bart70

Hi Minx, Actually a bit of a coincidence that I logged in and saw your post following on from our thread some months back. I have not been on for a few months and was pleasantly surprised to see the same thread running! As I said - I have not been on for a few months as life and family basically got in the way of candle development for a while (mixed with a little frustration!!) so we have been concentrating on producing what we know and do well and put further development on hold for a while until I cleared my head, as well as built up more funding :smiley2: I was having good results with C3 and found it easier to use than 464 up until I stopped development. I pretty well had adhesion, frosting/bloom and rough top issues sorted by pour temp/cooling process. HT was excellent in the FO's that I worked with. I had decided that I would continue with C3. A few days ago I re-birthed my testing program and re-commenced some pours. Totally opposite season means a few adjustments to cooling process may be required and hopefully will be able to perfect that as I pour more testers. What I am currently pouring are for wick/HT/burn testing so will give me a chance to play with seasonal adjustments for cosmetics. My frustration previously was with wicking and is not related to the wax (I believe) as I encounter it with other waxes. I get very different results using CDN wicks to those using the same overseas. There is speculation that one supplier of CDN wicks in Oz are having them made themselves and not actually selling CDN. If my issue continues I will source some from overseas and test for a differential. As far as C3 wax goes, I found it much easier to work with than 464 (....but I was also a 464 novice). I found it much easier to 'work out' C3 and get good results than 464 overall. I cannot say how you will find it....but I would say give it a go and see what you think. I started with a 5kg bag to experiment with before buying boxes. HTH. Bart

Yes....I can vouch that some of the well known big name brands that are being distributed via the annual Trade Fairs and purchased by gift store owners are very poor performers. I also find their truth in marketing and to be extremely dishonest. Some of their claims about company backgrounds/ownership, the way their candles are made, and what they contain are nothing short of fantasia. Bart

I have a question regarding HTP wicks in relation to CDN. I have rarely worked with HTP but know CDN relatively well. I am looking at testing a jar with HTP wicks that normally fall in the CDN 16 to CDN 20 range (FO dependent). What would be the range to test in HTP? (wax will be C3). The jar is a bulb shape but a little taller than a normal bulb type jar. Diameter at the widest point is 7.5cm. I understand the intricacies of wicking variable shaped jars, just looking at a starting point in HTP to put some testers together. As the HTP wicks are foreign to me I dont want to make up a heap of testers and find I am way too cold or too hot because I got the range wrong. Thanks in advance Bart

Might consider taking you up on that offer. Am at my wits end trying to work out which way to jump next. Got a very hectic week this week and next week is not looking much better but might drop you a line when I get a chance to get back on the candle train again. Bart

Stella, have you found that USA and similar products can influence shrooming or have found they are more of a direct influence on frosting and appearance type issues? My understanding about USA and the like is that it effects crystal formation which is more about looks than burn, but happy to admit I am wrong. Yep.....This is the reason why I don't really want to play too much with additives at this point in time - not until I get a better grasp of the wax on its own otherwise I am just going to confuse myself with data for which I have no sound reference. I am thinking of trying HTP wicks next....They are available to me so might as well do some comparisons. Bart

You hit it on the head......for many it is the the wick that they are told to use by other ill informed persons, or many who claim to 'test' simply burn one or two wicks to see they don't catch fire then proceed to use these in all 50 FO's that they proudly tell everyone they use. I have been personally attacked for suggesting that I use 4 wick sizes or types to wick a range of 9 FO's in one size candle to get them right. This is simply too much work for them and they will openly tell you they dont have time for that. Sorta indicates to me how well they test their products when they openly post on forums asking others how long their candle will burn for so they tell their customers. From the candles I have seen and purchased, many of them are having the same issues as us, but whilst the community in general does not know the difference between a carbon shroom and a " fragrance ball" they will continue to sell them by the dozen at the local markets. Why would candlemakers strive for the perfect product when they are able to sell rubbish and make good money without the effort? While ever the is no drive from the candlemakers to have diversity and choice, the suppliers have no motivation to provide it, hence those who want to engineer their candles to 'work' have to resort to sourcing themselves. The candle suppliers are run off their feet with business at the moment and struggle to keep up. It is also in their best interest to make candlemaking look as enticing as possible so it is often protrayed as easy to do by them. You rarely hear them talk about engineering issues out of candles. I also does not help when the big names in the candle making game who mass produce and market candles nationally in the retail sphere are also producing candles that shroom madly, burn smoky and soot up the glassware. People see this as the 'norm' and dont expect any different after a while. In saying this, not everyone is like this. I have met some wonderful comitted candlemakers who are very aware of quality and how to achieve and maintain it. Many of these have been in it for a while (possibly before it was seen as a get rich quick scheme) and understand the art and science behind it. I communicate with some of these people on a regular basis off forums because I know they understand and the advice we often share is invaluable. The power of association can be extremely elevating and much can be learned this way. :smiley2: Bart

Am hearing you Richard! Unfortunately our suppliers won't listen to those who want the choice. There is good money for them at the moment in selling to those who don't care for excellence as the 'get rich quick' movement gains momentum. In the meantime those who seek excellence have to import the products to achieve it. The bubble will burst one day......might take a while but it will burst as the industry matures. Does not help us any now tho! Bart

Hi all, USA (Universal Soy Additive) is mentioned a bit in this thread, Does anybody know where it can be purchased in Australia? I know that ACS have UA (Universal Additive) that they say in their blurb is great for mixing with 464 to make a tart/votive wax and also mentions how it prevents mottling (always thought that mottling was an issue with parrafin more than soy....but happy to stand corrected) so am not convinced that this is the USA and more likely to be UA that is normally used in soy. Anybody know if this is the genuine USA or know where we may be able to get USA from should we want it? Bart

Thanks Richard, My problem is that for the candles that I do use CDN with, I do not know if they are "real" CDN or "copies of CDN" as there is rumour around (true or untrue) that one supplier in Aus is having copies made and selling them as CDN. I would love to enter into an agreement to get some bulk CDN from overseas, but am worried that I might find they are different and end up with a heap of wicks I cannot use. I might try some HTP wicks in the interim and maybe buy a sampler pack of CDN, CD, and CSN from overseas and see how they burn. Is going to slow down my testing program somewhat, but thats candlemaking I guess LOL! Cheers, Bart

Hi Minx, I am not expert, but from my (limited) experience I would not be too unhappy with the hang up. I reckon by the time it gets a few more burns under its belt I would not be surprised if it catches up as Stella mentioned. I am thinking about a run of tests with HTP to see if they help my shroom issues with CDN. I notice you have a small bit of carbon on your wick. Is this indicative of what you have experienced with HTP? I am getting variance with CDN's - if carbon deposits were as small as that on my CDN's using c3 I would be much happier. Bart

I have never seen the ECO's or the CSN in stock at all despite them being on their website. They originally got CSN in tea light sizes only. When we enquired about the larger sizes they told us they would unlikely stock them as "They are not suitable for natural waxes in sizes other than tea lights....". I have had this issue regularly with ACS wick in palm containers - the higher temps melts the wax around the crimp and the tab lets go! Very frustrating!! Is this the only issue you have seen with NCS CDN wicks? Have you noticed any performance difference between their CDN's and those you may have gotten from elsewhere? I am thinking about maybe getting some in from overseas just in case it is the local wicks that are causing my problems. Will be a pain but at least they do not weigh much! Bart

PM on its way.....

This is the dilemma I have been faced with from the day I started in candles. In Australia, we have CDN, ACS, and HTP wicks available to us. Of the two mainstream candle wholesale suppliers, it is rumoured that one is not selling 'genuine' CDN but a 'copy' they had made for them. I stress this is purely rumour and not confirmed. The ACS wicks are a wick produced exclusively by one the two main suppliers and is unique to them. They are a cotton core/paper wick that are claimed to be specially made for plant based waxes (soy & palm). I have had some really good results with these in some palm pillars, but unfortunately have found them too inconsistent (2 wicks from the same pack can burn totally different) so have ventured away from them and back to CDN where possible in palm. Who knows what the wax coating is on any of these - and I guess that if I asked I would either be fobbed of as being too eccentric (candle industry here lacks the maturity that has been reached in other parts of the world), or told what they want me to hear which from experience is fairly common. It may well be the wax they use to coat that is causing my issues. This leaves us with HTP which I have played with a little with 464 but they did not alter shrooms at all. They may be worth a try in the C3 however and will probably be my next test, along with some ACS (and will have to accept the inconsistencies...) Would dearly love to play with more wick type but they are simply not available which also frustrates me. Maybe I need to bite the bullet and get a range of other types in from overseas. If anybody knows where CSN, CD, ECO etc can be purchased from in Australia I will love you forever if you can tell me... I could only see 2 types listed - one is marked as 'flaked' which lends me to believe that they produce it in block and flake form. Only my interpretation though - might well be different specs. The issues Richard is having seems odd in comparison to what is being seen on your side of the world. I have not ventured to FO yet - I am nervous that I too will start seeing these problems. Bart

Thanks Stella, What I consider to be my 'bad' shrooms are similar to that of the yellow ball candle on the top right. Frustrates me, especially when I was able to engineer it out of my palm pillars but struggle with the soy. I am currently doing test of plain C3 in two sizes of candalina jar (small and medium) over 3 wick sizes in each jar type. So far the shrooms have appeared consistently on each burn. I don't know that I should go smaller so might try a larger size and see if the extra flame temp will burn off the deposits. Will wait until the burn gets down past the widest point of the jar and towards the bottom before setting my thoughts in stone. Am also tesing some baby metro's in 4 wick sizes and found the smallest to be a beautiful burn, the next size up very similar but a little higher ROC so these will be my benchmark sizes when I commence testing with FO. I am currently using CDN wicks only at this stage. That carbon ball on the pink candle would near qualify for our new Australian Carbon Tax! (Aussies will understand this as it is a hot political issuer here at present). Would make the "fragrance ball" advocates drool at the mouth! Thanks again for the help Stella. Will keep at it and hopefully crack the code :smiley2: Bart

What I get if I am careful are the very small balls ( 1 or 2) which I don't normally define as problematic - they just pee me off because I am very fussy! I do get the bigger ones occasionally and usually in the last hour of a 4 hour test burn. These really annoy me!..LOL In relation to your first point - Are you suggesting that in some cases increasing wick size can 'burn off' the components that may not be burning properly and causing the shroom? I tend to wick down when looking to resolve shroom issues - just wondering if I should also be wicking up as an option also? The ones I get when things go pear shaped usually take the form of 2 large 'elephant ears' or 'petals' off the end of the wick. Yes...all wicks are trimmed using a 6mm (1/4 inch) trimmer between burns. I added Palm Container wax - not pillar. It should not have had the shrinking characteristics of the pillar palm. Got lovely tops without needing racks or covering, but horrible wet spots. Oh well....was worth a try I guess! This is all a great learning curve. Thus far I am not finding the burn characteristics too much different to 464, but it is definitely easier to work with in terms of frosting/wet spots and tops. Will keep playing and see how it all goes. Bart

Hi Richard, I have done a bit of testing in C3, all unfragranced at this stage in Metro's, and currently have some burning in Candelina's. I cannot comment much on the Candlelina's as I have never used them before and have no prior data, but my experience in the Metro's thus far is that C3 appears easier to get good pour results (less frosting/rough tops issues) and is not as sensitive to pouring technique as 464. So far my burn results have been on par with testing I have done with the 464/palm blend (although my ratios are probably different to yours). I am still seeing small shrooms that come and go during different phases of the burn (mostly at the start) which was similar to what I experienced with the 464 blend. No gain or loss here at this stage of the game. I did try some C3/palm blends unwicked in metro jars to see how the addition of palm affected pouring - I got a lot of wet spot issues although the surfaces were good. I did not progress to the burning stages as I was not happy with the wet spots. Whilst it is early days for me, I am liking the C3 overall. I think it will still have the same shrooming issues we see with other waxes here, and to be honest I am convinced it is the wick type and not the wax causing that (am no expert though - wish we had more wick choice here!). I like the pour characteristics and lack of wet spots/rough tops/frosting. Just waiting to finish this round of plain testing to start with some fragranced testing. I am no help with your 4" jars.....I have never ventured that large! Let us know how you go.... Bart

Thanks everyone, Elevate and cover - That was the secret! :smiley2: We have had shocking weather here the last week (high temps and abnormally high humidity) so I held off testing until the weather normalised. This evening I poured a number of plain (unscented, non coloured) C3 testers in a number of container types. Wax was heated to 180 then left to drop to 160 and poured between 160 and 155. All were elevated in racks and covered with towels after pouring - all have perfect tops. I have not had a chance to play with the C1 yet, but I am very happy with the C3. Once I finish learning the plain wax I am hopeful that I will get the same results once I start using FO. Thanks again to everyone for their assistance and advice. :smiley2: Bart

Interesting topic....I recall not that long ago being ridiculed on a local forum for making the comment that I did not use normal hot glue because I have found it melts and the tab moves, particularly with palm containers. Thankfully the level of maturity is much higher on this forum. :smiley2: When I started testing palm containers I was using hot glue (not specifically the high temp variety...more the craft variety). One one the major suppliers here in Oz supplies metros with a slightly 'convex' bottom. In testing, when my melt pool got to the bottom, I had a number of wick tabs 'slide' down the hill so speak....resulting in several jars cracking and breaking because the flame had landed up against the glass wall. Further testing revealed that the hot glue melted, and became very slippery under the tab - assisting it to move outward to the edge of the glass. Since then I made 2 changes - one was to use a supplier of better quality glassware that had flat internal floors (if glue softens the tab is less likely to slide around if it is flat), and the other was to source a better means of securing my tabs. Like others here, I came up with a Permatex type product - except I tried a number of the cheaper varieties marketed under lesser known names. I found they would hold up to the heat without any issues. From memory about $3.95 will do approx 24 dozen jars. For testing purposes, I found that if I grip the tab with a pair of pliers and give the jar a sharp twist, the tab will let go. It will not always lift off the glue material on the bottom, but I am able to re-glue another tab over it. Definitely suitable for testing purposes. The glue holds great - I have never had one let go and have more problems with wicks pulling out of tabs once hot wax is poured in, than I do with tabs coming off or moving. HTH Bart

Thanks for the info, I have been playing with C3, my C1 should land here tomorrow. Early impressions were very good for the C3, but having problems with tops at this point in time. I have tried heating to 180 and pouring at 160 (always in preheated glass), then pouring at multiple 5 degree increments above and below 160 with similar results. I have only been pouring plain wax without FO at this stage to get used to how it wants to pour. I have several on the test burning table (again plain wax) which are going well by early indications. Overall I much prefer the look and feel of C3 over 464. I am confident that I can perfect the issue with the tops with time and experimentation - it is just frustrating trying to work it out. I will do some with FO in the next few days just in case having FO included helps the tops. Cheers, Bart

Yes, pillars can be a challenge. I am using CDN and ACS (a locally produced wick) but am phasing out ACS due to it being too inconsistent in pillars. Stella's advice above is on the money. Give it a go and let us know how you go? Bart

To answer your first question - Yes I weigh my FO and my wax and work out my percentages accordingly. I prefer to work out my ratios using the same units of measurement for both components so that I am measuring 'apples against apples' so to speak. I have done testing in 464 and not had to go over 6% to get good HT (I also consider myself to be lucky in this regard that I have not yet struck a difficult FO). I am currently testing C3 in several wicks to get my eye in on how it pours/burns with a view to getting an understanding of the wax prior to introducing FO. I am planning on starting my FO testing when the time comes at 6% by weight and running from there depending on individual test results. From my limited soy experience I have found that lifting the FO creates me more headaches with mushrooms, but all FO's will be different. I have more background and experience in Palm (pillars and containers) having used it at around 7-8% FO load, and dropping back to 6% in some cases. I find with Palm that often 'less is more' when it comes to FO and eliminating mushrooms etc.... Whilst my soy experiences are not as broad I am carrying the same theory over as my testing to date is indicating that this approach is possibly more critical to soy than it has been in palm. HTH. Bart

Thanks everyone, Stella - What was it in particular that swayed you to the C3 over the C1 from your experiences? I have some in transit C3 that will land here tomorrow. I chose C3 after researching its qualities and reading what I could about the two and deciding that the qualities that C3 were designed with were more to my liking. If I get the results I want with C3 I ill be very happy, otherwise I will try the C1 and see how it compares. Bart

Yep....Continuity of supply is a biggie that other other two still have not mastered yet, hopefully having been supplying larger customers previously, Candle Supply will know about how important it is to be able reliably supply. If their glassware is of good quality it will be a plus also. I am not buying glassware from the west anymore due to poor quality product. Most of them looked like 2nds and could only be used for testing as they were not of store quality. Will be placing an order in the near future for some C-3 so will see how it goes. I still have a full test bench of 464 and different blends thereof currently burning so will be keeping my options open. I am keeping my fingers crossed that the issues I am trying to engineer out of 464 are not an issue with C-3. Bart

Candle Supply in Sydney as I think was already posted. They are stocking Naturewax C-1 & C-3 so we now have a little more choice (and an option of another wax supplier) for soy waxes here in Australia. Not sure how long they have had it for but I recall thinking a while ago that I would like to try it but could not find an Australian supplier. We now have a little more choice in waxes.....would like to see more choice in wicks but I guess you can't have everything! If this wax is as popular as it appears to be in the US I think that Candle Supply will become a larger player in soy wax supply here. Bart

Hi all, I am considering a change from 464 to either C-1 or C-3. I am after some feedback from users who have tried both in terms of the differences, and what are the good/bad points of using each one? My understanding is that C1 is made from blended vegetable oils and is poured a little cooler than C3, where C3 is 100% soy based, poured a little hotter, and has better glass adhesion. From what I read both have reasonable CT & HT with many FO's I would be keen to hear any experiences from those who have used both and would like to share their thoughts on them both in comparison. My instinct is telling me to try C3 but would like to know what others thoughts are before making my final decision. Cheers, Bart