158.40

  • J5 on 20/09/2023 - 19:23

    Way over 50c a roll
    No deal

    • ShaneLikesABargain on 21/09/2023 - 14:58
      +1

      They're double length (370 sheets @ 10 x 10cm) per roll) = $0.297 per sheet which is pretty good.

  • Wiadro on 20/09/2023 - 19:29
    -5

    absolutely horrible ass wipe paper, made in china, falls apart very fast when you wiping, would not recommend to anyone,

    • Zak on 20/09/2023 - 19:49
      +8

      You might be confusing the premium bamboo paper with their cheaper recycled paper. The recycled stuff is poor quality, but the bamboo is fantastic.

      • Igaf on 20/09/2023 - 20:10
        +1

        wgac recycled stuff is better than Aldi's 3 ply (Quilon made iirc) Confidence rolls imo.

    • King Steuart on 20/09/2023 - 19:51

      buzzer

      Wrong, next question

  • Pratty on 20/09/2023 - 19:34
    +2

    Made in China still?

  • ankti231 on 20/09/2023 - 19:48

    Does it work on existing subscriptions?

    • King Steuart on 20/09/2023 - 19:52

      I cancelled my long-running (pre-covid) sub and started a new one with nil issues NOD AAC

  • D-Train on 20/09/2023 - 20:34
    +1

    No free shipping to my postcode kills the deal for me.

  • ozeightyone on 20/09/2023 - 20:46
    +1

    $12 for eight rolls at woolie’s, so $72 for equivalent amt at Woolie’s. Good find good deal

  • subwars on 20/09/2023 - 20:47

    Want $8 shipping, pass

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join