birdcharm

I have experience with Penreco candle gel, but I've never made one with double glass. I think you can put whatever you want between the layers of glass as long as heat doesn't melt it. For a regular gel container candle, the medium is much easier to work with, light is easy too, but harder to suspend anything. Yes, sand is fine, shells are okay, but starfish (seastars) are not (and I also don't advocate for the taking of live animals for decoration). You can also use beach glass, marbles, etc. Zinc-core works well, as do HTP wicks, but you need to purchase them unprimed (raw) so you can prime them with gel, otherwise wicks that are primed with paraffin will cloud your candle. Other nice embeds can be molded wax pieces (using candy molds, for instance), made from a high melt point wax.

Those photos! Well, so much for the arrows on the box that pointed the way to "This Side Up" !! 🥴

I never heard of that before, I guess I'll have to try it to see.

I know others here have more experience than I do with your wax, but I can suggest using CD (Stabilo) wicks or RRD cotton core wicks. Your HTP104 could very well work in a smaller container than the one you tested.

For me personally, I haven't been able to truly investigate palm wax, so I have not bought any. I know there are serious problems with the palm oil industry. I see that one popular supplier has made a statement on their website, which I need to learn more about, but since I haven't had the time to do the research, I've simply stayed away from any purchases of palm wax period. It's my personal belief that if as a consumer I can make any small difference, I try to do my part. From this link ... If you are reading this article but buying your palm elsewhere, make sure to ask your distributor for the manufacturer. After we added Sumi Asih wax, many other suppliers followed. Be skeptical if they will not share that information with you. But beware, according to Andrew Bulter, of British cosmetics company Lush, there is "no such thing as sustainable palm oil: it doesn't exist".

I think it depends on the mold and style of the candle. For instance, some novelty candle designs, let's say a cupcake for instance, looks more interesting if a shell around the outside remains for awhile as the inside lights up, it eventually melts as the flame gets lower, wick permitting. I've made some in the past with wax decorations on top of the "frosting" so they get the back lit effect if the wick's just small enough to do that and large enough to eventually melt them away. You know, I don't think I'm being much help here! 😗

My place gets pretty chilly too. I've found that if I pour cool (below 120dF), they do much better. From advice I've read here in the past, I place them in a box overnight with some wrappings around the containers, it does seem to help. Yet, I think most people understand about the wax pulling away, the nature of things, as it can happen at any time.

I agree that adjusting lighting in PS can make a world of difference. I only have an old version of PS, but even with that, I can get a photo to look much better there. If "levels" or "curves" doesn't work well enough, "render-->lighting effects" is something to experiment with using the basic features.

Oh! That's right!! I forgot about that ... does the shelf-life issue pertain to soy candles too? For some reason, I've overlooked this a bit, obviously!!

I think there were some changes to this wax sometime after '16 ... I can't remember exactly and I'm not using it, but I spotted the following on ebay, so thought I'd mention it. It looks to me as though this person is selling from Lot F - Aug. '16, although a bit pricey at 3lbs/$17 (w/shipping) ... 464 (link)

Here's a piece about a candle study in regard to comparing waxes as well as sooting ... I only lightly read through it, I'll have to go back when I have more time, but thought I'd post it here; it's not new, so some readers here have probably already seen it. It's a four page .pdf ... Report on Wax Emissions Study

When adding fragrance oil to a melting pot, I make as sure to stand back, same as if I'm working with jalapeno peppers. I personally do not wear any gear for my candle making, but I only make small amounts at a time. Many of the synthetic aroma chemicals are not exactly what would be considered harmful for smelling. For instance, let's take one that is used in some fragrance oils, Linalool Oxide. I just picked that one for an example and did a quick search. I found an article about the aroma of wine as it ages and how this chemical plays a role in that ... some of these compounds are actually found in substances we ingest. From an article I was reading, "the compounds present in wine aroma include esters, terpenes, norisoprenoids, phenols, aldehydes and ketones" ... "... concentration of monoterpene alcohols, such as geraniol (rose, geranium), linalool (flower, lavender), and citronellol (rose) decrease during aging ..." for instance, a Citrus Spruce scent may include citronellol and geraniol ... interesting, isn't it? Just because you see the words "synthetic aroma chemicals" does not mean that it is something very harmful, it could be wine! 🍷

Here's the thing ... I think you've fallen prey to some marketing tactics that have the ability to thrive on certain fears that are not exactly sensible. When a company says they have "clean scents," it infers that other company's scents might be "dirty" ... how is that? Oh, well, they have "chemicals" in them and you don't know what they are! In my opinion, it stirs up a frantic atmosphere, in which especially new candle makers, may be prone to the effects. This is not to say that the fragrance oils are completely harmless, but neither are essential oils. The aroma chemicals found in fragrance oils are, for the most part, harmless when used properly, and do not pose any dangers in a candle. There can be some phthalates in some old-style oils, but, you can find those same substances in all sorts of products, and it's a good thing that there is a trend to get away from them, yet some phthalates haven't been used in candle scents. I'm sure there is a lot of discussion that could go on in regard to the "clean" marketing scheme, but I think that in many ways the "clean" ones may not be any cleaner than some other suppliers' regular ones that simply aren't being labeled or marketed in a similar way. As for using safety equipment if you pour a lot of candles in a small space and using proper care of any disposal of these oils, definitely, there are material handling procedures that should be paid attention to. There are ways to be safe and ways to be unsafe. I think adding a small amount of fragrance oil to a candle isn't nearly as harmful or dangerous as putting dried grasses and flowers on or in a candle or over-wicking, things we see happening far too often.

They're very dangerous, I think you should stop using and making candles right now!!!

What about adding a little bit of coconut oil to the mix ... would that have any benefit?

These aren't mason jars ... but if you've got a use for 8 oz. blue tumblers, you might be interested in these clearance ones at Bittercreek for 24/$5.30 + shipping. For me, the shipping comes to about $1+ per tumbler and I'm not looking to do such a thing just now, but if I were, I'd build an order around it to get them. It's really tempting ... I think they'd look great with silver lids. Blue Tumblers

All of your expenses for running your business are something separate from your product (cost of goods). I think an easy way to probably keep track of oils would be to keep track of the volume throughout the year that was purchased and then see what you have left at the end, that will tell you how much you've got left over and what you used. You can then add up your supplier invoices to see how much the entire collection cost ... that's the hard part! Kind of like eating a few chocolates and then counting up the calories! 🤭

The cash method has to do with recognizing your transactions when they actually occur in any given year. This is the common method of accounting if you don't offer terms, for instance, and you're paid when the product is sold. It has nothing to do with keeping an inventory. It's simply a matter of money in and out being noted when it occurs with no carry overs into another year. If you purchase 50 pounds of wax and at the end of the year you still have that 50 pounds of wax that you intend to use to sell with the following year, the cost of the wax would be entered into your inventory until you sell it the following year. In other words, on one hand, you will be deducting it as a supply expense, but you'll be adding it back in via your inventory until you actually use it (sell it), then it'll actually be considered.

I've never used any mica or glitters in soy candles, although I've used some specialty glitters on embeds within gel candles. Many years ago, I purchased several different shades and types of specialty glitters just to use a very small amount around the edges of my gel candles, or on certain embeds. I found that the ultra-fine glitter would tend to clog the wick, but the regular/fine or dazzle types (I forget the name) with larger flakes seemed to flow away from the wick. Once I realized that, I never used the ultra-fine again and that kind of told me to stay clear of mica. I know some people may suggest to only use mica and never glitter, but I find that a bit perplexing. Perhaps a small amount of mica does alright, I guess I'd have to test it sometime. Yet, I think that an extremely small amount of specialty glitter looks prettier, as "gobs" of anything usually looks just like that (gobs). I think if I were to try any mica, it would probably be something I would somehow try to sprinkle (just a little) onto the inside of the glass. With the candle featured here, I think the mica is messing with the wick.

It's only my own personal belief, but I think if you don't have to double wick, you shouldn't. I thought it was interesting to see a recent poll asking if people preferred candles with one wick or multiple wicks and the result was that more people actually seemed to prefer single wicks. I like two smaller doubles in containers greater than about 3.5", but for under that, a single wick should do the trick. It's less work and only takes one wick, so there is the cost factor wedged in there too.

That would be an interesting experiment. Who knows what I did, lol, not realizing they were directional, when I did a batch of votives, I cut a dozen pieces, then tabbed / primed them (whatever direction), I didn't notice any differences between the burns. Yet, that's just for a little votive, my guess is that for a larger candle, there probably would be a difference if they are considered "directional". I prime them, dipping them into the same type of wax I'm using in the candle, allowing them to harden on a tray. Sometimes I do it prior to threading through the tab, as that smooths them out as you pull it through (shaves the excess wax off). I prefer it because I can cut to lengths required with very little waste and if I want to use a metal tab with a longer neck, I have that option. Don't be intimidated ... once you start doing it, it's easy!

That sounds much better! I know some people pour your wax around the temp. you poured at and it works for them, but I've found that a lower temp. works much better. It most likely has something to do with ambient temperatures, but it does seem that pouring on the cool side helps to eliminate a lot of issues.

I think pouring at that high temperature is sure to produce wet spots. Did I read correctly? You poured at 185dF?

This brings me to something I've wondered about, but haven't asked about ... directional wicks. Last year I started experimenting with RRD wicks and I purchase raw wick, not pre-tabbed. When I bought them, I didn't see anything about them being directional, so who knows what I did when I tabbed them, I wasn't paying any attention to it. Then I read here somewhere about RRDs being directional and I thought, okay, now I need to pay more attention when I cut them to tab them, assuming that the strand that is exiting the plastic bag is pointed "upward" ... I looked at them with a magnifying glass to see them closer, but not actually knowing which way is "up" I'm mostly just guessing.

I just tried with a Firefox browser, there weren't any problems with this one. Maybe you could try that one so you don't have to use Edge.