Found New Ecosoya Q210 In Stock!

[moonshine]

So with cb advanced you actually got decent throw?

I went from that to 135 to 464 and then settled on 415

I am having a really hard time getting anything to throw in comparison to 415, including parasoy so this alone is discouraging me from even wanting to try this but I love keeping up on everyone's tests 

your using FOs that have been proven throwers and wicks that you have used before - no new batches of those? And how many sizes have you had to go up from the norm in the jar your testing so far

The PB is yet to come out and the one that is supposed to be like excel and 135- correct?

and Eco isn't even working...have you tried HTP or LX?

[wthomas57]

5 minutes ago, moonshine said:

So with cb advanced you actually got decent throw?

I went from that to 135 to 464 and then settled on 415

I am having a really hard time getting anything to throw in comparison to 415, including parasoy so this alone is discouraging me from even wanting to try this but I love keeping up on everyone's tests 

your using FOs that have been proven throwers and wicks that you have used before - no new batches of those? And how many sizes have you had to go up from the norm in the jar your testing so far

The PB is yet to come out and the one that is supposed to be like excel and 135- correct?

and Eco isn't even working...have you tried HTP or LX?

 

I always thought cb advanced had better throw than the others, for me anyways. But I primarily used parasoy.

I have also not needed to let Q210 cure for a week or more like other soys. Never hurts of course, but it cures much faster.

And yes, I am using several different FOs. The only one so far I was able to wick somewhat normally was Mac Apple.

Yes I am interested in the PB version as well for melts and pillars. 

 

Eco sort of works.. but nothing like how it did in other soys. For me anyway. HTPs have beena  big fail for me unfortuantely as I normally like them. Even the largest size I had 1212, wasn't big enough for a mason jar. Crazy. LX is having some hope so far but I had to use a 24 in a mason. Again, crazy. RRD has been hit or miss. It worked well in the Mac Apple though.

[moonshine]

Wow That is crazy weird to have to go that big in a Mason.....?‍♀️

Hopefully all of you testing it can figure it out maybe a square braid used mainly for beeswax will work or there is a wick out there I was sent samples from wicks unlimited but never used called FW - I think I saw them recently - maybe candlesoylutions when I ordered the millennium 

Edited September 5, 2017 by moonshine

[wthomas57]

yah, ive asked bill at Candlewic about square braid samples. Might try those.

[GoldieMN]

Candlescience wrote on its website "We're actively testing samples to be able to provide detailed product recommendations once the new wax is in stock."  This was before the wax was available to the public.  I would contact them to see what they came up with for a wick.

Goldie

[FreshVintage]

9 hours 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!

I tried using 464 when EcoSoya discontinued.  I had terrible frosting on my candles and caves like you wouldn't believe.  I ended up having to heat the tops of every candle with my heat gun to get them to look decent.  That's not a problem when you're making 5 candles but when you're making 100 it's super time consuming.  I really wish I had had better results.  464 also didn't seem to have as good of a scent throw.

[Bia]

What about the 220? Are you all hoping it provide less problems than the 210?  I mean from the comments in this chat, I'd be doomed to even test 210! ;-)

[wthomas57]

22 minutes ago, Bia said:

What about the 220? Are you all hoping it provide less problems than the 210?  I mean from the comments in this chat, I'd be doomed to even test 210! ;-)

I will give it a go, but I barely see any difference at all from Q210. And I suspect that Q210 came out first because it was the most ready and tested (scary huh).

 

@GoldieMN Any time I ask a vendor about wicks for Q210 they say one of the following things:

 

1) Wicks you would normally use in soy (uh no)   OR

2) Sorry, we cannot recommend wicks at this time.

 

[Moonstar]

Interesting topic. @Trappeur recently said the she did have tweek wick sizes, I forgot if she said she needed to wick up or down. However, she said her HT was better than

the old batches. This is very confusing to me, anyone have any thoughts on this ? BTW I know she uses 464.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Moonstar

[FreshVintage]

2 hours ago, wthomas57 said:

1) Wicks you would normally use in soy (uh no)   OR

2) Sorry, we cannot recommend wicks at this time.

 

That's very similar to the response I just got from a supplier.  Someone needs to make some wicks for this wax...they'd be an instant millionaire!  Grrrrrrr

Edited September 5, 2017 by FreshVintage

[wthomas57]

27 minutes ago, FreshVintage said:

That's very similar to the response I just got from a supplier.  Someone needs to make some wicks for this wax...they'd be an instant millionaire!  Grrrrrrr

Ill get right on that! Ha

[moonshine]

50 minutes ago, Moonstar said:

Interesting topic. @Trappeur recently said the she did have tweek wick sizes, I forgot if she said she needed to wick up or down. However, she said her HT was better than

the old batches. This is very confusing to me, anyone have any thoughts on this ? BTW I know she uses 464.

I think she had to wick down but her ht is better?

I have to wick down and my ht went down the tubes with 415

this is all so weird 

[Moonstar]

3 minutes ago, moonshine said:

I think she had to wick down but her ht is better?

I have to wick down and my ht went down the tubes with 415

this is all so weird 

Yes, Im positive she said she had much better HT. I think your right about having to wick down, I think she said 2 sizes for most. Very weird

[wthomas57]

yah she had to wick down ( I had to wick up with 6006 a couple times). Again.. all very weird.

But as a reminder to others following this thread... that was 464.

 

In regards to Q210..... not a whole lot go off of yet other than its been tough to wick

[Moonstar]

What about the new wax for was melts or pillars, has anyone tried that one. I should have looked to see what series that is. Q something or another ? 

[wthomas57]

5 minutes ago, Moonstar said:

What about the new wax for was melts or pillars, has anyone tried that one. I should have looked to see what series that is. Q something or another ? 

 

Its called Q230 I believe and haven't found it in stock anywhere yet. Just Q210

Since most of the issues Ive seen appear to be strictly about wicking... I would imagine using the blend for melts will be just fine

[Waxxy]

On 9/4/2017 at 10:05 PM, wthomas57 said:

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.

This is so strange! I'm starting to notice the same thing about the wax clumps on the wicks.  I've attached pics. These were taken after a 4 hr burn. 

[Crafty1_AJ]

Whoa, @CandleSmoak, I love your countertops.  LOL

 

@Jenn-MN  in my experience, Bayberry is always on the light side as far as throw goes.  If it's a true bayberry, it's just a soft scent.  Have tested several and they were all on the light side compared to most of my other fo's.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Crafty1_AJ

[wthomas57]

So a little bit more of what I am noticing so far.

 

The candles giving me the most trouble (by a long shot) are the bakery and fall scents which are typically heavier scents. This wax doesn't seem to work well with them.It has a hard time releasing these oils and I think that is why getting clumpy building up at the base of wicks entering the wax. Every wick type or size I try with these scents does the same thing. Issues I NEVER had with other soy waxes, parasoys, or parrafin. Ive had descent... "descent" success with some neutrals like Macintosh Apple, cranberry and then a few lighter florals. But here are some that just continue to fail miserably:

 

hazelnut coffee, pumpkin anything, caramel corn, cinnamon based, vanillas. 

 

I have a feeling the "success" stories we are hearing about this wax have not been testing many fragrances. 

 

Anyone else have any further feedback yet?

[Jenn-MN]

On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 5:21 PM, Crafty1_AJ said:

 

@Jenn-MN  in my experience, Bayberry is always on the light side as far as throw goes.  If it's a true bayberry, it's just a soft scent.  Have tested several and they were all on the light side compared to most of my other fo's.

@Crafty1_AJ - I appreciate the thought, but I am comparing the same FO in GB-464 and that has great CT (with same fragrance load). When I burned the Q210, it does have a HT - but not overly impressed by it. I really do love how the Q210 looks once it cools. I get really smooth, shiny tops and no frosting (though I had quite a few wet spots). I just can't justify doubling my FO to make a candle that throws the same as my GB-464.  I am bummed because I so wanted to LOVE this wax. I will wait for the Q220 and Q230 to come out and I will try those.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Jenn-MN

[Jenn-MN]

On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 8:53 PM, wthomas57 said:

Anyone else have any further feedback yet?

I have been noticing I have to trim my wicks really short when I go for my second or later burns with my test candles (in 8oz tins). I was seeing a LOT of flares and tall dancing wicks (even when I pre-trimmed to a little under 1/4"). I also noticed wisps of smoke as the candle burned. I under wicked my smaller test jars and the first burn went well enough (though I haven't tried my second burn with those yet). I should share the wick size for the 8oz tins (usually I use ECO 12 and 14 in my tins -- depending on FO and amount of color used). I think I tested these down to an ECO 10, but would have to confirm that at home. 

 

@wthomas57- Thanks for your continued testing and being willing to share your findings!

Edited September 12, 2017 by Jenn-MN

[wthomas57]

Issue i am seeing a lot too is not good jar adhesion.  Its ok after first pour. But as the candle burns and hardens back up.... the sides look terrible.  Tops good but sides are awful. Blotchy,  bad adhesion,  looks old and cheap.

 

I also discovered hazelnut coffee doesn't work woryth a damn in q210.  Never seen that FO not perform

[wthomas57]

Little update.

 

I should have taken picture before I blew out flame as it lit up the pool better and you could see flame height. But either way, THIS is how a candle should look in my opinion and its been difficult to achieve with this wax. This time it burned for 6 hours just to see how bad it might get and it just kept going perfect. I trimmed the wick once early on at the top of the jar. Other than that... I never trimmed it again. Didn't have to. And melt pool was ALWAYS a perfect 1/4" the whole way down. Couldn't be more pleased. BUUUUUT, again... haven't been able to achieve the same thing with most scents and wick combos. This wax seems AWFULLY picky about which FOs work well in it. Regardless.. thought I would share what a successful one has looked like. This particular was brandied pear and ECO 6

[TallTayl]

Did you color it brown?

 

and what size is that jar?

[wthomas57]

i took it in low light. Its really a beige color. But yes a tough of dye, not much. I think it was 2 drops of ivory in 2 pounds. Its not nearly as brown as it looks like in this photo.

But, Q210 is definitely a creamy ivory color by itself.... definitely not white like parrafin and I wouldn't even call it off-white like 6006. 

 

The jar is a 12oz canning/mason jar. I currently have this scent available in other styles but have been doing most my testing for Q210 in these and small masons so far.