pughaus

HA. Personally, that kind of BS is just what I'd expect from a company named Pure Integrity. Along the lines of: "I'm the most honest person you'll ever meet" Ok sure....

I got it. It's been a LONG time since I've smelled the real thing, but to my nose, this dupe def. brings backs those Love's scent memories. Great cold and hot throw in wax too. (444+ coco blend)

Indeed. That's why I'm questioning why enforce TM protection on a small crafter and ignore a large fragrance oil supplier's use of your brand name.

except it's not just Yankee or BBB candle scent names, it's Bobbi Brown or Victoria's Secret or any number of perfume brand names too that are being used in supplier listings. Clearly they are getting away with it. I guess I'm just curious how and why the companies that are making the most profit from using these TM names are doing so seemingly without any consequence but "Jane Doe's Homemade Lotion and Potions" on etsy gets nailed 🤔

I noticed that too- Nature's Garden stands out in that they seem to take care not to use a brand's name in their descriptions. I'm kind of puzzled why a corporate brand would choose to target small sellers on etsy for trademark violations when a quick google search for say,"yankee type" would pull up pages and pages of listings from larger companies that are selling the FOs to the crafters.

When I've seen the words "type" and "our version of" to describe fragrance oils on supplier's websites I've often wondered how that really protects you from legal action re: trademark infringement. It seems to me that using a trademarked name like "fruit loops" type for example, to describe your own product would constitute some kind of a violation and yet this seems to be standard practice in the candle and soap making business. I have to believe at least some of our suppliers have consulted with trademark attorneys and have determined this is legally acceptable. But If I started bottling and selling my own soda and labeled and advertised it as "Coca Cola" type or "our version of Pepsi" that would seem to me like a pretty clear trade mark infringement. How is it different, I wonder, when it's done to describe a fragrance oil, finished candle or soap?

Bulk Apothecary Juicy Neroli

this is really clever. I don't have the right power tools, nor do I have a lidded container, but I do I have thick foam core. I think I'll try cutting a small square and then tracing the diameter of my glass and carving a circle in with my exacto knife so it sits snug, when pressed down onto the rim of the glass. Then I'll cut a hole in the center and drop in the pipe. Thanks for the 💡@Forrest !!

I'm on a retro 70s kick and just ordered some of that children's room FO for a friend that misses Love's. It should arrive any day- I'll let you know what I think of it.

I feel for all of you that do this for a living when I read these threads about wax inconsistency. I'm too new at this to compare wax performance over time but I have no doubt your experiences and reports are 100% valid. But I can't see how you can appeal to the suppliers en masse since this every one of us is using our wax under so many different conditions and variables. 100 of us may say we are suddenly seeing cracks, or sinkholes, or poor throw but all of us are using different FO's, wicks, containers... not to mention the variances in heating, pour temps, room temps.. as well as candle making experience. This is the "out" any big supplier can use to defend their product vs. complaints from a bunch of small craft producers. Call me cynical, but I doubt an IGI or Golden Brands is all that concerned with bad wax reports from crafts people. But I do think the retailers of their candle wax products should care. A lot. We are their customer base. And I don't think it's too much to ask or to expect that these candle craft suppliers periodically - every quarter?- test the waxes they sell and publish the reports so their customers can see the results of those tests and realign their candle making operations accordingly. As we all know, it only takes about 6 lbs of wax and 2 pans to do a pretty comprehensive baseline wick test. And another .. 3 lbs ? or so tops, to do some basic jar tests to assess cracks, sinkholes, adhesion variances... I would subscribe in a hot second to any email list from a candle supply website that provided these reports before they ship me wax. And I'd buy my wax from them. Probably for the rest of my life.

A lid label can be subtle but effective; and it doesn't have to be round to work..

the htps and premiers did seem to best for me in that wax. Hope you can find the right mix. It sure is a pretty wax. I guess I'm on an opposite track from many on those board- I've moving from all coconut to some soy, to mostly soy. 🤷‍♂️

@olives I guess the sinkholes I saw in my candles were not the flukes I thought they were. I've moved on from the wax myself. My wicks tests were not promising and I've recently found out it's not a cruelty-free wax so I won't be using it in blends either.

no but I just ordered it and it's all your fault 😸

I'd bubble wrap the room sprays tightly together in bunches of 2s or 4's then find a 5" x 5" (?) kraft fold n tuck gift box and stick them in there. Add more bubble wrap as needed until they are tight and not moving about at all in the kraft gift box. No jiggling allowed. Then wrap the kraft boxes together tightly with bubble wrap and pack the kraft gift boxes into your outer shipping box. Surround the inner boxes with enough peanuts so they are tight and make sure there's a good buffer zone of peanuts between inner and outer boxes so they'll be protected on all sides should the outer box get dented, banged, thrown across a warehouse, stomped on ... The addition of the kraft boxes shouldn't add too much addl. weight and the kraft fold n tucks are pretty inexpensive, especially if bought in qty.

Roger that... Yesterday, I tried the next size up in premiers, a p740 and it too mushroomed in burn #2 just as the P735 did.

@Jcandleattic ha, of course. I went into panic mode at the thought of her closing- she has my favorite FO.

What's this about Daystar? Is she closing?

More soy would probably help but I already blend soy and coco and thankfully have that to fall back on if I want to make a well wicked candle today I don't really have a stake in making this particular wax work, I'm really just trying to understand the test results I'm getting and what info I can take away from pan tests. This IGI wax is more of a learning exercise for me. I was under the impression that I could assess a wick type's performance in a wax type using any size wick in that type. So, for example- if a CD 8 wick consistently burns in my test without forming a mushroom in coco83 with no additives, then that should also hold true for a CD 10 or really any CD size in coco 83 wax with no additives. Or, if a premier 740 consistently sputters and jumps in IGI 6570 without any additives, then a Premier 745 wouldn't do any better, and one could conclude that Premiers (from the same vendor, primed the same way) just don't work well the wax. If that is not the case, what can I take away from a pan test aside from the melt pool diameter in open space and the melt pool depth in open space? Can I draw any conclusions, when I see a big mushroom on the hemp wick about how other sized hemp wicks might mushroom in the same wax? Or should I only conclude that the wick size I tested is prone to mushroom in that wax? I mean there has to be some way to measure a wick type's efficiency in a given wax that doesn't involve testing every single size of every wick. right? 😟

Tomorrow night I'll be burning 2 paper cores and a couple more cotton wicks in a pan. My pretest with a paper core last night did produce a mushroom in the last hour. I think the secret ingredient in this wax is mushroom fertilizer. It's kind of fascinating to me how consistently I am getting mushrooms in the early burns with all 7 wick types I've tested. I have a question for the more experienced candle makers. It is common knowledge that mushrooms are often the result of an oversized wick. I've also read that an undersized wick might result in a mushroom too. Oversized or undersized in relation to what? To the container it is in? To the wax it is in? I want to make sure I understand what this means and how it might apply to testing wicks in an open pan. If an htp62 mushrooms in the pan tests should I also expect an htp83 to mushroom under the same test conditions?

"once I nail down the right wicks" This should be on my headstone cause trying to wick cocowax is killing me

maybe but I'll need someone to donate a couple of those to "science " 🤓 I have neither of those here in my wick collection.

Yes, however I was really careless with those 2 fragranced candles that had sinkholes- they were an afterthought. I only poured them because I'd filled the testing pans up and had a bit of wax leftover, so I figured I'd add some fragrance and check the cold throw. I can't really say with any certainty at what temp I poured them. I did cover those with a piece of cardboard as they cooled. That may have been a factor. Only the candles I covered got sink holes.

I'm used to that as it's been my experience with all coco waxes and coco is pretty much all I've used. I just poured my 1st soy candle 2 weeks ago and wicking it was so easy (relatively) I couldn't believe it!

Is it still a mushroom if it looks like a cat head?