bfroberts

Def. try the larger Premier sizes like 790 & 798. Yrs ago I worked with 464 and the Premier 798 in apothecaries. I never really got there but it was close. The waxes have changed a lot since then so it just might work. You can get bags of 12 Premier wicks for $1 from Aztec.

That's the one I've been waiting for! I've got so many blends in mind. I just ordered. Thank you!

I think the major change was when they went to "clean scents." Many of the standards were discontinued and they came up with clean replacements, some of which are just really off-putting. Now all the scents seem to have a similar undertone to my nose...kinda like all BBW products have a common undertone. Or maybe it's just me. I had a few of the old scents duped. Although the dupes aren't all 100% the same, I am happy with them and they perform well.
I haven't noticed anything different lately. Like a glutton, I still buy samples whenever they come out with something new. Old habits...

I like LX wicks in 4630. For better results, cure several days before testing, don't overload with FO or dye, and don't aim for a full melt pool within 3 hours on the first couple of burns. IIRC, LX 18 usually does the trick for me in a 3" tumbler.

2 hours ago, Laura C said:

Exciting, glad that's a hit for you. I really like the hex jars. I wasn't so sure about them either but once I made a few candles in them, I became a fan.

I guess I'm a fan now too. Super easy to wick and they look great with black lids.

I've been selling mason jar candles in our store for years. I've used various scents and waxes over the years but generally always in masons. I like to use containers I can source locally to save on shipping, and I have used other more high end containers here and there, but the masons always sold best (maybe because we are in the mountains? idk).  

This winter I found a big stash of 9ox hex jars at a thrift for super cheap. I really don't know why I bought them. I've never really liked those jars. The Home Interiors vibe, I guess.

I finally got around to pouring them last week, and the minute I put them out to sell they started flying off the shelves. I never expected it. Over the course of the week, I couldn't make them as fast as they were selling.

So the point of this post is, don't be afraid to try something new even if you don't really love it. These hex jars sold so well and so quickly that I've just had to order more, and I haven't ordered any jars online in a really long time. You just never know.

😲 For goodness sakes, that's insane. Get the base from The Candlemakers Store. It's great. If memory serves, the ingredients are the same or very close, but I prefer the base from TCS. 

You do a great job!  Thank you!

46 minutes ago, AudraT said:

That's good to know. I'm currently testing a candle with one size down from what I initially expected and it's taken absolute ages for the melt pool to get anywhere. I mean, it took nearly 4 hours for the melt pool to get large enough and deep enough to finally leave a descent scent throw. 3 inch diameter jar, melt pool was extremely shallow, much less than 1/4 inch, and the diameter of the pool was so small. At four hours everything is fine now. If the wick started longer, like 1/2 inch, then the melt pool wouldn't have taken so long to develop and the fragrance would have been stronger.
I'm going to continue testing to see how it functions deeper into the jar. It'll probably burn perfect. I think the fear is that people will become disappointed with the candle at their first burn.

I know exactly what you mean. I wick consecutively and I used to fear customers would consider the candle a dud if they didn't get a big melt pool and a knock your socks off throw immediately. In my attempts to create a safe power-burnable candle, I found out that more conservative wicking truly does make a superior candle. One that burns cleaner and produces a more pure scent - from top to bottom.  I've never had anyone complain about lack of throw but I have had customers remark on how clean and "perfect" the candle burned from top to bottom. It took me a really really really long time (years) to get here

23 hours ago, AudraT said:

Hello. I'm curious what you would do in your hypothetical scenario where a CD24 wick burns properly at the top of the candle but you find it needs to be a CD20 for the middle? If you did size down by 2 whole sizes wouldn't you stand a good chance that your candle would tunnel at the top? Would you try switching to a different type of wick or something to correct this?

Just FYI, I never did switch to a hotter wick for my candle issue I had back in January. It's a long story but there was never actually anything wrong with the candle.

If it needs a smaller wick in the center, it really just needs a smaller wick. Don't get hung up on getting a full melt pool at the top. 

9 hours ago, gc78 said:

I did notice what seemed to be the correct size testing after 24 hours was too small when the candle cured longer. In fact it seemed like it was a couple of sizes too small. @bfroberts Do you notice that trend as well? The longer it cures, you may have to wick up?

Yep, but it can go both ways depending on the wick type. In one way or another, the wick that works shortly after pour doesn't usually end up being the wick that is appropriate after a good cure. 

18 hours ago, gc78 said:

Thank you for the replies. I did end up reaching a full melt pool a little shy of three hours with #2 CDNs double wicked, but like you said it gets pretty hot about half way down the jar. Glass tested at about 130-160 at times. The flame also started doing some kind of a weird sideways nose dive toward the melt pool. Anyone know if this is because of too much fragrance load or something else? I can't figure out why the flame doesn't want to stay upright. I did finally figure out the wick curl and placing them so they curl in opposite directions. I tried ZC 60 which was the closest I think I have come with a single wick. However, it tunneled pretty bad and never reached a full melt pool. The other thing that has been bothering me is that I feel like I have to test wicks that might not be properly maintained (If someone forgets to trim the wicks) Single wicks seemed worse than double wicks in this scenario. I'm thinking of giving up on this jar and going just slightly wider to maybe 3.5 and using the CDN2s. I would be curious if anyone has really had much success with a 3" diameter and 6006. I'm at my wicks end! 🙂It's unfortunate because its such a reasonably priced jar and I think very elegant. 

I have sold a lot of status jar candles with 6006 over the yrs. It can successfully be done. 3" diameter is really not a hard container to wick at all as long as you are realistic about the melt pool. You should have some hangup for the first few burns.  Also, with 6006 you really need to allow the wax to cure at least 10 days or more. It will look totally different after 3 weeks than it does after 3 days. The burn quality is substantially improved with a longer cure.  I have used a lot of wicks with 6006...zinc, LX, CD, Eco, HTP. I prefer a non-curling wick for a more symmetrical melt pool in this style container, but all of the types mentioned work well and are pretty simple to dial in.  A good cure is essential. I wouldn't double wick a 3" container.  

6006 doesn't burn with a wide melt pool like soy and some other waxes. It burns down and then outward, creating a deeper but narrower melt pool. If you wick for a full melt pool in the first part of the jar, it is going to be massively over-wicked in the bottom half of the jar. Correctly wicked, it is going to look different than what you may be used to with 464. I like to have some hangup until about halfway down the jar. That usually keeps the jar temp moderate, the throw good and you end with a clean jar. Try 51z if you have some of those.

In my experience...

1. Smell OOB is not necessarily indicative of the final result. I've had some nose burner oils that were lackluster in wax and some light scents that came alive when in wax. I don't judge an oil from a bottle sniff alone.
2. Those high FO loads are a waste of money, in my opinion. Super high loads (10-12% or more) can create excess soot & mushrooming and/or wicking problems without actually increasing the throw of the candle. A good oil that makes the cut with me will have a strong throw at 6-7%. There are tons of oils out there that are just meh...no matter how well made the candle. Some are better suited to B&B than wax. Some are just softer, lighter scents by nature or composition. It may take a long time and a ton of testing to create a lineup that performs to your satisfaction. That's why we all have wayyy too may oils.
3. Soy generally has a better cold throw than paraffin. Just the nature of the beast. Keep the candles lidded as they cure. 

With a 6% fragrance load, Eco 1, 2 or 4 work, but it does largely depend on the FO. Cure 2 full weeks before testing.

I think you are way over wicked which can inhibit HT. In my experience with 6006, you’ll need to wick small enough NOT to get a full melt pool until about halfway down the container. A FMP early on is way to hot as the candle burns down, especially in a tumbler. The wicks you are using will work fine in 6006, but you should go several sizes smaller. 
 

With the larger % of paraffin in 6006, you often won’t get the super strong CT you were getting with 464. Of course results will vary depending on the FO, but across the board soy waxes do often give a stronger CT. 

Suede & Tabac, Caribbean Escape, Bamboo Sugarcane, Santa’s Pipe, Vanilla Bean Noel. All those are strong in multiple types of wax. Their Gardenia is strong but it’s not my favorite gardenia.I also like the Lime Margarita.

Packing paper sheets, roll like a burrito and secure with our logo sticker.

On 12/1/2022 at 3:32 PM, Ernie said:

Just got a a slab of this wax to try out as an alternative to igi 1286 and have been doing some experimenting with it. So far I like the mottling look of this multi purpose wax better than the 1286. I tried to pour one with vybar 260 to see if I could get something similar to the look of 4786 but it just gets a mat finish. Does anyone know what will give this wax a smooth finish because vybar isn't doing it? Also, is there an additive that will give better glass adhesion for a mottling wax that won't disturb the mottling?

I’ve tried all of them. I can’t advise you on getting a smooth finish. I have not tried, but I have found no need to use any additives to get mottles. 1230, 1286, etc will mottle beautifully with FO only as long as you heat your jars and cool very slowly. 1230 needs vybar to help with seepage but I don’t use it at all in other mottling waxes.

I usually use 2 36z wicks in my 4" containers w/similar waxes. They work well with most of my FO's. For a couple of super heavy scents, I need double 44-20z's. IME, larger zinc wicks will consume the wax too fast, create some honking mushrooms, and get a little wild near the bottom of the jar.  
You can play around with the placement of the wicks to get a more symmetrical melt pool, but you do need that early hangup or it will be over-wicked at the bottom

Wholesale Supplies Plus has a very nice VBN. It is my favorite. Mrs. Claus Cookies from Nature's Garden is very similar but slightly less musk. Both are nice.

Way way over-wicked. Those are usually called "jelly jars" and usually need a smaller wick than the 8oz square mason jars. Either an Eco 1 or 2 (depending on the FO) will work in the jelly with Joy or 6006.
In my experience, you will waste time and money trying a lot of different waxes. Pick one and learn it inside and out. The waxes you mentioned can all work very well or they can all be dismal failures depending on the normal factors...FO, wick, cure time, etc.  

27 minutes ago, Noob82 said:

I tested the CD with FO.  I thought I wasn't supposed so removed it this time. If one soots bad without FO wouldn't be worse with it?  Is it possible to get a better melt pool with FO?

 

Do you have any recommendations for 6006 in the 8 oz mason jar from CS?  

The FO substantially changes the wax. There's really a lot to unpack just on that topic so I won't go into it, but no. Adding FO doesn't automatically mean it's going to soot or not soot. 
Most wicks work reasonably well with 6006. I've had success with Eco, LX, CD, zinc, HTP.  That wax has undergone some changes over time and I am not sure exactly what it is like right now. The wick guide at Candle Science is accurate for 6006, give or take the normal variables.  The biggest thing is not to expect it to burn like other waxes and reach a full melt pool early.  If you wick it for a FMP in the early burns, it's over-wicked and it will be ugly at the bottom. Don't overload it with FO. 6-7% is all you need, and the more you add, the more soot you'll get. Allow it to cure properly. None of this 1-2 day business. It needs a good solid 2 weeks to settle in and burn well & cleanly.  It's even better after a month.

The wax will burn very differently when you add FO. You can't dial in your wicking w/o FO, dye - the things you will be using in the finished product.

A baseline test (no FO, dye, etc) is important for testing any new batch of wax to make sure there have been no changes, but it's not for actual wick testing.  

They have the IFRA docs. If they won't supply them, I would just move on. Their scents aren't "premium" and they don't have anything that can't be found elsewhere.