wthomas57

None. Ive moved on from this wax. Even the few "successful" ones Ive made in regards to wicking Id never sell. This wax is a trainwreck. Browse through all the other posts talking about it. Smokes like a wildfire, and is inconsistent and terrible to wick. Plus the throw sucks IMO and needs more oil to compete.

Ive already moved on after testing around 80 lbs, several FOs, and a few different jars. The issue is the wax.... the other variables at this point are irrelevant I'm afraid.

I'd have to respectfully disagree I think on this. I dont see a problem with your candle at all. That wax is near the bottom so having only a 1/4" melt pool after 8 hours in a jar that deep is NOT bad at all. Id say its just right. The wick looks good too. And the soot..... again, I disagree. Having a little soot on the edge of the room (especially on one side) does not indicate its over wicked. Especially after 8 hours. Fir starters, 6006 does soot some unfortunately especially after 8 hour burn that deep in the jar. Its not uncommon. Also, when soot is on one side like that, its more a result of the wick leaning or curl than anything. If you wick down, you run the risk of it not being enough wick for a standard 3 or 4 hour burn time and it may never make it that deep in the jar to ever know. If you aren't satisfied with this one, you may be splitting hairs at this point. You can definitely give wicking down a shot... but I see no problem with your test results.

If this was 100%, I'd agree because you can achieve zero soot with no problem all the way through the candle. But 6006 is mostly parrafin, and you will often get soot with power burns. not always... but I wouldn't say yours is bad at all.

I think what you are referring to is people who made comments about risk of condensation from having the lid on. I dont think they realize how condensation happens..... there is no water in the wax. Dont' worry about it.

now... if you are also mixing your FOs in the presto with the wax for batches.... I agree, don't lid it.

The "soft" nature of CD wicks is one of the reasons I am not a big fan. They start leaning and create very uneven melt pools. No real solutions to this other than different wicks. But many people still like CD's regardless. Where do you get your CDs? You could also make sure you are ordering ones with highest possible melt point wax coating on them... may help a bit

Are you by chance covering the tops of your candles to keep them warm and what surface are your jars sitting on? Also, how are you pre-heating if you are preheating:

Ive seen this happen for the following reasons:

1) bottom cooling fast than top either because top is insulated better than bottom or because your jars are sitting on a surface that pulls out heat (wood, etc). Try pouring on another surface.

2) Glasses not clean on the inside in some places (dirt, grime etc)

3) If you are preaheating in the over.... make sure jars are getting equal heat on top and bottom so that the bottom isn't staying significantly cooler than the rest.

4) Random and infrequent  - dont wory about it.

I would repost this in one of two following places rather than this category. You will get more responses:

Wickless, or

Vegatable Wax

I had the same issue.... I still think it could have been due to Aztec. I asked them.. they naturally denied it. This WAS around the same time the equifax happened. So I am giving them benefit of the doubt. but never had an issue on other cards and it happened shortly after an order with them. 

I keep mine on the entire time I am working on candles... could be a couple hours, could be nearly the whole day. Its not a problem. I keep mine around 180-190. If its a bit too low to start a batch, i up the temp a tad to quickly get it where i need it. 

Melts will you give you an idea on the actual scent and whether you like it or not. But will give you zero guidance on testing for the candle.

And FWIW, you do not need to wait 2 weeks to test 6006, regardless of what you've heard or read. Its mostly parrafin for starters, but 2 weeks

is just not necessary. If you are overly concerned about it.. do all of your tests after a couple days, but keep one and retest after a couple weeks.

Ill tell you Ive used 6006 for years, i always test after a couple days, never had problems.

Good luck!

2 hours ago, TallTayl said:

I use full sheet and print/cut myself. 

Ive considered this myself just because of the flexibility. 

Currently, I use Online Labels and have no complaints. Huge selection, great prices, does me wonders.

But, have been thinking about using full sheets for quite some time now. How do you cut yours to look nice and professional?

On 9/10/2017 at 11:34 AM, Trappeur said:

Very very nice looking jar and label.  Very clean and eye catching.

 

So what don't you like about it?   Oh geesh, I love this scent...you can just smell the fire going in the background with the embers glowing and you smell the pine right through it.   Well that is my opinion.  I always get rave reviews on this one.  But to each their own.

 

Trappeur

I agree. its my best selling holiday scent

37 minutes ago, bfroberts said:

 

I use both 6006 & 4630 or a blend of both.  Never satisfied. 

Earlier this year I found a small Bert's Bees candle someone left behind in one of our cabins.  It was about 1/2 full.  I lit it to check the burn and it had a FMP within 10 minutes.  Within 20 minutes it was too hot to touch.  I am amazed that this is considered acceptable, desirable even.   Every time I consider growing this business - branching out to larger markets and trying to create a web presence - I reconsider and rein myself in.   I just don't think the average consumer wants candles like mine, although I know they are vastly superior to the massed produced junk.

Im with you. I used 6006 alone, and when 4630 and also with 464. Prefer it alone more than anything else. Agreed.. never satisfied. 

The problem is that its not just Burt;s Bees candles that do this. Most/All the big name candles do this. Customers want it, so stores stock it, and if stores stock it manufactures are going to keep making them that way. Personally, I've never had complaints about not getting a full melt pool right away....but then again, maybe I just dont hear from the customers who buy elsewhere. Frustrating

On a positive note... more and more as us smaller businesses start getting our products out there in larger mass and because small and mid sized candle businesses are really becoming extremely prevalent.... I think customers will start seeing that more and more candles burn slower and without a quick FMP. Perhaps their will slowly become a shift of expectations over time and what we do now will eventually become the norm. Or.... maybe not. 

On 10/7/2017 at 6:52 AM, Lighten Up said:

How big is your trash can?  

Not big enough, considering upgrading to a small dumpster. 

I may be a an outlier on this topic as I changed my process on this not too long ago. I used to always wick for the 100% proper burn and hope the customers do that and I have the label to fall back on if I get any complaints. However... no one burns 100% properly. Hell, its hard enough for us to do that even testing, lol!

I know NO ONE.. NOT ONE CUSTOMER who burns the right number of hours each time and who trims each time. Just doesn't happen.

So, here is what I do and why.

"Properly burned' and "properly wicked" candles offer a little leeway. What I mean is, a half size too small or too large and the candle will still work fine most of the time.

So, I ATTEMPT to wick for regular customer habits... longer burns, less trimming, etc. Then, as long as the chosen wick(s) that passed that test also does fine with regular burn times and being trimmed each time... then its a winner.  

But conversely, if I find a wick that does well with proper burns and trimming... but not with power burns or lack of trimming, than I probably keep testing. Because for most customers that wick isn't going to be a good choice. I have learned (most of the time) to find a pretty good balance between the two.

Look at it this way though.. what would you rather have happen if you had to choose:

1) customer complaint that not all the wax melted and left some hangup when finished.. maybe even tunneled... and you have to offer some customer service?

or

2) customers power burn or don't trim. or both ... and you dont consider that... then their candle becomes incredibly unsafe and shatters, starts a fire...and so on. Yes, they didn't follow the warning and instructions, but you think that is going to make you feel better about their disaster? Or, do you think your business could recover from bad publicity like that? Perhaps. Perhaps Not.

I'd rather just offer a customer an occasional replacement candle if for some reason one doesn't quite live up to expectations. But with enough testing, i honestly feel you can avoid both of these scenarios. Those are my thoughts anyway.

8 hours ago, Lighten Up said:

Also, I always trim my wicks down when I lid & label. I am always curious when I see other candles with long wicks, why leave them so long??

I also pre trim mine to correct length before selling and lidding. It doesn't take anymore work or time to do that and Id rather my customer have a good burnign candle from the get go.

1 hour ago, TallTayl said:

Are those wicks slumping in the melt pools? Some of them look pretty deep.

 

Sagging/slumping wicks would look like they are snuffing out since the business end of the wick is shortened as it sinks in the melt pool. 

So whats happening in these pics... at least on the middle picture..... (I know because it did it on majority of my testers is well) is another horrible characteristic of this wax. The wicks just simply have a hard time with this wax and they end up basically clumping really badly at the base (sort of like a mushroom but way worse) instead of the fuel traveling up the wick and combusting. It jsut collects and makes the wick extremely fat and clumpy on top of the wax. Causes a very wide and VERY hot flame. The melt pools become full and deep very quickly. And its not from overwicking. I had it happen on all sizes (too big, too small, etc) The only wicks that seems to avoid doing this were ones that were so underwicked and so small that they essentially did nothing and drown out quickly. I know lots of us have said it repeatedly... but this wax is just bad news. 

3 hours ago, moonshine said:

😳😳😳

is thst seriuisly how much smoke your getting after extinguishing?? Top picture 3rd one from the left 

 

I am in disbelief that they launched this wax as comparables to anything but garbage 

Yes not only doed it smoke that much.. but it does for SEVERAL minutes.  Most candlesstop smoking after just a fee seconds.... but not this wax. Its total garbage.

12 minutes ago, Trappeur said:

What does Quantum mean?

 

Trappeur

I think it means "awful"

14 minutes ago, Grani L said:

To chime in on the Q210 - I also noticed the smoking when heated beginning at a very low temperature.  After putting the candle out, it does smoke like crazy (CD and HTP wicks) and I noticed black streams in the wax after it re - solidifies. One issue I am also having is the wick will burn fine for a good 4 hours, and then the flame becomes very small like its drowning. This is with a 6% fragrance load. The MP's were great as one candle had an HTP 83 and the other an HTP 93.  Both had a nice size say 1/2 inch melt pool - from the first hour to the fouth hour, then the flame slowly but surely began to - "Drown".  One candle I tested "Christmas Splendor" the flame was ridiculously high - 6% FO Load, but the top part of the melt pool was very dark - almost black, but the rest of the melt pool beneath it was quite clear and very deep. I will see if I can upload some photos. All this rucus  and long wait over this wax - but it makes me wonder if we are seeing this - why didn't the Manufacturer?  I will try to post some photos shortly.  - I am afraid to even test again with 464 - with all the issues I am reading about. 6006 started to give me issues a good year ago and I left that alone. Is there a good wax out there?

This is what happens when a manufacturer suddenly pulls a great product and then gets lots of pressure to replace it. They CLEARLY didn't thoroughly test this for candles... at least not enough. This stuff is no good. The issues you are describing are in addition to all the other problems. I am done with it. I did EXTENSIVE testing, nearly every wick imaginable, probably about 20 FOs, multiple jars, multiple variations in the process of using it. Its just not good. Out of the FEW testers that burned well, they all still had one thing in common; they smoked FOR SO LONG after extinuguising. Not just a little longer... not "oh my customers will get used to it longer". I mean... WAY TOO LONG and WAY TOO MUCH SMOKE. Everyone person.. and I mean EVERY customer/tester I use said they would hate that and not buy it again purely because of the smoke itself. Its crazy how smokey it is... regardless of the wick. It has to deal with the chemicals in the wax itself (probably the thing that makes it vapor and smoke when in the melter. 

The wax itself is very inconsistent as well. I have already noticed this in just a few different orders. Some stink, some doesn't. Some is softer, some is harder. Some melts worth a damn, some doesn't. Some has descent throw, some doesn't. They all smoke like crazy though, so there's that for consistency.

Save your time and money and avoid this junk. EcoSoya/NGI needs to go back to the drawing boards. This is an utter failure. I hope no one takes offense to this, but in my opinion... those that are posting even half-way descent reviews of this wax on websites, you tube, etc.... are either getting paid to do so or they dont know enough about candle making or haven't done enough testing.

I agree... zincs on some oils do not work... its just not enought wick and the burn out. But on many of mine they still work just fine.

CD 7 and 8 are definitely not too small for me in the jelly jars which are pretty narrow. However, they are too small for me on my masons and larger for sure. And good point.... different suppliers could vary a bit which is crazy frustrating!

I would try htp 83 and cd 8 and 10 and then cross your fingers that you're close!

I have recently installed a basketball hoop over a trash can where I do testing. Let's just say I have become a very good shot

6006 very much depends on the fragrance oil you are using as well.

Zincs work well and are consistent, but you still still get mushrooms often. I dont think customers care as much about mushrooms as we do. If anything, its a reminder to trim the wick.

Here are others that work in 6006 but it depends on the jar and the fragrance oil:

CD

HTP

Premier

RRD

ECOs work but for me they soot the most in this wax.

Id like to say one is better than the other... but I would by lying. I test each and go with what works best. Overall Id say I use mostly zincs and htp but i definitely use some of each.

For your 8oz jelly, start with these but again you will need adjust per fragrance oil often:

HTP - 83

CD - 7 or 8

Zinc - 44-24

Eco - 2 or 4

Yes, 3020 is closest to 6006.

I have not tried 3022 myself but a few reasons. I wonder why if its really that good why more people aren't using it. I rarely see anyone talking about it much.

Also, because its 70% I wonder what type of soy it is. I would be concerned that the soy issues in the market right now would also affect 3022. Finally... the price.

Clarus is not cheap and shipping is not cheap. And there isn't really any descent bulk pricing.

2 minutes ago, moonshine said:

It's not funny but it kinda is....I'm disgusted and discouraged as well 

 

what is it about 415 you don't like?  I am a little surprised to hear you like advanced as it's one of the soys that looks absolutely beautiful but hardly throws at all, very finicky wax with FO 

 

my customers want soy and I'm at my wits end figuring this out 

415 will still get me by wicking down but it's a crap load of more tests to be sure each fragrance is going to work well going this route - some may need to go down 2 sizes 🙈

 

I am going to introduce a couple different blends I have been testing slowly in tins to see the reaction and feedback I get from people and hopefully they will come around so I can just move on from this straight soy crap once and for all - and it does make me sad because I LOVED my 415! 

Maybe I was just lucky on the FOs I was using (But I use about 75 different ones) and for the most part had great success with Advanced. However, my soy line was much smaller than my parasoy or parrafin lines. Its not that I loved Advanced... I just preferred it over everything else so far.

And I dont hate 415... just dont like it by itself. Don't like the way it looks (often) or the way it performs. Its better for blending... at least for me.

I would totally avoid soy if it was up to me... except there are 2 reasons I keep using it:

1) Many customers ask or insist on it (they usually dont have good reasons, but thats irrelevant)

2) far less soot or at least black soot on the jars.... even siginificantly better than parasoys in my opinon. So on jars with shoulders, this is really noticeable

I mostly use 6006.... which is a total PITA to wick properly.. but makes a great overall candle. Still will product more soot than all soy though

18 hours ago, GoldieMN said:

Oh man, do I hear you with the pain and cost of retesting.  

GoldieMN

Problem is I am finding no suitable alternatives.

The new quantum waxes are absolutely atrocious. If they dont fix the problem, NGI/EcoBrands wont be around too long. The waxes are barely usable.

I dont like 464 or 415 myself but for different "normal" reasons, Lol. I dont think anything compares to CB-Advanced which is of course gone now.

Ive been doing everything I can to try and find a descent alternative or even try blending several... just not happy with anything soy anymore