Kerven

Wax and FO incompatibility does exist. What FO are you using? CS Black Sea was a bad one for me, especially in coconut blends. It made one tester look more like a foamy sponge than wax.

Would these candles be considered food products? How would they be taxed? Hoping the person making these has food handler certification.

I think I have enough to finish testing. Right now, I'm tinkering with additives to try to improve a surface frosting issue (it's perfect otherwise). If it turns out, co92, stearic, and something else will be needed. (I'm almost certain I've managed to recreate the franken-formula from years ago - but better.) There's another blend I'd like to try in order to get rid of this huge slab of coco83 and it requires SP-486. I'll splurge for testing, but if it's a success I'm probably going to need a bunch of SP-486 and maybe either coco83, coconut-apricot, or coconut apricot creme. Stocked up on mason jars, so I'll make do with those. Wicks... will have to see about that. ECO worked fine in the original candle but due to the amount of stearic I might need something like CSN. I'm thinking my problem is that I need a variety of things from a variety of suppliers, causing overall shipping costs to go through the roof.

Have noticed increased prices on waxes, materials such as cetearyl, stearic, etc., containers, and shipping. FO, IMO, appeared to be increasing for years, especially with the reformulations, so I'm not counting those. I've been trying to justify placing an order for some S&P pillar wax but at $2.80/lb plus the shipping options and costs I'm hesitant. I really don't want to have to use USPS for cheaper shipping. FedEx Home Delivery is about 3x as much for the same order. Really hoping this blend I'm working on turns out because it should be a lot cheaper... I'm just having a heck of a time sourcing one of the materials because there seems to be a shortage. For those of us who don't use more than 50lbs at a time, would co-oping direct from manufacturers be cheaper?

😷 Edit: Almost forgot. While I'm here I might as well ask. Anyone know where to find fat quarters or eighths sold individually? Half yards might work too. I want to make masks for Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas for family and friends but I don't want to have all or most of them in the same pattern and I don't want to have a bunch of leftover seasonal fabric that I'm not going to have use for until next year. Also not a fan of bundles because, like CD albums, there's maybe one or three I like but the rest I'm not going to use.

Like @TallTayl said, the additives made the difference. Some additives have high (>150F) melt points and create a sturdy crystalline structure/lattice/matrix/network/<insert appropriate term> that withstands higher temperatures while keeping the lower melt point materials trapped within. Some of the lower melt point materials might sweat or leak out through openings in the crystalline structure but the overrall wax will try to hold together, even if it turns soft and squishy until it finally begins to fail. Other additives gel or thicken the oils and keep them from turning runny up to a point. It could be a combination of the two. Rice bran wax, castor wax, carnauba wax, candelilla wax, resins, polymers, etc. Oily residues are the lower melt point materials. When they resolidified, did you notice any distinct layers or pockets that appeared different than the rest? Increased frosting? That could have been some of the higher melt point materials that may have softened but not fully melted and reincorporated. That's why it's important to fully heat fancy blended waxes or waxes known to have additives; you need to melt and fully incorporate those high melt point materials. Some of the proprietary blends lack documentation such as MSDS/SDS sheets, so it's difficult to get an idea of what data they're using to base their claims on. Was a formal test such as the drop test used to determine melt point or did they simply average the melt point of the materials in the wax, for example.

At first glance, I thought it might be palm but I've never seen those exact brushed patterns. I've seen similar, like overlapping circular spots, and there's the turtoise shell palm... but not that swooshed painted look. The giveaway for me was the colored wax traveling up the wick and coming to a clean stop. Doesn't mean it couldn't be dipped in some sort of palm. When I have a thin layer of palm left in the pouring pot it tends to either form a crystallized crust or circular clusters. Pearl Ex might work as a dip. I've read of it being used in encaustic art and even soaping.

Could have been a silicone mold. I'm not sure if those existed for candlemaking back then and in such fine detail. I'm convinced they used a brush on the dipped candle to achieve that design. The way the light reflects off it reminds me of some palm waxes. I'd love to know what pigments they used for that jeweltone metallic. I wonder how they made those vertical dual color pillars. No seams or excessive bleeding!

Shoot. Nevermind. CSN -not- CDN.

Hmm. Looks like they were dipped into a wax dyed with metallic pigments. To achieve the swiped patterns, I imagine something like a sponge, paper towel, swatch of fabric, or just about anything was swiped over the setting wax. You might find the dyes wherever carved candle supplies are sold. It's important that the metallic dyes not be added to the actual pillar and only to the wax used to coat the pillar; the metallic particles will clog the wick. edit: I'm very curious now to see how a pillar dipped in palm wax colored with metallic pigments might look... Going to have to add that to the list.

I used ECO with 464 and started with ECO 10. I don't know if that would be a good starting point for the current 464. After the 464 production issues years ago, some of us had to wick way down and others were wicking way up. It was all over the place. I think ECO 10 is similar to a CD 12? Someone correct me on that. I don't use CD much. If the CS guide is up to date, then CD 18 might be in line with the change in wicking after the 464 fiasco. But that seems awfully large... Maybe try the middle ground with CD 14?

I guess a week might do. Personally, I do 2 weeks for all soy waxes, especially if they have FO or extra additives. More experienced 464 users might chime in.

I would start with unscented wax. You can either make a few wicked testers. Or do as some of us and make a, or a few, unwicked candles and use a skewer to poke a hole to the bottom. Then, snip the base off the wick, insert into hole, and trim. Make sure the direction of the wick is right. I've trimmed the bases off and accidentally switch the direction a few times; a true headache trying to troubleshoot what went wrong. Once you've found a wick that works, then move on to scented testing, using the winning wick as the baseline. Wick a size, or two, up and down from that starting point and see which works best. After testing a few fragrances, you'll get the hang of which wick size to start with. IMO, always cure soy for two weeks, especially with 464. The wax will continue to crystallize well past a few days cure, even without FO. Better to be safe than find out a whole batch doesn't burn right weeks or months later. Edit: With just 16oz of wax, it's probably more efficient to use the poking method. Pour an 8oz unscented, cure, poke the hole, and start with a general baseline wick size for the candle size. I can't offer a suggestion on wick size because I stopped using 464 after the soypocalypse and I've read it has changed since then. But after poking the hole, insert the wick, burn it. If it fails the test, pull the wick out with tweezers before the melt pool sets. Allow candle to cool. Some re-cure but I don't have time or patience for that. I allow the candle to cool to room temp, poke a new hole, then rewick with another size... wash, rinse, repeat until I find something that works. If it takes too many tries, the candle might get too low and you'll have to pour a new one.

Can relate to the melts collecting and I don't even use them often. Had to stop when I had two shoe boxes stuffed with them. It's hard resisting the temptation when passing by a huge bin of seasonal scents. And then, I save and never use the ones I really, really like because I hope to at some point use them for comparison while hunting for a matching FO... but that never happens. I've got a couple I've been holding on to for nearly 5 years and haven't found a match for. Sedona Cilantro Avocado and Essenza Olive Avocado, why do you evade me in FO form? @TallTayl's description of vybar is better than I can do. I'll add that vybar is a synthetic polymer. I suppose, in this context, it could be compared to a plastic but that's not a very accurate comparison. Polymers can range from materials like polystyrene to the protein in your steak. It's synthetic, nonetheless. The problem with blending retail products with waxes and additives is that what may already be present in the product could interfere with or be disrupted by anything added. Manufacturers will use an array of additives from GMS, Vybar/polymers, silicones, various microcrystalline waxes, various petroleum products, SMS, and a bajillion other things. Since melts aren't for burning, the selection of potential additives goes through the roof; there's no worry about burn performance, only throw and mold release. The primary goal is to boost and prolong the throw. I mention additives because the majority of retail melts are made with baseline, cheap paraffin and low cost fragrances. The additives make the difference and allow them to shine. Otherwise, they'd cost a lot more than $1-3 from the bin.

Might be the Accu-Blend Hybrid Coconut Container Blend. CCS specifically calls the coco brite a "hybrid" wax, which Accu-Blend also states about theirs. Unfortunately, the Accu-Blend wax doesn't appear to have a published # like all the other waxes. CCS's SDS for the wax is a broken link too. So... IDK. Given CCS's penchant for Accu-Blend waxes, it seems likely. I'm keeping an eye out for Ecosoya's Ecococo and Kerax's 4135. Haven't been able to find either in the USA. Australia and UK get all the fun stuff.

HPSP/HP-SP is a Sao Vitor wick. High performance flat braided. Long strand, tight braid, specially treated cotton. Wicks Unlimited Sao Vitor

I've seen that a few times when I used that same 50/50 blend, however, it was random - not half of or a whole batch - and I used thick (danube jars I had leftover from Peak) glass. Might have something to do with tins being metal and conducting heat away from the wax, similar to what @TallTayl suggested - cooled too fast. Try insulating it next time for a slower cool down, or pour much cooler. Since both waxes have lower melt points, they can be poured cooler without odd behavior in the stirring pot (Ever seen palm wax rapidly crystallize while still stirring? It floats on the molten wax, sticks to everything, and is an overall mess.). Edit: If you do switch from coco 83, I would suggest Ceda Serica - the coconut-apricot wax. 50/50 blend with 464 performed better than with coco 83. However, some fragrances were iffy and performed better in straight 464. Wicking will be a little tricky, from what I remember, so plan to start wick testing a size or two smaller than in straight 464. Well, I should say that's what I had to do but I was also using the old 464. 464 changed two or three years ago and needed wicking down... then wicking way up... and now I have no idea because I don't use it anymore. Nevertheless, definitely give coconut-apricot a try. IMO, the blend has a better appearance too - almost like a creamy paraffin and good color retention.

I just want to know if it's vegan and cruelty free. Fair trade and sustainably sourced would be nice too.

That is interesting. I wonder if it's made with a coconut stearin, fully hydrogenated rapeseed, or some other unlisted material. Interesterification? I'm going to need to do some research about this wax.

Oh, wow! Look at this vid from FB. Is that FO or the "cooked oil" in the jar before the wax is poured? video Now, I'm starting to think she really does cook things in oil and adds the oil to the candle. I saw black bits, which I assume is a result of the "cook", floating in the container. If you go back to Feb. '19, you'll see a post with several candles whose tops are loaded with a bunch of dried botanicals. Maybe that's how they're "cooked" into the wax... Toss some potpourri on the surface of your candle to cover up the fact that you use synthetic fragrances. Or maybe the whole "cooking" thing is an alternative marketing strategy to adding botanicals to the tops (I couldn't find a recent pic with botanicals on top). Either it was here or somewhere else (Reddit or Quora, I'd guess. I really don't remember what rabbit hole I fell through that time.) where I recently read that in order to extract enough fragrance from dried botanicals to scent a candle you would need a massive amount; several times the weight of the candle.

Wow. Melt point is approx. 104F. I wonder if it's fully or partially hydrogenated. Is it similar in softness to high melt point coconut oil or vegetable shortening? I'd be intrigued if it is firm, especially if it's brittle like palm kernel flakes. Wondering if it might be more useful as a blending wax but I can't think of much to blend with it other than palm or palm-derived stearic, which would defeat the purpose of using a palm-free wax. Definitely wouldn't leave a candle made with RCX here in a car and during any time of the year... except maybe the coldest in early to mid Jan. Molten wax on auto upholstery is something of a headache.

"Organic Foods In our unique candles and Skin Care" $1 someone out there tries to eat the products. Associating food with nonedible products is usually a bad idea. My big question is: Are the products certified organic? I want to see a big, not attractive USDA Organic icon slapped on them. Being silly now. I noticed Pumpkin Pie as an available fragrance option. So... were there eggs, pumpkin sugar, dairy, flour, etc. cooked into the wax? That seems like it might be a wicking problem even if ultra filtered. Also, noticed on the FB page that at least one candle type has glitter or glitter-like material on it. I'm assuming it's made of organic cellulose or something like that...

IMO, plant-based is preferable to petroleum by-products. Sustainable, renewable, responsible agriculture is a possibility, and we have a large selection of oil-producing plants to choose from... albeit those oils will need to be extracted (ideally, without solvents) and modified to achieve wax-like consistencies. I wish they would make more waxes and wax-like materials from oils such as rice bran, apricot, wheat germ, etc.; the common, domestic oils that are used in a variety of industries and don't require as aggressive practices as soy production. I long for the day when we can scrub carbon from the atmosphere and turn it into all sorts of materials, candle wax included. I'm not going to get into the whole decomposition/combustion products of paraffin vs botanical waxes. In an ideal combustion, the products of paraffin would be water, carbon dioxide, and energy, but it's not often that we see ideal combustion (read: without carbon balls/mushrooming, soot, or smoke) in a candle, so we end up with partially reacted products or secondary reactions. Same holds for botanical waxes. Whether or not to use paraffin is something of a moral and ethical dilemma for some. I'm not touching that. However, I will say it has been proven that mishandling of petroleum and petroleum products can be harmful, if not disasterous, to both flora and fauna. Choose your poison.

What is often neglected when discussing the positives of soy wax is the impact of soy farming in the USA. Particularly, GMO's, pesticide/herbicide drift, and super bugs/diseases.

Some organic solvents/volatiles(VOC's) include, but not limited to: benzene, toluene, d-limonene, ethers, acetone/ketones, acetaldehyde, esters, chlorobenzene, phenols, aromatic hydrocarbons... Many are used in the fragrance industry. Even alcohols fall into the category, but we don't see those with candlemaking. AFAIK, nonpolar solvents can damage polystyrene; "like dissolves like". DPG and PG are semi-polar, and, from the chemical reaction charts I took a peek at, pure DPG and PG aren't likely to damage polystyrene after 30 days of constant contact at 68-122F. That's not to say they will never cause damage. There may be some clouding of the plastic. (I had an FO sample bottle that did this. I think it was Grandma's Cupboard from RE.) Edit: I meant volatiles as in VOC's. They have high vapor pressure at room temp which causes them to readily evaporate. Top notes in fragrances tend to be volatile.