Amazon US product dossier · captured 30 October 2026 · delivery context New York 10001 · prices in USD as displayed
Ammens Body Powder Original — talc-free, 11 oz, two-pack. A four-line formula that does more with less, sold by a marketplace seller because Amazon has stopped stocking it, and priced almost exactly at its own ten-year average.
01 · Product information
Two 11 oz bottles, 22 oz in total, of a medicated body powder built on corn starch rather than talc. The distinction matters more than the marketing suggests: the pack declares a drug active, zinc oxide, which is what makes the word medicated literal and what puts this product under OTC rules rather than cosmetic ones. There is no brand storytelling module on this listing at all — no A+ content, no comparison table, no ingredient story — only a specification table, five short bullets, and an Important Information block.
| Brand | AMMENS | Item form | Powder |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scent stated | Unscented | Material type free | Talc free |
| Special feature | Talc-free, zinc oxide and corn starch formulation | ||
| Manufacturer | Idelle Labs | Model number | 8.28E+11 |
| Item weight | 11.04 ounces | Unit count | 22 ounce |
| Item volume | 11 fluid ounces | Number of items | 2 |
| Dimensions | 8 × 3.6 × 6 in; 11.04 oz | Unit price | $0.79 per ounce |
| UPC | 700064840849 · 760488354131 · 641361586989 | ||
| Category path | Beauty & Personal Care › Personal Care › Deodorants & Antiperspirants › Deodorant | ||
| Best sellers rank | #24,101 in Beauty & Personal Care · #317 in Deodorant | ||
Two fields in that table are worth reading carefully. Scent is listed as unscented, and the ingredient panel declares fragrance — a direct contradiction, discussed in section 03. And the model number is published as 8.28E+11, which is a spreadsheet artefact rather than a model designation; it is reproduced here as the listing prints it rather than cleaned up, because inventing a plausible model number would be worse than showing a broken one.
What the listing says it is for
- Deodorant protection. Odour control from the starch base rather than from an antimicrobial.
- Soothes minor skin irritations. The claim that rests on the drug active, zinc oxide.
- Helps prevent chafing. Friction reduction where skin meets skin.
- Keeps feet cool and dry. Absorbency applied to a specific problem area.
- The multi-purpose medicated powder. An explicit statement that one mechanism serves all five uses.
The directions are equally plain and worth quoting because they carry the drying instruction that this anhydrous formula depends on: apply to the whole body after bathing or showering, allow to dry before dressing, avoid contact with eyes and face, reapply as needed for all-day protection. There is no timeline beyond “all day” and no cosmetic benefit claimed anywhere.
Product images
Three listing images were captured. None of them shows the back of the bottle, so the ingredients quoted later in this report come from the listing's Important Information block rather than from a photograph of the pack. The listing exposes no buyer-uploaded photographs, and none has been substituted.
02 · Product rating
4.8 out of 5 across 4,125 ratings. A base this size makes the distribution unusually reliable: no single rating can move a bucket, and the mean is stable rather than an artefact of a small sample.
4.8
out of 5
4,125
listing-reported
87%
of all ratings
6%
combined
| Stars | Share | Approximate ratings | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 87% | ~3,589 | Overwhelming majority |
| 4 | 8% | ~330 | Satisfied with a reservation |
| 3 | 4% | ~165 | Genuinely split |
| 2 | 0% | rounded away | Not proof of zero ratings — a share small enough to round |
| 1 | 1% | ~41 | Dissatisfied |
The published 0% in the two-star bucket needs a warning attached, because it is the kind of number that gets misread. It is a rounded share, not a count, and it means “a very small number” rather than “none”. What the distribution as a whole says is that dissatisfaction of any degree accounts for roughly one rating in twenty — a small tail on a large base, which is a large enough absolute group for the recurring complaints to be real rather than incidental.
03 · What buyers say
The listing publishes an aggregated buyer summary across all 4,125 ratings. Its through-line is that the powder does its absorbent job all day and that buyers use it on more than one problem.
Buyers describe the powder as effective all day, keeping skin dry in sweaty areas, and several note that a single morning application is sufficient. The talc-free formulation is called out as a reason for choosing it. It is praised for soothing aching feet and minor irritations, for comfort, and for value, with one buyer noting it suits both men and women. The scent is described positively, which is worth noting given that the listing calls the product unscented.
| Theme | Mentions | Positive | Negative | Positive share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effectiveness | 235 | 229 | 6 | 97% |
| Dryness | 124 | 122 | 2 | 98% |
| Scent | 82 | 74 | 8 | 90% |
| Value for money | 73 | 58 | 15 | 79% |
| Powder texture | 39 | 30 | 9 | 77% |
| Comfort | 24 | 22 | 2 | 92% |
| Soothing | 22 | 22 | 0 | 100% |
| Versatility | 18 | 18 | 0 | 100% |
Three things stand out. There is no negative theme. Every one of the eight themes is above 77% positive, and the two worst-performing themes — value and texture — are still comfortably positive. That is the profile of a product that does one narrow thing the way buyers expect, rather than one that over-promises. Effectiveness and dryness carry the review set at 235 and 124 mentions with 97% and 98% positive, which is exactly the combination a starch-based absorbent should produce. And scent is discussed 82 times — more than value — which is remarkable for a product the specification calls unscented, and it is the strongest evidence that the fragrance line in the panel is doing real work.
The value theme deserves a note. It is the least positive of the eight at 79%, and 15 of its 73 mentions are negative. For a product priced at $17.34 for 22 oz — about 79 cents an ounce — that is a buyer base dividing on whether two bottles are worth the outlay, not on whether the powder works.
04 · Product ingredients
This is the shortest formula in its category and the easiest to read. It is also the only one of the two dozen powders compared in this series whose active ingredient is declared rather than implied.
The listing publishes the panel in its Important Information block, and because zinc oxide is a declared drug active, that panel is a regulatory declaration rather than marketing copy:
Active ingredient: Zinc Oxide.
Inactive ingredients: Zea Mays (Corn) Starch, Tricalcium Phosphate, Fragrance.
Two independent ingredient databases that would normally corroborate a formula were both unavailable on this capture — one served a verification challenge on every host tried, the other does not index this product — so no acne-risk, irritant or safety score appears anywhere in this report. Those are per-ingredient community ratings; they cannot be derived from a name, and inventing them would be worse than the gap.
Four lines, four jobs
| Level | Function | Entries | Share | Entry and what it does |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Active skin protectant | 1 | 25% | Zinc Oxide — the drug active; the mechanism behind the soothing claim, and the reason this is regulated as an OTC product |
| 2 | Absorbent carrier | 1 | 25% | Zea Mays (Corn) Starch — the bulk; takes up moisture and replaces talc |
| 3 | Flow and anti-caking agent | 1 | 25% | Tricalcium Phosphate — keeps the hygroscopic starch free-running in the bottle |
| 4 | Fragrance | 1 | 25% | Fragrance — a single undeclared blend, no components listed |
The flat quarter-split in that chart is the finding, not a failure of the visual. Every function in this product is carried by exactly one material. There is no second absorbent, no secondary protectant, no preservation system, no buffer. That makes the formula transparent and easy to fault: a buyer who reacts to any single line has no alternative path through the product.
What the panel does and does not contain
| Question | Answer from the declaration |
|---|---|
| Talc-free? | Yes. No talc anywhere; corn starch carries the powder |
| Fragrance-free? | No. Fragrance is declared as an inactive ingredient |
| Preservative-free? | Yes — and coherently so, because the formula is anhydrous |
| Alcohol-free? | Yes. No volatile solvent |
| Contains a drug active? | Yes. Zinc oxide, a skin protectant |
| Is the active percentage declared? | No. Named without a concentration |
| Any per-ingredient risk rating? | Unavailable. Both databases failed; nothing substituted |
Five things worth knowing
- The unscented claim does not survive the panel. The specification says unscented; the ingredient line says fragrance; 82 buyers commented on the scent and 90% of them positively. Read “unscented” here as “no perfume note” rather than “no fragrance” — and note that the regulatory declaration is the stronger document of the three.
- Zinc oxide is doing real work. Unlike the vague “moisturizing” benefit claimed by other powders in this category, “soothes minor skin irritations” has a recognised protectant mechanism behind it.
- The missing preservative is a consequence, not an omission. A dry starch powder has no water activity to support microbial growth, so it genuinely does not need a preservation system. Its shelf life instead depends on staying dry, which is why the directions say to let skin dry before dressing.
- Corn starch is a different material, not a renamed one. The talc-free claim is accurate and verifiable. Starch is more obviously hygroscopic, can cake when damp, and is a nutrient source for microorganisms in the presence of water — which is precisely why the flow agent and the dry format carry the weight they do.
- The active has no percentage. Anything quantitative about how much zinc oxide is in this product would be a guess, and is not stated anywhere in this report.
05 · Product price
At capture the buy box showed $17.34 against a struck-through $19.99, with no percentage-off badge, in stock, at $0.79 per ounce across the 22 oz two-pack. The seller was Homes Haven, a marketplace seller rather than Amazon itself — and that single fact is what the entire price history confirms.
$17.34
marketplace seller
$19.99
struck through
$0.79
22 oz pack
$16.54
3rd party, 29 Oct
Price history, by channel
The history is an all-time summary of a tracker record that begins in February 2016 — nearly eleven years. The lowest, highest, current and average values are for the whole monitored period, not any recent window.
| Price type | Lowest ever | Highest ever | Current | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon | $10.95 (14 Apr 2016) | $21.58 (19 Jul 2022) | no value | $13.58 |
| 3rd party new | $10.18 (14 Jun 2016) | $23.55 (20 Dec 2024) | $16.54 (29 Oct 2026) | $16.86 |
| 3rd party used | — | — | — | — |
The empty cell in the Amazon row is the most informative value on this page. It is not a collection failure: the tracker holds a low, a high and an average for the first-party series, so it has eleven years of history there — it simply records no current first-party price. That is what the record looks like when Amazon itself has stopped offering the item, and it agrees exactly with a buy box that named a marketplace seller.
Where today's price sits
| Benchmark | 3rd party new channel |
|---|---|
| Current vs all-time low | +62.5% |
| Current vs average | −1.9% |
| Current vs tracker list price ($18.60) | −11.1% |
| Current vs all-time high | −29.8% |
| All-time spread, and as % of the low | $13.37 · 131.3% |
The most useful single number here is the −1.9%. The current third-party price is 1.9% below its own eleven-year average, which means today's price is essentially the historical norm rather than an outlier in either direction. It sits 29.8% below the all-time high and 62.5% above a 2016 low that has never been repeated. For a shopper this is a rare, clean reading: there is no reason to wait for a dip, and no reason to feel they have caught a deal.
The capture price of $17.34 is 4.8% above the tracker's most recent third-party value of $16.54, which is the ordinary spread between what a marketplace seller charges today and what the tracker last recorded. Against the listing's own $19.99 it is 13.3% below.
One conflict has to be reported rather than smoothed over. The listing's struck-through price is $19.99; the tracker publishes a list price of $18.60. Two different figures, $1.39 apart. Neither is treated as authoritative here — a buyer sees $19.99 on the page, and $18.60 is a historical list figure.
Finally, the channel structure. The two channel averages sit $3.28 apart — $16.86 for third-party new against $13.58 for the Amazon series over its lifetime. Parity cannot be tested because the first-party series has no current value. That gap is the expected shape for an item Amazon has largely stopped selling itself: the marketplace carries the price, and carries it about a quarter above where the first-party series used to sit.
Freshness
The current third-party value is dated 29 October 2026 and was read on 30 October 2026 — one day old. The tracker's scan field reported an update 32 minutes before capture. Its “last tracked” field reads 31 December 2022 and is reproduced exactly as published; it is not the date of the current price.
06 · Method, confidence and limits
Four captures underpin this report, all made on 30 October 2026: the Amazon US listing with a New York 10001 delivery context so that every price is native USD with no conversion; the listing's Important Information block for the ingredient panel; a price-history tracker for the channel series; and two ingredient databases, both of which failed.
| Element | Confidence | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Product identity and specification | High | UPC, manufacturer, brand and title agree |
| Buy box price $17.34 | High | Read directly; US delivery context confirmed |
| Seller identity | High | Marketplace seller named in the buy box |
| Rating and distribution | High | Published aggregates on a 4,125 base |
| Buyer theme percentages | Medium | Listing-generated aggregation; mentions are not reviews |
| Ingredient declaration | High | Regulatory active/inactive panel published by the listing |
| Active concentration | None | Not declared |
| Per-ingredient risk grades | None | Both databases unavailable; nothing substituted |
| Price history figures | High | Transcribed verbatim; current value one day old |
| List price | Medium | Two conflicting published figures, both reported |
Limits. Every figure is a snapshot dated 30 October 2026 and prices should be re-checked before transacting. No individual review text was captured, so section 03 reports the listing's own aggregation rather than a reading of reviews. The ingredient panel is four lines and therefore complete but thin, and the fragrance blend is opaque by design. The absence of per-ingredient safety grades is a gap in coverage, not a verdict: an unrated ingredient is unrated, never safe.