Found New Ecosoya Q210 In Stock!

[CandleSmoak]

Hi sorry y'all, I poured at 140. The min is supposed to be 145 but I'm so used to waiting & waiting until 110 that I missed that mark haha. It came out great though! 

 

I make lightly scented candles because that's just how my husband and I like them (we have fragrance sensitivities, so we'll get headaches etc. if I make them too strong). I won't be of much help with the FO side of things but by all means, high-jack the thread @Jenn-MN  I'd love to hear everyone else's results.

[Waxxy]

So, I ordered the q210 and received it today. I already poured a few tester candles. I love how smooth the tops are! Did anyone notice an almost chemical smell to the wax? Also, I noticed the wax smoking well before I hit 185 degrees and before I even added FO. Anyone else notice this? 

[wthomas57]

On 8/27/2017 at 1:48 PM, Jenn-MN said:

I noticed the 45lb case size, too. BCN is planning to carry these waxes and is within driving distance for me, so the new wax will probably end up costing me the same as the GB464 I order from RE.  However, that being said, I think making candles is still going to end up costing me more because of the fragrance load!

 

I usually use 6% FO for my candles and get really good (most times excellent) cold throw. I made my first 2 pound test of Q210 yesterday and I have almost no cold throw (24 hours later). Wax: Q210 with CS Bayberry (since I still have leftovers from last Christmas - both FO AND candles/melts for comparison). Even my DH said that there is maybe a third of the scent compared to my 464 candles made with CS Bayberry at 6%. YIKES -- this could get expensive if I have to load the candles with 18% FO. I am trying to wait at least 48 hours to light the candles, but I am half temped to melt it all back down and double the FO before I even move to the burn tests.

 

I don't want to high-jack this thread, but I am curious about how testing is going for other chandlers. Would it be worth starting a thread for test results? I am new enough that I am not sure the protocol on starting new threads. Thnx. Jenn

 

PS @CandleSmoak I use ECO wicks too

 

On 8/27/2017 at 2:22 PM, Candybee said:

Jenn definitely give that candle more time to cure. I would wait a minimum of 2 weeks.

 

Id check another fragrance or repeat your process and double check you didn't do something inadvertently out of the norm or accidentally incorrect. And pick a scent that is a "known good". The reason I say this is... I was extremely surprised to see how strong both the CT and HT throw were in less than 24 hours. I would never use 18%.. thats hilariously ridiculous. But, I tried between 8 and 10 to just see how worked. Thats a bit more than I normally use, but I wanted to see. the CT is superior to any soy ive ever used at such a short amount of time curing. And the HT is wonderful. Never, NEVER have I had a 100% soy candle throw this way after only about 20 hours of curing. 

 

Also, I agree its super shiny and looks beautiful when burning.

 

HOWEVER......... this wax has a big drawback so far that I have noticed. (I am sure Ill find more as I continue to test).

And this particular drawback has nothing to do with performance, but with costs. The cost of the wax isn't crazy bad or anything.......

But, the density of this wax is much higher than other waxes, at least that I have used. What does that mean? Well, normally when I sell a 6oz candle,

the wax fills the jar all the way. (Very important to customers). When I poured 6oz of this wax it was noticeably less fill. I think at the very least, the same jar is going to now require at least 7oz. This is a problem. This means, you either take a hit to profit per candle OR increase your prices.

Yes... customers are getting more candle. But they dont really know that. They compare size of jars. So when your jar cost $3 more than it did before or compared to the next candle, its going to be a problem. Very rarely are customers looking at the net ounces on a candle. 

 

And, if you dont increase your fill and leave it at the same weight (but less volume fill), customers are gonna bark at that. They will think your jipping them on the fill. I see it and hear it a lot with other vendors.  All of this may sound nitpicky... but really, cost is an issue and this is a step back for us. Some won't have a problem in their market either taking the hit to their profits per sale or by increasing their price. But many will.

Edited August 30, 2017 by wthomas57

[Jenn-MN]

@Candybee and @wthomas57 - thanks much. I am busy for the next week or so (so letting the candles cure longer will be just fine for me). I will also try to get a couple poured at 10% FO tomorrow night. The FO I used last time is one I use often (I like it - even if it never sells). Next pour I will try one of my favorite best selling FOs for comparison. Thanks y'all for restoring my hope   I also look forward to trying Q220 when it is available.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Jenn-MN

[CandleSmoak]

@wthomas57 How strange, I noticed the opposite. For every 1lb of wax, I usually fill 2.67 of my 6 oz jars - that's with 1oz FO. The smaller one (which has roughly 4.2 oz of wax) I burn to test & keep for myself. When I used the Q210 I filled up almost three full jars as you can see in the picture I posted a bit ago. The one that is burned is almost full & I've never seen that happen. I don't fill my jars up to the very top because my cat will light her fur on fire trying to stay warm - which is why I don't make tins lol. Even though I don't fill them all the way up I am consistent in where I fill them to if that makes sense. 

That was only one small pour so obviously it's not absolute, but I wanted to throw that out there. 

@Waxxy I did not notice a chemical smell or smoking, sorry! The only thing I can think of to check would be to make a non-scented candle, burn it, & see if you still smell chemicals?

[wthomas57]

8 minutes ago, CandleSmoak said:

@wthomas57 How strange, I noticed the opposite. For every 1lb of wax, I usually fill 2.67 of my 6 oz jars - that's with 1oz FO. The smaller one (which has roughly 4.2 oz of wax) I burn to test & keep for myself. When I used the Q210 I filled up almost three full jars as you can see in the picture I posted a bit ago. The one that is burned is almost full & I've never seen that happen. I don't fill my jars up to the very top because my cat will light her fur on fire trying to stay warm - which is why I don't make tins lol. Even though I don't fill them all the way up I am consistent in where I fill them to if that makes sense. 

That was only one small pour so obviously it's not absolute, but I wanted to throw that out there. 

@Waxxy I did not notice a chemical smell or smoking, sorry! The only thing I can think of to check would be to make a non-scented candle, burn it, & see if you still smell chemicals?

 

I am not surprised we are seeing different results (for a couple reasons). It also depends on which FOs we are each using. The FOs differ in density as well. And maybe that is the difference the two of us are seeing. Or perhaps, the FO I've been using during my testing are leading to my results. So, you are right... just need to do more testing. Also, we were probably using different waxes prior as well. Which might be why we are seeing the different comparable results too.

 

Regarding the chemically smell.  I definitely did smell it in the bags and I am sure its something to do with how the wax is processed. But, I haven't noticed it in finished candle. 

Regarding smoking... @Waxxy are you using a presto pot or something to melt your wax? If you have any remnants or debris in your pot when you turn it on, it could smoke. Or if its heating up to fast. I start at at warm and then slowly increase it as the wax melts.

Edited August 30, 2017 by wthomas57

[Jenn-MN]

On 8/29/2017 at 0:11 PM, Waxxy said:

So, I ordered the q210 and received it today. I already poured a few tester candles. I love how smooth the tops are! Did anyone notice an almost chemical smell to the wax? Also, I noticed the wax smoking well before I hit 185 degrees and before I even added FO. Anyone else notice this? 

I just stuck my face in my bag of Q210 wax - ewwww that stuff stinks! I didn't notice a chemical smell on my first batch of test candles - however this time as I stirred in my FO, I smelled an intense petroleum or chemical smell (different from the intense, almost rancid smell in the bag of wax)! The candles are cooling now, and when I went to check on them and leaned in for a sniff I noticed the chemical smell wasn't as strong (though I could not smell the FO either LOL). Tonight's pour was with 10% FO - hopefully I will have CT when they cure.

[wthomas57]

yah, the wax doesn't smell nice at all.

 

however, wicking has been more of a concern so far. Just seems like constantly needing to wick up and up and up. Many wicks aren't even coming close (that worked before).

They appear ok for a bit but then shrink to an itty bitty flame and fizzle out (or so small that they might as well).

 

Eco has done ok.. but for some reason not curling like it used to so well in ECO Advanced. 

Anyone else having any luck wicking? I am using 8oz mason, 12oz canning jars, and tumblers for testing so far

[thebeesknees]

So, I poured a 10 oz. apothecary jar with 9 oz. of wax.  The color of the pastilles have a pink tone to them and darken when melted and poured into a jar. Has anyone else seen this pink tone?   I used 10% pumpkin thyme fo and 2 HTP 105's.  After sitting 24 hours curiosity got the best of me and I had to burn it.  Ct was ok, nothing great. Ht was minimal, but after a four hour burn, about 1/4" mp, it smelled like burning trash, or so I was told by my mother. It did have a funky chemical burning smell.  

I think the thing that surprised me most was that the 2 HTP 105's weren't melting the heck out of the wax. Tough burn. 

[wthomas57]

It is a tough burn.. Ive noticed as well.

But haven't seen a pink tone.

Also, I havent noticed chemical smell when burning.

 

Where did you get your sample?

[thebeesknees]

C&S. 

 

[Moonstar]

On 8/26/2017 at 3:52 PM, CandleSmoak said:

I got to test mine & I need to increase my wick size, but these came out beautiful. They are incredibly smooth & I haven't seen any frosting

Are these jars the 8oz square masons ? So I'm understanding you correctly, you started with eco 10 but had to wick up ? What did you need to wick up to a 12? What % of FO 

did you use ? Thanks for posting - very helpful  

[wthomas57]

I have to say... having a REAL tough time wicking this wax.  Everything seems to fizzle out quickly. Tried various wick types and sizes. Ecen eco 14 somehow wasnt big enough in a small mason.

 

Anyone else having issues with wicking this stuff?

[moonshine]

Well I'm glad I didn't order it and by the reads of things I will not be 

chemical smelling- hard to wick and maybe I'm weird but soy and shiny just don't go together....I like my soy dull and rustic 

sounds to me like this stuff has been so chemically altered it doesn't behave at all like soy should - just my opinion but glad to know all this beforehand 

 

[wthomas57]

I haven't smelled what others have when burning,  at all.  I wonder if its due to packaging from the supplier they ordered it from. I love the wax, other than wicking do far

[wthomas57]

Anyone else been testing this new wax out? 

Wicking has been VERY challenging! Most wick types simply don' work (not hot enough I guess).

So I have had mild luck so far with ECO and RRD. But both I have had to wick up SIGNIFICANTLY. Too much in my opinion.

Anyone else have any results to post yet?

 

I was accustomed to ECOs curling fantasically in CB Advanced. However, it just sits on this wax like a little squatty nub. Lol, sorry no idea

how to describe it. 

[FreshVintage]

13 hours ago, wthomas57 said:

Anyone else been testing this new wax out? 

Wicking has been VERY challenging! Most wick types simply don' work (not hot enough I guess).

So I have had mild luck so far with ECO and RRD. But both I have had to wick up SIGNIFICANTLY. Too much in my opinion.

Anyone else have any results to post yet?

 

I was accustomed to ECOs curling fantasically in CB Advanced. However, it just sits on this wax like a little squatty nub. Lol, sorry no idea

how to describe it. 

I have done several test candles in various sizes and I'm having the exact same problem with my wick (and my candles have a pink or amber hint to them.)  It's almost as if even a tiny 8oz candle is going to require 2 wicks!  What?!?!?  I thought about "braiding" two wicks together and seeing if that would help but then I'm afraid the candle will burn too quickly.  I'd love to know if anyone has found a wick that doesn't fizzle out.

 

I'm not sure what to do.  I have orders that need to be fulfilled.  I was so excited about this wax finally being available and it seems as though it is just bringing another mountain of challenges.

[wthomas57]

What I am finding so strange is that no matter what wick I test with, it leaves a side clump at the bast of the wick. Its almost like the wax is too dense or something to allow it to travel up and dissipate. It just collects at base of wick where it enters the wax. If nothing else, its just a very unappealing site.

I have never, NEVER messed with a wax so difficult to wick. This is crazy. Lol

And how the different sites are saying that tested with Eco or HTP (and they provided sizes of the wicks and jars for the test).... its just BS. I dont trust ANY of those reviews from suppliers. Its like they burned it once and said "yep, its fine".

 

Nope, its not. :/  We need to get the collective candle makers on here to put on their testing hats and try to figure out what works (if anything) with this wax.

[Bia]

On 8/29/2017 at 11:11 PM, wthomas57 said:

 

 

Id check another fragrance or repeat your process and double check you didn't do something inadvertently out of the norm or accidentally incorrect. And pick a scent that is a "known good". The reason I say this is... I was extremely surprised to see how strong both the CT and HT throw were in less than 24 hours. I would never use 18%.. thats hilariously ridiculous. But, I tried between 8 and 10 to just see how worked. Thats a bit more than I normally use, but I wanted to see. the CT is superior to any soy ive ever used at such a short amount of time curing. And the HT is wonderful. Never, NEVER have I had a 100% soy candle throw this way after only about 20 hours of curing. 

 

Also, I agree its super shiny and looks beautiful when burning.

 

HOWEVER......... this wax has a big drawback so far that I have noticed. (I am sure Ill find more as I continue to test).

And this particular drawback has nothing to do with performance, but with costs. The cost of the wax isn't crazy bad or anything.......

But, the density of this wax is much higher than other waxes, at least that I have used. What does that mean? Well, normally when I sell a 6oz candle,

the wax fills the jar all the way. (Very important to customers). When I poured 6oz of this wax it was noticeably less fill. I think at the very least, the same jar is going to now require at least 7oz. This is a problem. This means, you either take a hit to profit per candle OR increase your prices.

Yes... customers are getting more candle. But they dont really know that. They compare size of jars. So when your jar cost $3 more than it did before or compared to the next candle, its going to be a problem. Very rarely are customers looking at the net ounces on a candle. 

 

And, if you dont increase your fill and leave it at the same weight (but less volume fill), customers are gonna bark at that. They will think your jipping them on the fill. I see it and hear it a lot with other vendors.  All of this may sound nitpicky... but really, cost is an issue and this is a step back for us. Some won't have a problem in their market either taking the hit to their profits per sale or by increasing their price. But many will.

always very insightful and useful, thank you.

[Bia]

Why not use Global Wax 444 or 464?  I totally understand wanting to explore the benefits of a newly formulated soy wax, but just wondering about the GWs.

 

Thanks!

[wthomas57]

Sure. The entire reason everyone is looking to this wax (or other alternatives) is because of all the issues with GW 444, 415, and 464. There has been something seriously wrong with these soy waxes for a bit now. Not getting any better and suppliers and manufactures are being dodgy about it. Also, none of those performed anywhere near what Eco Advanced did (IMO). Regardless, can't comfortably use GW soy waxes anymore. Too many issues batch to batch. Its been well documented on here for a while now. So, I had hopes for this (still do). But its been a challenge thus far. I do also use parasoys which work well most of the time. But hard to beat the perfectly clean burn of this wax which is why I keep forcing the issue. I can't get a puff of black smoke or soot if I try my hardest. Lol

Edited September 5, 2017 by wthomas57

[TallTayl]

I talked with a candle friend who has been testing the new eco soya wax. She says hers has been fine. No chemical stink. No weird color. No wick issues. Could it be batch related?

 

4 minutes ago, Bia said:

Why not use Global Wax 444 or 464?  I totally understand wanting to explore the benefits of a newly formulated soy wax, but just wondering about the GWs.

 

Thanks!

Because all of the soys have changed within the past few months and are not performing well, or as well, as in past years. The FDA trans fat ban has changed how the soy oils are hydrogenated into waxes which has reduced HT and made wicking a real challenge. 

[wthomas57]

6 minutes ago, TallTayl said:

I talked with a candle friend who has been testing the new eco soya wax. She says hers has been fine. No chemical stink. No weird color. No wick issues. Could it be batch related?

 

Your kidding?!  I am not dealing with chemical stink or anything. Or weird colors. Mine has been purely about wicking. I'd press your friend a bit more and see if she can give you more details. 100% of people I have  been talking to or working with are seeing the same results I am, at least in the following ways:

 

1) wick not fully combusting, base of wick where it hits the wax is getting clump and buildup

2) Most wicks even at the largest size available drown out.

3) Only wicks that have shows any promise at all have been RRD, ECO, wood (never trust though), and CD (once). However, even among these works that show promise, needing to wick up so large its ridculous or it drowns out later in the jar.

4)  No curling of any wicks that normally do.. they turn into large fat clumps. Ok at first, but eventually get so big its crazy.

 

I have had success with one jar and one scent with one wick. Thats much pretty much it. Ive been extensively testing non stop since the wax came out.

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by wthomas57

[moonshine]

Which tells me maybe they are still having batch to batch issues even with their new formulation - this is disturbing to hear really because from what I am gathering based on all I have read so far is pretty much all soy went to "down under"

415 is wicking completely different and the throw is not the same - C3 is having issues and so is 464 and even some problems reported with 6006 

I love my soy and have been trying to work out the kinks but I honestly don't know if I even can / at least getting it to where it was before, adding paraffin helps some but I'm not "in love" and so far I'm not liking millineum at all 

wicking 415 down solves the burn issues I may just have to accept the fact that the throw is just not as strong as it used to be 

 

Are you getting any throw from this new stuff? Or is the wicking so off you can't tell yet 

 

[wthomas57]

Here is a quick recap of my experience so far with Q210. There are positives as well as negatives:

 

Pros: 

• looks great
• burns even
• recongeals nicely
• easy to use/pour
• minimal shrinkage (one pour)
• crazy FO load, although would never use that much.
• CT and HT both have been good for me.
• Holds color well

 

Cons: (pretty much all wicking)

• Wicking has been really tough. Limited types of wicks working and having to wick up a lot.
• Also, wicks struggle with this dense oily wax. The wicks get a build up or clump at the base where it touches the wax. It just kind of settles and collects. Sometimes enough to drown the wick, other times its the opposite in that it gets so large the flame becomes a monster and has to be extinguised.
• Was also hoping for better glass adhesion. Its not bad, its just not any better than what I was used to (like with 6006). I feel ecosoya advanced was significantly better.
• Have also noticed a few visable cracks on the outside of the wax further down the jar. No big deal, just not as visibly appealing when you see that. Its only been on a few though.

I am struggling to just give up on it though. looks great and burns clean. With other soys performing terribly now and ecosoya advanced being gone.. ill keep trying.

Considered blending it with some 6006 or 4630, but any addition of parrafin based waxes will impact this completely soot free candle. (not to mention not entirely soy anymore).