wakeylad

@joym: I messaged "Flicker" and she confirmed that they do carry some of their fragrances. Although I'm still a little upset that French Color never got back to me. I would think that it would be in their best interest to direct everyone to their distributors. I spoke with one of their old sales reps from 2 years ago and he was great. He spent over 30 minutes on the phone with me and gave me some good information. Maybe my message went into their Spam folder so I will have to give them the benefit of the doubt before writing them off. It's just that I like to know where my candle supplies come from. Personally, I'm not going to buy someone's wax blend. I want to be able to ensure that I have a stable supply chain when it comes to materials.

@deb: I bought all my candle supplies in 2008 (maybe 2009). Because of the way things worked out (moving house, etc), I didn't get around to using those supplies until this year. All the wax (4630, J225, 4627) were sitting in the garage for the last two summers (and winters). The one thing I noticed about the 4630 box was the grease stains. You would have thought that someone had previously poured a bottle of cooking oil over the box - you could feel the greasiness. The other two wax boxes were fine, but they're wrapped in wax inside the box whereas the 4630 just has wax-paper seperating the slabs. I didn't worry too much since I intended to use the J225 as my "wax of choice" and use the 4630 for color experiments. The color experimentation worked out great but since I decided to keep the containers I used as point of reference (I had already decided on the fragrances I wanted to use), I only had 1 slab of the 4630 left. No problem. I wanted to use the J225 as "my" wax anyway. Getting good results with the colors probably gave me a false sense of security. Anticipating similar outcomes with the wick testing, I figured I better stock up on some more J225. The supplier was out of stock and told me that there wasn't much demand for this "Super Wax" so they could only supply it if I ordered a pallet. At this point, it was a toss-up between the 4627 and the 4630. I chose the 4630 because I'd used it for the color experimentation. I ordered 3 more cases. While those were on there way, I started to my wick testing with plain wax. To cut a long story short (maybe), every wick I used smoked like crazy. I'm talking spiralling plumes of smoke. I ordered every wick I could get my hands on and literally tried every size. The LX wicks gave me the best results but still threw some smoke. They definitely gave the best results with the plain wax. The three boxes that I ordered arrived on my doorstep but I wanted to use up the old wax. Then I thought that maybe this wax isn't supposed to be burnt without FO so I added that into the mix and started testing again. Same results. Smoke. Smoke. Smoke. The worst thing was that this was happening on the first or second burn for virtually every wick. Looking at the grease stained box and then staring at the new batch I wondered if some kind of seepage had affected the wax in some way and, as a last ditch effort, I setup another LX test. The flames were perfect. No dancing. No sooting. Nothing. It was like night and day. I tested further. Night and day. I relit the old batch. Smoke and more smoke. There was literally no comparison. All I can say is that if I had not ordered those extra boxes of 4630 wax I would have based all my results on the old batch and would not be sitting here right now writing this. I would have thrown in the toweland tipped my hats to all the Chandlers out there. I have to say that I learned a lot from the experience and after moving forward with better results I've found that I still have to tip my hat. Maybe one day someone will tip their hat at me. Anyway, it could've been a bad batch of wax but I did scour the message boards and there was no mention of bad batches in 2008/2009, so the only thing I can assume is that this wax did go bad. I don't think that all waxes go bad, especially straight paraffin. If anything I've realized why so many chandlers test burn each batch of wax they receive. Personally, I think if the box had had a plastic liner then the wax would have been okay.

Hi: I have two questions but they are kind of related, in a funny way (in my opinion), so here goes: Question 1: I bought quite a few French Color fragrances a couple of years ago (they still smell pretty good). Unfortunately, I didn't get to use them because of various circumstances (traveling for work, moving house, etc). The company I bought them from no longers sells fragrances. Does anyone know which of the Candle Supply companies sell French Color fragrances? I did send French Color an email but never go a reply. Maybe they got too big for us little guys. Question 2: I have about 20lbs of bad 4630, 55lbs of J225 and 45lbs of 4627. I figured, since I got no reply from the fragrance company I'd use up the old wax and "that" fragrance I have for tarts. The 4630 went bad because of storage and the other two were exposed to the same conditions so I decided not to waste time testing those (I can't find the J225 anyway - C&S has it listed but it's always out of stock unless I order a pallet). The J225 is supposed to be "soft & creamy" but it's pretty hard (craft knife didn't slice it like butter). The tarts will be going into clamshells. Unless they turn out great, I'm not intending to sell them. Do you think mixing this was together will make decent tarts - at least for personal use or to give away to friends? Thanks a bunch Neil

@KSRanch: Sorry, I meant to say how much of the FO did you end up using in total? So, you were starting over again today, how much of that particular fragrance oil would you order from your supplier? Thanks Neil

@Ksranch: Thanks for sharing your experience. How much of that particular fragrance oil did you use to find your wick starting point? Neil

Hi: When testing a new wax/container combination, do you test with or without additives (fragrance oil, dye, etc) when searching for a "starting-point wick" within various wick families? (ie, best LX, CD, HTP, etc) Post #14 on the following thread, seems to imply a preference for testing without FO: http://www.craftserver.com/forums/showthread.php?101378-Testing-wax-and-wicks-today&highlight=testing+new+wax Right now I'm testing my one wax/container combination without any additives since the only variable, outside of the environment, would be the wick and, to quote Spock, "it would seem logical". I'm not in a rush to produce a final product and would like to see how each wick family works with my wax/container combination and gain the experience that comes along with making mistakes. Thanks in advance for any replies. Neil

Eric: I think that's the one I have (or something very similary). It actually came with a refill. It worked good for a couple of weeks then started acting up. It's probably that just this one is a dud.

P.S. My main interest would be to found out if the percentage of FO significantly decreased. For example, a candle containing 6% FO at the beginning or its life, ended up having wax containing 4% FO at the end of its life. Whether or not I can use that information is a different matter but I'd still be interested in finding out. Thanks again for the replies. Neil

Hi: Thanks for both responses. I did find the following excerpt which seems to justify that the elements can burn at different rates: The wick forms the heart of the candle, drawing the liquid wax up through its core. It is vital to the performance of a candle, which contains such a high percentage of fragrance. Even more so if amber, woods or citrus essences are incorporated, these elements being harder to burn. In such cases, a wick with a different core – perhaps one that includes paper – might be selected. The flame must also consume the components of the wax at the same rate as the fragrance. If, for example, the wax was burning off faster, the amount of botanicals left in the remaining wax would increase. And the candle would go out. Me again: I guess it could be tested based on the mass of the wax, the mass of the fragrance oil and then the mass of the two combined (calculated at a certain temperature). Let's then say that after a 90% burn, if the mass of the wax remaining in the container has changed, it should tell you which of the components is being emitted from the candle at a faster rate. Of course, having the right equipment to detect any variances might be the biggest problem. Thanks Neil

Hi: If I had a perfectly blended candle with a 6% fragrance load so we have a wax to FO ration of 94:6. Does this ratio, even minutely, get affected as the candle burns? Does the FO stay tightly bound to the wax so they burn at even rates so at the end of the candle's life the ratio of wax to FO would still be 94:6? I'm curious, that even in minute fractions, the oil get burnt at a faster (or slower) rate than the wax in the candle. As the candle creates a melt pool does it make more FO available to the flame; the next layer of unmelted wax acting as a reservoir of FO for future burns? For example, if I made sixteen 16oz candles and burnt them all until they had exactly 1oz of fragranced wax remaining and made a new 16oz candle from that wax, would it burn the same? If you answer this post can you clarify whether your post is your own theory/opinion or is based on fact/science? Any supporting links would be great. Thanks in advance for any replies. Neil

When I use matches, I milk that match all it's got and end up burning my fingers.

Let's assume that you're taking an exam at Candle University and you have to answer the following question: ------------------------------------------------------------------- You have an unknown, but popular, container wax, with absolutely no additives, that has been tested in a particular container with with every wick line (LX, CD, HTP, etc). For each wick line in which these candles were tested, it always came down to two wicks (one size apart): the smaller wick burnt cleanly, but would leave some hang-up on the side of the container, while the second wick would produce some noticable smoke each time it was lit, but would eventually settle down and produce a nice melt pool and burn cleanly. The Queen's birthday is 3 days away and she loves fragranced candles. You have just enough fragrance oil to make one more candle. You have to make a candle for the Queen's birthday (if you dont: The Olde Chopping Block, so no excuses). The wick line you choose to use has 10 sizes. Number 6 is the smaller wick with the clean burn but some hangup. Number 7 is the larger wick with the smokey start but eventual clean burn and nice meltpool. The Queen is known to be ruthless and your life could depend on the quality of the resulting candle (The Olde Chopping Block). Which wick number (any one in the range) would you choose and why? ------------------------------------------------- It's Friday....enjoy your weekend.

Hi: I bought a Bernzomatic lighter with the flexible hose. I've had it a couple of weeks and it's already on the Fritz. I know from my camping experience that these kind of trigger-lighters don't usually last too long. Damn, and this one had a built in bottle opener. I switched to using a Bernzomatic blowtorch to light tealights (a lot of tealights) outside during the summer at the campsite. You can turn the flame down low and it's just like a regular lighter and the gas lasts forever and only costs $5 or so for a new tank. Great for outdoor use. Since this particular model stays on until you turn it off, I don't relish the thought of accidentally dropping it or knocking it over indoors. However, they do have a torch on their website that connects to a 1lb tank via a hose. It looks just like a regular lighter except for the hose part. Since the campsite blowtorch has paid for itself 10x over, I may have to take a look at this other model the next time I'm at the hardware store. If I do buy one, I'll post some reviews. So, I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion about safety issues regarding the use of a particular lighting method, but just wondered what other people are using to light their candles. Personally, I'm looking for something long-lasting, preferably refillable and reliable. If anyone has any recommendations, I would love to hear them. Thanks in advance.

Hi Flicker: I did contact one of the larger companies that prime with 212MP wax and they gave me the names of a couple of the wholesalers. It's good to know that Bitter Creek also sell the 212MP Wax. Do you, or anyone else, know if the 212MP wax is readily available and, if so, where it can be obtained? Thanks Neil

Hi Minx: The "no matter what wick" issue that I had was really with the bad batch (most likely caused by bad storage) of the 4630 I was using, but I have noticed quite a few wicks that burn fine on the first burn with plain 4630 and even with 10% FO added or an oversized wick, then smoke like a chimney on the second burn. Right now I'm not actually testing the candles I have for a perfect burn but rather doing some comparison testing. That testing is going fine. Whether the candle burns perfectly or not, at this stage, doesn't matter for me. Of course, it will matter when it comes to the final candle. However, for my testing purposes, whether a candle wick burns differently on the first burn than on subsequent burns does matter. It will matter everytime I change a wax or a fragrance oil or add something else into the mix. I'll still end up testing the whole candle of course. This evening, I relit a candle that smoked during my Sunday test - that was my third 3-hour test burn. It smoked as expected. I let it burn for 15 minutes. Everytime I walked by the candle, I would get a waft of smoke from the flame and some smoke anytime the flame would dance. I videotaped it for my own records. I let it burn for 15 mins just to expose enough of the unburnt wick to pull it out with my needle-nose pliers. I inserted a new wick of the same size and let the wax harden up again. I trimmed the new wick to 1/4" and it's not smoking. I can even blew on the flame and it doesn't smoke. It's burning nicely - draft or no draft. I exposed more wick by removing some wax from the melt pool - still no smoke. I'm expecting that it wil smoke again during tomorrow's test. To me, the real test would be to see how a new candle would burn with the wick I just removed. I don't have one to hand right now so that would have to wait for a few days. As far as the formula goes, I'm pretty sure I messed this one up but the testing regime I'm developing needs to be able to identify good and bad formulas, so I'm milking the bad results for all the data I can get. Since we learn more from our mistakes, I'm trying to see how much I can learn from this one. (I accidentally added 10% FO instead of 6%). I'm suspecting that the wax used to prime the wick may somehow "shield" the wick from the candle wax the first time it's used (as I said, I added a new wick to a smokey candle and it's burning nicely still - currently after two hours). Maybe once the actual wax used in the candle permeates the wick and replaces the priming wax, then that's when things start to change. I guess I could test that theory by sticking a wick in the oven to melt off the priming wax and see if that smokes on the first burn. Anyway, I appreciate all the feedback, i was just curious to see if anyone else had the same experience? Thanks everyone and have a good night. Neil

Hi: I am using a methodical approach and I know from my career that the more data I gather the more I increase my chances of obtaining better results - whether the result of an experiment is good or bad, the data obtained from that experiment will always be good. If anything, lack of data would cause my end results to be skewed. Let's assume I made two identical candles with the same wick and, for testing purposes, used the "poke-hole" method to insert the wick. I burned the first candle (candle #1) for 3 hours. The next day I relight candle #1 and it smokes (let's assume heavily for the sake of argument). Now I move the wick in candle #1 to candle #2 and insert a new wick (same type) in candle #1. Now I have an new candle with an old wick and an old candle with a new wick. What results would you expect? Candle #1 to smoke and candle #2 to burn fine? What if candle #1 now burns fine with a new wick and candle #2 smokes? To me, that data would be invaluable. BTW, the smoke detector went off previously with an old batch of 4630 that had a badly grease stained box after being kept in the garage for a year (hot summer). It may have been a bad batch but I personally think it was the storage conditions. Well, that thing smoked like a chimney. I'd been using this box for color experiments but virtually every wick I used smoked with the plain 4630 wax (and I mean every wick: HTP, CD, LX, Zinc, Paper, Cotton, etc). I read about all the smoking issues with this wax and had just received 4 new boxes and was a little worried. To cut a long story short, the newly delivered wax burns nice and clean and the smoke detector hasn't gone off since. Again, thanks for all the input. Neil

Thanks for the feedback so far. I know that these containers are overwicked. My interest is in why they burn okay on the first burn as opposed to subsequent burns. Maybe the wax that the wick was primed with helped with the first burn? I'm sure, as Stella mentioned, the first burn is at the top of the container and so isn't affected as much by the container itself. I was just trying to figure out if I needed to burn for the full three hours to figure out if a container is overwicked since, for me, the first burn doesn't seem to be a good indicator. I'm going to do a 15 minute burn on a new candle this evening, blow it out and light again after a few hours to see if it smokes on the second lighting. Or maybe I'll carefully pull the 3-hour wick and place it into an unwicked candle and see if it smokes on the first burn. Thanks again for all the input. Neil

I'll post more info once I get to work.

Yes, it's the extractor fan on the range hood. On low it doesn't really affect the flame as they do settle down after a while sitting on the stove. All wicks trimmed. Actually usually various oils for test burn purposes and plain 4630 out of the box. Thanks Neil

Hi All: I'm getting a pretty good burn on the first burn but smoke on the 2nd burn. I just wondered is this is common. I was testing a bunch of candles with different fragrance oils and different wicks. They all burn beautifully on the first 3-hour burn (3" Diameter Status). I let them sit for 24-hours and performed a second burn; about 2/3 of the candles were smoking. I moved them to the stove top and put the extractor on very low (didn't want to set off the smoke alarm again). After 15 minutes or so they stopped smoking except for 2 or 3 candles. So, apart from those, they all returned to the testing area. I'm guessing that as the wick changes from an new, unburned, wick to a burned wick that this affects subsequent burns. I just wondered if this is true and, if so, how long the new wick needs to burn to affect subsequent burns in this way. I have some theories as to the testing I can do to provide/disprove this but don't want to reinvent the wheel when there are so many knowledgeable people on here. Hope everyone had a good weekend and thanks in advance for any replies. Neil

Hi: I know that certain fragrance names are trademarked for use under Candles. However, let's say someone created a "Trash Can" candle fragrance but they sold numerous candles with different fragrances, would someone else be able to establish a company name such as "Trash Can Candles"? Another example, you see the Cool Water Candle fragranced candles, all over the internet but would that stop some one creating a Cool Water Candle Company (btw, coolwatercandles.com is available - I just checked). In this example, let's say they were trying to create a candle for tranquility. Another example, YC, last time I checked had a trademark on the Christmas Eve and Wedding Day scents. Would that stop someone creating a Christmas Eve or Wedding Day Candle Company as long as they didn't use the scent names? Thanks in advance for any input. Neil

Jeanie: I'll do a search for the video when I get home -- I tried to Google it but everything is blocked at work so I can't take a look right now. Luckily, they haven't blocked this site yet. If you have a link to share, that would be great. Thanks Neil

I know this is an old thread but it's exactly was I was looking for. Does anyone know if the 175 degrees is still the standard? I usually use my oven to heat my containers (minimum temp is 170 degrees F) and I have to use oven gloves most of the time to handle them. I can only hold with my bare hands for about a second or so - just enough time to take out and put on top of the stove.

One of the guys from one of the wick companies told me it helps the wick stand up better in the melt pool (containers).

Sorry, meant to say "What's the highest MP available for home priming?"