# Project Awesome?



## magpieV6 (Jul 29, 2008)

I keep seeing this crop up all over dw, what is it and where can you get it? lol, cheers guys :thumb:


----------



## ianFRST (Sep 19, 2006)

go and look on polished bliss website 

**just looked and its not on there anymore :lol: **

they must have sold out??


----------



## yetizone (Jun 25, 2008)

Project Awesome is a limited edition Uber Sealant developed by Polished Bliss in association with Gloss-It products in the USA. Costing in the region of £150. :thumb:


----------



## Beancounter (Aug 31, 2006)

Project Awsome in action here


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

Beancounter said:


> Project Awsome in action here


Is that the only thread from someone that has actually bought it?

I would have thought, given the hype, that more people would be posting up their work with it...oh well.....maybe not....

:thumb:


----------



## Grizzle (Jul 12, 2006)

The Cueball said:


> Is that the only thread from someone that has actually bought it?
> 
> I would have thought, given the hype, that more people would be posting up their work with it...oh well.....maybe not....
> 
> :thumb:


I think the price and quantity has put people off! It's far to expensive for what it is, personally i think Nanolex is better value for money, my kit should be here tomorrow.


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

Grizzle said:


> I think the price and quantity has put people off! It's far to expensive for what it is, personally i think Nanolex is better value for money, my kit should be here tomorrow.


Is that why you are going for a run...get the car really dirty then do a big write up with the new kit????

:thumb:


----------



## Grizzle (Jul 12, 2006)

The Cueball said:


> Is that why you are going for a run...get the car really dirty then do a big write up with the new kit????
> 
> :thumb:


haha well not quite but i see your point, sadly i wont have time mate but i will do a write up of it and how it progresses through winter :thumb:


----------



## gregb (Feb 1, 2009)

It was £165 and I believe the plan is to release another batch in time for christmas.


----------



## yetizone (Jun 25, 2008)

It sounds an interesting product, but you don't get that much for the cash and it takes up to an hour to cure ready for buffing IIRC.


----------



## Clark @ PB (Mar 1, 2006)

For what it's worth - you get at least 8-10 cars from 1 bottle although going by what I've used so far I'd say nearer to 15...

yes it isn't exactly cheap but we didn't expect everyone to buy it either hence the limited numbers. Funny how people compare it against other products when they haven't actually used it though


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2009)

agree with clark.

to many people slate and slag off products without actually using them, and instead just go by internet rumour and wiki experts.


----------



## DE 1981 (Aug 17, 2007)

matt1263 said:


> agree with clark.
> 
> to many people slate and slag off products without actually using them, and instead just go by internet rumour and wiki experts.


Yeh they sure do mate especially when trying to big up a new product.


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2009)

?

Is clark trying to big up this by slateing his own product?

feel free to explain what you mean via pm if you want :thumb:


----------



## DE 1981 (Aug 17, 2007)

who said anything about him?


----------



## Guest (Oct 1, 2009)

well since this thread is about his product I thought thats what you meant.

If however your implying something else, maybe its best if you start a thread about it elsewhere?


----------



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

Beancounter said:


> Project Awsome in action here


As the owner of this thread I think I should chip in here.
Yes, it's an expensive sealer but with the amount I used, I could easily do another 10 applications (perhaps more), there is no need to wax on top as it will repel water and dirt as good as a wax can, it also repels dead flies (trust me  ).
Can I compare it against another sealer? Only Jeff's which does not come close to PA, I've never owned any other sealers.

Is it worth the money?

Well, let's say 10 cars at £16 each, with no need to wax, just a top up with QD or RM will do to keep it glossy. Surely that's not a bad investment?

Gary


----------



## Ultimate Shine (Jun 3, 2008)

I use this product on every special detail i do as i feel it give that special finish that looks out of this world. When you have been working hard on a car it is nice to treat it to a finish with project awesome.

The way it bonds to the paint and how it makes water bead is amazing or should i say "awesome" This product is like no other.

Lets put it this way if i could buy better for the money why would i spend £165 on a bottle. My details are important to me and so is customer satisfaction so i use PA.

I washed my customers M3 yesterday for him and he could not believe how the water ran off the paint.

It has my vote all day long.:thumb:


----------



## mike_shrops (Oct 27, 2007)

I bought a bottle of Project Awesome (No. 3 in fact) and I have to say I think it's brilliant and well worth the money. Thus far I've only used it on my dad's Jag XF and I'm very pleased with the finish it gives. The paint seems much glossier than before application (I'd polished the car with Gloss It One Step prior to PA), and compared to the Werkstatt it was wearing before, and the Supernatural before that, the colour has much more depth - it's much more blue now, wheras the Werkstatt lightened it much more, with Supernatural somewhere in the middle.

Unfortunately I only have a couple of after pictures as I had to go straight to the airport to pick up the folks, but if we get some sun at the weekend I'll see if my camera skills are up to it! I'm planning to add a coat or two of Gloss It Consorso too, but I'll get some pics of the PA finish first if I can. For now, in lieu of proper pics, here's a quick one I took before leaving for the airport:










All in all I'm very pleased with the finish it gives, and I'm looking forward to giving the car a wash to see the protection in action!


----------



## Ultimate Shine (Jun 3, 2008)

Nice finish Mike. The best way for the "Ultimate Shine" Is 2 coats of Project Awesome and 1 coat of concorso.


----------



## Ultimate Shine (Jun 3, 2008)

Gary-360 said:


> As the owner of this thread I think I should chip in here.
> Yes, it's an expensive sealer but with the amount I used, I could easily do another 10 applications (perhaps more), there is no need to wax on top as it will repel water and dirt as good as a wax can, it also repels dead flies (trust me  ).
> Can I compare it against another sealer? Only Jeff's which does not come close to PA, I've never owned any other sealers.
> 
> ...


That is the great thing about this product as it is the base sealant I finish with concorso and i supply my customers with a small bottle of concorso and an applicator so when they feel like a top up they can. I would suggest using Gloss It enhancer for your QD.


----------



## mike_shrops (Oct 27, 2007)

Ultimate Shine said:


> Nice finish Mike. The best way for the "Ultimate Shine" Is 2 coats of Project Awesome and 1 coat of concorso.


Hmmm... might have to give that a go when I do my Integra. Cheers for the tip!! :thumb:


----------



## Sonic (Jun 28, 2007)

Hmm sounds interesting. Ive just come across this thread after searching for more info on Project Awesome having seeing your use of it on the R8 Paul.

Would you say its an expensive optiseal, justified by the fact that it works subsequently better?


----------



## Ultimate Shine (Jun 3, 2008)

The best thing to do is speak to a customer that has had this applied by myself. I leave it to cure for way more time than required the way it bonds to the paint is simply amazing.

When i am carrying out a detail on a car i want the ultimate shine and complete wow factor so my customer can be amazed. The only thing i have not tried is the real expensive wax like Vintage or Royale but i don't think that these products would make the metallic flake stand out so much and i don't think that the gloss would be the same. It may be wet with caranuba but not as reflective as the sealant.

Sonic:Can i ask what colour is your car and what kind of car do you have?


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

Its really good to hear from people that have used it...as I said in my first post, I was a bit worried that we had not heard anything, or got any feed back about this product.....

By the looks and sounds of it - it's worth the money and the limited numbers....

Let's hope it goes from strength to strength!!

:thumb:


----------



## Sonic (Jun 28, 2007)

Ultimate Shine said:


> Sonic:Can i ask what colour is your car and what kind of car do you have?


Sure, the one on my profile is a ragussa green Audi S2 Coupe (1995 2.2 inline 5 turbo quattro) and if it was a non specific question my daily/test detailing car is a silver Renault Clio Billabong :thumb:


----------



## mike_shrops (Oct 27, 2007)

I gave the Jag a wash this weekend, and as the sun was out I managed to get a couple of pictures - these were taken straight after I'd dried the car off before I gave it a QD wipedown, and before I added a coat of Concorso, so the finish is pure Project Awesome (the 2nd pics my favourite).



















I'm really pleased with the finish, and it looked great in Monday morning sunshine after it's Concorso topping!


----------



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

Very nice shine there!


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

I admit that I am certainly interested by the product, as you would expect I have a very curious mind in detailing, but the price did put me off - perhaps if it had come out when I was trialling expensive waxes I'd have been more receptive to it and less likely to compare it to say Zaino or Duragloss which is a fraction of the price.

For personal detailing, on my own car it could have offered a boutique sealant (there's a market for boutique waxes so it was only a matter of time before someone chased the boutique sealant market as well) - something "special", irrespective of its actual on paper performance it would have had a special feeling and a lot of the LSP market (beyond the simple inaccuracies spouted all over the place) is based on this feeling.

For business detailing, well I see detailers are beginning to use this for their businesses and much like a boutique wax will sell, I imagine a boutique sealant will sell as well... but I'm always left wondering what is there beyond the marketing of a product? Is Project Awsome different to all of the other boutiques - other than it being a sealant rather than a wax...? I imagine nobody will tell us the science behind what makes this product so special, it woud be nice though for one to make an informed decision beyond manufacturer and user claims.



Ultimate Shine said:


> When i am carrying out a detail on a car i want the ultimate shine and complete wow factor so my customer can be amazed. The only thing i have not tried is the real expensive wax like Vintage or Royale but i don't think that these products would make the metallic flake stand out so much and i don't think that the gloss would be the same. It may be wet with caranuba but not as reflective as the sealant.


Do you have any information on the typical thickness of the LSP layer applied? I'm interested here as this would help quantify the masking properties of the flake - yes, PA is likely optically clear (is it, opacity of the product anyone?)... I mean, let us get to brass tacks - what is flake ping? Its used a lot as a quantifier but what is it actually a measure of? How well a specific flake can be seen? Or distinguished, perhaps the better word? In which case, the best will come from the best optical clarity of the clearcoat surface itself. What does adding a nanometre or tens of nanometre thick layer of product do to this - refractive indexes of the PA vs. wax? I think if we are to use such quantifiers as claims, the one must back it up with some science inbehind it for it to bear suitable weight, and I never see this in the wax industry or sealant industry - it would be very nice to see it, and knowing the background of the inventors of this product there is potential for a sound scientific argument as to this product's supremacy which I am yet to read.

I'm not a great believer, personally, on the wetting effects of the carnauba itself, more the oils in the wax which last a lot less in time than the wax itself, and this "enhancement" in looks is seemingly very small based on all testing I have personally done, though again many other respected detailers claim to see bigger differences, yet without quantification. So this disadvantage PA may have, I dont see it having it personally so would not worry about that 

If PA is uber durable I can certainly see its point of being able to outlast all other sealants - its unlikely one would use this durability owing to the need to regularly decontaminate, but its nice to know a product "can" in the same way its nice to know a car can do 155mph on a British motorway if you like 

But then - we go back to enjoyment factor - does spending £160 on a sealant make you happy? If so, great - well worth the money. There's more to LSPs than clinical analysis, but care should be taken also in the market in general (not directed at any specifics) not to base arguments on weak science.


----------



## extreme-detail (Nov 7, 2005)

i`ll stick to the best ZAINO :thumb:


----------



## Grizzle (Jul 12, 2006)

I'll stick to Nanolex my self but there is no denying it the shine looks immense.


----------



## yetizone (Jun 25, 2008)

I'm sticking to Zaino for the time being as well, but I was sorely tempted by PA I must say. Cost per volume aside, the fact that it needs quite a while to cure would be a frustration as I don't have a have garage to keep the car out of the elements


----------



## Clark @ PB (Mar 1, 2006)

yetizone said:


> I'm sticking to Zaino for the time being as well, but I was sorely tempted by PA I must say. Cost per volume aside, the fact that it needs quite a while to cure would be a frustration as I don't have a have garage to keep the car out of the elements


I must admit the curing time is the only real downside for me but as we've said time and time again - no product is perfect and if you dont like it then dont buy it. We were fully aware that there would be a more than a few "haters" when it was released and I'm glad to see we werent wrong


----------



## yetizone (Jun 25, 2008)

Clark said:


> I must admit the curing time is the only real downside for me but as we've said time and time again - no product is perfect and if you dont like it then dont buy it. We were fully aware that there would be a more than a few "haters" when it was released and I'm glad to see we werent wrong


LOL - just because I'm not in the fortunate position of owning a garage and could realistically accommodate the curing time, doesn't mean I'm a 'product hater'...! Far from it


----------



## rossdook (Aug 20, 2008)

I find it annoying in the extreme when people will write something off or will run it down when they've yet to try it? Please leave any comments to those who have experience of both sides of the story? Anyone who is considering this is having the waters muddied by folks giving their two pennies worth, when they don't even posess some! 

FWIW - I can't comment yet, but have bottle 11 in my grubby palms now and am intending to test run it on a light blue/silver year old M3. You can be sure I'll let you know how it does. It isn't the cheapest, but if you can't treat yourself, who can you?


----------



## Clark @ PB (Mar 1, 2006)

yetizone said:


> LOL - just because I'm not in the fortunate position of owning a garage and could realistically accommodate the curing time, doesn't mean I'm a 'product hater'...! Far from it


I wasn't aiming it at anyone in particular mate, apologies for making you think otherwise


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

rossdook said:


> I find it annoying in the extreme when people will write something off or will run it down when they've yet to try it? Please leave any comments to those who have experience of both sides of the story? Anyone who is considering this is having the waters muddied by folks giving their two pennies worth, when they don't even posess some!
> 
> FWIW - I can't comment yet, but have bottle 11 in my grubby palms now and am intending to test run it on a light blue/silver year old M3. You can be sure I'll let you know how it does. It isn't the cheapest, but if you can't treat yourself, who can you?


Yes it is annoying when products are rubbished without good reason by those who have never tried the product - happens quite a lot though... equally, a product can be labelled as bad through misunderstanding which is also unfortunate but happens in all areas.

However, what is also nice is some "back up" of claims based on some sound scientific justification... with LSP, additional added looks are _highy debatable_, things like flake ping for example which are often said... I'd personally love to see manufacturers going beyond the traditional marketing and actually telling us, properly, based on something solid and sound, why a products is so good. Project Awsome, is it a chemical engineering phenomenon that is pushing back the frontiers of LSP technology? If it is - then tell us, and tell us why scientifically in a way that delivers the information to all interested, and that will gain far more respect and attention. In my book anyway


----------



## DuncanMon (May 25, 2009)

Dave KG said:


> Do you have any information on the typical thickness of the LSP layer applied? I'm interested here as this would help quantify the masking properties of the flake - yes, PA is likely optically clear (is it, opacity of the product anyone?)... I mean, let us get to brass tacks - what is flake ping? Its used a lot as a quantifier but what is it actually a measure of? How well a specific flake can be seen? Or distinguished, perhaps the better word? In which case, the best will come from the best optical clarity of the clearcoat surface itself. What does adding a nanometre or tens of nanometre thick layer of product do to this - refractive indexes of the PA vs. wax? I think if we are to use such quantifiers as claims, the one must back it up with some science inbehind it for it to bear suitable weight, and I never see this in the wax industry or sealant industry - it would be very nice to see it, and knowing the background of the inventors of this product there is potential for a sound scientific argument as to this product's supremacy which I am yet to read.
> 
> I'm not a great believer, personally, on the wetting effects of the carnauba itself, more the oils in the wax which last a lot less in time than the wax itself, and this "enhancement" in looks is seemingly very small based on all testing I have personally done, though again many other respected detailers claim to see bigger differences, yet without quantification. So this disadvantage PA may have, I dont see it having it personally so would not worry about that
> 
> ...


Just think I better throw in my opinion and experiences into this discussion here.

In regards to your post I have quoted Dave, I believe most people here are unlike you, and not entirely interested in the science behind most of the waxes and sealants and more so on the look they appear to give. I've seen arguments on here that every LSP does the same, protect the paint, and then other arguments saying that this wax adds more wetness than this one, or this one adds more gloss etc etc.

In a perfect world we would have the full scientific facts behind every product, and we could look at them and go, yes, that product leaves a 10mil thick layer and has a 64% carnauba content, it will go perfect with the paint on this car as everybody knows a 10mil thick 64% carnauba product enhances the flake! Whereas if you wanted the paint to look wetter, you would go with a sealant containing xxx chemical that leaves a 5mil layer as this leads to that look. I'm obviously being silly here, but you get what I mean.

Obviously this will never be the case, as we don't have access to the facts or figures behind the products and most likely never will on most products, other than things like layer thickness, which people on here can do themselves and report. Myself, as interesting as I find it reading up on things like the above (that recent wax thickness thread with layering etc was an interesting read) I am more than happy with seeing products applied to my own, and others cars and having an eye for detail can see certain factors of the paint finish improving or being hidden. Which I definitely believe is happening, and not just a trick in my mind.

There also seems to be a thing on here at DW about comparing waxes alot and the looks they give, where as people dont seem to look so much into sealants for looks and more for just durable protection. Never understood this but I suppose I have not played with many waxes myself, and more sealants.

More so on the topic of PA;

As far as Project Awesome goes, I have been lucky to see Paul at Ultimate Shine apply this to his recent detail of that lovely R8. I was there throughout the process of application by DA, curing, and removal, and I can say that the gloss of the paint saw a worthwhile improvement. It was most definitely not just protecting the paint, however it works, it does it well.

Other factors I can report on for Project Awesome are things like how it feels to the touch and beading and sheeting. The paint feels very slick and smooth after the application of PA, more-so than any other product I have used. This must be related to the super beading PA produces and the sheeting is simply amazing with PA on the paint, drying is made so much easier by running a hose over the paint, or even just the power washer, the water just runs off in such an amazing way. It is very similiar to how Nanolex's Urban Rain Sealant beads and sheets on my car windows, it is really just astounding how well it works at removing water from a car with very little movement or force.

Due to this super slickness it seems to be able to force splattered bugs etc off of the car during movement if it is raining etc, which really is just brilliant for keeping your car cleaner longer!

Just a few hours ago I saw Paul foam up Jasons M3 which he has previously detailed and the paint has PA on it. This was the first time I had seen PA foamed and it was quite amazing to see the foam trying to seperate into beads just like water does, especially on the bonnet and roof where it was sitting still. It was obviously nowhere near as prominent as water beading but if only a thin layer of foam was applied I'm sure you could get it beading well. After this was refoamed and power washed off it removed basicly all of the dirt from the car, and it was quite dirty before hand. Then it was time for the black baron to dry it off and this is another area the super slick surface appears to help, the water just flew off the paint easily with the air from the baron.

The last area I can really comment on is durability, I think the claimed time from one application is around 7-8 months, and while I have no experience on this I cant see why it would not be true. I have had Gloss Its Gloss Finish on my paint (same polymer PA is based on, I believe) for 3 months, and this was around the claimed duration, and it started to show reduced beading and the shine had faded, it lasted well onto around 4 months but with beading not so good. I now have Gloss Its Gloss Activator on my paint, and then two layers of Gloss Finish, and the Gloss Activator claims to be able to increase the durability to upwards of 12 months. Time will tell but I will likely be stripping this after some paintwork for some Project Awesome and Gloss It Concorso, so Ill probably never know if the Activator did give the claimed durability, or if it was a complete waste of time (experimenting with products is always fun though).

Thanks for reading.


----------



## Doc (Feb 2, 2008)

Luckily I got mine for free, the shine is not the winning formula for me, the way it repels dirt is.
I use my car for shows and it gets peppered with bugs a lot on the long drives, I really detest cleaning and having to work at removing dirt, bugs etc. 
This product really is a great barrier and takes the pain out of maintaining the vehicle.
A quick wash a spray and a dry and it looks like the day I applied it.
Would I pay full amount for it? No, but im a tight bugger with a big credit card bill at the moment!


----------



## Ultimate Shine (Jun 3, 2008)

Doc said:


> Luckily I got mine for free, the shine is not the winning formula for me, the way it repels dirt is.


You need to add the concorso topping for the shine.:thumb:


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

DuncanMon said:


> Obviously this will never be the case, as we don't have access to the facts or figures behind the products and most likely never will on most products, other than things like layer thickness, which people on here can do themselves and report.


Some may not have the facts and figure. But some people do and in the most part. Destroys the theory of sealants and waxes enhancing the finish. :thumb:
The reflective index & refraction index of most products is higher that the index figure of fleshly sprayed or machine clear coat. So in short it mutes and clouds the finish you have created.



Ultimate Shine said:


> You need to add the concorso topping for the shine.:thumb:


If you have to add something to the PA as a topping. Then surely it is laking in that department. Or am I missing something here. 
Gordon.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

DuncanMon said:


> Just think I better throw in my opinion and experiences into this discussion here.
> 
> In regards to your post I have quoted Dave, I believe most people here are unlike you, and not entirely interested in the science behind most of the waxes and sealants and more so on the look they appear to give. I've seen arguments on here that every LSP does the same, protect the paint, and then other arguments saying that this wax adds more wetness than this one, or this one adds more gloss etc etc.
> 
> ...


Most people probably are, but then there is a lot of marketing in the LSP world and it would be very nice to see some solid back up of it... I dont believe an LSP adds to the look of a perfectly prepped finish and there is more conclusive evidence in experiment to support this fact than there is to go against it... only anecdotal or marketing evidence seems to suggest LSPs make big looks differences - why? Whenever I ask to see some harder scientific fact, it never appears - why? It may not be of huge interest to many but there are some who would greatly appreciate seeing a lot of the marketing backed up with justification.

I guess thats what I would like with Project Awsome - lets face it, Rich himslf is a chemist IIRC (?), he must know what is in this product to make it what it is... without divulging secrets, there must be some science behind why its 10x better than say Zaino Z2 as the price suggests? There's prime potential, in a purely selfish way, for me to see some real hard science put up about this LSP and thats something that would silence any doubters, far more than anecdotal evidence based on opinion 

Too long has the LSP industry been shrouded by smoke and mirrors, with ludicrous prices and claims (not including Project Awsome in here, as perhaps it is a mammoth break through in LSP technology ) - its about time we saw some real hard facts to show us what we are really buying and what we are really getting - any purchaser deserves to know that.


----------



## Doc (Feb 2, 2008)

Ultimate Shine said:


> You need to add the concorso topping for the shine.:thumb:


Can I get that free as well?


----------



## Doc (Feb 2, 2008)

Dave KG said:


> there must be some science behind why its 10x better than say Zaino Z2 as the price suggests?


That's slightly unfair, PB have already said the cost is also reflected by the fact the runs are very limited and the cost involved to produce.

Produce 10000 bottles (which Im sure will never happen) then the price will come down accordingly and the statement would be valid.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Doc said:


> That's slightly unfair, PB have already said the cost is also reflected by the fact the runs are very limited and the cost involved to produce.
> 
> Produce 10000 bottles (which Im sure will never happen) then the price will come down accordingly and the statement would be valid.


Yes, but the limited runs appeal to those who like limited editions, but does it affect on paper performance to which my statement is based? No, it doesn't. Now of course, one can introduce the law of diminshing returns in the terms of price increases as well... And a whole variety of other factors, but I am interested in performance here along for now, not feel good factors or limited editions etc - these do appeal to many and I admit that, but it interests me not.

I'm just keen to see people who do have a lot of scientific background using it to support their products as the LSP industry sorely needs this to challenge some of the frankly questionable marketing that we see - "x, y, z wax delivers the best shine, unparalleled this, wettest that..." Its somewhat laughable on occasion. What we have here is a product produced by largely respected detailers who have extensive knowledge from various backgrounds, it would be nice to see some serious discussion as the potential is here, and it would certainly start to make a lot of people sit up and take notice as to what is actually going on in LSPs, and if Project Awsome is a technological breakthrough, it will certainly stand well up in the industry when introducing this discussion... so lets have it, guys!


----------



## neil b (Aug 30, 2006)

I have been testing project awesome on my car since feb this year,my car has two coats of it applyed and its still sheeting water everytime i wash the car and it still beads very well.All i do is after a wash is a gloss it qd wipe down thats its.It does what it says on the bottle simply awesome.:thumb::thumb:


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

neil b said:


> I have been testing project awesome on my car since feb this year,my car has two coats of it applyed and its still sheeting water everytime i wash the car and it still beads very well.All i do is after a wash is a gloss it qd wipe down thats its.It does what it says on the bottle simply awesome.:thumb::thumb:


That's _good_ durability :thumb:


----------



## Porta (Jan 3, 2007)

neil b said:


> I have been testing project awesome on my car since feb this year,my car has two coats of it applyed and its still sheeting water everytime i wash the car and it still beads very well.All i do is after a wash is a gloss it qd wipe down thats its.It does what it says on the bottle simply awesome.:thumb::thumb:


If you want to test the durability - don´t use any qd´s or wash´n wax shampos :thumb:


----------



## mike_shrops (Oct 27, 2007)

caledonia said:


> If you have to add something to the PA as a topping. Then surely it is lacking in that department. Or am I missing something here.
> Gordon.


You don't _have_ to add Concorso, as Project Awesome looks pretty bloody good on it's own, but Concorso is designed almost solely to add to the look of a finish, whereas Project Awesome is a compromise between looks, protection and durability, so it may well add a little something. The PA has only been on the car for 3 or so weeks so I can't judge the durability, but the finish and protection are very impressive.

FWIW I'm normally pretty sceptical about the effects of an LSP on a finish, and tend to prefer my premium waxes (BOS, Supernatural) over the likes of Colli 476 for the ease of use and _specialness_ rather than any extra special look they give. Project Awesome on the other hand isn't particularly quick or easy to apply - you have to work it in and keep the car under cover - but I genuinely believe it gives a finish that no other LSP in my collection can match, with the possible exception of Gloss It Concorso which has nothing like the durability. The paint looked noticeably different after it had been applied, though unfortunately I have no pictures to back it up!

I'm very pleased with my rather extravagant purchase, and when I run out I plan to get another bottle, so for me it's a great product. Thankfully the detailing world is a fantastically varied place, and there are great products to suit all tastes and budgets.

While I can understand what Dave's saying and empathise with the point he's making, at the same time I can't see it being in Polished Bliss' interest to release the secrets of how it does what it does - it's their business after all as well as a passion, and they've no doubt made a significant investment and can't risk a competitor stealing the ideas they spent so long developing. It's a shame that this is the case but it's an unavoidable fact of life.

As an aside for Dave, I've seen in quite a few of your showroom/studio posts that you use various glazes depending on car colour to enhance the finish. Since you've said your sceptical of the effect of LSP's, what makes glazes any different? Genuine questions by the way, rather than picking a fight, as is so often the case on forums.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

mike_shrops said:


> As an aside for Dave, I've seen in quite a few of your showroom/studio posts that you use various glazes depending on car colour to enhance the finish. Since you've said your sceptical of the effect of LSP's, what makes glazes any different? Genuine questions by the way, rather than picking a fight, as is so often the case on forums.


Glazes contain oils which _can_ subtly wet the finish - some waxes use this effect also and you can perhaps sometimes very subtly see it... but as is always discussed in my posts, the true key to the looks is in the machine polishing. Have a look at my wax test threads and you'll see some very interesting reading about the effects, or lack thereof, of LSPs on a paint finish  I use various waxes on my details, more through enjoyment of using different products at the end of the day, as I make sure I get the looks in the machine polishing stages... Choose an LSP that you know to be durable, so a customer does not need to top up after a week.

I read a lot about the claimed effects and added looks of different LSPs, but the ones claiming big differences just seem like pure marketing bumff to me and nothing more as there is nothing to substantiate the claims, yet a lot of evidence building to support the counter case of waxes/sealants not adding to the looks.

But we will all have our opinions on this, and many of us will not be changed on our opinions - I'm personally happy to have my opinion changed, but not by marketing or anecdotal claims, more by substantiated science and serious tenable differences viewed in the flesh. Neither I am yet to see. Perhaps I am just a bit set in my ways here, but my main interest is in chasing the ultimate in looks (as it is with all of us detailers), and for me LSPs are just not the answer in this chase - LSPs are for protecting your hard work.


----------



## Ronnie (Nov 15, 2006)

this is really starting to interest me!! any samples going (I will pay)?? and I have the perfect candidate for a little test.. 

Personally for me, the key is in the preparation if its not 100% then the finish will be a bit duff no matter what the product is, like putting £500 face cream on a pig  :thumb:...

I have been having a play recently and purposely have been using budget products for LSP but with fastidious attention to detail during correction processes with amazing results. I have found by just by refining my correction and finishing techniques massive differences in the end results can be achieved. the latest one being the E90 BMW that was finished in Victoria Concourse that is a good but very budget range wax. which gave better results than when I have used Vintage but spent a minimum amount of time on perfecting the finish during machining on a car that was exactly the same colour.

BUT Personally, I do love my boutique products. I think the DO add an edge to the finish weather it be a glossy feel to the paint, better gloss or wet look, what ever it may be. I think PB have definitely hit on something and as Mr KG says there is or soon will be a thriving market for these types of products. I think as mentioned if the preparation before application is not of a very high standard, then the results may not be as good as some people might desire and here is where the negatives will come in you cant help that, but personally I wish PB the best with this product as I done think they would have put their name to anything that is less than Awesome...


----------



## Rich @ PB (Oct 26, 2005)

Some very interesting discussion above! When (if!) things settle down early next year I will try to find some time to revisit this thread and add our own throughts to some of the comments raised. But alas for now, all I can say is Project Awesome remains as described on our site, and is currently available again in limited quantities as one of Christmas Specials.


----------

