# Glossiest "wettest" looking wax/LSP?



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

OK, so I'm sure everyone's going to have their own opinion on this, but I just wondered what everyone's glossiest/wettest looking wax or LSP is? Maybe if enough people answer there will be a common product that pops up.

So, what's your wettest, glossiest, proper dripping wet look wax or LSP?


----------



## nbray67 (Mar 22, 2012)

Be prepared for countless suggestions.

My 2 penneth, for what it's worth is -
Great prep = great looks on the majority of LSP's.

For me, AF Desire topped with AF Illusion (this the old MX5 on a dull day) -


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

That's good then, because I just received a pot of AF Illusion this week! Good start!


----------



## streaky (Dec 2, 2006)

I have both those waxes and still haven't used them. I think I might having seen yours


----------



## nbray67 (Mar 22, 2012)

MBRuss said:


> That's good then, because I just received a pot of AF Illusion this week! Good start!





streaky said:


> I have both those waxes and still haven't used them. I think I might having seen yours


Illusion may need a final buff after you've applied and removed it as it's an oily wax.

A little goes a long way with it so don't over apply it would be my tip.

It's looks over longevity with it though.

It's the only wax that I've never sold on once used.


----------



## Coachman (Mar 8, 2015)

For me Adams h20 Gaurd and gloss really provided a WOW factor.


----------



## Ultra (Feb 25, 2006)

Blackfire afpp has been my go to for many years for the outstanding wet look


----------



## derbigofast (Dec 6, 2011)

its not the lsp its all in the prep, the lsp only protects the finish you have achieved with compounding, polishing and refining


----------



## Steampunk (Aug 11, 2011)

Bouncer's Capture the Rapture, for me...








Feel free to check out the review: https://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=302734.

Yes [emphatically] to all the comments regarding polishing and prep, but when it's LSP time, some do add more wetness than others... The super-oily, short-lived 'Show Waxes' are really hard to beat in this regard. Even over minimal prep, you will still see some of their effect; almost like a glaze.

Hope this helps...

- Steampunk


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

derbigofast said:


> its not the lsp its all in the prep, the lsp only protects the finish you have achieved with compounding, polishing and refining


OK, for the sake of this thread can we please all assume that I know the prep is critical, and just focus on the LSP part? I'm quite aware that you need to put in the graft with your prep, but I'm just asking for opinions on which LSP will help with the final look to provide the wettest/glossiest finish.

There is a definite difference in the final appearance between a sterile looking sealant and a glossy show wax, and I'm just trying to get people's opinions on which show wax (or other LSP) provides the best gloss and wetness/jetting.

Also, you can often get away with throwing a nice show wax on a less than perfect car, if (as in my case) there's no point in wasting time buffing the whole car out.

I threw a coat of ODK Glamour on my old VW CC without fully correcting it and it looked dripping wet, so it's possible to make the car look good, even if you don't have the time or inclination to spend tens of hours correcting it.

My current car is a company lease that's going back in July. I'm not wasting time in the spring/early summer correcting it when it'll likely end up at a car supermarket with their associated valets. I would, however, like to throw a nice glossy show wax on it to make it look nice whilst I'm still driving it.


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

Steampunk said:


> Yes [emphatically] to all the comments regarding polishing and prep, but when it's LSP time, some do add more wetness than others... The super-oily, short-lived 'Show Waxes' are really hard to beat in this regard. Even over minimal prep, you will still see some of their effect; almost like a glaze.
> - Steampunk


Exactly this. I have used show waxes before to good effect on swirled-out cars and have no desire to correct any more of my current DD as it goes back to the lease company in July, but when a show wax only lasts a few weeks tops it's not exactly wasteful to apply one to this car whilst it's in my possession. :thumb:

As such, if we can stick to LSP suggestions, that'd be cool.


----------



## suspal (Dec 29, 2011)

MBRuss said:


> Exactly this. I have used show waxes before to good effect on swirled-out cars and have no desire to correct any more of my current DD as it goes back to the lease company in July, but when a show wax only lasts a few weeks tops it's not exactly wasteful to apply one to this car whilst it's in my possession. :thumb:
> 
> As such, if we can stick to LSP suggestions, that'd be cool.


I concure with steampunk the lsp amplifes the hard work that's gone into preparing the blank canvass, waxes with more oils(show wax) no durability at all but tend to look wettest, I've seen this in ceramic coatings too the depth and gloss is amplified no end the "icing on the cake".
But without the polishing step being done correctly the rest is a non starter imho.:thumb:


----------



## big dave 666 (Aug 2, 2014)

Pinnacle souveran, blackfire, Wolfgang fuzion, power maxed tsunami, obsession luminous, swissvax best of show......


----------



## pxr5 (Feb 13, 2012)

The product that has given me the best gloss ever (and it's not an LSP) is the sadly abandoned Wet Glaze 2. I still have 1.5 bottles left and I still use it in the summer over whatever LSP is on the car, which is an odd thing to do with 'glaze', but it works well. I can't compare it to anything else I've used, as it's so unique. Shame it's gone.


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

If the paint is prep'd properly it really doesn't matter imo. If you watch forensic detailing, every wax/sealant he has tested has surprisingly reduced the gloss reading of a freshly polished panel. 



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## 66Rob (Sep 25, 2007)

Like the look of the AF Illusion, my current glossy summer wax is P21s. Only lasts a couple of weeks but very easy to apply and remove and extremely glossy..


----------



## camerashy (Feb 9, 2014)

Has to be Wolfgang Fuzion so far for me but still need to try Fireball Fusion out


----------



## Dazednconfused (Oct 10, 2017)

Not used many show waxes, but one that stands out for gloss for me is ODK Glamour :thumb:


----------



## chongo (Jun 7, 2014)

OCD Nebula 
Wolfgang fuzion
Vonixx Blend Carnauba silica paste wax
Victoria concours wax

Even after your paint is looking great after any machine polishing, these will definitely add some added gloss to the finish regardless what other people say:thumb:


----------



## Ford8loke (Jan 11, 2016)

I managed to pick up some clearkote red moose glaze and a pot of vics concours off a fellow dw member recently.
I look forward to using these two golden oldies once the weather picks up and hopefully they'll produce this fabled "wet look"!


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

pxr5 said:


> The product that has given me the best gloss ever (and it's not an LSP) is the sadly abandoned Wet Glaze 2. I still have 1.5 bottles left and I still use it in the summer over whatever LSP is on the car, which is an odd thing to do with 'glaze', but it works well. I can't compare it to anything else I've used, as it's so unique. Shame it's gone.


Who made that, and why did it get axed?

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

Brian1612 said:


> If the paint is prep'd properly it really doesn't matter imo. If you watch forensic detailing, every wax/sealant he has tested has surprisingly reduced the gloss reading of a freshly polished panel.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


I did wonder if he had tested that. I've not seen his video of that though.

I guess the thing to consider is that you have to run some sort of protection.

However, show waxes definitely do something to give that wet finish.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

Dazednconfused said:


> Not used many show waxes, but one that stands out for gloss for me is ODK Glamour :thumb:


I have P21S and Glamour and I agree. I got great results from Glamour. I've not used P21S on the whole car yet though.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Blueberry (Aug 10, 2007)

Elysian wax by Wax 101 gives a superb wet look. Durability is only around 3 weeks but the looks are great. 

BMD Show Stopper is another, similar wax.


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

MBRuss said:


> I did wonder if he had tested that. I've not seen his video of that though.
> 
> I guess the thing to consider is that you have to run some sort of protection.
> 
> ...


Not a specidic video per say but if you are a regular watcher of the channel it often pops up in comparison type test reviews often were he uses the prep'd panel as a standard.

No doubt LSPs do help on poorly kept paint but I think when used on compounded and refined paint that is 95%> perfect... the increased gloss from the LSP is all in someone's mind. They see what they want too, realistically it's impossible for the human eye to tell the difference.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Kam09 (Apr 11, 2014)

Chemical guys butter wet wax will give you brilliant gloss


----------



## Sheep (Mar 20, 2009)

Kam09 said:


> Meg's butter wet wax will give you brilliant gloss


You mean chemical guys?

To OP,

I side with the prep people obviously, but I think what is being seen is that instead of an LSP that ADDS a wet look, you want one that doesn't hamper the polished finish as much (gloss levels). I also think that if wet looks are your thing, you might want to stick to the darker colours. I just put AG HD on my car after a quick 1 stage polish to improve the looks a bit and it is definitely glossier now. I do know that most waxes will do some level of cleaning on their own regardless of paint condition, but the polish did far more than the wax.

Would be really interesting to see if there is certain effects on gloss levels that are perceived as a wet look versus others (if blocking/altering gloss a certain way gives more of a wet look than others). However, that is a test for someone else, as I don't have a gloss meter.


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

Brian1612 said:


> Not a specidic video per say but if you are a regular watcher of the channel it often pops up in comparison type test reviews often were he uses the prep'd panel as a standard.
> 
> No doubt LSPs do help on poorly kept paint but I think when used on compounded and refined paint that is 95%> perfect... the increased gloss from the LSP is all in someone's mind. They see what they want too, realistically it's impossible for the human eye to tell the difference.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


I don't know about that though. Perhaps gloss isn't the right word for it, but when you put a show wax on a car, it definitely looks "wetter" than without. Most likely the oils in the product. With no LSP you tend to have a "sterile" looking finish, much like with a sealant.

A wax can add a "glow" but also add a "wet" look to the paint that I don't think can just be achieved with prep.

I could be wrong though. The thing with any of these products is that you can never apply, say, 4 different waxes to a panel and compare the difference. The panel always looks the same all over. You seem to have to apply to a whole car before you can notice the difference between one and another.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

I think what happens with show waxes and oily glazes is the lack of optical clarity 'rounds off' the edges of the car a tiny bit, hazily refracting the light a miniscule amount. It is that lack of optical clarity which adds that wetness.

If you had optically clear products, then you'd get the sharp reflective look. as there isn't nothing, or very little to refract the light different to the paint itself.


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

roscopervis said:


> I think what happens with show waxes and oily glazes is the lack of optical clarity 'rounds off' the edges of the car a tiny bit, hazily refracting the light a miniscule amount. It is that lack of optical clarity which adds that wetness.
> 
> If you had optically clear products, then you'd get the sharp reflective look. as there isn't nothing, or very little to refract the light different to the paint itself.


Something like that, yes.

Logically speaking, putting anything on top of the surface will only serve to "muddy" it slightly. It can't make the appearance of the panel any "clearer" than having nothing on it.

Regardless, that's irrelevant, because nobody on here will want to drive around with completely unprotected paint.

It's likely, therefore, that applying a show wax is actually MORE beneficial on a neglected, or less than perfect car, as the oils etc can fill and hide imperfections.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## beatty599 (Sep 18, 2016)

I love waxaddicts Quarts / Vortex and Showgloss, or on the cheaper end their Fo'Sho sray wax is brilliant.


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

MBRuss said:


> I don't know about that though. Perhaps gloss isn't the right word for it, but when you put a show wax on a car, it definitely looks "wetter" than without. Most likely the oils in the product. With no LSP you tend to have a "sterile" looking finish, much like with a sealant.
> 
> A wax can add a "glow" but also add a "wet" look to the paint that I don't think can just be achieved with prep.
> 
> ...


I actually noticed on my previous black abarth that the gloss after the machining stage was noticeably better than after applying whatever wax it was. First time I've ever noticed the difference but I put it down to the differing lighting from the sun at the time.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

Brian1612 said:


> I actually noticed on my previous black abarth that the gloss after the machining stage was noticeably better than after applying whatever wax it was. First time I've ever noticed the difference but I put it down to the differing lighting from the sun at the time.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


Or maybe the polishing oils left after the polishing?

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## pxr5 (Feb 13, 2012)

MBRuss said:


> Who made that, and why did it get axed?
> 
> Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


Don't know why it was binned, I think the company (waxattack) went bust. There is a massive thread on it here:

https://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=251477


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

Another question I have, is when applying a show wax (for arguements sake, one that only lasts a week or a month), do you just layer it on a "naked" car, or do you apply something more durable first, like Collinite 845, Fusso, or Double-Speed Wax, then apply the show wax as the top layer?

And a secondary question; If you then sprayed, say, BSD on top, would that lose the show wax look?

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steampunk (Aug 11, 2011)

MBRuss said:


> Another question I have, is when applying a show wax (for arguements sake, one that only lasts a week or a month), do you just layer it on a "naked" car, or do you apply something more durable first, like Collinite 845, Fusso, or Double-Speed Wax, then apply the show wax as the top layer?
> 
> And a secondary question; If you then sprayed, say, BSD on top, would that lose the show wax look?
> 
> Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


It depends how much 'purity' of the show wax in question you want to maintain...

Mixing oily waxes over a more durable base, and or applying a spray-sealant type QD over them both work very well, and give you a better chance that - if you miss an opportunity to reapply the show wax routinely - that you won't find your vehicle without protection.

However, the look of those other products will end up fighting with the show wax, and which one becomes dominant starts coming down to how many layers of each are there*... If you like the way the show wax looks all on its own, and you think that's perfect, then interjecting something else into the mix will start counterbalancing that look with its own aesthetic. You'll still get some of that oily depth and wetness, but it will be fighting against something that is trying to make the paint look crisper, and more reflective... An opposite sort of look.

*If you had - say - 1-coat of a hybrid wax underneath 3-coats of a show wax, the look of the oily show wax will definitely dominate. The resulting combination will not lose beading/protection so quickly, but its wet look from the oils will deplete just as quickly as if no hybrid wax was there... The hybrid would only serve as sort of a last line of defense in case of emergency.

By comparison, if you put a single layer of spray sealant over 3-layers of show wax, the sealant will start to fight the look of the wax a little more obviously (Though it's still not a bad look at all... There's still a lot of depth and wetness under there. The wax is basically just acting as a glaze.), but it will help to 'lock in' those oils and keep them from depleting quite so quickly.

A combination I used to like was Bouncer's Capture the Rapture, interlayered with Dodo-Juice Supernatural Acrylic-Spritz... Building up at least 3-coats of each, with the last being Bouncer's CtR. The entirely water-based SN AS served as a sort of neutral 'barrier layer' between the wax layers, and helped to lock in their oils a bit better, but without overriding the look of CtR too terribly... It still wasn't as 'pure' as CtR on its own, but was still dripping wet and deep.

Whatever show wax you choose, you will achieve the maximum 'wet look' only after several layers... Most waxes I've tried benefit from 3-6 coats (Though where in that range depends on the wax; after which you don't end up adding anything.) before delivering the full extent of their aesthetic...

Hopefully this helps.

- Steampunk


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

Thanks. That's another thing I didn't realise, that multiple layers would actually add to the look. I just assumed that "layering" was to make sure you didn't miss any spots.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

MBRuss said:


> Or maybe the polishing oils left after the polishing?
> 
> Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


Had been wiped down with U-pol so definitely not that.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

Steampunk said:


> It depends how much 'purity' of the show wax in question you want to maintain...
> 
> Mixing oily waxes over a more durable base, and or applying a spray-sealant type QD over them both work very well, and give you a better chance that - if you miss an opportunity to reapply the show wax routinely - that you won't find your vehicle without protection.
> 
> ...


Your opinion/method of course but I'd reckon that is a complete waste of time and product. If it works for you fair enough but I am fairly confident most wax makers wouldn't recommend more than 2 layers and even then the 2nd layer is only advised to ensure full coverage. From my understanding It makes little difference to the looks or durability applying several layers of wax.

Sounds like a test for Jon at Forensic Detailing! 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

Agreed, sounds like it would be good for a test.

Logically though, applying thicker layers of wax would "dull" the surface more, as you've got more of an opaque product covering the surface of the car.

Either that or you're just buffing it back off and it'll continue to look the same. There's got to be a point where adding it ontop of itself just results in it wiping straight back off when you buff it, else people would be going round with 5mm thick wax on their bodywork!

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steampunk (Aug 11, 2011)

Brian1612 said:


> Your opinion/method of course but I'd reckon that is a complete waste of time and product. If it works for you fair enough but I am fairly confident most wax makers wouldn't recommend more than 2 layers and even then the 2nd layer is only advised to ensure full coverage. From my understanding It makes little difference to the looks or durability applying several layers of wax.
> 
> Sounds like a test for Jon at Forensic Detailing!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


Well... My own conclusion on this subject comes about from doing 'step down' panels, and side by side tests, comparing the look of different numbers of wax layers... Visually, there was a point after which I stopped seeing any difference, and that did depend upon the product (Waxes vary; some have a milder carrier, that lets them layer better. Others will almost completely strip off the one before.)... With each layer, it does progressively add less and less to the look until it just does nothing. However, that is in most cases for me, after more than 2-layers.

This subject used to be debated to death back in the day; the value of layering... The most conclusive proof I've ever seen on the subject, which proved that the film build or at least oil buildup on the paint increased with a large number of layers was done by Dodo-Juice back in the day, with their colour-charged waxes... They used a white panel, and the tinting effect kept increasing with additional coats. Dom did a lot of interesting posts on this subject years ago regarding the science of wax film properties, and was a good source of information on this subject. Whilst at some point, the wax film does become too unstable to support additional layers, this will depend upon the product in question when that point is reached. How stable that thicker film is, is also a debatable point... All those extra layers might not last as long as the last little bit clinging to the surface profile of the paint. However, to some, even if that look just lasts a day, it's worth it.

Incidentally, I don't think you'll find a wax maker that will argue with you if you want to use more of their product. 

If you like using 1-2 coats and feel this is the right number to achieve your aims with the products you are using, then that is what you should do... :thumb:

However, whether or not it is a "complete waste of time and product" depends on both the product, and the user in question.

- Steampunk


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

Steampunk said:


> Well... My own conclusion on this subject comes about from doing 'step down' panels, and side by side tests, comparing the look of different numbers of wax layers... Visually, there was a point after which I stopped seeing any difference, and that did depend upon the product (Waxes vary; some have a milder carrier, that lets them layer better. Others will almost completely strip off the one before.)... With each layer, it does progressively add less and less to the look until it just does nothing. However, that is in most cases for me, after more than 2-layers.
> 
> This subject used to be debated to death back in the day; the value of layering... The most conclusive proof I've ever seen on the subject, which proved that the film build or at least oil buildup on the paint increased with a large number of layers was done by Dodo-Juice back in the day, with their colour-charged waxes... They used a white panel, and the tinting effect kept increasing with additional coats. Dom did a lot of interesting posts on this subject years ago regarding the science of wax film properties, and was a good source of information on this subject. Whilst at some point, the wax film does become too unstable to support additional layers, this will depend upon the product in question when that point is reached. How stable that thicker film is, is also a debatable point... All those extra layers might not last as long as the last little bit clinging to the surface profile of the paint. However, to some, even if that look just lasts a day, it's worth it.
> 
> ...


Is there any way to easily establish if a product will layer well? Such as, smelling it to see if it smells like there's a lot of solvent carrier in it etc?

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steampunk (Aug 11, 2011)

MBRuss said:


> Is there any way to easily establish if a product will layer well? Such as, smelling it to see if it smells like there's a lot of solvent carrier in it etc?
> 
> Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


Unfortunately, no... Low odor solvents and scents make that kind of hard, as well as not knowing how resistant the particular combination of waxes and silicones in the product are to being re-suspended once they have dried...

Testing to see at what point you stop noticing a visual change - short of some very expensive lab testing to measure sub-micron film builds, plot the effect additional layers has on the surface profile of the wax film itself, and also somehow quantifying the differences in optical properties (Refraction, reflection, clarity, graphing the light wavelengths, etc... All at levels far more accurate than what a portable multi-angle gloss meter can do. Which is crazy, just for car wax, albeit would be fun.) - is the only method available to us as consumers.

It's an easy experiment to do, and if you enjoy applying wax, there is nothing stopping you from just trying it and coming to your own conclusion with the products you like to use... Trust yourself, and the results of your own testing, and let that guide you to making the best decisions for you. At the end of the day, that's all that matters... :thumb:

- Steampunk


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

Steampunk said:


> Unfortunately, no... Low odor solvents and scents make that kind of hard, as well as not knowing how resistant the particular combination of waxes and silicones in the product are to being re-suspended once they have dried...
> 
> Testing to see at what point you stop noticing a visual change - short of some very expensive lab testing to measure sub-micron film builds, plot the effect additional layers has on the surface profile of the wax film itself, and also somehow quantifying the differences in optical properties (Refraction, reflection, clarity, graphing the light wavelengths, etc... All at levels far more accurate than what a portable multi-angle gloss meter can do. Which is crazy, just for car wax, albeit would be fun.) - is the only method available to us as consumers.
> 
> ...


To, to summarise; you're not just saying that more layers are better because you once heard it from a guy in Halfords 20 years ago?! 

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steampunk (Aug 11, 2011)

MBRuss said:


> To, to summarise; you're not just saying that more layers are better because you once heard it from a guy in Halfords 20 years ago?!
> 
> Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


Correct.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Steampunk said:


> Well... My own conclusion on this subject comes about from doing 'step down' panels, and side by side tests, comparing the look of different numbers of wax layers... Visually, there was a point after which I stopped seeing any difference, and that did depend upon the product (Waxes vary; some have a milder carrier, that lets them layer better. Others will almost completely strip off the one before.)... With each layer, it does progressively add less and less to the look until it just does nothing. However, that is in most cases for me, after more than 2-layers.
> 
> This subject used to be debated to death back in the day; the value of layering... The most conclusive proof I've ever seen on the subject, which proved that the film build or at least oil buildup on the paint increased with a large number of layers was done by Dodo-Juice back in the day, with their colour-charged waxes... They used a white panel, and the tinting effect kept increasing with additional coats. Dom did a lot of interesting posts on this subject years ago regarding the science of wax film properties, and was a good source of information on this subject. Whilst at some point, the wax film does become too unstable to support additional layers, this will depend upon the product in question when that point is reached. How stable that thicker film is, is also a debatable point... All those extra layers might not last as long as the last little bit clinging to the surface profile of the paint. However, to some, even if that look just lasts a day, it's worth it.
> 
> ...


believe this is the test you mean:thumb:

https://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=217518


----------



## big dave 666 (Aug 2, 2014)

I remember the dodo juice test
Also got to say the guy who believes two coats of wax is the optimum also said in a post a while back that he doesn't think a glaze adds anything to the finish, once a car had been corrected and polished via machine. I can assume then that you run your cars round without a wax or glaze on them?
With 35 years experience I'd have to disagree with you Brian.... On all counts. If you're not getting a better finish on your car by applying glazes and wax then can only assume you're doing something wrong


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

big dave 666 said:


> I remember the dodo juice test
> Also got to say the guy who believes two coats of wax is the optimum also said in a post a while back that he doesn't think a glaze adds anything to the finish, once a car had been corrected and polished via machine. I can assume then that you run your cars round without a wax or glaze on them?
> With 35 years experience I'd have to disagree with you Brian.... On all counts. If you're not getting a better finish on your car by applying glazes and wax then can only assume you're doing something wrong


The can is open, the worms are everywhere!

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## matty.13 (May 3, 2011)

Polish 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

matty.13 said:


> Polish
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


English. Pleased to meet you.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

For me it's either Glare or Blackfire.

Glare for the sharp mirror like finish






Blackfire Wet Ice over Fire for a glossy wet look


----------



## Mikej857 (Jan 17, 2012)

My favourite is either obsession wax luminous or my newly acquired custom blend by ODK

If it's an off the shelf LSP then it has to be luminous for me 

Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ford8loke (Jan 11, 2016)

matty.13 said:


> Polish
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Cześć


----------



## Steampunk (Aug 11, 2011)

cheekymonkey said:


> believe this is the test you mean:thumb:
> 
> https://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=217518


Yes! That's the test I was talking about... Thank you very much for digging it up! :thumb:

- Steampunk


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

big dave 666 said:


> I remember the dodo juice test
> Also got to say the guy who believes two coats of wax is the optimum also said in a post a while back that he doesn't think a glaze adds anything to the finish, once a car had been corrected and polished via machine. I can assume then that you run your cars round without a wax or glaze on them?
> With 35 years experience I'd have to disagree with you Brian.... On all counts. If you're not getting a better finish on your car by applying glazes and wax then can only assume you're doing something wrong


Of course it doesn't Dave, that would be an idiotic thing to do but I use waxes/sealants/coatings for what they were designed for and that is protecting the paintwork, not a made up outcome based purely on what 'I think' is glossier on any given day.

Protection and durability I can observe to a relatively accurate standard (I think!) but can I, you or anyone really determine which products are glossier than others by eye sight alone on a few car panels? In my opinion no you can't, not unless it is in a controlled environment with insanely expensive test equipment at hand to read gloss levels etc. which gives you a measurable result.

In any other situation which for most of us is on our driveway, there are far too many variables that can warp what we think we see. Lighting is the biggest contributor to this. As for a glaze... they fill the paintwork, that is what they are manufactured to do, applying this to an almost perfect paint offers nothing and again that is my opinion. It isn't right or wrong, nor is what you believe. What I have on my side is testing and the results of that. There is plenty of evidence online if you bother to look that confirm via accurate measurements that adding glazes or waxes to a panel after polishing reduces it's gloss levels. Take from that what you will but numbers and figures don't lie, people do though, knowingly or not. The results from these tests are consistent across the board with regards to all LSPs so that in itself confirms what I am saying.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Brian1612 said:


> Of course it doesn't Dave, that would be an idiotic thing to do but I use waxes/sealants/coatings for what they were designed for and that is protecting the paintwork, not a made up outcome based purely on what 'I think' is glossier on any given day.
> 
> Protection and durability I can observe to a relatively accurate standard (I think!) but can I, you or anyone really determine which products are glossier than others by eye sight alone on a few car panels? In my opinion no you can't, not unless it is in a controlled environment with insanely expensive test equipment at hand to read gloss levels etc. which gives you a measurable result.
> 
> In any other situation which for most of us is on our driveway, there are far too many variables that can warp what we think we see. Lighting is the biggest contributor to this. As for a glaze... they fill the paintwork, that is what they are manufactured to do, applying this to an almost perfect paint offers nothing and again that is my opinion. It isn't right or wrong, nor is what you believe. What I have on my side is testing and the results of that. There is plenty of evidence online if you bother to look that confirm via accurate measurements that adding glazes or waxes to a panel after polishing reduces it's gloss levels. Take from that what you will but numbers and figures don't lie, people do though, knowingly or not. The results from these tests are consistent across the board with regards to all LSPs so that in itself confirms what I am saying.


these test you keep going on about for the gloss levels. what type of gloss are they reading?. I as with most who believe lsp's do make a difference know there are different types of gloss. Firstly there is my favourite type of gloss. the deep wet warm gloss you get from a quality nuba wax. then at the other end of the spectrum, there is the very reflective gloss you get from some synthetics, alot call it a glassy gloss. So can these gloss testing machine's tell the difference between such finishes or are they limited to just a mono type reading.


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

cheekymonkey said:


> these test you keep going on about for the gloss levels. what type of gloss are they reading?. I as with most who believe lsp's do make a difference know there are different types of gloss. Firstly there is my favourite type of gloss. the deep wet warm gloss you get from a quality nuba wax. then at the other end of the spectrum, there is the very reflective gloss you get from some synthetics, alot call it a glassy gloss. So can these gloss testing machine's tell the difference between such finishes or are they limited to just a mono type reading.


Hi cheeky! I'm no expert mate but from the little knowledge I know of them they measure in gloss units (gu).

In simple terms these machines fire a beam of concentrated light at a specific point on the panel it is placed on. It then measures how much light is reflected back at its opposite angle to provide a reading on gloss. The more light that returns to the machine, the glossier the surface tends to be.

I don't believe these machines differentiate on the 'type' of finish but that is irrelevant really. We can assume less gloss equates to this warm, dark glow you speak of. Chances are the results will show this with a lower gu reading compared to a freshly polished car. It's a different finish but both give a gloss read out. The sterile, glassy finish you speak of from a testing/scientific point of view may well be the glossier finish but with less depth, the results would show this (it could be due to the increased gloss we simply can't see the depth due to light glare). This is just a generic comparison though and it needs to be said that all the waxes/sealants I've seen tested in this manner have varying results but they have all dropped the gu reading from the polishing stage and never increased, it's just a case of which drops it the least imo.

I want to go back to your first point though, I do believe they make a difference mate but not in the way most believe. As I mentioned earlier I remember the last time I corrected my Abarth... it looked far glossier and more reflective/mirror like just after the polishing stage. When I coated it in wax and looked back at the photo's the car certainly looked less glossy, maybe slightly darker/deepened in terms of depth but in simple terms less shiny. I prefered how it looked when freshly polished personally.

Is that bad? Well it depends completely on the person. I believe the better the gu reading the better the shine/light reflection but someone like yourself may want a lower gu reading in order to obtain less gloss but more depth (that the eye can see, less glare). It's all hypothetical but I do think there is a link between high gu/glassy finish and lower gu/darker, more depth.

It's an interesting subject though and like everything no right or wrong here. It's only my own opinion on it.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## big dave 666 (Aug 2, 2014)

I believe a pure glaze is to add gloss Brian. Yes through filling to an extent but also in the oils that are present, such as in a glaze like megs #7. I'd be interested to see the results of these conclusive no quibble tests you're on about as obviously all of those who are blessed with the gift of sight, and can actually tell a difference are being duped by manufacturers claims.


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

big dave 666 said:


> I believe a pure glaze is to add gloss Brian. Yes through filling to an extent but also in the oils that are present, such as in a glaze like megs #7. I'd be interested to see the results of these conclusive no quibble tests you're on about as obviously all of those who are blessed with the gift of sight, and can actually tell a difference are being duped by manufacturers claims.


But then those oils you speak of will likely not increase the panels ability to reflect light, it will reduce it. Much like smearing oil over a mirror or glass, it 'hazes' it over. It may make the paint look deeper or wetter but more reflective/increased clarity? I highly doubt it.

Watch the wax megatest Jon covered on the forensic detailing channel on youtube, that will give you an idea of what I am talking about. You are missing the point though Dave, unless these gloss improvements are witnessed by sight in a controlled environment they are never 100% true. As I said you may see the product as adding more gloss over another product you used a few days ago but so many variables will have changed... paint... temperature... natural light... synthetic light... your eyes based on how bright or dark the area is you are working in when observing the paint. It's all very subjective imo.

I doubt I am not the only one that takes anyone's advice when they say a product is 'really glossy' with a pinch of salt. Especially when they have said the exact same thing about the previous 20 waxes they've written about. I probably did the same when I first started out but I've came to realise it's much less about the finish and more to do with protection when it comes to LSPs. Especially so if the car has been corrected. It doesn't matter what you put down as your LSP, if the car has been polished it's going to look fantastic to any human eye and nobody is going to be able to distinguish a difference between panels/cars accurately about which car/panel has what product applied imo.

This is what is great about this forum though, we all have differing opinions and thoughts with regards to detailing. Unlike social media though you are able to give your opinion and share your thoughts as to why it is that without it turning into an argument. Debates are brilliant and it's what makes this whole world of detailing so interesting.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Brian1612 said:


> Hi cheeky! I'm no expert mate but from the little knowledge I know of them they measure in gloss units (gu).
> 
> In simple terms these machines fire a beam of concentrated light at a specific point on the panel it is placed on. It then measures how much light is reflected back at its opposite angle to provide a reading on gloss. The more light that returns to the machine, the glossier the surface tends to be.
> 
> ...


well with the fact that the cant tell the difference between types of gloss, imo they are of no use in the world of detailing. 
The true fact is a finish is not all about gloss, it is far more than just that. infact you will get different gloss results from different polishes, even from different paint manufactures. The most important part of any finish isnt the gloss,it is getting the finished look that the individual desires and there is no machine that can tell you that. 
is it right that a high gloss = glassy finish and a low gloss = darker more depth?. There are some lsp's that are both.


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

cheekymonkey said:


> well with the fact that the cant tell the difference between types of gloss, imo they are of no use in the world of detailing.
> 
> The true fact is a finish is not all about gloss, it is far more than just that. infact you will get different gloss results from different polishes, even from different paint manufactures. The most important part of any finish isnt the gloss,it is getting the finished look that the individual desires and there is no machine that can tell you that.
> 
> is it right that a high gloss = glassy finish and a low gloss = darker more depth?. There are some lsp's that are both.


You haven't read what I wrote cheeky, it doesn't matter what they can or can't distinguish. Both have a gloss rating and it gives a direct correlation between the two finishes you speak of due to this so in a way... yes it can distinguish between the two finishes based on gu. I'm only talking hypothetically but I would imagine the warm, 'carnuaba' glow is a low gu and the crisp, reflective 'sealant' finish is a high gu.

Your right though, there is no right or wrong and everyone is looking for something different in their results. I'm not saying either is definitely better than the other, only that I personally prefer the look of paint when it has been freshly polished prior to LSP application. The more gloss the better as far as I am concerned but I appreciate you think differently.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Brian1612 said:


> You haven't read what I wrote cheeky, it doesn't matter what they can or can't distinguish. Both have a gloss rating and it gives a direct correlation between the two finishes you speak of due to this so in a way... yes it can distinguish between the two finishes based on gu. I'm only talking hypothetically but I would imagine the warm, 'carnuaba' glow is a low gu and the crisp, reflective 'sealant' finish is a high gu.
> 
> Your right though, there is no right or wrong and everyone is looking for something different in their results. I'm not saying either is definitely better than the other, only that I personally prefer the look of paint when it has been freshly polished prior to LSP application. The more gloss the better as far as I am concerned but I appreciate you think differently.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


I would of though if they both have a gloss rating a machine would tell the difference, although the rating is more your opinion than fact i feel. there are as i stated some that are both a warm wet finish and high gloss, so where would they fit in to the rating.
imo there is room for both looks and again imo the sealant look does suit some lighter colour cars better, but as stated thats my opinion. the most important part is the individual gets the finish they desire.


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

cheekymonkey said:


> I would of though if they both have a gloss rating a machine would tell the difference, although the rating is more your opinion than fact i feel. there are as i stated some that are both a warm wet finish and high gloss, so where would they fit in to the rating.
> 
> imo there is room for both looks and again imo the sealant look does suit some lighter colour cars better, but as stated thats my opinion. the most important part is the individual gets the finish they desire.


It is telling us the difference though cheeky by giving a different gloss rating for each. What you would call the 'glow' of a wax or 'crisp finish' of a sealant will be represented by the gu measurement and it is then up to us how we interpret that information. However the machine won't flash up a message on it's screen telling us this is a 'warm, carnauba glow' due to the fact these two finishes are simply names we have made up to identify what a high gloss and a low gloss finish is (possibly!).

Well no, the gloss rating is fact, it's science. What's up for dispute is what each of these finishes would achieve on the gu scale. I really don't know this one, I am only making an educated guess. That said if I remember correctly from jons reviews, the wax in the mega test that retained the most gloss after polishing was the wolfgang pinnacle sovereign (or something along those lines) which had the highest carnauba % of any wax in the test. I could be entirely wrong and the warm glow we sometimes see could represent the higher gu rating. What isn't up for dispute though is the fact that the paint had a higher gloss rating prior to any LSP in the test. That result was always the same across a huge amount of waxes/sealants/coatings... that isn't coincidence. They all reduced the paintworks optical clarity.

It's all ifs and buts though cheeky, I'm only deciphering the test results as I see them but nothing to confirm I am right. I could be way off with my suggestions. You are 100% right with your last statement though, it is completely irrelevant so long as the owner/customer of the car is happy with the final outcome. As an engineer though I love overthinking things and really getting into the reasoning behind these results, it's likely what attracted me to this whole detailing scene. That and a love for cars of course! 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Brian1612 said:


> It is telling us the difference though cheeky by giving a different gloss rating for each. What you would call the 'glow' of a wax or 'crisp finish' of a sealant will be represented by the gu measurement and it is then up to us how we interpret that information. However the machine won't flash up a message on it's screen telling us this is a 'warm, carnauba glow' due to the fact these two finishes are simply names we have made up to identify what a high gloss and a low gloss finish is (possibly!).
> 
> Well no, the gloss rating is fact, it's science. What's up for dispute is what each of these finishes would achieve on the gu scale. I really don't know this one, I am only making an educated guess. That said if I remember correctly from jons reviews, the wax in the mega test that retained the most gloss after polishing was the wolfgang pinnacle sovereign (or something along those lines) which had the highest carnauba % of any wax in the test. I could be entirely wrong and the warm glow we sometimes see could represent the higher gu rating. What isn't up for dispute though is the fact that the paint had a higher gloss rating prior to any LSP in the test. That result was always the same across a huge amount of waxes/sealants/coatings... that isn't coincidence. They all reduced the paintworks optical clarity.
> 
> ...


that is my point at the end of the day those results from the gloss meter are pointless, the pinnacle wax probably had a higher rating than some synthetics, meaning its not just down to if its synthetic or wax. But what makes the results pointless is the fact that neather you,i or anyone else on here would polish there car then not put an lsp on it. Yes its interesting to know such a point but its pointless as we have to put an lsp on and thats a fact


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

cheekymonkey said:


> that is my point at the end of the day those results from the gloss meter are pointless, the pinnacle wax probably had a higher rating than some synthetics, meaning its not just down to if its synthetic or wax. But what makes the results pointless is the fact that neather you,i or anyone else on here would polish there car then not put an lsp on it. Yes its interesting to know such a point but its pointless as we have to put an lsp on and thats a fact


100% agree mate and those results in themselves throw a spanner in the mix with the old suggestion of synthetic for light colours and wax for dark colours. Nothing is ever that straight forward in this industry.

I wouldn't say pointless mate. Out of all those products Jon tested it showed that whatever chemistry is going on with the pinnacle wax it allows it to have the least impact on the results from polishing stage. On the other side of the spectrum it then showed products like FK1000p and Fusso impact gloss negatively by a larger margin. As ridiculous as it sounds we need more LSPs to have less of an impact on the finish 

Who knows, in the future we might get to the point we are applying coating grade products like QDs that have absolutely no negative impact on the gloss achieved in the polishing stage. It is an industry that is constantly advancing, the next big thing from what I am told is something called Graphene (I think!). Be curious to see what this offers over typical ceramics!

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

Brian1612 said:


> 100% agree mate and those results in themselves throw a spanner in the mix with the old suggestion of synthetic for light colours and wax for dark colours. Nothing is ever that straight forward in this industry.
> 
> I wouldn't say pointless mate. Out of all those products Jon tested it showed that whatever chemistry is going on with the pinnacle wax it allows it to have the least impact on the results from polishing stage. On the other side of the spectrum it then showed products like FK1000p and Fusso impact gloss negatively by a larger margin. As ridiculous as it sounds we need more LSPs to have less of an impact on the finish
> 
> ...


Another plus is this has probably answered the op's question. Its pinnacle sovereign that he needs :thumb:


----------



## minotaur uk (Dec 13, 2018)

Brian1612 said:


> 100% agree mate and those results in themselves throw a spanner in the mix with the old suggestion of synthetic for light colours and wax for dark colours. Nothing is ever that straight forward in this industry.
> 
> I wouldn't say pointless mate. Out of all those products Jon tested it showed that whatever chemistry is going on with the pinnacle wax it allows it to have the least impact on the results from polishing stage. On the other side of the spectrum it then showed products like FK1000p and Fusso impact gloss negatively by a larger margin. As ridiculous as it sounds we need more LSPs to have less of an impact on the finish
> 
> ...


A company called ceramitch has already got a graphene based coating on the market...but its for pro use only. I noticed a detailed is already offering it on his service offerings.......interesting.


----------



## pt1 (Feb 8, 2014)

Just buy a few sample pots of recommended waxes,see which you think looks best and which is the most enjoyable to use. That's what I did  my current fav 'glossy' waxes are=
Obsession wax,phantom + devine
R222
Wax planet Armageddon
Odk glamour
Zymol glasur
You can then top with wax planet poly gloss after washes to keep that, just waxed look

Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

pt1 said:


> Just buy a few sample pots of recommended waxes,see which you think looks best and which is the most enjoyable to use. That's what I did  my current fav 'glossy' waxes are=
> Obsession wax,phantom + devine
> R222
> Wax planet Armageddon
> ...


Thanks. I have R222 and Glamour and just bought Obsession Wax Luminous as well. I also just bought AF Illusion and Pinnacle Signature Series 2.

If I remember, I'll report back after using them all. (Might be a while though.)

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## sm81 (May 14, 2011)

Are those glossier than Beadmaker?


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

No idea, but I've just received a gallon of Beadmaker, so that's another thing I can try!

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

Apologies - I'm late to this party! 

I understand what Brian is saying - my car looked spotlessly clean after polishing, and currently has NO lsp on it as my wax has depleted but the car still looks clean and shiny to the average Joe.

I actually use my chosen lsp for looks and durability. Lsp does add an attractive look, depending on of course whether you prefer a wax or a sealant. 

Sealants are too macho for me (cold, sterile, highly reflective AND artificial looking to my eye). 

Give me the female option- carnauba (warm, glossy, wet, 3 dimensional, classy as opposed to glassy )

I favour 3 layers of wax if I have the time, but to be honest the 3rd layer doesnt seem to add anything on my silver car - I try to do 3 because I read somewhere that contestants in concours event historically apply 3 coats. 

It's possible that the old hard paste waxes gave a little something on a third coat which may no longer be required with modern waxes, but if it's good enough for Prix De Concours winners.... And I'm probably set in my ways, but then again I don't worry if I can only get two coats applied. Ramble over.


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

Another question is; does applying multiple layers of a show wax cause it to last longer?

I.E. if I apply my show wax to bare paint and it's designed to last 1 week, will applying 3 layers extend that?

You'd think so, but I don't know...

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

Just to throw in another consideration - the few tests I've seen testing the efficacy of multiple layers of wax have been conducted by applying the multiple layers of wax over a short period of time. What if two coats were allowed to not just cure but fully harden over say one month before applying another two coats?


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

MBRuss said:


> Another question is; does applying multiple layers of a show wax cause it to last longer?
> 
> I.E. if I apply my show wax to bare paint and it's designed to last 1 week, will applying 3 layers extend that?
> 
> ...


Absolutely not I'm afraid


----------



## pt1 (Feb 8, 2014)

Just used wax planet speed mousse..very impressive









Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## greymda (Feb 16, 2014)

nice!

what about durability? or looks it's selling point?


----------



## MAXI-MILAN (Oct 26, 2008)

Glossiest , wettest ok ! LSP alone can’t give you the glossiest wettest look , 
All in combination between Polish , glaze and LSP , for example if you use Clearkote RMG with P21s Concours the result will be bad you can’t see the true reflections of P21s Concours , first restore the clarity and glassy look by polishing and coat of sealant and then you can apply good wax to add wet look , I like Menz Power lock + Swissvax BoS finish . 
If I remove this concepts from my head “wettest or glossiest” then 2coats of Menzerna Power Lock is enough to bring noticeable difference.


----------



## MAXI-MILAN (Oct 26, 2008)

My fav wax for wet look finish 

Bouncers CTR 
Victoria Concours wax
Swissvax BoS


----------



## greymda (Feb 16, 2014)

i am a big fan of Duragloss 111, but i am limited in my experience with waxes/sealants.


----------



## A.B (Feb 8, 2010)

MAXI-MILAN said:


> Glossiest , wettest ok ! LSP alone can't give you the glossiest wettest look ,
> All in combination between Polish , glaze and LSP , for example if you use Clearkote RMG with P21s Concours the result will be bad you can't see the true reflections of P21s Concours , first restore the clarity and glassy look by polishing and coat of sealant and then you can apply good wax to add wet look , I like Menz Power lock + Swissvax BoS finish .
> If I remove this concepts from my head "wettest or glossiest" then 2coats of Menzerna Power Lock is enough to bring noticeable difference.


I have a product that is glossier than all of those products.

Pinnacle Souveran


----------



## Boothy (Aug 19, 2010)

One of the glossiest products I've ever used is Autobead Sio2 Sealant. But it's water behaviour is non existant. Looks wise though, BOOM! Lusso Oro is another fabulous looking LSP but like many show waxes it doesn't last. 

Sent from my LG-H930 using Tapatalk


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

MAXI-MILAN said:


> Glossiest , wettest ok ! LSP alone can't give you the glossiest wettest look ,
> 
> All in combination between Polish , glaze and LSP , for example if you use Clearkote RMG with P21s Concours the result will be bad you can't see the true reflections of P21s Concours , first restore the clarity and glassy look by polishing and coat of sealant and then you can apply good wax to add wet look , I like Menz Power lock + Swissvax BoS finish .
> 
> If I remove this concepts from my head "wettest or glossiest" then 2coats of Menzerna Power Lock is enough to bring noticeable difference.


As per one of my earlier posts - I know prep is needed first. Why everyone's assumption is that the car hasn't been prepped, I don't know. Despite that knowledge, the car won't be fully polished and prepped, because I won't be expending that sort of time and energy on a car that's going back in a few months.

I am, however, quite prepared to pop a coat of wax on and in my experience, a show wax can give a nice glossy wet look even without polishing. The oils tend to fill light marring and make the paint look wet.

The next car I get will likely get a full polish, and again I'd like to then coat it in something that will give it a visual pop, like a show wax.

I've got a few options in now, so will report back with my favourite once I've had time to try them all. I suspect they will all look better on the wife's "deep impact blue" car than mine anyway, but I don't get to wash hers all that often.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## MAXI-MILAN (Oct 26, 2008)

A.B said:


> I have a product that is glossier than all of those products.
> 
> Pinnacle Souveran


 Souveran :thumb:my first wax before 10+ years ago , it gives very warm wet finish.


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

MAXI-MILAN said:


> Souveran :thumb:my first wax before 10+ years ago , it gives very warm wet finish.


I have an unused pot of Souveran that I'm dying to try out. It's not a cheap wax though, so I'm reluctant to "waste" it on my current brown 3 series company car!

I also have some Pinnacle Signature Series 2, which is supposed to be quite similar to Souveran, albeit much cheaper, so maybe I'll use a bit of that instead.

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## MAXI-MILAN (Oct 26, 2008)

MBRuss said:


> As per one of my earlier posts - I know prep is needed first. Why everyone's assumption is that the car hasn't been prepped, I don't know. Despite that knowledge, the car won't be fully polished and prepped, because I won't be expending that sort of time and energy on a car that's going back in a few months.
> 
> I am, however, quite prepared to pop a coat of wax on and in my experience, a show wax can give a nice glossy wet look even without polishing. The oils tend to fill light marring and make the paint look wet.
> 
> ...


Yes , even without prep just after clay you can add extra shine but for glossiest and wettest look this is different . I have tried last week many LSP on black lexus rx Menz Power Lock x3 , DJ Purple haze , Zymol Glasur , SNH , SN , SN Acrylic Spritz snd SW Autobahn , best 2 is Menzerna Power Lock surpass all lsp by reflectivity and DJ Purlple haze gives best depth and clarity .


----------



## MBRuss (Apr 29, 2011)

Really? Purple Haze better than Glasur?

I have Power Lock, so can certainly apply that first. You reckon it's worth applying Power Lock before a show wax?

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


----------



## MAXI-MILAN (Oct 26, 2008)

MBRuss said:


> Really? Purple Haze better than Glasur?
> 
> I have Power Lock, so can certainly apply that first. You reckon it's worth applying Power Lock before a show wax?
> 
> Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk


Without prep , yes Purple haze gives better gloss than Glasur on black 
Glasur gives better sheeting and last longer However , As Zymol say most of gloss comes from HD-Cleanse and Protection from Z waxes .

Try Menzerna Power lock 2 coats and curing time between coats is 3 hours only and see the result:thumb: Wait 12-24 hours before applying wax .


----------

