Mama Turtle

Update: JS Frosty Pine is not similar to CS Jack Frost. Definitely more piney than pepperminty and I also detect a bit of spice. I am going to pour some and put it out there to see how it does. Kandlenutz: What do you think of Cierra's Jack Frost?

I am completely out as well. I just ordered frosty pine from Just Scent and the description is peppermint and pine. OOB, it has a stronger pine than peppermint smell and I think CS's Jack Frost was stronger peppermint and less pine. I just got it in the mail yesterday, so will be pouring it soon. I will let you know what I think. BTW: I think most FOs with the name Jack Frost are Peppermint and Vanilla....that is what I found with my searching anyway.

That's exactly what I do. I color my candles and I find the darker candles tend to be at most risk. It has been a warm summer/start of fall and I had to drop out of a show due to the warm temps here in NC. Good luck in Nov!!

I don't do outdoor shows unless it is 85 degrees or lower. I use GB 464 and it just ends up ruining my unsold product. When outdoors, I usually bring coolers with a small amount of bagged ice to keep the candles cool...not cold.

Not a straight lemon, but Lemon Verbena from CS rocks in soy.

Thanks!! I check it out and continue to search.

The FO from CS was described as peppermint and pine. Most of the Jack Frost oils I see elsewhere are described as peppermint and vanilla. Looking for a peppermint and pine. I just pulled out a candle I made from CS Jack Frost and to my nose, if there is any vanilla it is ever so subtle with strong peppermint and pine coming through.

Good seller for me too. Has anyone found a similar fo elsewhere?

Just noticed that CS will be discontinuing tortoise palm wax once their supplies run out. I have been testing this wax this summer and a bit bummed as they are my local supplier. I was hoping to master this one....on to the next challenge.

Thanks for responding!! What kind of flame height are you getting with CD 8 or 10? I am used to wicking smaller and letting the wax catch up since I prefer a smaller flame and do not wick for a FMP on initial burns. I still do not have a good feel for this wax, so not sure that philosophy will work with xcel. I do not have any CD 16 or 18, so would have to order. I may have a few CDN's in that size though. The manufacturers website suggests CD 12 for 3" jar which is what I have sometimes used for the status jar with 464 depending on the FO. Good idea to focus on smaller/easier wicked jars first. How long have you been testing? I would contact your distributor and request that they offer it. You never know unless you ask . Good luck to you too!! Any other converters??

I am a 464 user (the frost 1-3 months post pour is killing me), so I wanted to try the miracle wax aka xcel. I have only been working with it for about a week and burning after 48 hours of cure time. I am testing 2 new fragrances and 1 current fragrance. 2 of the 3 seem to have good CT and HT. The other is a new one and it is not throwing in 464 either, but does in palm. I started with HTP wicks since that is what I use for 464, but flames are very large with puffs of black smoke occasionally. I wicked down and still large flames. I may try CD wicks next, but would like to hear what other folks are finding with this wax. Jars/wicks: Status: tried HTP 105, 104, and 83 Flared square (small): HTP 93 and 83 2": HTP 62 and 52 As far as pouring and appearance, pouring at 130-140 seem to work best for me and I have tried heating jars and not heating jars and had glass adhesion issues with both methods. HT does not seem to be as good as 464, but I do not have the correct wick yet. Frosting is not an issue yet, but it has only been a week. I have been taking one orange candle in and out of the heat and just a few minor minor spots of frosting have shown up so far. If I did that with 464, I would have frosting coming down the glass. Post burn, seems like glass adhesion issues do develop and some frosting lines develop. Overall, I am happy with how easy it is to pour a candle with xcel and the decrease in frost, but like how 464 burns better. More testing required. If anyone has any other feedback, I would love to hear your results!! Cheers!!

I have just started testing the xcel wax in the 12 oz status jar and HTP 104 and 105 seem too large IMO (little puffs of black smoke and large flame). I like the smaller flames myself. Will try an HTP 83 next. I am finding that glass adhesion and HT may not be as good as GB 464, but if the wax will maintain its appearance over time (no frosting developing in shops or in storage), I think I may be a converter. I think it is just going to take some time to work with it to find what works best in my workshop.

Due to huge flames on GG and Tortoise testers, I decided to be a more conservative on wicks for these testers (also curious how they will perform). Candle on the left is HTP 93 (clearly too small) and candle on right is CSN 11 (I like the flame height on this one, but will be interesting to see how it works out in the end. I really wanted to see how HTPs performed. Both these wicks have a steady flame (no flickers). The HTP wick flame height seems to have decreased a touch. This pic is at the 4th burn (1 hour into). 1st and 2nd burns were 3 hours each and 3rd burn was 4 hours (starting to see walls of pillar thin out at extinguish time on CSN 11). This is a 3x4.5 pillar. [ATTACH]20239[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]20238[/ATTACH]

Thanks for the insight!! Just wanted to make sure I am not making my results invalid for something I may be missing/doing or not doing. Got a little frustrated with the TS pillar, so switched to GG in Jack Frost and soy in Bayberry for tonight in my usual containers (status, flared square, and votive). GG is also new to me, but I am hoping the bayberry will perform well in soy. My neighbors always comment on how they can see my candles burning in the window....always testing.

I hope this does not sound like an absurd question, but I have noticed that the spooled CSN wick does not seem to have a coating on it like the tabbed CSN wicks. Why is this so? I have just begun to experiment with tortoise shell palm pillars using the spooled wick and have not had the same results as others. Top--Are you using spooled CSN for your 4.5 pillar testers? If the pillars are taller, I understand it is a must, but could get by with tabbed wicks for shorter pillars if there is a different treatment. I don't know why this would be, but definitely feels different to me.

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I have been using CS's Bayberry (which I love) for all 4 of my testers. I know I am not testing a large quantity, but I like to see what one does before adjusting to a new wick. I will try a different FO next. Do you find the oils you need to wick up on in soy do better or worse in palm? I would think better. I mainly use CS FOs. Thanks for writing up your results in detail. It was very helpful!!

...a little bummed. All of my CSN testers (9, 11, 12) blew out on 2nd burn, so I thought I would try a CDN 10 as others have had good success with this, small hole appearing at end of 1st burn (all burns are 3 hours long). I have to say the flame on CDN was more acceptable, but still large. All the CSN testers had torches...which were not acceptable to me. I am tempted to try a CDN 8 and CSN 7. I also have HTP and LX wicks, so may try one of those as well just for kicks and giggles...

You will not be disappointed. CS rocks!!

Anybody currently selling reed diffusers? If so, do you find them popular? It seems like they were popular, but may not be as popular now. Any feedback would be appreciated as I am thinking about maybe adding to my line of soy candles. Thanks!

Thanks for the additional information. I will keep working at it and continue to share my results...I am not defeated yet!

Looks like on try three with CSN 11, I am getting similar results to CSN 12 and 9. All seem to have a large flame and burn ok for the first 3 hours and then during the second 3 hour test burn, I have a blow out. Should I try another CSN? Or switch to different wicks? Suggestions welcome. First pic is after 3 hours and 2nd pic is 2.5 hours into 2nd burn. BTW: I know the pattern is not perfect, but more interested in wick testing at this moment.

I re-melted my CSN 9 blow out and used a CSN 11 for my 3rd try. On the first 2 tests, I did not let the candles cure at all, just lit them up. Any theory that I should wait for wick testing?? Just want to be sure I am not contributing to the problem. The FO throws well hot and cold, so not worries there.

Interesting....my flames were huge. This is going to be a tricky one. I have not re-poured yet with CSN 11, but hope to do that this weekend.

Thanks for the feedback!! I have CSN 11, so I will try that one next. It may be a challenge, but I am dertermined to find the correct formula. I really like the tortoise-bayberry for the holidays. Debbie--please keep us posted on your results. It is helpful. I will be sure to take pics on my next tester.

I do not have a pic to share, but wanted to give an update on my 2nd tester. This one is a 3 x 4.5 concave pillar with CSN 9 and 1 oz CS Bayberry. First 3 hour burn looked good. Second 3.25 hour burn looks like the sides of the pillar are just about to open at the melt pool--blow out. I am so surprised that a CSN 9 was burning so hot.....