jeanie353

:highfive: I'm talking wicking and wickless. CBL129 is a double duty wax and can be used either way. IMO, it is not worrying too much. No one wants to start over after settling on a wax and supplier waxes have been known to cause that to happen, whether it be wickless or wicked. If it is an IGI duplicate, then we know it can be replaced easily. If not, that is often part (or all) of a decision against the supplier wax.

Nice post up there Dave I do blend for a couple reasons: 1) Try to find a product that fits both my wicking, asthetic and HT wishes 2) If a wax lacks in HT but burns great, I'd like to add a helper paraffin 3) If it burns a little oily or is too transparent, I'll add a little soy. If I want to do that and not mess up the characteristics of the major wax, I need to know if it already has some soy, is designed to pull away from the jar (so I add a helper of the same type) or vice versa. If not, I'll have wet spots like crazy. If you might have read the archives on CBL130 about 1 1/2 years ago, I may as well have been a hired spokesperson for the company. I loved the wax and was all set to sell. I was still working out of my kitchen at the time where the house temp on this level wasn't too cold or too hot. But something happend to my beloved CBL130. It lost its HT. I bought another slab...no HT. A fellow chandler on this forum bought a slab....no HT. When I emailed with Bill he told me the reason was the high soy content of CBL130. OK...I can work with that, I think. What is a challenge is whether this wax is like J300 or IGI 6006 which makes a big difference what helper wax I put in it. So, I ordered a slab to try to figure this out and maybe it will surprise me and have HT once again. I did not order a slab of CBL125 because I do feel it is close enough (if not the same) as IGI 4630 so it's fairly easy to replace, if needed down the road. I doubt that will happen but I don't want to start over again. This wax testing isn't any fun anymore.

This is what I was trying to say in an earlier post but it took me a lot more words. Yours sum it up nicely. I just need to know what I'm working with so if I blend, I know which wax to blend or if I need to replace, I know which wax to replace it with in the IGI/Astor line. I really like CW as a supplier and hope to get this figured out soon. Did order a slab of CBL130 today. If I remember that wax correctly, it pulls away from the jar leaving no wet spots. The freshly poured 6006 I'm looking at has adhered to the jar...so far. The previous 6006 I poured is almost done being tested, not leaving enough wax to compare fairly.

If you want to be even more confused, check out the MPs of each. I just did that and realize why us chandlers get confused. Peak and CS have 4630 listed at different MPs. CW doesn't match up either. I did not check CBL129 against 4786, 4625 or 4794 but probably will a little later. ETA: CW will send you a 1 lb sample. I don't have anymore un-used 129 here but can send you some CBL141, if you like. It is a votive/pillar wax and quite a hard wax but mixed it may do very well. I have not tried it yet mixed.

Thanks Dave. That was great you asked Bill to share the info you received, he agreed and you shared with us!!I have a couple questions that maybe you can answer. First is specifically with CBL130 and 6006. You mentioned Bill said they do not simply relabel and their blends are proprietary. Does this mean they use the same liquid wax, same additives as 6006 but make it themselves rather than repackage 6006 under the name of CBL130 as others do? I worked with 130 extensively and loved it but stopped because I lost HT. Right now I am working with 6006 and they don't seem quite the same to me. I'm not doubting one word you or Bill said. Am just trying to figure this out. 130 seemed to have a lower MP yet be a harder wax in the jar. It burned wonderful for me with Eco wicks. 6006 does not do that...for me. I do have CBL125 and 4630 side by side and they do look alike in all ways. They did burn a little different for me but it was most likely due to the different FO in each. Also 125 had better HT....Also, possibly due to the FO. Ravens ~ For what it's worth, I just finished doing CBL129 alongside 4794 and 4786. I do not think it is 4786. One reason is I can wiggle a knife through 4786 but cannot get a knife through CBL129 without kinda like chiseling to break off hunks. Worked better to drop on the cement. Seems it may be closer to 4794. Just my .02

That I cannot do!

All I did was a search to see what the wax was. I think it came up at Let It Shine but not sure. They are a bit pricey on their stuff (JMO) so Faction (whatever that is) might be better. Yes, Ma'am....It is your duty and we will await your results. I serioulsy cannot tolerate testing another wax right now or I'd of been enabled already

Oh HS...Wish I could answer that for you but I just don't know. I've only done 50/50 and haven't the slightest clue how 6098 would make the melts behave if it became dominant in the blend in release. If no one else chimes in that they've already tried, I can pour one to see how it works since I have the waxes here.

I agree fully!! Someone just commented on that wax recently. I had to look it up because it was unfamiliar with me as well. Found it also is a parasoy like 6098 but don't know why we haven't heard more about it. I would of ordered but was already neck high in tart and container waxes to test. So, should we assume it went into your cart Ravens? Can't wait to hear your review.

We must be neighbors. I'm sitting in the same limbo area you are. (I'll be nice too since you did).

I'm wondering how they will work this out if it does go state by state for the tweaks of the Fed part of the law. Say, one state has less stringent requirement where another has strict requirements....If that is the case, will we be able to ship products made by the less stringent state to the stringent state and not violate their provisions? Like the rest of it, we'll see when it's finalized but that is a big question that stood out to me reading the limited version.

Maybe due to the soy in the blend it takes a little cure time? I can say it kicks butt in melts with 4625 for me.

BCS has their act together from my limited experience. It only cost me a dollor two more (forgot) to have stuff shipped to me from BCS as it did from North. I'll use BCN if I have to but otherwise, until something changes there, nope! Ravens ~ Have you tried CC VV and if so how do you feel it compares to BCS VV?

Very nice! I too love that shade of blue. Soothing.

You did not get any wax while there Ravens? lol Will await your test results on the FOs. Christmas Cheer? It would be a new-to-me supplier for FOs too if they are good. I have gotten wax from them. Very good CS.

....and my family wonders why I'm laughing all by myself so often in front of the computer. This is only one tiny example.

I think that is the only AH/RE scent I disliked...A lot!

Your first? Wow! It really is very nice.

Enabler! Going to check website.

Even some of the suppliers' jars are from China. The ones I had been using from TCMS come in a case saying "Made in China" on the bottom. I'm not promoting China made stuff, and would prefer made in USA, but do have to say I've put these jars through so much testing for almost 3 years and they've held up like champs.

http://www.candlekitchen.com/boxestins.htm In the beginning I bought these and eventually bought the regular pie tins from the grocery store. Customer service is great at Candle Kitchen and fast shipping.

:highfive:

Wow! TCS must of been flooded with tart wax orders.

That's great you are doing that. It will surely be a thread many newbies and veterans pull up when looking for a supplier. The same to you and your family....and all.

Totally forgot Wild Mountain Honey. So glad it was mentioned and you got it. I think you will be very pleased with that scent too. Your list is great!