# Gloss Test No1 - LSP only



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

*** I will caveat this test and its findings with this boring statement:

I am not a professional detailer, nor do I have anything to do with any company that makes products, sells them or have any ties to anything detailing related.

These are my own findings, using my products and equipment, and obviously not to be taken as gospel or the new "standard", other people using different products, equipment and situations may get different results.

I am sharing this only to show people what I've been doing, and will not reveal what products were used, it's not a witch hunt, nor am I a fan boi ***

I decided to try and get some answers about the age old question of does a LSP add anything to paint…

With my newly purchased gloss meter, I can now measure the gloss levels of car paintwork, so this seemed like an ideal first test for it…

I hopefully am going to show a couple of things:

1)	Does adding an LSP add any gloss to un-prepped (polished or glazed) paintwork?
2)	Are there any differences in a cheap wax, "normal" wax, high price "boutique" wax and a sealant, and what one gets the best increase?
3)	Is there any point to adding more than 2 layers - I think this is the agreed minimum coverage just to ensure every bit has been covered…but does adding any more matter, or give a better gloss?

The car for the test is the current pool car in one of the companies I run, it's a silver 2011 VW Golf, and as you can see from the first picture, it has no protection left on the bonnet! :lol:



I gave it a quick wash, using a very simple shampoo, dried it off and split the bonnet up into 4 sections:



From there, I took beginning readings, 5 in each section and used the average of these for my base figures.

I then put down 1 layer of each product as per the user guidelines, and removed when ready ensuring that I used different applicators and cloths to remove.

Readings were taking again, and this process was repeated until I had the 4 coats..

My data charts are below.



For those that would prefer it in a graph format:



And if we just look at the maximum increase, we can clearly see what product gave the biggest gloss gain:



And just for some fun, I took a beading shot of each section…

Section 1 - the cheap wax



Section2 - the middle of the road, "normal" wax



Section 3 - the spray sealant



And finally section 4 - the expensive wax



So what, if anything does this all show me????

To answer my questions,

1)	Does adding an LSP add any gloss to un-prepped (polished or glazed) paintwork? - Yes it does… not much though!

2)	Are there any differences in a cheap wax, "normal" wax, high price "boutique" wax and a sealant, and what one gets the best increase? - Yes there are differences, and in this test, the highest increase in gloss level was the "normal" wax

3)	Is there any point to adding more than 2 layers - I think this is the agreed minimum coverage just to ensure every bit has been covered…but does adding any more matter, or give a better gloss? - In 2 of the cases more layers did add more gloss, the "normal" wax and the sealant. Interesting to note that the "normal" wax gained most of the increase with it's first coat, then added slightly with each layer.

Interesting to note that the cheap wax was actually worse in all stages than bare paint, and that the expensive wax seemed to be getting progressively worse with each layer!

So are all LSP's the same??? NO!

Is it all in the prep.... well you can get a small increase with just an LSP... but the 2nd test will hopefully show what can be done when you polish the paint first... aaaaaannnnnnnd, will these products then be able to gain even more gloss when on more refined paint??

:thumb:


----------



## alxg (May 3, 2009)

Good start Cuey; this is going to be a good test which _may_ throw up some little surprises I think.

Looking forward to the next bit :thumb:


----------



## Soul Hudson (Jul 5, 2011)

Interesting read fella. Many thanks for your time, effort and money. 

With you on all points to be honest. I'm into thinking a LSP does add something, as in it enhances what is all ready there. So the better the paint work at the start the better the finish.


----------



## willwander (Nov 30, 2012)

Great test, very well presented. If the next tests are as good as this I'm really looking forward to them.


----------



## CTR De (Feb 10, 2011)

now this is a thread i will follow , thanks cuey and well put in simple understandable terms :thumb:


----------



## mattsbmw (Jul 20, 2008)

very interesting findings.


----------



## Ashley6 (Oct 7, 2012)

Just wondering...

Cheap wax seems to be missed out the bar graph and you mention that the cheap wax is the worse. Yet in all the figures it seems to have performed the best...

Could you explain it a bit different so I can understand? 

Thanks


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

the cheap wax is the first section of the bar graph... it's not in the pie chart as it had a negative effect on the paint, so no percentage gain was shown.

you don't need to look at the starting values so much, it's the increase in gloss units, and percentages that are important 

hope that helps...

:thumb:


----------



## gregb (Feb 1, 2009)

The winner had a really low starting point so was always likely to win. I suspect whichever of the four had been applied to this "poor " section would have won.
I'm not critiscising your excellent efforts CB, just stating a glaring advantage that section possessed in terms of the test.


----------



## samion (Apr 12, 2011)

Brilliant work!!


----------



## Flakey (May 5, 2013)

Hmmm. I wonder how this will change if you add Bilt Hamber Auto Balm to the equation.


----------



## e_king (Oct 11, 2012)

Interesting. I´m curious to see the difference after polishing.


----------



## grahamstaines (Mar 29, 2013)

I know you don't want to give names of products away, and I understand that, however is there any chance you can give an idea of prices? A pot of ag hd wax may be cheap for some, but expensive for others!


----------



## Black Magic Detail (Aug 17, 2010)

nice test ,interesting results looking forward to part 2


----------



## Greboth (May 14, 2012)

gregb said:


> The winner had a really low starting point so was always likely to win. I suspect whichever of the four had been applied to this "poor " section would have won.
> I'm not critiscising your excellent efforts CB, just stating a glaring advantage that section possessed in terms of the test.


I agree with your point but as it isimpossible to have the exact same conditions in each test I think to declare a 'winner' is wrong. You may be right in that if they were applied to different sections one of the other lsp's would win but without knowing every variable we just don't know. I think the best way to read the reaults is for each test sections results should be taken individually with no comparrisons to the others (making the % increase comparrison irrelevant) and also to not take the results as given for each category. From the information posted the only definative conclusion that can be drawn is that on unprepped panels lsp's do add to the gloss.

What now will be will be interesting is whether glazes and machine polishing changes the results. Again though the results of those tests would have to be considered individually an irrespective of the other results in its 'category' and results of other categories.


----------



## spursfan (Aug 4, 2009)

Good test Cuey, just waiting for..."should have tried brand X etc as when I use it the car glows like mad"

Kev


----------



## Ns1980 (Jun 29, 2011)

Great test. I'd also be keen to hear the price points - or at least indications. :thumb:


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Interesting results, but one issue crops up in my head... the fact that the paints were not identical "gloss levels" at the start of the test would in my opinion render this an unfair test. You are changing more than one variable with your experiment here and have no way of separating the effects of the individual variable, ie the wax used. 

For example, who is to say that if I used the cheap wax on a section with an initial gloss reading in the 60s and the middle of the road wax on the section in the mid-80s that the results you have seen would not have been reversed?

I appreciate the time taken here, but I'm not convinced the results really show anything that would allow comparisons.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Greboth said:


> I agree with your point but as it isimpossible to have the exact same conditions in each test I think to declare a 'winner' is wrong. You may be right in that if they were applied to different sections one of the other lsp's would win but without knowing every variable we just don't know. I think the best way to read the reaults is for each test sections results should be taken individually with no comparrisons to the others (making the % increase comparrison irrelevant) and also to not take the results as given for each category. *From the information posted the only definative conclusion that can be drawn is that on unprepped panels lsp's do add to the gloss.
> *
> What now will be will be interesting is whether glazes and machine polishing changes the results. Again though the results of those tests would have to be considered individually an irrespective of the other results in its 'category' and results of other categories.


Of course they do, the filling and masking from the wax, oils etc will always smooth the paint over so to speak.. apart from the "negative reading" of the cheap wax though...


----------



## Callummarshall (Oct 19, 2012)

Interesting experiment with an interesting conclusion, what sort of meter is it you use? 

but I agree with a couple of the points. 

You need one set variable for the results to be accurately comparable everything else has to be exactly or as close to the same and take averages and what not.

The pricing is also very subjective to me a low end wax would be anything sub £40 for a regular sized tub mid range from £50-£100 and anything more than that would be premium. But to a different person this could be totally different eg someone using more high end waxes may deem anything sub £100 cheap and 1-300 midrange and so on.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

One thing that always strikes me is that the beading of top end wax always appears to be in higher definition. Clearly an illusion.

I don't ever buy high end products so I'll never have to worry but a very interesting thread nonetheless.


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

the prices were as follows:

cheap wax was under £10
'normal wax'was under £30
sealant was under £20
expensive wax was over £300

today, I'll be striping them all off and redoing them in each section.... so all sections will have data and gloss readings for every product...

Can the cheap wax bring up the low gloss section? we'll know soon. 

:thumb:


----------



## Callummarshall (Oct 19, 2012)

Sounds good! Can't wait too see the result!!


----------



## B0DSKI (Nov 25, 2011)

Great work. Well done mate


----------



## ted11 (Jul 8, 2011)

Cant wait to see the results.


----------



## -Raven- (Aug 26, 2010)

Kudos Cuey! Love your work mate! 

Interesting that the cheap wax dropped back a bit, I'd only expect drop back with _all_ waxes on your polished paint when you do it. :thumb:

It certainly looks like you're going to have some fun with that gloss meter!


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

After the results from yesterday, some people had thankfully came up with the same sort of questions I had… namely…. Has the starting values made more of a difference to the final ones…

So with this is mind, and in between the detail I was doing this weekend, I been trying to find out! :lol:

My procedure for today was:

Wash the bonnet at the start and in-between new LSPs with G101 and a good strong mix of fairy liquid… I didn't want to decon the paint, or polish it at this time… so kept going with this combo until I was happy I had bare paint again… thankfully, since the clear coat hadn't been played around with, I could get back to my original "base" readings… 

From there, the whole bonnet was covered in each of the LSPs and given 2 coats (sorry I didn't have time for 4 today!)

Again, and hopefully this shows I'm consistent, or at least consistently wrong, the 2nd cost figures from yesterday were almost spot on for today… so I've used them as another "base" point.

What we have now is the data table showing each section, and each of the average readings for the LSPs..

I've also added in a bit to show quickly what the gain/loss in gloss level for each LSP was, and the average over the 4 sections for each LSP at the bottom…



If we change this to a chart, it gives a clearer view of what LSP worked on what section…



Section 1 - this had the highest starting rating, yet all the LSPs failed to improve on it…

Section 2 - this had the lowest starting rating, all LSPs managed a gain, and with exception of the cheap wax, a pretty good jump…

Section 3 - The cheap wax seemed to like this section.. yet the sealant and expensive wax made it less glossy…

Section 4 - All LSPs managed to improve the gloss levels here, and again the cheaper one managed more of a rating than the sealant and the expensive wax.

If we turn back to look at the average increase over the 4 sections, the cheap wax does come last, with the sealant and expensive wax showing round about the same average increase and the middle of the road wax showing the highest average increase over the 4 sections…

:thumb:


----------



## Audriulis (Dec 17, 2009)

It looks like mid of the road wax did it again


----------



## Jaff (Aug 20, 2010)

Can you not give us the rough prices of the waxes just as a reference to what you consider cheap or expensive?


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

Jaff said:


> Can you not give us the rough prices of the waxes just as a reference to what you consider cheap or expensive?


post number 22


----------



## alan1971 (Apr 11, 2013)

i dont know why you just dont name the products.


----------



## Jaff (Aug 20, 2010)

Lol fail!


----------



## great gonzo (Nov 4, 2010)

Going back to the beading pics, the expensive wax looks very different to the other waxes which is interesting.


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

If it was me doing the test i'd name em,although they'd only come out with 101 reasons why the test conditions weren't satisfactory


----------



## willwander (Nov 30, 2012)

DJ X-Ray said:


> If it was me doing the test i'd name em,although they'd only come out with 101 reasons why the test conditions weren't satisfactory


I'm sure it would be because 'your not using it right'.

Interesting test, I know it's not 'same same' for everything but you've had a pretty good stab at it and the results look fairly consistent. Well done mate.


----------



## Ashley6 (Oct 7, 2012)

The Cueball said:


> After the results from yesterday, some people had thankfully came up with the same sort of questions I had… namely…. Has the starting values made more of a difference to the final ones…
> 
> So with this is mind, and in between the detail I was doing this weekend, I been trying to find out! :lol:
> 
> ...


This cleared up my earlier confusion. Thanks mate :thumb:

Interesting results, I know what wax i'll be going for :thumb:


----------



## big-saxo-guy (Mar 4, 2013)

I think this has shown a very good point that there is no real need to fork out hundreds of pounds on LSP and middle of the road items are just as good, thankfully i seen this or i would be saving up for more expensive waxes. Many thanks for that


----------



## adjones (Apr 24, 2013)

big-saxo-guy said:


> I think this has shown a very good point that there is no real need to fork out hundreds of pounds on LSP and middle of the road items are just as good, thankfully i seen this or i would be saving up for more expensive waxes. Many thanks for that


In fairness, I think most people know this. I think most people who buy expensive wax do so for bragging rights, like women and jewellery, it is a collector's thing more than a real detailing thing.


----------



## Soul Hudson (Jul 5, 2011)

Bear in mind there are more expensive waxes out there and more middle of the road as well. Reasons are not all about bragging rights etc some of us have far too much money.


----------



## lowejackson (Feb 23, 2006)

Thank you for taking the time to do all of this work

With a gloss meter, what would a noticeable or visually noticeable difference be on the scale i.e. is 2 extra points huge or imperceptible


----------



## Obsessed Merc (Apr 10, 2011)

Nice test, well overdue on here (with our collective OCD).

Apologies if you have stated already (I had a quick man look at the thread...) but what make/model of gloss meter did you use out of interest ?


----------



## id_doug (Apr 6, 2011)

Very interesting and thanks for taking the time to post. For me, I take on board some of the points raised above but for me I guess it's trying to put a little data behind something so subjective. I guess it's never going to be a perfect test as its in the real world and not a science lab. Despite the issues raised I still think it is a great starting point. I guess the real interesting results will be after the polishing stage to see how that effects the results.

:thumb:


----------



## id_doug (Apr 6, 2011)

lowejackson said:


> Thank you for taking the time to do all of this work
> 
> With a gloss meter, what would a noticeable or visually noticeable difference be on the scale i.e. is 2 extra points huge or imperceptible


Good question. Is it a case if measuring something that say only a gloss meter can pick up or can you see the difference and what level do you have to be at before you do see a difference with the naked eye.


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

Thanks for the comments all…

Just to explain a little more about the products, and why I won't and can't mention them:

I can't tell you what they were, as I don't know… I set the test up by letting a friend (non detailing related) pick from the selection of items I had grouped together….

There were at least 8 products in each group for them to pick from.

I gave them the same containers to put them in (the sealant was a dark bottle), so I couldn't see what they were…the test had to be free from all previous thoughts and experiences regarding products.

For the gloss meter used, it was a ETB-0833.

Now, anyone that has looked into buying a gloss meter will know the prices of some of these… so I would say that this machine was the "paint detective" of the gloss meter world…. It doesn't run into thousands of pounds, but it can do the job…

The machine was calibrated at each stage and each change in section.

:thumb:



big-saxo-guy said:


> I think this has shown a very good point that there is no real need to fork out hundreds of pounds on LSP and middle of the road items are just as good, thankfully i seen this or i would be saving up for more expensive waxes. Many thanks for that





adjones said:


> In fairness, I think most people know this. I think most people who buy expensive wax do so for bragging rights, like women and jewellery, it is a collector's thing more than a real detailing thing.


With respect, I think that isn't true, accurate or fair.

This is a perception I can't get my head around, especially on a detailing forum, we at some stage or another buy products that are more expensive than the cheapest, that could be food, drink, cars, wax - I genuinely don't get why people on here are so hung up about the costs of LSP… ????

There are other very tangible things to measure, and to get enjoyment out of using a more expensive item that a cheaper one (or vice versa)... and I would hate anyone to make judgements based on a quick test, on an unprepared car panel....

It gives us a measured response to a specific question, it doesn't answer all questions about LSP and the benefit (if any) of using a more expensive product in your hobby, or work.

:thumb:



lowejackson said:


> Thank you for taking the time to do all of this work
> 
> With a gloss meter, what would a noticeable or visually noticeable difference be on the scale i.e. is 2 extra points huge or imperceptible


This is where is was getting really annoying for me… and maybe were the brain gets more involved… and possible how people always go on about getting gloss, or shine, or wet, sharp etc etc looks after putting their LSP on….

During the test, I would put a product on… and after buffing it off, I would say… hmmm that looks really good…. And the meter would say there is no change…. :lol: :wall:

Then there was times, I would be like… yeah that's OK… and the meter would show a gain…. 

Now, in line with the test, I've got to go with the meter readings…. So… my question is… does our brain (and eyes) trick us into thinking it looks a certain way.. BECAUSE we know we have done something… so it must be better…. Right!??! :lol:

I've spent time and money applying this LSP… so my car must have a difference… it must be better…. 

:thumb:


----------



## lowejackson (Feb 23, 2006)

The Cueball said:


> .....This is where is was getting really annoying for me… and maybe were the brain gets more involved… and possible how people always go on about getting gloss, or shine, or wet, sharp etc etc looks after putting their LSP on….
> 
> During the test, I would put a product on… and after buffing it off, I would say… hmmm that looks really good…. And the meter would say there is no change…. :lol: :wall:
> 
> ...


I guess it is possible the brain is fooling us but it could just as easily be the gloss meter is measuring only one factor. I also wonder if we as humans quite like the minor visual distortion created by adding a layer of wax on top of paint.

I would be interested to know if the readings increase/decrease after a day or so. This is not long enough to let dirt or durability skew things but would allow a full cure of the products

Maybe what we need is a gloss meter boffin


----------



## -Raven- (Aug 26, 2010)

The Cueball said:


> This is where is was getting really annoying for me… and maybe were the brain gets more involved… and possible how people always go on about getting gloss, or shine, or wet, sharp etc etc looks after putting their LSP on….
> 
> During the test, I would put a product on… and after buffing it off, I would say… hmmm that looks really good…. And the meter would say there is no change…. :lol: :wall:
> 
> ...


just remember a gloss meter measures reflection, not looks...


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

lowejackson said:


> I would be interested to know if the readings increase/decrease after a day or so. This is not long enough to let dirt or durability skew things but would allow a full cure of the products
> 
> Maybe what we need is a gloss meter boffin


What, I'm not "boffin" enough for you!?!? :doublesho:doublesho:doublesho

:lol::lol::lol: 

^ that was a joke btw...

I'll be looking at the above on a longer term basis on my car... I think I'll take a reading every week, after it's wash to see if the readings "fall" in line with what we think is happening to the LSP... 

:thumb:



-Raven- said:


> just remember a gloss meter measures reflection, not looks...


Then people need to stop saying my sooper dooper new LSP is mega glossy...  :lol:

But yes, I agree.... we could be interpreting a different look, not necessarily more gloss (even if that's what we *think* we all covet), and we may like that as well/just as much/better...

:thumb:


----------



## -Raven- (Aug 26, 2010)

The Cueball said:


> Then people need to stop saying my sooper dooper new LSP is mega glossy...  :lol:
> 
> But yes, I agree.... we could be interpreting a different look, not necessarily more gloss (even if that's what we *think* we all covet), and we may like that as well/just as much/better...
> 
> :thumb:


For sure! Maybe a standard set of definitions for different 'looks' would help! 

Very interested in your next test Cuey! Very entertaining mate! :thumb:


----------



## adjones (Apr 24, 2013)

My reading indicates there are a number of potential different measurements one could take. Also, the angle of measurement is important. More important again is the other parameters which are linked - haze is a very significant one. Two surfaces can both give similar gloss measurements but with very different haze. Higher haze will look much less impressive. Don't also forget that the gloss meter may be a lot less sensitive to scattering but, with your eye and a distance, variations in the reflected angle will obviously be of great importance.


----------



## id_doug (Apr 6, 2011)

To pick up a little on what has been mentioned above. There is a whole field of scientific research on change blindness. A lot revolves around what the brain does or does not perceive or expect to see. I have seen couple of examples where a test is run with a completely ridiculous event happening in the middle and you wont see it as you wouldn't expect to see it. Likewise, there is tests that show you where you expect a change and it does not occur but you still think it has because you mind has already expected the change to happen. Its very clever and quite freaky stuff.

Maybe as pointed out above you think your car looks better because you know you have done something so are expecting it to look better. Food for thought maybe....


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

id_doug said:


> To pick up a little on what has been mentioned above. There is a whole field of scientific research on change blindness. A lot revolves around what the brain does or does not perceive or expect to see. I have seen couple of examples where a test is run with a completely ridiculous event happening in the middle and you wont see it as you wouldn't expect to see it. Likewise, there is tests that show you where you expect a change and it does not occur but you still think it has because you mind has already expected the change to happen. Its very clever and quite freaky stuff.
> 
> Maybe as pointed out above you think your car looks better because you know you have done something so are expecting it to look better. Food for thought maybe....


Totally agree wth this actually... and do you know what, as long as people are happy, they are not hurting anyone, or getting into a load of debt just for expensive products.... good for them! 

I have a load of expensive waxes, I enjoy using them... end of.

I don't care what I can, or cannot prove, I just needed to know! :lol:

:thumb:


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

From my point of view the polishing stage is where high gloss readings will show.The flatter,and less imperfections there are the glossier it'll be.


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

Gloss is an optical property describing the ability of a surface to REFLECT light into the specular direction.The factors that affect gloss are the REFRACTIVE index of the material,the ANGLE of incident light and the SURFACE topography.Gloss is one of the factors that describe the visual appearance of an object.Materials with smooth surfaces appear glossy.The appearance of gloss depends on a number of parameters which include the illumination ANGLE,surface condition and OBSERVER charactheristics.


----------



## spursfan (Aug 4, 2009)

I reckon you are right Cuey, it's a known fact in the medical world that when blind testing with Placebo's, the patients taking them sometime report how well the drug is working, when in fact they are taking the placebo pills, same thing with a wax, people perceive them to look brilliant when in fact there is probably no difference at all.
Good test Cuey:thumb:

Kev


----------



## adjones (Apr 24, 2013)

DJ X-Ray said:


> Gloss is an optical property describing the ability of a surface to REFLECT light into the specular direction.The factors that affect gloss are the REFRACTIVE index of the material,the ANGLE of incident light and the SURFACE topography.Gloss is one of the factors that describe the visual appearance of an object.Materials with smooth surfaces appear glossy.The appearance of gloss depends on a number of parameters which include the illumination ANGLE,surface condition and OBSERVER charactheristics.


Much as I said before, however a surface need not be smooth to be (as per the technical meaning of the term) 'glossy'. As before, 'haze' is the parameter most commonly quoted in combination with gloss - it looks to be somewhat essential to give a meaningful comparison with what the eye sees.


----------



## Mr Face (Jan 22, 2009)

Cuey, awesome review, very interesting indeed. I wonder how if at all those figures would be effected by time and weathering :devil: 

Now you have the tools to prove it  :thumb:


----------



## Guest (May 15, 2013)

The Cueball said:


>


Interesting results. I'm still not sure how to interpret them yet. I don't think that will become clear until further results with decontaminated, cleaned and polished surfaces are in.


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

Well that graph shows a few things really...

On each of the sections, it gives the start reading of the gloss...

then a reading when each of the LSP's have been applied...

So, sometimes, a LSP does make a difference, and sometimes it makes the gloss worse.

The cheap wax is pretty rubbish, and the expensive wax doesn't really do anything better at this stage for "it's extra money" so to speak...

So when people ask about a wax, and get the reply "it's all in the prep" this may not be the case...

It may also be the case that the middle of the road wax has some oil, or other thing that masks the swirls more, creating a smoother surface, and more gloss...

It may be that a polished panel will have different results...

It shows quite a bit, and answers a few questions, and raises a few more! :lol:

:thumb:


----------



## Posambique (Oct 20, 2010)

Cueball has made a great test.
It is interesting, but I think there are (as Cueball already said) people who are trying to misinterpret the results. This does not mean, that medium price waxes are better than more expensive ones or vice versa.

Thank you!

P.S. Most of the very cheap waxes (sold in supermarkets) contain some fillers/polishes and make an unprepped surface look better, but I would never use them on a perfect surface (micro marring etc.). I would call them AIO-products and not waxes.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

Great idea/work and definitely a good idea to keep the brand names out of the test.

One thing strikes me, you take 5 measurements and use the average, but within some groups of 5 readings there are spreads up to 25 points. When a lot of your results show variations within 5 units of each other and/or change from the bare readings I would consider the results to be statistical variation rather than an indication of actual changes in glossiness.


----------

