Propietary Wax Blends

[emilyspoppy]

There has been quite a bit of discusion on propietary wax blends in this and the Wickless forums recently. Issues ranging from nature of waxes to company stability have raised many unanswered questions.

I personally do not have an interest in custom blending my own waxes. I find mixing fragrances to be enough of a challange. Regardless, I have received a number of PM's requesting my opinions of the topic.

Last week I received a phone call from Bill Binder, the owner of Candlewic Candle Supplies, Doylestown, PA. Bill and I had a nice chat that lasted quite awhile. We talked about a number of things including trends in our craft/industry, the pros and cons of wax types and propietary wax blends.

I asked Bill if it would be OK to post some of our discussion regarding his propietary waxes on the board. He gave me his permission. Bill is a very nice guy and a true friend to chandlers. I suggest that everone interested in candle making subscribe to his newsletter. For the record; Bill Binder is the newsletter's "Chandler" and author.

CW processes and blends many tons of wax annually. Many of the waxes arrive at their facility in heated tank cars. They process soy, palm and petroleum waxes in either slabs, flakes or granules. The granular wax is processed in drum/sprayer equipment. They also do custom blending for some large distributors. They do not process the beeswax they sell in pastille form.

Currently I primarily use two IGI waxes in our operation; IGI-4630A ang IGI-6006. Bill assured me that;

CBL-125 is the same formulation as IGI-4630A (I've tested this wax and know it's true.)

CBL-130 is the same parasoy blend as IGI-6006

This was important to me since my testing has been based using these two waxes.

I asked why it would be a benefit for me to purchase his blends rather than in cases produced and packaged at IGI. Bill assured me that CW's standards are very high. The specs are "right on" before they package and ship product.

I'm aware, as many others are on this board, that batches bought from suppliers who are shipping out cases that were processed and packaged at IGI are not always the same.

I'm anticipating that CBL-125 and CBL-130 and any other wax I buy from CW will be more consistant than what I am currently getting from cases with the IGI logo on them. THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.

Why would I choose CW's propietary waxes over another company? I trust Bill Binder. I trust the stability of his company. He is the closest supplier of waxes that I use. They operate a showroom where fragrances can be tested and products are available for pick-up. Bill suggested to call ahead and confirm a visit and/or an order. His company's history is available on their web site. I don't need to post it here.

Bill would not discuss any other particular wax blender with me, but he did mention that he is aware there are company's that simply relabel wax from major manufactures. He told me that CW does not do this. He also told me that although their formulas are "propietary" they will state the type of wax they are composed of.

Bill also told me that in the event any of CW's waxes should ever need or undergo any formulation changes they will rename (renumber) the new product. He is aware that chandlers need to have consistancy in what they are working with. He is a chandler too.

We spoke quite a bit about wickless wax. He too feels there is a signifigant shift in the industry in that direction at this time. I told him I was using IGI-6006 for my clamshells and tarts. He suggested I try CBL-129. It is an all petroleum based wax and not a parasoy blend. We discussed the fragrance loading capabilities of 6006 @ 10%. We agreed that this parasoy wax can take the FO load, but the soy in the blend can limit the duration of the throw.

CBl-129 can match the load capability without the disadvantage of soy. It is an all petroleum wax with propietary amounts of additives (polymers, petrolatum, ect.) The melt point is similar. The description of this and other Candlewic waxes can be found on their web site.

When my current supplies of waxes are exausted I will most likely be switching over to CW waxes. I have already loaded my shopping cart on the CW site with a slab of the waxes I am interested in.

I am not being paid or rewarded in any way, by mentioning CW waxes. I am also not trying to convince or persuade any other crafter to give up a product they are happy with.

I hope members find this information of some value. Although I do appreciate that some members feel I might have more to offer than I post, I would like to assure everyone, that almost everything I know our belive to know about propietary waxes is in this thread. I have no "secrets" or thoughts to offer in PM's. There are very many more talented chandlers who can bring more light to this subject than me. Hopefully posts following this one will be enlightening.

JMO/HTH

Dave @ Charlotte Hall Country Candles

[Chefmom]

Thanks Dave, I always enjoy reading your posts!!

Way back when, when I was first playing with the wax that I bought at Michael's and leftover wax from my Mother's friends I did a lot of reading. When it finally came time for me to break down and order from a real candle supplier online, CandleWic was near the top because they are in Pa. However, the lack of descriptions made me shy away from their wax. My reason for buying 6006 in the first place was the fact that it was available at multiple suppliers, and yes, the thought of going with a proprietary blend discouraged me from even trying them.

My very first container wax was the "Joy" wax from Nature's Garden. I had throw issues from the beginning and I could never get past the smell of the wax alone, it reeked of donut grease. I had a short midnight shift frying doughnuts and no matter what fragrance I put into this wax I couldn't get it to cover the "essence of doughnut" that the wax gave off. Then I read about how their wax had changed, and messed up a lot of people's candles and that scared me. I wanted a consistent product that I could rely on. So when I was reading CandleWic's lack of info with their waxes I moved on to a product I could read more about and was more readily available.

I now purchase from Candlewic on occasion, and since I have read here about their fragrances I am trying more of them. I ordered blind from another supplier early on and every item I bought was a dud, so I didn't want to waste money when I couldn't get a lot of info about their items.

They would go further getting newbies to buy if they had more descriptions and if their wick page was easier to navigate. I H*A*T*E trying to read their pre-tabbed wick page. It hurts my eyes and is so difficult to find the ONE wick that I'm looking for.

On the other hand, I L*O*V*E their custom wick builder and it's the coolest thing ever!! I can't believe how fast I received my order, even during a wick sale.

Consistency was a huge deal for me, and it's good to know that they stay on top of their products, and maybe I would try their waxes knowing this. However, that wick page is horrid in this day and age of easy to navigate web pages.

Thanks again, Dave, good to know info!

[craftsbychris]

Thanks Dave! I have used candlewic since I started making candles. I only get my wax from them. Bill is very helpful and friendly. I also buy my jars there. It is extremely easy to go pick up my orders there. They have them ready the next day.

[justajesuschick]

Thank you for this nice recap. If he was able to match up his waxes to others more familiar, did he offer what CBL-129 is comparatively? Otherwise, I still know nothing of it and of course, I'd like to. Is it a custom blend of theirs or similar to another IGI wax, I have to wonder.

Currently, after testing a bundle of waxes and blends of such I, with the types of FO's I prefer and the strength I prefer, have done best blending a votive/pillar wax (such as IGI 4625) with a container wax (such as IGI 4630 or IGI 4627) for my melts.

I'd sure like to know what the 129 is comprised. Perhaps I will call and see what information they would be willing to share.

Thanks again for taking time to do the research and also be so willing to share broadly. I appreciate it!

[Ravens]

I too would like to know more about CBL129; it is my fave Candlewic wax, but is the CBL129 the IGI 4786 or 4794; perhaps neither one?

Help, Dave!

[jeanie353]

Bill would not discuss any other particular wax blender with me, but he did mention that he is aware there are company's that simply relabel wax from major manufactures. He told me that CW does not do this. He also told me that although their formulas are "propietary" they will state the type of wax they are composed of.

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

Edited April 2, 2013 by jeanie353

[justajesuschick]

I may have to order some or buy a ziploc from someone here. 4794 reminds me of 4625 and 4786 reminds me more of a bit of 4625 or 4627 blended with 4794.

I sure like to know with what I am working.

[pita4294]

Thanks for the info Dave!

When i read the description of 129 it feels like I'm reading the description of 4786 TBH. I've never ordered from Candlewic. Shipping is way to much, just like Candlescience. I have gotten the CBL 125 off amazon though before.

[jeanie353]

I may have to order some or buy a ziploc from someone here. 4794 reminds me of 4625 and 4786 reminds me more of a bit of 4625 or 4627 blended with 4794.

I sure like to know with what I am working.

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.

Edited April 2, 2013 by jeanie353
additional

[justajesuschick]

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, J! I only use one of their FO's and need to order soon. I did not see wax samples on their site so may still have to call and I can ask.

[Ravens]

You're right, Jeanie; the 4786 isn't as hard as the CBL129. I checked the melt points:

for the CBL129 it is 131

4786 is 124 (got this from CandleScience and Lonestar)

4794 is 128 (CandleScience and Lonestar).

Still not clear as to the reasons some companies will take a wax - 4633, for example - and make it their proprietary blend... what do they add to it to make it different from the "original"? I mean, if they get 4633 and leave it as is, they would not change its name/number, would they? Ok, so, why?

Why, Dave?

TIA

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

[LJA]

Awesome information! I really appreciate hearing this and will definitely look into his products!

Edited April 2, 2013 by LJA

[justajesuschick]

Still not clear as to the reasons some companies will take a wax - 4633, for example - and make it their proprietary blend... what do they add to it to make it different from the "original"? I mean, if they get 4633 and leave it as is, they would not change its name/number, would they? Ok, so, why?

The reason any retailer does it is that it keeps me captive to buying from them.

Target got me. I started buying blue bins each time I was in Target. I wanted to be able to replace all cardboard boxes with the same Rubbermaid bin so that my storage room would look tidy (and because I went to a seminar that discussed that most damage in a home fire is water and smoke and suggested ditching cardboard boxes). Went later to WM and they had a different blue bin. Had to return them when I got them home and discovered they were not the same.

If someone is doing nothing but repackaging a wax, they need to label it as that wax. If they are modifying with additives or blending, I can understand them changing to a proprietary name. I will likely not use a wax in which I have no idea what I am working. I know many will not feel that way, but to me it is a deterrent.

[jeanie353]

If someone is doing nothing but repackaging a wax, they need to label it as that wax. If they are modifying with additives or blending, I can understand them changing to a proprietary name. I will likely not use a wax in which I have no idea what I am working. I know many will not feel that way, but to me it is a deterrent.

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.

[Candybee]

The only wax I buy at CW is their palm. Especially the crystal container palm. I got tired of GG problems; prices kept going up, OOS here and there, and the inconsistency drove me nuts. So after I started working with their palm I switched exclusively to theirs and have been a happy clam ever since. I knew they blended and packaged their own and its always consistent-- so far no problems. Plus you can't beat their price.

I often drive out there to their showroom/plant and pick up since they are only 30 minutes from C&S. But their shipping is fast.

But if you ever go into their showroom it may turn some off. Its a very dirty place and I always feel dirty after I walk out. I have to remind myself they have processing plant so the dirt must get into the showroom since its connected. But still...

[emilyspoppy]

I'm sorry if anything I wrote is unclear or confusing.

I'll try and clarify;

The practice of producing propietary items is not limited to candle wax as we all know. Karen points out it might be a practice of some companies to get you "hooked" on their brand or label to keep you returning. I'm sure that is a part of the equation for some retailers.

I'm a big fan of BJ's propietary line. Berkley & Jensen is a real brand as far as I'm concerned. I do know, however, that there is no big plant that produces all of the items that carry that name. Everything that is sold under that seal is made by many manufacturers in accordance to standards specified by buyers at BJ or presented to their buyers with assurances to meet a certain standard in quality. I know that in some cases this is not simply a matter of repacking. I have nice metal cookwear that has been cast with their logo. I know this is a common practice with many super retailers.

Karen mentions she is buying "Rubbermaid" totes with a Target brand label. That may be the case, I have a lot of propietary totes that look exactly like Rubbermaid totes with one major exception. The name Rubbermaid is not molded into the container. I wouldn't be surprised if the totes were not made in a Rubbermaid plant, though.

I don't know, but I am pretty sure there are several reasons that Rubbermaid would be willing to do this if they are. Most of those reasons would be driven by bottom-line profits, so numerous to discuss them that it would merely be a distraction here.

Based on what Bill has told me, his "Custom-Blended" waxes are not already blended and packaged by any manufacturer. I feel I have no right or need to ask for formulas for his waxes, other than a request to know the type of wax they are blended from.

As stated their beeswax pastilles are not prcessed there. I have bought their BW and I do suspect that CW does repack them from bulk based on the packaging I received them in. JMO

CW's formulas may be close or "dead on" as the same that IGI or other wax producers use, but since they are not formulated, finished off, packaged or whatever term you choose to describe the process, by them it would not be appropriate or perhaps legal for CW to make that claim.

What does matter to me is that I honestly believe that Candlewic waxes will be leaving their factory at a standard of quality greater than that of the original wax processor.

I'm pretty tired of playing 'craps" each time I order wax from a supplier. Not only is wax that is "all over the scale" annoying to work with and wick, I'm very concerned the candles that I produce with this wax may cause a loss of customers. It is a real and serious concern for me.

Bill is aware from our discussion that he has lost sales of their waxes because they are not as recognizable as the IGI branded products that we as chandlers are familiar with. He is also aware that shipping costs, which his company have no control over are a serious factor when one of us are shopping for a wax source.

At the risk of coming off arrogant, I urged Bill to consider adding additional information on his waxes and even suggested that he review his whole online catalog for "weaknesses".

His "web work" is not done in-house, but I was very concerned that my suggestion might be regarded as rude. Mr. Binder seemed to appreciate the suggestions, though. I like him. He seemed open to opinions from some "little guy" user like me. I find that to be a good trait in a good businessman. That is not always the case in the real business world.

I plan to send him a link to this site by email. I sent him a link on this topic that was posted in the "Wickless" forum. He told me he read it with interest. His reply email to me mentioned he would be happy to see me as a potential wax customer among other comments. I will ask his permission to post useful portions of a reply email if I receive one. I anticipate I will.

I don't want to upset my fellow chandlers with what I'm about to post, but my brain has no filter on it. PLEASE accept the following as a FRIENDLY OPINION of what seems to be stressing so many of us over this subject.

Here goes;

Virtually all of the "Hot Throw" testing that we have done or can do is not scientific. It really can't be. We can try and duplicate an environment in which we do our testing in, but there are too many variables that we can't control. We all have days when our sense of smell are stronger as well as weaker. Even the mood we are in at the time can affect this. Our own mind can play tricks on us.

If you feel I'm full of "it", try this simple test. Have someone else line up, let's say ten bottles of fragrance! Close you eyes or wear a blindfold if youre likely to cheat, and sniff each bottle. Write down the fragrance type and any comments you feel are noteworthy after each testing. Remove the blindfold if you're a cheater, or just open your eyes if you're more honest. I'll bet you'll discover some surprises.

Smell your fragrances again with your eyes open. Now that you have read the label, do you notice the differences? I ALWAYS do! So does my wife! We can't help it. It's the way our brain is wired! The mind does affect the results unless you are one of those rare individuals with an amazing olfactory sense.

OK; Set that test aside;

Smell something, perhaps a favorite FO. Now eat something. Smell that FO again. Different? We "smell" with our mouths as well as with our noses. We "taste" with our noses, too. Any wine drinkers here? They should know this is true.

Keep taking whiffs. Does it get weaker with each whiff? It does with me and mine. Is the nose really that reliable? "Candlemakers nose" is a real condition.

Factor in weather, humidity and ambient temperature and consider air flow or changes in the room environment and then try to understand why; "It used to have a good throw, but it's not the same as it was a year ago."

Read that statement on the board and before we know it, we are mostly in agreement. We can't help it we've been prejudiced. We are also subjective. It's our nature.

I really don't need to know all of the components or ratio of additives in the waxes I use. I do want to know the type of wax(es) used, but I can make my choices for what works for me by doing my own testing. I try to keep it as simple and as straightforward as possible. As I've stated, I'm not interested in creating my own wax blends. My "crazy scientist laboratory" just isn't set up for it.

We all know how very difficult wicking can be, but I think we might be worryimg a bit too much when testing wickless products. I plan on finding a good wax that holds a good load of FO and is does not appear to have a large amount of Vybar added to it to achieve that. I want a good release of fragrance. I want an all petro wax. I have not tried any yet, but from what I've read in this thread, CBL-129 sounds like that wax. I'll know more when I get it into a clamshells and out and then into a melter.

My personal worries are this;

Our small shop is located smack dab in the middle of three Super-WalMarts all located within a half hour drive of us. Their clamshell melts look exactly like mine, have a good cold throw, attractive labeling, good name brand recognition (Better Homes & Gardens) and a $2 price point. Until now I've managed to comptete with Yankee and Scentsy, but everyone I know shops at WM.

I'll post more about CW if Mr. Binder is kind enough to bring more enlightenment to our subject.

I hope I have not offended anyone in anyway. I'm in the same boat and trying to do my best to keep it afloat just like all of us. If our boat sinks, we will all drown. I doubt any of us can tread water forever.

JMO/HTH

Dave

Edited April 2, 2013 by emilyspoppy

[jeanie353]

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.

Edited April 2, 2013 by jeanie353

[Ravens]

Dave, perhaps I missed it, but what can you tell us about the CBL 129?

TIA :smiley2:

Edited April 2, 2013 by Ravens

[lmc]

We all know how very difficult wicking can be, but I think we might be worryimg a bit too much when testing wickless products.

Dave

:highfive:

[jeanie353]

We all know how very difficult wicking can be, but I think we might be worryimg a bit too much when testing wickless products.

Dave

: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.

Edited April 3, 2013 by jeanie353
additional

[emilyspoppy]

Really I'm no expert.

I have been at chandlering for awhile, but that only means I've made a lot of mistakes. It would take volumes of boring typing and (worse) reading to convey my OPINIONS on this, but I'll try to narrow it down to the points most brought up.

Jeanie; I agree with you that wax preferences are personal. I want it all too! I never seem to quite get it though from the waxes that get shipped to me.

My start in this crazy racket was making authentic-type "period" candles.

I fell in love with candles, candlelight and candle holders during a visit to Colonial Williamsburg prior to my teen years. I am really a traditional chandler. I HAD to make my own blends in the beginning. I had grocers and butchers save and sell me beef and sheep tallow at the start of my adventure. As you must be aware that was eons ago and everthing has pretty much changed. I have only been making highly fragrant candles for about 15 years, selling them for 12, 10 of which have been in our current shop.

I stock a lot of fragrances for several reasons;

1.) I'm mentally challanged (Diseased)

2.) I want to out do the competition

3.) I enjoy blending fragrances

I've never felt a major urge to blend waxes for several reasons;

1.) It's confusing

2.) It's messy

3.) I cannot provide the necessary environment to test the blends in that meets with my expectations.

4.) I'm lazy

I do "adjust" waxes sometimes. I keep 4627 and 4794 in quantity on hand for that reason. I only use them when the wax I buy in stock from suppliers is "off" though. I also usually have many other waxes "around" just in case. HTH

Ravens; The description that CW provides with CBL-129 is satisfactory for me, now that I know that it is an all petroleum wax. Bill's suggestion to "Try it! You'll like it!", will not go untested. I just haven't gotten that far yet.

I'm pretty confident that once Bill reads the posts on this thread he may clear up or make additions to their web site. I'm hoping this will be the case. If I learn anything more about any of their propietary waxes I will be sure to pass it on. HTH

IMC; "High Fives" back at ya' ! TKS

More to follow. . . SOON . . . I hope!

Dave

[justajesuschick]

Dave, I do not know how anyone can be offended by your research and willingness to share.

I understand your reasoning (should this alarm me in any way?? ha!). I like having testers who are familiar with making as well as those unfamiliar but who really love melting. All get melts with scent name and letter. I have not asked them to judge a fragrance. I am simply asking if one lasted longer than another or if they could tell if one was stronger. OR if they could not tell a difference. That would mean that either/any wax blend would do. That has not happened yet. My testers have chosen those that performed better. Those results, paired with my own thoughts have narrowed me to two blends.

I want strong, long lasting wax no matter the format. After reading all of posts about the testing of wax, FO's, wicks and jar selection that goes into candle making, it would never have occurred to me that people could have just picked a jar and moved on. Instead I read here about testing, testing and more testing. Especially to a newbie who shows up and wants to sell candles in a week!I feel the same about my melts and that my seem odd to some since I mainly make for me!

I used to buy from a LOT of independent makers and there was a difference in them. I want a product as good as the best of those I tried. I like being confident in what I have learned and I like that I have learned it though asking, reading, research-and LOTS of testing-not by just picking anything and going with it.

So, I am with Ravens-what do you know about the 129, mister?? Of course I will have to try it. This stubborn girl from the Show-Me-State likes to know!

[Ravens]

:highfive: You go, girl, lol

Come on, Dave; CBL125 is supposed to be like (or THE) 4630, the CBL130 like the 6006, what about the CBL129?

Sorry if we're giving you a headache, Dave. You see, most of us here have inquisitive minds, lol

Dave, I do not know how anyone can be offended by your research and willingness to share.

I understand your reasoning (should this alarm me in any way?? ha!). I like having testers who are familiar with making as well as those unfamiliar but who really love melting. All get melts with scent name and letter. I have not asked them to judge a fragrance. I am simply asking if one lasted longer than another or if they could tell if one was stronger. OR if they could not tell a difference. That would mean that either/any wax blend would do. That has not happened yet. My testers have chosen those that performed better. Those results, paired with my own thoughts have narrowed me to two blends.

I want strong, long lasting wax no matter the format. After reading all of posts about the testing of wax, FO's, wicks and jar selection that goes into candle making, it would never have occurred to me that people could have just picked a jar and moved on. Instead I read here about testing, testing and more testing. Especially to a newbie who shows up and wants to sell candles in a week!I feel the same about my melts and that my seem odd to some since I mainly make for me!

I used to buy from a LOT of independent makers and there was a difference in them. I want a product as good as the best of those I tried. I like being confident in what I have learned and I like that I have learned it though asking, reading, research-and LOTS of testing-not by just picking anything and going with it.

So, I am with Ravens-what do you know about the 129, mister?? Of course I will have to try it. This stubborn girl from the Show-Me-State likes to know!

[emilyspoppy]

Oh! Did you mean Candlewics CBL-129 wax?

"A multiple pour jar/container blend that is designed to offer you a rich smooth blend on your container candles, this specialty candle wax is designed for containers and votive candles. This wax can do double duty for you. There is no need to use two different waxes for your containers and votive candles."

Wax Blend Consistency: Hard

Fragrance Capacity: 5-8%

Candle's Finish: Smooth & Opaque

Pouring Temp (°F): (140-155)°

Melting Point (°F): 131°

"This is Candlewic's own custom blend that is formulated to give a smooth finish on your container and votive candles. This candle wax will handle high fragrance loads and will exhibit very true and vibrant colors in your candles. This candle wax blend will offer your candles very good burning characteristics and will eliminate undesirable "wet spots". This product will require a top off point."

http://www.candlewic.com/store/Product.aspx?q=c69,p526&title=Container-Blend-Wax---CBL-129

There's even a video on this wax describing it's benefits.

The ONLY THING I CAN ADD is;

It's a pure petroleum wax (No soy) and the owner of Candlewic, Mr. Bill Binder, suggested to me that he believes this is a superior wax for producing clam shell and tart melts

I'm sorry I have no additional information on this wax. I have not even tried it yet. I do plan to send Bill Binder a link to this thread for him to read in an email. Maybe more information will be available shortly. I sure hope so.

Karen; I do appreciate all of the testing you are currently doing. If I had a dollar for every every hour I spent testing waxes, wicks and fragrances, I'd take a vacation in Bermuda.

HONEST! I too want to make the best products that are possible if even for myself, family and friends. I do hope, however, that making the best wax products will be enough to keep our shop open and operatimg in the black.

We are all in this wax melter (IE: Presto Pot) together!

Sleep tight ladies! Hopefully tomorrow will bring more information. Maybe!

Dave

[Ravens]

Thank you, Dave; I must admit I was hoping you'd have "the secret goods" on the CBL129.

I hope Mr. Bill will read all this and - hopefully - join in... THEN we can pester him to give us the goods on CBL129.

Dave, 129 is an excellent wax; take it for a spin, I'm sure you will really like it