KrisS

Since there'd been a few questions about the apricot wax, I poured a couple of candles to share with the group.     Attached is the Accu-Blend apricot.   No adders.   1 oz Coconut Cream Pie FO ppd of wax.   It was stirred significantly longer than usual because it's a heavier vanilla based fragrance, and I'm aware that FO is "challenging"  (pain in the...) to fully incorporate.  

It was poured on 01/21/17, so I was ready for a burn test.    Last weekend, there was no FO pooling on the candle surface.   This weekend, I have puddles.   I'm uncertain how well it conveys via picture, but the shiny oily looking surface is FO.    I was hopeful last weekend that the extended stir time had alleviated the pooling.  
 

FWIW, it's not my methodology...or if it is, others have the same fatal flaw.  I had been considering this wax awhile.  I purchased an apricot candle from another chandler--I was fairly certain it was this wax, and she later confirmed my assumption was correct.   Her candle arrived at my house...with pooling.   Temps were warm at the time, so I gave it a pass, blotted off the excess, and burned it.   I ended up with a robust tiki torch.   

If you plan to use this wax, please, please, please test extensively.   I can't emphasize this enough.    The supplier recommends 8% max fragrance load.   I used less than that.  The other chandler used less than that.  We both had pooling.    This isn't a wax you can just melt, add FO, and sell.   If you plan to use this wax, you'll need to create a custom blend of your own using it.

I hesitated posting this because Accu-Blend is a great company.   They have good products.   Their customer service and sales group is great.   I just don't want to see someone rush the testing and sell product without realizing that added tweaks will be needed to make this wax work.

I use enough wax to completely utilize the 1 oz sample.    I have zero interest in keeping shelves of tiny bottles with a fraction of an ounce in them.    For samples, I put them in the old school tart molds instead of the square cubes, as it's more cost effective.     I wait a week and take it to work and put it in a melter in the kitchen and see how it does.  One warmer.     Packaging it, curing it a week, and melting it elsewhere eliminates the candle nose issue.     If it doesn't work, I'll wait another week or two and melt another to see if it was a cure time or sinus issue.    

6 hours ago, Clear Black said:

But its not glassware, more ceramics. Would this still fall under those guidlines?

That's a question for an attorney and your product liability insurer.   However, keep in mind that many court cases are tried by a jury pool lacking in education and common sense.   Whether or not it *does* apply isn't as important as how convincing the opposing attorney is in assurances that it should apply.

The liability on using things like this always scares me off.    There's no way to demonstrate I'm meeting the ATSM standards for glassware without the manufacturer's certs or having the testing done myself. 

I offered my unopened box of PB via PM to someone if they'll provide a shipping label.   PM was read, no response...so anyone want it?

I sent a box to another board member a couple of months ago.  She eventually got it after I got motivated enough to take it to the shipper.  No scam.  I just want it gone.  (I'm not selling it, so it doesn't fit in the classifieds.)

On 1/14/2017 at 6:01 PM, justajesuschick said:

Yes. In the online vendor wax world, it is rampant. Disney Samplers, Hello Kitty, My Little Pony...on and on! It is wrong. As a fellow online wax world vendor, it is also agitating. 

Simply put, they are profiting off of something which does not belong to them. Setting themselves apart with something they do not have permission to use.

There is a saying, "Do not build your home on rented land". Sadly, many are misinformed and think if they paid for a Disney, Star Wars or other pan/mold, that they paid the royalties because after all, "the mold exists" or they can find pictures on their computer that they can use that for profit. Nope.

If any use a property owned by the very large corporation where I have been for now over 30 years, I will contact them directly and ask that they not use them. If they do not comply, my pals in our legal department will be my next stop.

I guess because I have been in the corporate world for 3 decades, I understand business and the law. Although I am convinced many do understand but think they are simply being clever.

Some customers were just appalled that a big company like Lush Cosmetics would send a cease and desist to an online vendor who used all their scent names. Like somehow a big company was "picking on" a small vendor. That would be like me saying I went to any of your personal Facebook pages and used pics of your kids, grandchildren or pets on my product labels or website! Somehow they see that is wrong but do not have the same understanding when it is a large company.

As you can tell, I a VERY passionate about this subject! It is theft.  

 

In a corporate dog-eat-dog world, a copyright/trademark holder's best friend is the violator's competitor.  

Aside from my follies with Ecosoya PB, the longevity of the throw seems to be largely dependent upon the FO that's being used.   If a fragrance scents the test area for 48 hours, I'm unconcerned about which wax lasts longer.    

   You'll need to do a lot of testing to see if you come to the same conclusion.   I've been playing/testing for over a year, after a decade long hiatus.    To do it and do it right, it's time consuming.

On 1/2/2017 at 4:20 PM, pcbrook said:

I have read about that as well.  Sometimes it is hard to know what believe.  

He who has the money rules.   The cotton lobby decimated hemp farmers back in the 30s.   My great-grandfather was very successful up until that point.   As a crop, it requires half the space to acquire equal yields as cotton...and as a small child, I remember him talking about discovering it had been banned, cutting down the crop, and the impact on his family that year.

Based upon that anecdote and research, the soy lobby sounds very probable.  

That said, wax is a secondary market to the food industry.  I'll be interested to see how regulation changes are going to impact the products we use and the burn characteristics of the new formulations.

Bummer, but I can't say I'm surprised.   They've been out of stock for months.

On 12/14/2016 at 3:49 PM, Omegacandles said:

So back to the wax, anyone worked with this or coconut wax? I know they both have high melt points, probably the same issues.

The coconut wax has a congeal point of 126 degrees.   I've asked for the product data sheet for the apricot multiple times, and it's not available.   That in and of itself is a little disconcerting.  Recommended max FO load is 8% on both.

The coconut arrived very, very soft with somewhat significant melting on a 102* day...so summer may be a challenge, even in non-desert areas.   The apricot was marginally better.   In a 75* home, neither ever felt quite solid.   They're both softer than J50 prior to reformulation by IGI, if anyone remembers that wax from back in the day.  

Even at 7%, I've had issues with FO pooling.   Their suggestion is to add soy to it.  That impacts burn characteristics significantly.

....and as far as being clean burning, that's dependent upon your FO, jar size, wicking, colorant, etc.   Any candle may soot.  Period.  Almost equally important is how the consumer burns it.   If they don't perform proper burn hygiene, it's going to soot and not burn cleanly either.

On 1/4/2017 at 8:34 AM, olives said:

 

Omegacandles - have you tried blending apricot wax with soy wax?

I'm not Omega, but the Accu-Blend apricot is a mix with soy and other veggie waxes.   

At one point, ASTM had declared that 175° F is the Maximum temperature that the candle container can be at full melt pool.  I, admittedly, haven't purchased the most up to date spec, so that may not be accurate as of today

7 hours ago, Sponiebr said:

@Clear Black@KrisS,

I don't know that molecular water would sizzle or pop necessarily. I wonder if either they didn't just mix some air into the batch by accident, or if maybe one of the plasticizers has a lower than expected boiling point. You could put a cold plate over the top of the pot and it will collect the evaporant. Which might make it easier to figure out what the stuff is, methanol, water, light fractionated oil... 

I only have a small stash that I'd purchased for testing purposes.  When it's gone, it's gone, so no worries.     Was just sharing with the crowd.    I emailed Millcreek to see if they can replicate--I know I'd want to know if one of my branded products was behaving oddly.   Love, love, love their FOs, btw.   

I'm experiencing something similar with Millcreek's natural votive blend that arrived just before T-day--it's their mix, so I don't know their manufacturer.   I assumed water initially, but I've let the wax harden in the Presto, and there is not water in the bottom of the pot when it re-solidifies.    Second try...more bubbles.   I heated it to a temperature that should have resulted in sizzling and popping if there were water vapor trying to escape...so not water.    It is very, very odd though.  

10 hours ago, number2of7 said:

You also need to consider your wax melt packaging while you're experimenting.  Too much of the container wax and your wax won't "pop out" of clamshells and the like.  Just figured I'd throw that extra tidbit in there in case you hadn't considered it.

You also need to understand that not all melters have the bowl part that pops out so you can put it in the freezer to cause the wax to release.    Digging wax out of the melter or using paper towels to absorb hot wax seems to garner negative responses.

On 11/13/2016 at 1:24 AM, Pamaroma said:

What are your opinions on Narures Gardens? I've tried two so far from there. Mulberry was wonderful hot throw. Old Fastion Banana Pudding no throw at all.

I haven't used NG recently, but a decade ago, they had more hits than misses.   However, you have misses with practically any fragrance supplier.

On 11/6/2016 at 7:29 AM, katmeltswax said:

KrisS , I will let you know how the new Aztec soy tart blend performs soon. I have poured a few batches & they are curing now. I know you wanted me to keep you updated on this wax. I hope it turns out great & I will be adding soy to my line as well .Hang in there ,Kat

I'm over PB - I need to ship the balance to a forum member, and just haven't gotten it to UPS.

I've used another soy.   Significantly better CT.   HT is mediocre.   I've tested a palm wax.   Better, but cleaning the pour pot is a PITA.   I have two more waxes slated to deliver before Thanksgiving...so I plan to hide from the world and play with wax while everyone else eats turkey.

I hope testing is going well for you.

I don't use that wax, so I can't comment on it.   However, if you are questioning the safety of your own candles, I see no option but to recall them.   

It really is a reminder for all of us.  New fragrance?   Test.    New jar?   Test.   Same old wick/wax/fragrance but new supplier?   Test.   Test, test, test, and retest.   You need to burn a sample candle from every wax lot, just to make sure something didn't change during the manufacturing process.     

You've made the decision on which wick works best with the  jar.   How badly does it tunnel if they don't let it burn long enough?   How wide and deep is the melt pool at 30 minutes?  An hour?  3 hours?   Marathon burn?   Did you burn one candle or multiples?   One batch or a few different batches?   Do your notes reflect it? 

We're working with products, when improperly manufactured or used, that have the potential to cause the loss of life or property.   We owe it to ourselves, other candlemakers, and the consumer to act accordingly.

I'm making candles for myself and not for retail at this time.

That said, if something is ASTM certified, there should be certifications that can be forwarded to you confirming that the containers meet the ASTM spec.  This would likely be something you need to have the reseller request and be provided from the manufacturer

The wax vendor should have info on their website regarding acceptable fragrance load.

Please share your results.

That said, there's nothing preventing you from creating a Cuban-inspired fragrance line with things you've either mixed or renamed.   

50 minutes ago, birdcharm said:

Okay, so what ya'll are saying is that those cute vintage jars from my grandmother's French jam should not one day become a gift candle that someone may enjoy.  They are the ones as shown in this article:  http://www.davidlebovitz.com/jars/

 

If people don't have any issue with reusing a French jam jar as a drinking glass as discussed in the article, why would it be considered such a no-no for a candle?  If the jar is in good condition and you have others like it that you have tested, is the reason here for safety or because it's considered in bad taste to repour into a repurposed container?  I haven't given any of my French jam jars away as candles, but some folks would probably like them.

 

It's a safety concern.   There are only so many heat/cool cycles that glass can handle before it fails, and the concern is that it could fail with hot wax and fire in the mix.

Even Pyrex is prone to failure after time, by the way.  I had a dish shatter for no apparent reason ages ago--casserole on the counter cooling...and *pop*.

10 minutes ago, GoldieMN said:

I don't want to get your blood boiling, but what was the main problem with this soy?

Goldie

  No boiling blood.   I was testing yet another lackluster batch of tarts this morning and decided today was the day I'm done with it.

It's a pretty wax--frosting is mild-moderate for the tarts that I allowed to sit for six months to see what they'd do.  The HT is lackluster.   I've mixed 25/75 and 50/50 with 7 or 8 different container waxes that throw at an acceptable level as a stand alone in a candle.   For whatever reason, the PB is binding everything and won't throw.   (These are tarts for goodness sakes.)    I've tried multiple additives...pouring temps...FO add temps...fragrance loads.   I spent over a year and put over 70 FOs in this wax.  Stick a fork in it...done.  DDFD.

I have much more pleasant things to say about a couple of other waxes that I'm testing, but I want to make sure I'm good with them after the product has sat a few months.   However, I'm getting significantly better throw from one at the 3 day mark than I was with PB at the 3 week mark.

19 minutes ago, KrisS said:

I do *not* recommend Ecosoya PB.   I loathe this wax with a passion.    I have nothing positive to say about it.  

 

I have a 50lb box I'll give you for the cost of shipping if you want it--PM me your info.   I'm over it.

It's been one of those mornings.    I've tried for 15 minutes to edit the original post to clarify that I'm working with other waxes that seem to be performing significantly better, and I don't have any reasons to continue putting FO and time into a product I've grown to dislike this much.   

  So...I'm stuck with a post that looks like a rage-quit/tantrum when it wasn't...but you're still welcome to that 50 lb box if you want it.

I do *not* recommend Ecosoya PB.   I loathe this wax with a passion.    I have nothing positive to say about it.  

I have a 50lb box I'll give you for the cost of shipping if you want it--PM me your info.   I'm over it.