boogieluv

UPDATE ON 8oz METAL TIN (3"x2") with LX-20, 8% fragrance, no dye: After 24+ hours of total burn time, candle is totally gone with the exception of 0" - 1/8" of wax left on bottom. Finally. Success! I tried HTPs from 93 all the way up to 1212 with no success. None gave a full melt pool. Tunnelling and lots of hang-up was an issue with all sizes. I hope you have better luck with it than I did!

Lonestar Candle Supply has a page on types of wicking. They recommend a 60-44-18 paper core wick for containers 4 - 4.5".

Thanks, ChandlerWicks! I can't wait to to order some 4786 and try it.

Thanks. Point well taken!

What proportion of the two waxes do you use?

So far for the 4627, I've tried the 8oz metal tin, 3" wide and 2" tall with 8% FO and no dye with LX-20. After 20+ hours of burn time (I lost track after awhile), the entire candle burned down to the bottom. The sides are absolutely clean --looks like I cleaned it off. I did find that with the addition of dye, I had to wick up to LX-22. Only downside is the mushrooming and need to trim wick consistently between burns to avoid extra tall flames, flickering, and soot, but it could just be because I power burn my candles for at least 3-4 hours. LX-16 was good in a 7oz tumbler ( 2-13/16" wide and 2 3/4" high). ECO-4 also seemed to work in the same glass container. For an 11.5 oz tumbler (3 3/16" x 3 1/2" high), so far LX-22 is the front runner. I have yet to do extentive testing with the Premier 700 wick series so that's next on my list. In previous tests, I tried HTP and CD wicks with only marginal success. Did you get any more recommendations from Wicks Unlimited regarding the 50/50 blend? I'd like to try it in a 9oz container (2.85" wide and 3.4" tall) and a 16oz container (3.6" wide and 3.7" high) and was wondering which wicks to start out with.

Wow. ECO-.75 and ECO-1?? I need to order some. The ECO-1s that came in my sample pack are only 2 1/2" tall. I'm definitely going to give the 50/50 blend a try. Thanks!

I'm loving the throw of 4627 but would like the finished candle to be slightly harder. I have 4630 and 4633 on hand. Does anyone blend these with 4627 and if so, what ratio and wicks do you use?

I spoke with someone at Candle Science about the changes to the wick quide. When I asked her about the switch in particular with 4627, the new recommendation of LX that was previously ranked as third best, she didn't really answer the question. She just said that they changed the format so it would be easier to use. She also said that in the future they will be conducting their own burn tests so the wick guide may change. Update on LX-20 in 8ox metal tin: 13 hours total burn time later, melt pool is now down to the bottom on the container with 1/8" to 1/4" hang up. Flame is still going strong with no flickering. I started another burn test with 7% FO and dye. Burn wasn't as good, melt pool smaller with more hang up. Wicked up to LX-22 and its looking like a winner.

Thanks, OldGlory. I'll do some tests with the Premier wicks as well.

Jcandleattic, I agree with you that most suppliers' suggestions are a good starting point but are rarely spot-on. However, last night I decided to try CandleScience's new recommendation of LX wicks for 4627 and was pleasantly surprised. For more details, see my other post 4627 - Should I wick up or down? I called CandleScience and left a message. Will repost after I receive a call back.

I'm eating my words. In case you didn't see my other post New (?) wick guide on candlescience, I noticed that CandleScience changed their wick recommendations for 4627 to LX wicks. Last night I decided to try the LX-20 wick in the 8oz metal tin as recommended in the new guide for 3"-3.5" containers. Sheer perfection. The flame was a little on the small side at first but grew taller over time. Absolutely no flickering or soot. 1 1/2 hours later, the melt pool maxed out in width but the entire candle --including the 3/16 - 1/4" hang up on sides was being consumed-- as indicated by the clean sides. Four hours after initial lighting, the flame was still nice, the candle had decreased in height by about 3/16", hot throw was great. Extinguished candle. Melt pool showed only minimal darkening. Only downside was a lot of wick mushrooming but given the overall performance, I can live with that. Relit candle this morning. Perfect flame and absolutely no flickering or soot. Previously, with every other wick regardless of size or type, I always got a very tall, wispy, flame with soot at least for the first hour or so after relighting. I'll post an update on second burn later today.

As recently as a week or two ago, I used the interactive wick guide on candlescience with the pull-down windows for wax type and container size that spat out 3 wick suggestions ranging from "best" to "acceptable". Today I noticed that they have a new (?) wick guide in tabular form. I find this a little puzzling because the information is not consistent with the old guide. For example, previously the best wicks given for 4627 was ECO (best), HTP (2nd best) and LX (acceptable). According to this new guide, LX wicks were recommended across the board for all container sizes with 4627. I'm just wondering what prompted this change in recommendation. In fact HTP wicks are not listed for any of the waxes.

Crvella and OldGlory, thanks for your response. I'll try to address all your questions. The dimensions of the 8oz tin: 3" diameter and 2" high. I fill it to about 1 3/4" high. The glass container is 2.75" wide and about 2 3/8" high. I fill these to about 2" high. I'm using 6% of Japanese Cherry Blossom. (Personally, I don't like this fragrance which is probably adding to my irritability ) I'm using a single wick but I'm seriously considering going to a double wick for the 8oz metal tin. I power burn my candles like how I think my customers will do. I usually don't extinguish my test burns until either 1) the wax starts to discolor considerably in a short amount of time such as a half hour (i.e. wick too big); 2) the melt pool ceases to grow in diameter but deepens to at least 1/4" or; 3) tunneling starts to occur. I find that because my containers are relatively shallow, a second burn tends to exacerbate the original problem because the containers are not deep enough to allow the sides to "catch up". I have downloaded probably every wick chart available on the internet (it doesn't help much when they list as many as 12 wick sizes of one type of wick for a certain candle dimension!) and I have found that when I follow these, they are pretty way off (clear underwicked by at least a couple of sizes). I also collect notes on different companies' and individual recommendations which I found to be a little more accurate. I keep copious notes of all burns, noting flame size and shape, any soot or flickering, flame after 15 minutes or so, melt pool size, depth, wax color and so on. Because my containers are so small to begin with, I'd like to keep hang up under a 1/4" --I think 1/8" is acceptable-- because as I mentioned above subsequent burns tend to make the hang up even larger. So far, ECO 6 and CD 12 seem to work the best in the glass containers but the 8oz tin is giving me a heck of a time. I've heard over and over again that HTP wicks are the best for this wax but I can't get consistent results even with the same FO and percentage. 93 and 104 start off good - nice flame and full melt pool after 2 hours but the flames get taller and wispier over time with trace soot. Is this acceptable given the full melt pool? Also, OldGlory, do you have a suggestion on the WI-wicks?

Help please! I'm working with 4627, 6% FO, and no dye in 8oz metal tin (3" diameter) and 6oz (?) glass containers with a 2.75" diameter. What do you do when the melt pool stops growing in diameter but continues to get deeper? Do you wick up or down? I have tried HTP, CD, ECO, and Zinc and am currently testing with the Premier 700 series. Has anyone had any luck with these in 4627? Even though the initial flame height looks good, after several minutes the flame decreases in height to around 1/2"+ and melt pool does not get larger. Wick up or down?

Thanks. Will try sticking to 1 oz per pound and see how that works for awhile.

Have also discovered that 4627 is extremely sensitive to wick height at least where HTP wicks are concerned. Lit a 1212 with a flame that was slightly too high for my liking (+1"). Trimmed it down to somewhere in between 1/8" and 1/4" ended up with a flame that was only 1/4" tall. Lit a 104 and flame was also too tall but after trimming, flame was perfect.

Thanks! Agreed. No more obsessing and moving on Will try incorporating this fragrance in tarts instead. Have found that most anything will throw in tarts.

I tested a great FO - its a skin-safe fragrance and on the lighter side - with 4627. Tried adding it at 6, 8 and 10%. 10% definitely had the best cold and hot throw but the scent was still not quite strong enough. I don't want to increase the amount to 12% --don't want to deal with soot and possibly seepage issues-- plus this FO is kinda on the pricey side. I know 4627 doesn't need any additives, but in this case do you think vybar would help? I don't have any on hand and don't want to order it unless I absolutely have to. Any thoughts?

I tested a great FO - its a skin-safe fragrance and on the lighter side - with 4627. Tried adding it at 6, 8 and 10%. 10% definitely had the best cold and hot throw but the scent was still not quite strong enough. I don't want to increase the amount to 12% --don't want to deal with soot and possibly seepage issues-- plus this FO is kinda on the pricey side. I know 4627 doesn't need any additives, but in this case do you think vybar would help? I don't have any on hand and don't want to order it unless I absolutely have to. Any thoughts?

I recently ordered a large amount of 4627 wax --I got a deal too good to pass up. I had previously played around with a sample amount of it in addition to 6006, 4630 and 4633. I have seen a lot of information about how much FO to add, anywhere from 6% or 1oz per pound all the way up to 10 or 12%. It seems the general consensus is that 10/12% is overkill. I am a veteran MP soapmaker and have a large amount of FOs that are skin-safe but can also be used in candles. I know all FOs are different and require a lot of testing depending on the wax and wick used, but Is it safe to make the general assumption that "candle only" FO is the strongest and therefore best to use at 6% while FOs that are skin-safe are weaker and may need to be used at a higher percentage like 8%?

I have also keep tabs of my inventory on an Excel worksheet. WIth 11+ large shoe boxes filled with over 150 FOs (i know, I have an addiction), I found I needed it in order to stop from buying duplicates. I tend to organize them by groups such as "spa-type", floral, fruity, kids, mens/unisex, teen favorites, etc. I also include supplier, date purchased, price, candle only or bath and body safe, thumbs up or thumbs down. It really comes in handy to keep track of which FOs I like and probably more importantly, which ones I don't like. For example, I will buy anything with "lavender" in its name or description and some I love, and others not. Sometimes its the fragrance, sometimes its the brand/supplier. I also include blends that I create. I pretty much keep everything on a spreadsheet including EOs, butters, carrier oils, additives, containers and so on. Sometimes I think I'm just addicted to keeping my spreadsheet up-to-date and organized!

I'm a candle newbie and have performed dozens of test burns with Joy Wax, IGI 4627, and 4630 with CD, HTP, LX, and zinc wicks all with no luck. Everything either did not have a large anough melt pool, flame size was too big with soot, or candle burned too fast with very deep melt pools. WIth all trials I consistently trimmed my wick to 1/4". I decided to try the Premier 700 series wick after reading so many positive reviews and the likely chances of finding the "right" one given the small incremental sizes. I'm currently testing IGI 4633 with 8% FO, no dye, in 8oz tins. My first test wick was the WI-755. Both test candles had extremely tall wispy flames with streaming black soot. I extinguished them and did another test in two candles with WI-750 wicks. Both displayed flames that were too short and melt pools that were way too small. The large disparity in results between the two wick sizes didn't seem to make sense so I decided to try the 755 again but this time, I trimmed the wick shorter than 1/4". The second time around I had a taller flame with little to no soot and decent melt pool. Its making me rethink all the other test burns I did and wicks I wrote off because I thought the size was too big given the initial flame height and soot. Has anyone else had this experience?

Sorry, I wanted to post this to the original thread (it was an old one) that I read last night but I couldn't find it again. It listed HTP wicks and comparable CD wicks. Here's the list: HTP-31, CD-4 HTP-41, CD-5 HTP-52, CD-6 HTP-62, CD-7 HTP-73, CD-8 HTP-83, CD-10 HTP-93, CD-12 HTP-104, CD-14 HTP-105, CD-16 HTP-126, CD-18 HTP-1212, CD-20 HTP-1312, CD-22 There was a another post that mentioned that the HTP wick size does not necessarily increase with numerical order. Instead, starting from HTP-104, the order from smallest melt pool to the largest melt pool should go like this: HTP 104, 105, 1212, 1312, 126, 136, and HTP XL-100. My question is, does this hold true for the CD wicks as well? Should the melt pool and corresponding wick size follow the HTP wicks? For example, starting from CD-14, should the order from smallest melt pool to largest melt pool be: CD-14, CD-16, CD-20, and CD-22?

Brilliant! I wish I had seen this post a month ago. I am a beginning candlemaker and have spent days, weeks and $$$ in wax and fragrance oils testing wicks. Using this method, I tested over six wicks in less than an hour. Thanks!