Anyone Use CBL 129?

[Arch Rock]

Thinking of changing distributors.  Paramold in NY used to give me super customer service but now it seems I've dropped off their radar.

I suspect that CW's CBL 129 is the same mix so why not order (and pick up) from them?  2 cents cheaper, actually.  Every penny counts.

[Sarah S]

I have not used CBL 129 for candles, but it is a great tart wax. The CBL 141 edges slightly ahead for me in wax tart performance, but I know there are others on this board that prefer the 129.

Now, the CBL 125 is a fantastic container candle wax, and if you are looking for an easy wax to work with, you can't go wrong with 125. It it throws just about every oil at 6%, it's creamy and takes color well, and is a single-pour. You just have to be careful about wicking, it can get sooty if over-wicked.

IMO, CW has consistent wax blends that perform very well in their applications.

HTH!

[barbaranj]

I totally agree with Sarah S.

And if you can actually pick up your wax....go for it!

 

[Arch Rock]

Thanks so much.

[Fireside]

On 11/10/2018 at 1:58 PM, Sarah S said:

IMO, CW has consistent wax blends that perform very well in their applications.

HTH!

You do not feel CW overloads 141 with too many additives?  I ask as it seems to slightly dimple in the finished tarts and because I came across a post on here years ago where many stopped using it due to inconsistency and problems with the wax.  Then I see someone recently have issues with the 129 so it makes me standoffish on ordering from CW for wax.  However, I do love their oils, they have some soap ingredients I use, and love the pricing of wax in addition to free shipping on their blends.

[Fireside]

@Sarah S you have ever tried 4627?  If so, do you feel 125 is comparable?  

[Sarah S]

2 hours ago, Fireside said:

You do not feel CW overloads 141 with too many additives?  I ask as it seems to slightly dimple in the finished tarts and because I came across a post on here years ago where many stopped using it due to inconsistency and problems with the wax.  Then I see someone recently have issues with the 129 so it makes me standoffish on ordering from CW for wax.  However, I do love their oils, they have some soap ingredients I use, and love the pricing of wax in addition to free shipping on their blends.

 

I don't think the dimpling with 141 is bad, certainly not compared to KY 133! It has always performed consistently well for me, and I feel like the additives help it throw well no matter what type of melter I use.

I haven't used the 129 in a while, I know that someone recently had a problem with it, but it seems like it was an isolated incident with one lot. I do believe CW replaced the faulty wax with a case from a different lot, which I thought was pretty nice of them.

The one thing I wish CW did differently was only offering their paraffin waxes in slabs. I totally get that most of their orders are by the case or by the pallet, and that's the most efficient way to package that much wax, but it would be awesome if they had smaller quantities of their pillar/votive waxes in pellet form. Breaking up the slabs is such a PITA!

 

2 hours ago, Fireside said:

@Sarah S you have ever tried 4627?  If so, do you feel 125 is comparable?  

 

I have not tried the 4627. It's on my wish list!! I've been reluctant to order it, because the smallest amount I can find is a 25# box. And man, that stuff is pricey! I love the CBL 125 so much, it's hard to justify shelling out the money just to compare the two. One of these days I'll get some because I am curious about it. I think maybe one supplier has a 10# sample, maybe Lonestar? Aztec?

I have heard that CW uses the 4627 as their base for the 125, but I have also heard that's they use 4630 as the base, so I'm not sure about that.

[Ravens]

I used to use it, and I loved it! 

Quit using it because of the very high shipping. Now I use 4794 and add a bit of 4786 to it.

HTH🙂

[Caravan]

On 5/5/2019 at 12:24 PM, Sarah S said:

 

I don't think the dimpling with 141 is bad, certainly not compared to KY 133! It has always performed consistently well for me, and I feel like the additives help it throw well no matter what type of melter I use.

I haven't used the 129 in a while, I know that someone recently had a problem with it, but it seems like it was an isolated incident with one lot. I do believe CW replaced the faulty wax with a case from a different lot, which I thought was pretty nice of them.

The one thing I wish CW did differently was only offering their paraffin waxes in slabs. I totally get that most of their orders are by the case or by the pallet, and that's the most efficient way to package that much wax, but it would be awesome if they had smaller quantities of their pillar/votive waxes in pellet form. Breaking up the slabs is such a PITA!

 

 

I have not tried the 4627. It's on my wish list!! I've been reluctant to order it, because the smallest amount I can find is a 25# box. And man, that stuff is pricey! I love the CBL 125 so much, it's hard to justify shelling out the money just to compare the two. One of these days I'll get some because I am curious about it. I think maybe one supplier has a 10# sample, maybe Lonestar? Aztec?

I have heard that CW uses the 4627 as their base for the 125, but I have also heard that's they use 4630 as the base, so I'm not sure about that.

 

Hello everyone.  I just found this board about two weeks ago and have read and re-read several threads. One of them, "The best throwing wax", started by Trappeur, discusses the CBL 125, Palm wax (two kinds), and I the 4627 so I decided to try all of them (and the wicks that were suggested, too), and I will order some 129 after I get through all the ones I just ordered!    

 

I started making candles last November and was told to start with 4630 (not by CW but one of the other six places I have ordered from :) and I can not get a reliable result as far as scent throw through two boxes even after multiple heating/pouring/wicking combinations so I was THRILLED to find you all!

 

I don't know how to just quote just  the last line of the above post but that is what I wanted to respond to:  I called CW to ask some questions before I ordered and was told that the 125 is the IGI 4633 (the old J223).  

 

I also asked her to rank (in her opinion) the waxes I was asking about for HT. This was the order she thought they landed in:

129 (two pour) best throw out of this list but a little more work b/c of the second pour,

125 (single pour), 

4627 (single pour), very close to the 125 as far as throw but MUCH messier,

4630 (single pour)

 

I found this helpful because it pretty well lined up with most of the comments I have read on here so far

 

Anyway, THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH for sharing your knowledge and experience! It is MUCH APPRECIATED!

 

 

 

[ErronB]

I've recently used the 129, I like it the most for melts, bit of dipping but not bad enough I have to do a 2nd pour. Candles... it definitely needed a 2nd pour but turned out very nice after that, and the HT was very good, but the wicking was too annoying. Couldn't find anything that worked well and gave a decent melt pool in a 8oz tin. I'm not surprised really with the high melt point, but was worth a shot.

 

In fact, I had that same problem with all their custom waxes, the melt point too high to use in any candle around 3" diameter without giving me grief, but the HT was very good on all. 

[TallTayl]

19 hours ago, ErronB said:

I've recently used the 129, I like it the most for melts, bit of dipping but not bad enough I have to do a 2nd pour. Candles... it definitely needed a 2nd pour but turned out very nice after that, and the HT was very good, but the wicking was too annoying. Couldn't find anything that worked well and gave a decent melt pool in a 8oz tin. I'm not surprised really with the high melt point, but was worth a shot.

 

In fact, I had that same problem with all their custom waxes, the melt point too high to use in any candle around 3" diameter without giving me grief, but the HT was very good on all. 

Do you have any CS wicks around? Those have been quite helpful in harder to burn waxes.

[ErronB]

2 hours ago, TallTayl said:

Do you have any CS wicks around? Those have been quite helpful in harder to burn waxes.

 

I have just about every other wicks in existence apart from CSN lol. If you have any other suggestions then I'm all ears, I might have overlooked something.

[TallTayl]

Sorry typo. Cw. Cotton wood

[ErronB]

1 minute ago, TallTayl said:

Sorry typo. Cw. Cotton wood

 

I have got all the sizes, but the way they just come apart and make a mess drives me literally bonkers. I will give them another shot. I guess I'll start from the bottom sz 20 and see how that goes.

[TallTayl]

I felt the same about the appearance until I saw how absolutely fantastic they burn in most of my problem blends. Clients seem to love them also. So my money is literally on CW

[ErronB]

7 minutes ago, TallTayl said:

I felt the same about the appearance until I saw how absolutely fantastic they burn in most of my problem blends. Clients seem to love them also. So my money is literally on CW

 

Fair play. That's what matters. I just put a CW30 in a 8oz tin, I'm thinking that should be about right?

[TallTayl]

10 minutes ago, ErronB said:

 

Fair play. That's what matters. I just put a CW30 in a 8oz tin, I'm thinking that should be about right?

You will know very soon won’t you?You will know very soon won’t you?

[ErronB]

1 minute ago, TallTayl said:

You will know very soon won’t you?

 

No lol, the wax is sooo hard I can't just easily change wicks from a old tester by doing a wickectomy etc. I'll have to make one later once I've got the energy, breaking that wax with a hammer is a nuisance!

[TallTayl]

58 minutes ago, ErronB said:

 

No lol, the wax is sooo hard I can't just easily change wicks from a old tester by doing a wickectomy etc. I'll have to make one later once I've got the energy, breaking that wax with a hammer is a nuisance!

Like palm 🤣 and 4786. Both are total pains.  Good luck.

[bfroberts]

Zincs worked well for me in CBL129. 

[Lizzy]

7 hours ago, bfroberts said:

Zincs worked well for me in CBL129. 

I second Zincs in CBL 129.

[ErronB]

18 hours ago, bfroberts said:

Zincs worked well for me in CBL129. 

 

I would, but I just can't deal with them because of the trimming aspect. Not that any of the other wicks are 'totally' self trimming, but they tend to take care of themselves better and don't mushroom to oblivion with dye. 

[bfroberts]

3 minutes ago, ErronB said:

 

I would, but I just can't deal with them because of the trimming aspect. Not that any of the other wicks are 'totally' self trimming, but they tend to take care of themselves better and don't mushroom to oblivion with dye. 

Zincs work great in a variety of paraffin waxes. If they are wicked correctly, they do not mushroom or require trimming any more than any other wick.

[ErronB]

3 hours ago, bfroberts said:

Zincs work great in a variety of paraffin waxes. If they are wicked correctly, they do not mushroom or require trimming any more than any other wick.

 

I'll give it a shot, you have a lot more experience than me with zinc, and because it's such a pain to change wicks I'd probably need a good guess to start out with, maybe a 51 in a 8oz tin? Or should I go smaller like 44-32?

Edited June 25, 2020 by ErronB

[bfroberts]

35 minutes ago, ErronB said:

 

I'll give it a shot, you have a lot more experience than me with zinc, and because it's such a pain to change wicks I'd probably need a good guess to start out with, maybe a 51 in a 8oz tin? Or should I go smaller like 44-32?

Gosh, I haven't done tins in a long time, but I'd guess maybe 44-32 or 44-36 to start.  Tins always fool me and need a bigger wick than I think they will.