# Difference between a wet look and glass look?



## mwad (Mar 4, 2011)

Hi

I keep reading posts where some people describe the 2 looks. 
What's the difference ? 
What's the shiniest?


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

£50-100


----------



## Kimo (Jun 7, 2013)

One looks wet and one looks glassy


----------



## B17BLG (Jun 26, 2012)

Kimo73 said:


> One looks wet and one looks glassy


Pure genius lmfao


----------



## Blackmondie (Mar 13, 2011)

It's hard to explain without pics.
but one will looks sterile amd reflective,
while the wetlook wil look wet, warm and have more glow then reflection


----------



## Blackroc (Dec 10, 2012)

Hopefully this will help...

Sealant Finish (Gtechniq c2v3) giving a glassy *flat* finish (not sure if flat is the correct term..)



Wax Finish (Angelwax Desirable) giving a warmer, wet finish with slightly more depth



(I apreciate that the cars, lighting, black paint etc... are different - but hopefully you get the idea..)


----------



## danwel (Feb 18, 2007)

That's a good a description and view as any^^^^^^


----------



## mwad (Mar 4, 2011)

Blackmondie and Blackroc- thank you both.


----------



## duffer26 (Apr 29, 2014)

There are also certain schools of thought saying that neither do anything to the look of the car, and only protect your polished surface. The shine of your paint ultimately coming from the quality of you paint finish, not the wax or sealant.

Check out some of junkman2000's videos on the subject on youtube.


----------



## Dream Machines (Mar 13, 2006)

It's true that the gloss is in the paint and that's where it comes from but the sealant I use adds a lot more color richness, depth and clarity and the wax gives a wetter look but is not as good in the clarity and color stakes


----------



## The_Bouncer (Nov 24, 2010)

It's to do with refractive index as to what visualisation a product would be hoping to provide. Look at the way that light reflects off things, i.e water, through a diamond etc.

The paint finish on a car also depends on the output i.e solid/mettalic/polychromatic ( candy flip ), pearlescent etc. 

On the R.scale, carnauba is 1.45 and a sealant the scale is higher 1.7+ therefore providing a more glassy/mirror finish as opposed to the 'warmer muting/wetting' of a nuba. 

Lots of tech out there now making the scale more minimal but it still provides a base of what a product can bring to the table upon it's design.

Again it's worth noting that any final product look depends upon the surface on which it's been placed. i.e A high spec wax/sealant isn't going to look the same on a 15 year old contaminated uncorrected paint vs a well polished, new car etc.

Many factors involved when choosing on how you want you car to look. - At the end of the day - any finish is at it's best in the eye of the beholder.

Jay


----------



## Flakey (May 5, 2013)

duffer26 said:


> There are also certain schools of thought saying that neither do anything to the look of the car, and only protect your polished surface. The shine of your paint ultimately coming from the quality of you paint finish, not the wax or sealant.
> 
> Check out some of junkman2000's videos on the subject on youtube.
> 
> Guess The Wax... - YouTube


Just do a 50:50 on your perfectly polished paint with a wax or sealant of your choice and you are in for a massive surprise.



Dream Machines said:


> It's true that the gloss is in the paint and that's where it comes from but the sealant I use adds a lot more color richness, depth and clarity and the wax gives a wetter look but is not as good in the clarity and color stakes


I noticed the very same thing while applying Sonax P&S Hybrid NPT. Duragloss 105 is my all time favorite and I know it adds massive warmth and depth to the paint being an organic sealant. Which sealant do you use?


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

in reality its all product marketing and hype essentially IMHO - we did the big wax test on identical new cars that were polished the same way a few years ago, and the invited audience really couldnt agree on anything even when they were all parked next to each other :lol:

Just get the one that suits your needs - longevity, application, price, brand etc etc


----------



## Alan W (May 11, 2006)

The 'look' is in the eye of the beholder! :lol:

A big welcome back to Damon and Matt! :wave: Nice to see you guys posting again! :thumb:

Alan W


----------



## mwad (Mar 4, 2011)

Kimo73 said:


> One looks wet and one looks glassy


Thanks for the helpful comment


----------



## -Raven- (Aug 26, 2010)

IMO glass look = clarity, wet look = oily. 

Try some Menzerna Powerlock on it's own for glass look, and some Vic's Red over Clearkote RMG for wet look. 

I find the reflection really comes from flat paint. Peel can knock down the reflection and give a wetter look.


----------



## -Raven- (Aug 26, 2010)

duffer26 said:


> There are also certain schools of thought saying that neither do anything to the look of the car, and only protect your polished surface. The shine of your paint ultimately coming from the quality of you paint finish, not the wax or sealant.
> 
> Check out some of junkman2000's videos on the subject on youtube.


you might want to test out a few LSP's for yourself and get back to us lol!


----------



## chewy_ (Mar 5, 2014)

Bigpikle said:


> in reality its all product marketing and hype essentially IMHO -


There is a lot of marketing and hype but there are differences. No wax is the same; varying with colour, texture, smell. Application is part of the process and every wax feels different from the butter soft nature of Illusion or RG55 to the thick and creamy vics red, or the rock hard Supernatural.

There is a lot of hype, but these waxes (as examples) have their own distinct characteristics in looks eg. depth, wetness, gloss, clarity, reflections in the same way AF Spirit characteristics look different to Desire or Illusion and each are different to apply and buff off with different colouring , texture and smell. Not hype. The hype comes when people exaggerate how good they are:thumb:


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

To me, I pick the product that lasts as long as I need and helps me clean the car the easiest for the longest amount of time. The look should have come from the prep, and will quickly change if a bit dusty, washed a couple of times or a QD is used, unless the LSP is applied after every wash.

I don't really subscribe to the colour argument UNLESS it's a white or very light flat colour, where I would always use a sealant. Otherwise, I think all cars look great when clean and prepped well, both with the reflective and wet looks.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Bigpikle said:


> in reality its all product marketing and hype essentially IMHO - we did the big wax test on identical new cars that were polished the same way a few years ago, and the invited audience really couldnt agree on anything even when they were all parked next to each other :lol:
> 
> Just get the one that suits your needs - longevity, application, price, brand etc etc


as i recall bos was the winner and there were only a few who didnt vote because they couldn't tell one from another. the majority picked there own personal favorite :thumb:


----------



## Bulkhead (Oct 17, 2007)

Whilst I'm no expert on the subject, my experiences with a sealant, wax and hybrid on EO paint is this: sealant makes the finish look like it has a layer of glass hovering over the paint, wax makes it look like you've rubbed it with Vicks - all warm and shiny but not as glassy with hybrid, unsurprisingly, somewhere in the middle. These observations are based on FK1000p, Vic's red and dodo SNH. For me, SNH is the winner for looks, longevity and ease of maintenance. Vic's red would be the winner for looks alone. As has been said previously, one man's meat is another man's veg.


----------



## duffer26 (Apr 29, 2014)

-Raven- said:


> you might want to test out a few LSP's for yourself and get back to us lol!


I never said it was my school of thought.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

cheekymonkey said:


> as i recall bos was the winner and there were only a few who didnt vote because they couldn't tell one from another. the majority picked there own personal favorite :thumb:


you might be right - I'll have to go back and read Dave's thread...

but, the funny thing was that when people were wandering around the cars and commenting on the looks etc, there was no agreement on how the cars were descrivbed in terms of looks eg wet, deep etc. People voted on their favourite cars but in reality there wasnt any agreement about which actually looked best as everyone saw different things.

Fun few days


----------



## chewy_ (Mar 5, 2014)

cheekymonkey said:


> as i recall bos was the winner and there were only a few who didnt vote because they couldn't tell one from another. the majority picked there own personal favorite :thumb:


When do these gatherings take place?


----------



## Flakey (May 5, 2013)

I really don't care if others are able to tell the difference between the two kinds of looks - as long as I know how different they are. I can clearly tell the look my favorite sealant gives on my car Vs the look my favorite wax gives on my car. Like all things in detailing, the look should only be important to the self.


----------



## mwad (Mar 4, 2011)

Thanks for the replies guys


----------



## Sid (Feb 21, 2009)

duffer26 said:


> There are also certain schools of thought saying that neither do anything to the look of the car, and only protect your polished surface. The shine of your paint ultimately coming from the quality of you paint finish, not the wax or sealant.
> 
> Check out some of junkman2000's videos on the subject on youtube.
> 
> Guess The Wax... - YouTube


So the general consensus is that DW'ers don't like this mirror glass finish?
I think it looks fab!


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

Sid said:


> So the general consensus is that DW'ers don't like this mirror glass finish?
> I think it looks fab!


So do I. I think this look works better on lighter cars and in particular silvers.


----------



## AllenF (Aug 20, 2012)

Glass looks like its wrapped in clear film very hard sharp reflection
Wet looks like its covered in baby oil warmer soft sharp reflection


----------



## Sid (Feb 21, 2009)

AllenF said:


> Glass looks like its wrapped in clear film very hard sharp reflection
> Wet looks like its covered in baby oil warmer soft sharp reflection


Which products give these different looks?
I've got Collinite 915 going on at the moment... not seen it on the car before .
(By a detailer)


----------



## AllenF (Aug 20, 2012)

Sealers and glazes are usually look glassy
Waxes usually look wet?
Put your products into those catorgories and there you have it


----------



## Lowiepete (Mar 29, 2009)

Sid said:


> So the general consensus is that DW'ers don't like this mirror glass finish?


Well, I've often summed it up as glassy or classy?

The glassy look often loses the car's true colour...

Regards,
Steve


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

AllenF said:


> Sealers and glazes are usually look glassy
> Waxes usually look wet?
> Put your products into those catorgories and there you have it


not all glazes look like that, the oil based one like meg 7 give a wet look which compliments a good wax


----------



## AndyA4TDI (May 7, 2012)

Lowiepete said:


> Well, I've often summed it up as glassy or classy?
> 
> The glassy look often loses the car's true colour...
> 
> ...


Hi stranger, good to see you back, hope all is well.


----------



## Lowiepete (Mar 29, 2009)

AndyA4TDI said:


> hope all is well.


Cheers Andy. If you consider hooning around in this qualifies, then all is very
well indeed, ta :thumb:

All going well, I'll be at Waxstock, but in the Coupé; this year anyway...

Regards,
Steve


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

I'd be interested in the results of some double blind tests. The look varies a lot if the mind is already anticipating a result.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Bigpikle said:


> you might be right - I'll have to go back and read Dave's thread...
> 
> but, the funny thing was that when people were wandering around the cars and commenting on the looks etc, there was no agreement on how the cars were descrivbed in terms of looks eg wet, deep etc. People voted on their favourite cars but in reality there wasnt any agreement about which actually looked best as everyone saw different things.
> 
> Fun few days


Ah I remember that week well  7 black Corsas all machine polished... Gaz W, me, Bryan, Harley... I got a rotary burn on the palm of my hand from cooking the gearbox in one of the Makitas... good times :lol::buffer:

FWIW, the results had a "winner" but when you looked at them, as I believe was written in the threads, you could put many "differences" down to a natural statistical variation in the results. In other words, one could argue the differences were nothing more than experimental error. Different people thought they may have seen different things, nobody really agreed on set differences in the conversations... it was all very amusing indeed, largely done for fun and it was a lot of fun. One test does not a law make, but it feeds information into the melting pot :thumb:

Refractive indexes are always a good discussion point too, I see these popping up in the thread above... As I recall, the wax layer is in the region of 10s of nanometers thick? Refractive index governs no more than the amount by which light is slowed down on entering another material which has the consequence of shortening the wavelength and at angles not at normal incidence, changing the angle the path of light takes through the material. The greater the refractive index, the greater the "bending" effect which is a consequence of the speed change. However, at any interface - eg between air and the wax layer, between the wax layer and the clearcoat and so on there is also a reflection, even from an "optically clear" surface. This is why you can see the clearcoat, and arguably if the refractive index of the wax is different to the clearcoat, why you may see it too. If it wasn't for this reflection, you would not see the layer. You see the colour coat of your car because of light reflecting, the pigment in the paint absorbing the colours you do not see so a red car will absorb the greens and blues and reflect the red and therefore you see red. You may also see a degree of all the colours (very small) reflecting from the other layers and this *could* give the effects of "wettness" or "warmth" that people sometimes claim to see.

Further, if the layer is of a thickness equal to half a wavelength (or multiple thereof) you will get interference for that wavelength. This is unlikely for a layer 10s of nanometers thick, as light wavelengths are hundreds of nanometers. This effect (interference) is why oil films on water produce a rainbow effect of colours - different thicknesses of the film given rise to different wavelengths (and hence colours) interfering to be seen.

Optics and interference is a fascinating topic, I enjoy teaching it to my Higher and Advanced Higher pupils and a little knowledge of it can help understand a lot of effects and let you decide if what you are reading may be myth or truth. Loads of books (including my own  ) have chapters on this, a fun read for those interested.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Dave KG said:


> Ah I remember that week well  7 black Corsas all machine polished... Gaz W, me, Bryan, Harley... I got a rotary burn on the palm of my hand from cooking the gearbox in one of the Makitas... good times :lol::buffer:
> 
> FWIW, the results had a "winner" but when you looked at them, as I believe was written in the threads, you could put many "differences" down to a natural statistical variation in the results. In other words, one could argue the differences were nothing more than experimental error. Different people thought they may have seen different things, nobody really agreed on set differences in the conversations... it was all very amusing indeed, largely done for fun and it was a lot of fun. One test does not a law make, but it feeds information into the melting pot :thumb:
> 
> ...


----------



## -Raven- (Aug 26, 2010)

SteveyG said:


> The look varies a lot if the mind is already anticipating a result.


Not for me. I get pissed off if the look doesn't match the anticipated result. Like ages ago when everyone told me to buy CG5050, it was the opposite of what I wanted, which ended up being Vics Red.

This is why I always ask what people actually want when they post up a which wax thread, instead of blindly blurting out any old wax. :thumb:

The biggest surprise I've ever had was when using coatings for the first time. I didn't expect them to look so awesome, so nice and glossy!


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

-Raven- said:


> Not for me. I get pissed off if the look doesn't match the anticipated result. Like ages ago when everyone told me to buy CG5050, it was the opposite of what I wanted, which ended up being Vics Red.
> 
> This is why I always ask what people actually want when they post up a which wax thread, instead of blindly blurting out any old wax. :thumb:
> 
> The biggest surprise I've ever had was when using coatings for the first time. I didn't expect them to look so awesome, so nice and glossy!


but they all look the same


----------



## Alan W (May 11, 2006)

-Raven- said:


> The biggest surprise I've ever had was when using coatings for the first time. I didn't expect them to look so awesome, so nice and glossy!


Exactly the same experience here Raven! :thumb: The first proper 'silica' coating I used was the original but improved version of Gtechniq C1 and I was amazed by the gloss and shine it imparted even on machine polished paint. :doublesho

Shame it's no longer available but there are many others these days. 

Alan W


----------



## The Doctor (Sep 11, 2007)

Difference between wet look and glassy look? One is greasy the other isn't lol


----------

