Kerven

A tiny 2oz tin might require a wick in the votive range. I'm not sure if CD goes any smaller than CD4, and AFAIK CD4 is a votive size. Wicking can be confusing because you'll sometimes see similar results if the wick is either too large or too small. Did you try the next size up? Knowing that a CD4 didn't work and assuming the tin has a diameter of 2", I'd start with a CD5 or CD6. All three of those sizes are rated for votives - CD5 and CD6 for ~2" containers - but the type of wax, anything added, the FO used, and the container can affect results, so published recommendations can be used as a general starting point for testing but not written in stone. Personal experience will also factor in once you get the hang of it. There could also be a chance that the FO is a dud in that wax. It's not unusual for some FOs to simply not work in a particular wax no matter the wick series/size. It's possible that a cooler burning wick series is needed. I primarily work with ECO so I can't give a confident recommendation for that. A speedy and cost effective method I use for swapping out testers is to use straight sided containers and temporary wicks. The container needs to be smooth and flush enough that the entire candle, when chilled in a freezer, can be popped out with little fuss. Then, allow the container to warm to room temp, give it a wipe down, pour a new tester. The wicks aren't secured before pouring. The tabbed base is removed and the wick is trimmed to size before insertion (make sure to keep the wick upright and don't accidentally put it in upside down, else it may not wick properly!). If I'm going to use the same candle to test more than one wick, I pour without a wick and poke a hole in the wax for the wick once set and cured. After burning, the wick is plucked out with tweezers while the wax is soft enough to release it. . Careful not to toss them in a freezer immediately after a burn. Allow them to return to room temp. Wax memory shouldn't be a huge issue in a container candle that small. In a pillar, wax memory is important because a complete melt pool will either spill over the sides, weaken the wall of wax (leading to collapse), or spill through hot spots; it needs to somewhat tunnel, leaving that wall of wax. In a container candle, heat reflected or re-radiated from the container walls will aid in the melting of the outer wax, so excess wax around the perimeter is not necessary and is often referred to as hang up. As long as the outer wax is melting as the flame moves lower, it's fine. And if a little hang up remains, that's not a terrible thing. Sometimes there just isn't a size that works 100% and you have to go with the closest. Just make sure the container doesn't become too hot to safely handle. Also, since you're working with soy, make sure to give it a decent cure before doing a test burn. A week might do. Maybe a little longer depending on the percentage in the blend and the FO used.

I wonder what the additive could be... I hope it's not the same thing(s) I've been working on for the last year. Is this the reformulated A05 wax? AllSeasons waxes look nice. If only we had them in the US...

Go smaller with the CD wicks. Much smaller. Maybe somewhere around CD 7 maybe even a CD 9. There's a post somewhere around here from years back that discussed how CD wicks were a half size to a size different from ECO, so an ECO 6 would equal a CD 7 but a CD 7 wasn't equal to an ECO 8 (or maybe it's ECO 4)... something similar to that. I've only worked with CD wicks during a bit of brief testing a year or two ago, so they're out of my element. One trick I learned with wicking is to choose a "standard" (what's recommended) for the container and wax combo, then do two more testers - one a size up and another a size down. Look for a stable non-dancing/flickering flame, no soot/smoke, no mushrooming/carbon balls, no more than 1in in flame height, not too hot. Whichever wick comes closest to that becomes the new "standard", which is followed by two more testers in whichever direction the sizing is headed (smaller or larger). For example, if you tested CD 5, 7, 9, and CD 9 had the best (but not perfect) performance, you'd then make testers with CD 9, 10, 12, repeat until you find one that works. Over time, you'll get the feel for it and be able to estimate the starting size and whether you're off by a size or two. The other method is to do a tray test, where you fill an aluminum tray (those crinkled disposable aluminum baking/roasting pans) with a couple inches of wax, wick it, and then burn all of them, leaving enough space for melt pools to form without overlapping. You can either wick it as you would a candle, securing the wick tabs, or poke holes and insert wicks. With poking holes, make sure the wax is deep enough or the wicks could fall over before the test is complete. You'll get an idea of which wick performs the best in that wax and how large of a container is needed, based on the diameter of the resulting melt pool, to accomodate the melt pool size. I saw something the other day about the wickless candles. I assumed they were the equivalent of solid air fresheners; I was wrong. I think it was a guide for DIY holiday gifts, a WSP flyer, or something on YT. I don't remember where, but I felt like a dufus, yet relieved, when I saw it. All this time I was wondering what to do with all these FO samples and bags and bags of wonky 464... Now, I know! I almost have sympathy for the lucky (debatable) people who will be receiving boxes of wickless candles for the holiday season. On the other hand, I'm going to have freed up space so that the FO hoarding can continue! Edit: Oh, and about the melt pool reaching full size. It's not ideal for that to happen within the first couple burns, especially so with a tin. If it's full early on, it's going to be much hotter when it reaches the bottom half of the container.

If adding the coco2, start with around 10%, IMO. It has a much lower melt point and could make the candles too soft and vulnerable to melting in hot conditions. Ceda Serica (coconut-apricot) and coco83 blend well with C3 (better than they do with 464, IME), but don't go splurging on them if you haven't worked with them before. On their own, the coconut waxes can be very difficult to wick. I've recently read that coco83 has become unreliable and may have been reformulated, so results may vary. The coconut-apricot has yet to disappoint me with its reliability (knock on wood). What about wickless candles along with your melts? You can make them as you would candles in tins but omit the wicks. To use them, just plop on a mug or candle warmer.

Is California Candle Supply the official distributor for smaller Accu-Blend purchases?

+1 to viscosity having a large role in wick sizing. Not only is viscosity modified by additives, the chemical composition of the wax is a factor as well. Hydrogenated soy waxes, for example, are known to be viscous due to their extra hydrogen bonds. That viscosity is what causes soy waxes to burn slower - decreased capillary action. Companies such as IGI do use ASTM testing methods for a variety of wax characteristics (iodine value, needle penetration, congeal point, drop melt point, kinematic viscosity, etc.). Whether or not those are applied to waxes for candle use or for more industrial applications, I don't know. Candle waxes are highly customizable and big candle producers will have their own required specs. It's not unlike cosmetics in that one base isn't going to have the same performance or quality as the next, although they may use the same testing methods, and sometimes a lab that's not on top of its game will produce an off batch that somehow manages to slip by QC. The big difference, IMO, is that candles aren't regulated.

There are other factors that influence wicking such as surface tension of the wax pool, oxidation, and polymerization. Oxidation and polymerization also apply to the wax and its performance. There are various bits of literature (scientific articles, patents, books, technical docs, etc.) discussing the use of antioxidants and other additives to improve the performance and stability of waxes and difficult fragrances. GE has a several years old document floating around out there (it's even mentioned somewhere on this forum) promoting the use of organo modified silicones and even states formulations that were specifically designed to improve the performance of, for example, vanillas. Some national brands are using BHT as an antioxidant in their candles. Solvents in the FO could also play a role in compatibility with certain waxes. For non-phthalate (those without DEP) fragrances, IPM is the go-to, although DOA is said to have better performance - even in soy, which has a habit of smothering fragrances. Fragrance traveling up the wick isn't so much the problem as the scent is released from the molten wax. I suppose, FO's could sink in the molten wax, unable to breach the surface if their SG is greater than the wax's and convection currents within the wax aren't strong enough to move it (might be related to viscosity), but then SG variables change because the wax's temperature rises above those used to calculate SG. That doesn't mean there couldn't be a correlation between SG and wicking adjustments. 464's SG is 0.698 - 0.921, so going by that line of thought any FO with SG =< 0.921 should perform well not taking into account other factors (viscosity, surface tension, temperature, solvents, additives, etc.). I'm curious to see if there's a connection between SG and flash point as well, because the FO's that worked best for me in 464 had flash points < 200F. If we could compose a list of difficult to wick FO's and track down their SG it would be easier for comparison.

They do, although, I can't vouch for their accuracy. Of the sheets I glanced over, some had specific gravity values that appeared a bit suspect. For example, one supplier had sheets for a few vanilla fragrances and, although they were different formulations, the values were exactly the same (1.01) with a +/- .05 margin for each. That wasn't the case for most sheets, however, so I would consider them fairly reliable with a grain of salt; keep an eye out for standard copy-paste values. Some will use relative density instead of specific gravity.

I don't know about most suppliers' and manufacturers' - good luck figuring out which manufacturer(s) a supplier is sourcing from - spec sheets on fragrances and whether or not they publish or have them available upon request. However, I did take a peek at Candlewic because I know they have MSDS and SDS for waxes. Turns out, they do supply the sheets for some of the fragrances. Candlescience and WSP also have MSDS/SDS sheets for some fragrances.

I don't see why not. Unused ad spaces are potential income sources. Maybe open them to suppliers as well? A few lurk around at times. They may be interested in renting ad space. Candlewic has an affiliate program.

Green screening to grab cleanly cropped images for overlaying on backgrounds/products? If just adding a label over a product, you could do that with layering in Photoshop. Take the original image with product in it, create a new layer(s) for the label, which will be superimposed over the base layer/image.

Wow, that's a lot of sales in just one year on Etsy. Even their FB page appears to be a year old. Square POS, I'd guess. It allows for sales at markets, faires, and other in-person transactions to be synced with the Etsy account, so while website traffic might be low those numbers keep going up and up. That's my understanding, at least. The 50% sale might to there to attract online traffic, the loss in profit being offset by profits from in-person sales. Promotion expenses. Unfortunately, I couldn't find their in-person prices. Edit: While there are 1525 reviews from confirmed purchases on Etsy, a lot of them appear to be duplicates (I don't know what's going on there; that's... odd). It doesn't appear to be a reliable number for estimating number of sales.

Candle Cocoon has something similar to the Ribbonwick. Wave Wick The wavey wick used by Ribbonwick appears to be patented. Flexible Wick (I found the mention of silk and alpaca hair as a wicking material interesting. I guess that makes them potentially non-vegan.) Edit: I just realized how old this thread is. Oops...

Is that the Black Sea from Candlescience? If so, that FO has given me trouble with air pockets in the past.

I'm always skeptical towards how-to-business videos. From a profits standpoint, I don't see how it benefits someone in the business to post how-to videos encouraging others to jump in, making it appear so simple and easy that a flood of amateurs could do it. Why encourage needless competition and market saturation? I'm guessing it's easier to make $1,000 a month on YT how-to videos than actually starting a candle business. Just saying. Edit: Although, after looking at the view counts of all those videos, except the one with nearly 500k, I don't think they're bringing in much of anything. Still haven't a clue why these were made. What does he get from them... sponsorship/kickback/brand deal from NG? I did see some product placement.

They may still use CS for wax. It's hard to say, not knowing their volume. I'd imagine a business doing 2k+ candles a year might be inclined to order directly from the manufacturer to cut costs and avoid shortages. But judging from the price of their 8oz candle... maybe they are using wax from CS? Come to think of it, I recall skimming over a comment somewhere that mentioned frosting on the surface of their candles. After taking a quick glance at a Google image search, can confirm that their candles do frost along the rim and on the top surface. Some appear to crater + crack slightly and others appear to have holes, pockmarks, and such. Typical soy issues. Sides look surprisingly nice. Very much the way old 464 performed for me. I wonder what they're using now. Has 464 improved since the great GW snafu?

Wow. CraftCount has them with an approx. 85k lead in sales, making them the top candle merchant on Etsy in terms of total sales to date. Going to take a guess and say most of those sales were likely done in-person via the app. I'm curious to know if units sold to retailers, whether wholesale or not, could be processed through the app to boost sales counts. Also curios to know which soy they're using. Why aren't mine frost-free like those. That's frustrating.

Jojoba beads for the sprinkles? Would they survive the heat? Maybe made entirely from M&P?

Coozies should be great for slowing down cooling, especially so for palm. I tried using them once but had to make felt sleeves since they were too small for the jars I was using.

I'm using this AMIR scale . It goes down to .01g, so about .0035oz, although I've only used it for measurements above .01oz. Until I got this scale, I didn't realize just how difficult it was to precisely measure ingredients... it still is. My previous scale went down to .1oz. As for the AMIR scale, as far as I can tell , it's accurate. I haven't used calibration weights or anything to test it, but so far my 4oz testers with additives in amounts of 1% have turned out as expected. At that price, if it does act up, it'll be easy to replace. Oooh, I didn't know Lotioncrafter had a budget scale. Going to have to take a look at that.

How did your testers turn out?

Due to the ingredients in coco83, it's probably going to retain some of the stickiness in percentages greater than 50. 50% coco83 and 50% soy (I prefer C3 for this blend but find the HT is a little lacking - will be testing it with C1 soon) is soft but not too sticky. A little stearic or vybar could harden it some more. I haven't tested coconut waxes with vybar, so I'm curious to see if it can help bind some of that sticky, greasy excess. Palm wax is good for blending with coconut waxes as well. Expect to use 20% palm wax or greater... and it may crystallize a little on the surface, although, since you're using clamshells I imagine it'll set up fast and not crystallize nearly as much if at all.

Paraffin. Type of paraffin probably varies (I saw some with mottling in the video). Here's an older thread on the topic.

Interesting that so many of the coconut waxes have been sold out for some time now. Didn't word have it that Accu-Blend was relocating and production has been put on hold? I wonder if it's related to the shortage.

I'm not sure typical beeswax will perform the same as what I'm using. From what I've read, it should be hard and not pliable. That (being pliable) seems to be an indicator of moisture contamination or cutting with oils. The original supplier appears to have changed their product packaging so I'm wondering if they're offering a different product as well.