moving away from 464

[Jeana]

 

This is 80% 4630 and 20% CB#9. CA candle supply doesn't say what CB#9 is other than a veggie blend wax. He told me it had paraffin in it to but wouldn't say how much. Annoying! 

I like the looks much better than 464 already. I poured at 195. I didn't heat the jar, just wiped it out with alcohol and a micro cloth before pouring. Even this morning it still has total adhesion, no need for a second pour, and zero frost. 

I have another tester I did of the same wax blend scented with Lavender from CS. I'm getting an impressive med/high throw, even without curing. When I used this scent in 464 I could only get a low throw at best. 

I'm using zinc wicks for now. They seem to be working so far. No soot, or smoke while burning. 

Over all I'm enjoying the positive sides of a paraffin blend. I'm really starting to regret not looking at paraffins sooner. 

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Jeana

[pughaus]

looking good!  I'm curious why you blended the 2 waxes.  Did you try the CB9 alone and find it lacking?  I have a small box of CB9 at home to test, haven't gotten to it yet but I did pour some of their SC21 paracoco last night. 

[Kerven]

Looks good!

 

CB#9... A Calwax wax, maybe? Might try asking them about the paraffin content, if so.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Kerven

[Jeana]

7 minutes ago, pughaus said:

looking good!  I'm curious why you blended the 2 waxes.  Did you try the CB9 alone and find it lacking?  I have a small box of CB9 at home to test, haven't gotten to it yet but I did pour some of their SC21 paracoco last night. 

 

I think SC21 is the other sample I have coming from them this week. What did you think of it?

I found CB#9 to have a very odd background smell on its own. And it seemed a little hard. I'm looking for soft and creamy. I don't mind wet spots but the sample I poured of 100% pulled away from the glass and had some frosting. It reminded me too much of plain soy.  

I have used 4630 to mix with 464 for many years. It has been very consistent all these years. I tried this on its own and I didn't care for it 100% either. I can't remember what I didn't like about it though. It seems, so far, the two are a good fit together. 

My big concern with this blend or other paraffins is how to keep the pouring temps up high enough when pouring a lot of candles. Soy takes a lot longer to cool so you have more control over pour temps without it setting up quickly.

 

[Jeana]

15 minutes ago, Kerven said:

Looks good!

 

CB#9... A Calwax wax, maybe? Might try asking them about the paraffin content, if so.

Thanks!

I asked them already how much was in there and he wouldn't answer. It is a veggie/soy/para blend.  I thought if I get a case the manufacturer info should be on the box. Maybe I can get more info that way. 

 

[pughaus]

22 minutes ago, Jeana said:

I think SC21 is the other sample I have coming from them this week. What did you think of it?

Can't say yet- I only poured some testers and I'm still letting them cure before I stick some wicks in them. It came with NO instructions at all so I went with the same temps I used with Coco 83. I called them today for more info and some wicking suggestions- they seemed pretty clueless and admitted it's a new wax for them and they haven't tested it much. Great.  
I asked if this wax was similar to IGI's paracoco and was told they're not familiar with IGI's and this is their own house blend.  Then I asked, OK did you start with coco83 as a base - they said no. It's a whole new blend.  But it's like coco83, just easier to wick.

So all I can say, based in what they've told me is this is a coconut wax with some paraffin and ...other stuff?  Now that I put this all in writing, I'm starting to wonder why I'm even bothering to test it

[Jeana]

9 minutes ago, pughaus said:

Can't say yet- I only poured some testers and I'm still letting them cure before I stick some wicks in them. It came with NO instructions at all so I went with the same temps I used with Coco 83. I called them today for more info and some wicking suggestions- they seemed pretty clueless and admitted it's a new wax for them and they haven't tested it much. Great.  
I asked if this wax was similar to IGI's paracoco and was told they're not familiar with IGI's and this is their own house blend.  Then I asked, OK did you start with coco83 as a base - they said no. It's a whole new blend.  But it's like coco83, just easier to wick.

So all I can say, based in what they've told me is this is a coconut wax with some paraffin and ...other stuff?  Now that I put this all in writing, I'm starting to wonder why I'm even bothering to test it

Hmmm, anything custom blended for a distributor makes me nervous since Peak closed down. I used to buy their cotton wicks that were made for them. And of course after they closed I had to retest all the scents that used those wicks. That could be a strike against that wax. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Jeana

[pughaus]

@jeana  Yeah, I think I'll give the IGI 6570 a whirl next.  I don't get the feeling calcandle is all that committed to this new coco blend.

[moonshine]

🤷‍♀️Any supplier that can't give you basic information on something they sell let alone make in house is a huge red flag to me 

so glad I didn't go calwax with coconuts after reading this ....so glad 

Edited March 20, 2018 by moonshine

[pughaus]

well folks, I almost hate to admit this but I've been test burning 4 of my 12 cured SC-21 (paracoco and...?)  testers and darn it, I'm starting to like this wax.  It sure is easier to wick than coco83.

 

[Jeana]

4 hours ago, pughaus said:

well folks, I almost hate to admit this but I've been test burning 4 of my 12 cured SC-21 (paracoco and...?)  testers and darn it, I'm starting to like this wax.  It sure is easier to wick than coco83.

 

 

I was wondering if you tried this wax. If you hadn't I was going to recommend that you do.

I got my sample and I think it is so beautiful. It is very creamy looking, with zero frost and total adhesion. It seems pretty easy to wick. I'm having a couple issues with it at 100% though. I find it has some throw issues, and I find it a little too soft so the melt pool gets too deep too fast, even with a normal size flame. I found mixing it with 4630 substantially helps the throw and slows the burn. I don't like to depend on curing for throw. I'm still testing 4630/cb9 too. I've been getting consistent results with both blends so far. I'm glad I will have a backup blend to go with if something happens with one of these waxes. (CB9 & SC21) They use the same wick sizes so far. Both mixes are far superior to the 464/4630 blend I was doing as far as appearance, performance and throw.  I do a lot of layered candles and  these are true single pour waxes. That will be a big time saver.

The CB9/4630 has the best throw and appearance, so I should just go with that one, but it is harder to keep the pouring temps consistent, and that worries me. It sets up so fast. 

I've been testing with zincs and HTPs so far. I've heard LX wicks could be good too, but I haven't tried them yet. What wicks are you testing it with? How long did you let your testers cure?

Edited March 29, 2018 by Jeana

[pughaus]

 I'm so glad to see at least 1 other person is testing this wax. 
 
Right now I'm testing a small batch that has been cured 4 days.  
(My 1st test batch became a casualty of a playful cat.  All 5 of them were shattered 1/2 way through. Bad kitty.) 

I just finished a 3.15 hr 1st test burn today of LX24 and a CD12 in a 3" glass tumbler.  They burned pretty much identically in this test- very steady flame, a bit more than 1/8" wax hang up all around at the end.  Wick stayed neat and trimmed on both.

An eco 6 test was nixed after 1.5 hrs- it was too deep and tunneling. It smelled weird too; had an odd chemical note.  

Just lit a 51-32 paper core an hour ago.  Might be undersized, but my new pack of 60-44 wicks has vanished so this is biggest I've got right now.
 

It sure is easy to pour this wax -it's very pretty and not 1 of my 11 candles poured has produced a single wet spot.  I don't much care about wet spots but it's worth noting when they are completely absent.

 

Not sure about throw- this batch is my 1st using any fragrance in this wax.  I'm burning  7.5% /aveda shampure dupe which to me is a "soft" fragrance to begin with, which is why I like it.  Throw seems fine so far me.  Honestly, I'm just so relieved to no longer be testing coco83. I'm still new to this candlemaking stuff and just spent 4 months trying in vain to wick that accursed wax.  I never really even got to the point of addressing details like..throw   

 

There is also the IGI paracoco wax to try. And that blend may be more reliably supplied in the future. Have you considered that one?

[Jeana]

3 minutes ago, pughaus said:

 I'm so glad to see at least 1 other person is testing this wax. 
 
Right now I'm testing a small batch that has been cured 4 days.  
(My 1st test batch became a casualty of a playful cat.  All 5 of them were shattered 1/2 way through. Bad kitty.) 

I just finished a 3.15 hr 1st test burn today of LX24 and a CD12 in a 3" glass tumbler.  They burned pretty much identically in this test- very steady flame, a bit more than 1/8" wax hang up all around at the end.  Wick stayed neat and trimmed on both.

An eco 6 test was nixed after 1.5 hrs- it was too deep and tunneling. It smelled weird too; had an odd chemical note.  

Just lit a 51-32 paper core an hour ago.  Might be undersized, but my new pack of 60-44 wicks has vanished so this is biggest I've got right now.
 

It sure is easy to pour this wax -it's very pretty and not 1 of my 11 candles poured has produced a single wet spot.  I don't much care about wet spots but it's worth noting when they are completely absent.

 

Not sure about throw- this batch is my 1st using any fragrance in this wax.  I'm burning  7.5% /aveda shampure dupe which to me is a "soft" fragrance to begin with, which is why I like it.  Throw seems fine so far me.  Honestly, I'm just so relieved to no longer be testing coco83. I'm still new to this candlemaking stuff and just spent 4 months trying in vain to wick that accursed wax.  I never really even got to the point of addressing details like..throw   

 

There is also the IGI paracoco wax to try. And that blend may be more reliably supplied in the future. Have you considered that one?

 

That was a very naughty kitty! 

I didnt know about the IGI paracoco wax. Who carries it? Like I need more choices, lol.

You are using much stronger wicks than I am. Although, I used to have an Aveda dupe that needed to be wicked up, so maybe it’s the FO?

I’ve been testing Candlesciences Sweet Pea in my 100% SC21 and used a zinc 44/24/18 and I had a full melt pool about 1” deep in a 4 hour burn. The jar is a bit over 3”. I think that was on the second burn. The flame was only around 3/4” tall. I could try smaller but since I didn’t get any throw I decided to mix waxes.

I’m not too concerned about wet spots either, but the adhesion of this wax is truely impressive, even mixed with 4630, it is still 100% wet spot free. And after burning a few times, not one wet spot. 

I need to try some LXs. I’m not a fan of the zinc shrooms, but I can’t stand the HTP, CD, or Eco curls either.  I used to get shrooms with LXs in soy, but always got a nice throw.

[pughaus]

I suspect Ned (the cat) is responsible for the missing wick pack too.  He likes to hide things in little collections that I find later. 

 

The IGI 6570 paracoco blend is at at Aztec, C&S and here on the West coast, a smaller shop in Seattle stocks it. 25 lbs is the min order qty.   FWIW, the supplier website reviews are very positive. 
 
I can see what you mean about the depth issue on SC21.  The 51 papercore is now well into hour 3 with a 3/4" deep melt pool and a 1/2" flame. OTOH, I started this test burn with a half filled container so it is trapping heat.  About 1/8" wax hang up left on the glass.
It is nice though to see all these steady, not -huge flames.  This is new for me.  
I'll keep a close watch on the MP depth on these testers going forward. Glad you pointed that out. I'm using amber glass and it's hard to eyeball it. I need to use sticks.