# Wax differences



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

I'm not looking to create a war here, I'm asking a genuine question because I can't seem to find a response that is based around fact rather than opinion.

Let me start with my story. I corrected the paint on my red metallic car last week (or so). I'd say the paint was in very good condition and it was 90% defect free. As a LSP I used Collinite 845 and was very pleased with the results. A few days later I read and replied to a post concerning the best wax for a red car which has left me thinking.

I've tried various different waxes in the past: Victoria Concours, various Dodo's, AG HD, all 3 collinites, Poorboys red and blue, along with a few megs. For a long time I felt I could tell a difference between them but then started to wonder if that was influenced by what I had _read _about them more than anything. So I tested them (on a previous car) which had defect free paint. One half of the bonnet got Vics Concours, the other half a Dodo, then one wing got a colli, the other got something else, I forget which. The conclusion I came to was quite clear to me - I couldn't see much of a difference. They felt the same too. I tried to convince myself that the Vics looked deeper in colour or that the dodo made the paint 'pop', because that's what everyone said, but I don't really think it did! Longevity and water behaviour turned out to be the only thing I felt set them apart. When I started the test, I thought it would be clear - there's so much talk from (the majority?) of members here. I'm a novice enthusiast and don't claim to be anything else, but I'd say that in a blind test the vast majority would find the same thing.

So that's the point of my post. Again, not trying to start a war, I just want to know if there is hard, undeniable evidence other than 'so and so looks wetter' or 'so and so gives a deeper shine'. Something along the lines of a blind test where people have been successful in identifying one wax over another and if so, would someone kindly linky because I want to believe there is a difference. I've been eyeing up some different waxes wondering if I should try, I'm just finding it hard to justify as I don't see a huge difference!


----------



## LeeH (Jan 29, 2006)

You're wasting your money if you are looking for 'better' waxes. Buy different ones if you enjoy this hobby, don't keep spending looking for something that is night and day difference from a decent established wax. 

I'll challenge anybody to tell the difference between say 476s and a premium 100 pound wax on corrected surface in a controlled repeated test. 

Me personally I just use the car pro type sealents now, I just love the car pro reload and hydro/foam etc way of protection and water behaviour. I've just washed the van and sealant in the rain today....

It's quick simple and gives me no urge to buy expensive waxes. 

Just my 10p....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## FallenAngel (Oct 24, 2015)

Same as above, just different brand , Gyeon sealents for me. In the winter I just slap the cheapest , longest lasting one on my car (fusso coat for me after a lot of trial and error) and maintain with Wet Coat and Cure.


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

In my limited experience, i would agree that its the preparation that makes by far the greatest difference to the visual finish on car paint. As a guess-timate, somewhere around 90% of the final look can come from the cleaning and polishing before the wax.

Beyond that i believe the visual difference between waxs is quite small, but i can appreciate that you can have better looking but less durable show waxs and also more durable everyday waxs.

There is definitely a difference in looks between synthetic sealants and carnuaba waxs, and i think you can spot semi-synthetic products too.

Even though its not for me, i do appreciate from following DW that many enthusiasts get a tactile pleasure from waxing the car and things like colour and scent are important in this.

In simple terms though, i think a wax costing £20 will give you most of what you will ever get looks wise, but it depends whether that is enough for you.


----------



## OvEr_KiLL (Mar 2, 2015)

waxes deppend on what the users wants, color, smell, durability, brand name etc.
prep does play a key part but i do reckon that different waxes give a different finish at the end.
for example race glaze 55 seemed to mute the flake slightly and af spirit enhanced it but didnt have the depth that the 55 had, a show wax for eg might give insane gloss and flake but wont last very long.


----------



## Soapybubbles (Feb 10, 2014)

Totally agree with OP

Only differences I can tell from waxes are durability. 

It's all in the prep


----------



## Blueberry (Aug 10, 2007)

I believe they give different "looks". Sometimes after you've prepped a car, polished it and waxed it and popped it in the garage, a few days later you go to the garage to get the car out and it stops you in your tracks. Sometimes the looks ARE different. More depth, more clarity, whatever it is.


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

I'm not disputing what you think at all, but my point is kind of just this. Maybe there's no difference between waxes, we just believe there is a difference in what we see simply because it's 'supposed' to.

As I mentioned in my original post, I'd like to be proven wrong and look forward to seeing some kind of blind test results, I just don't see it myself. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ads_ClioV6 (Apr 27, 2014)

Maybe some of the wax manufacturers can add too this thread.Would be nice as this question is coming up all the time


----------



## cargainz (Jul 25, 2016)

Perhaps then there is more to waxes than "looks" then OP? You have said you have assessed various waxes by their looks and not found major differences but what about factors such as :-

* ease of use (Simoniz Original costs only £3 when discounted at Tesco but can be very difficult to apply).
* durability (you have mentioned all the 3 Collinites but the easiest to apply does not last as long as the hardst to apply)
* content (a wax made from higher quality ingredients e.g. Montan, T1 Brazilian Carnauba, natural oils)
* packaging (look at the containers and packaging of many high end waxes)
* production (if you make a batch of say 200 tubs via machine vs a smaller batch by hand)
* ingredients, smell, colouring etc Some waxes smell like solvent while others are coloured and perfumed.

Its like cars take Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Audi etc they are all "cars" and probably made by same industrial giant or sources but the end product is different.


----------



## dave-g (Nov 14, 2009)

This questions pops up every month.

I personally can see visible difference with the waxes I choose to use, I rarely read about them so I can say it's not me believing it from what's said.

But then, that's me, I can see differences, doesn't mean someone else will! I like the fact that even my partner can see it on various occasions too.

But then, wax collecting is also a hobby, doesn't matter the prices etc then, it's just what I do.


----------



## matty.13 (May 3, 2011)

I agree with the op . Most of us buy waxes or detailing products as a hobby . I've got loads of products I've only used once . For me I like trying different products .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

A lot of the fun for me is trying new techniques and new products to see what works well.

I have two perfectly good paste waxs (AG HD and G3 Supergloss) which would probably last me forever and i also have spray wax's, but i like to buy and try new products.


----------



## Bod42 (Jun 4, 2009)

I believe there are small differences between waxes but I dont think you can see them when you say coat a wing and a door, the look is across the entire car. I'm sure everyone has finished applying certain products, steps back and thought wow that looks so good and equally stepped back and thought it doesn't look as good


----------



## steelghost (Aug 20, 2015)

I'm reasonably sure I can tell the difference between different *types* of LSP - eg sealant and wax - when used on my own car, freshly applied onto clean and decontaminated paint, etc.

However when the vehicle is anything less than spotless, I'm not so confident! I've got maybe 10 LSPs all in all, they all have different attributes, but they're mostly to do with relative ease of application, water behaviour and durability.


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

I'm in total agreement with the OP. I think the cathing your eye thing a few days layer comes from knowing that you've applied that product, your memory and knowing you've done a good job. It would happen the same with pretty much any product over the top I think.

In a blind test, a truly scientific blind test, like was organised on here several years ago now, I also don't think people will be able to tell the difference until water became involved and durability became a factor. Swissvax Best of Show did 'win' that test and Collinite 915 was second, but the results were sufficiently varied to convince me that it doesn't matter what is put on well prepped cars, pick what protects best.


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

roscopervis said:


> I'm in total agreement with the OP. I think the cathing your eye thing a few days layer comes from knowing that you've applied that product, your memory and knowing you've done a good job. It would happen the same with pretty much any product over the top I think.
> 
> In a blind test, a truly scientific blind test, like was organised on here several years ago now, I also don't think people will be able to tell the difference until water became involved and durability became a factor. Swissvax Best of Show did 'win' that test and Collinite 915 was second, but the results were sufficiently varied to convince me that it doesn't matter what is put on well prepped cars, pick what protects best.


I haven't seen that test! Could you link to it?


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

This is, i think, a little bit like the world of audiophile hi-fi enthusiasts, who can hear astonishing differences in tone and clarity that others can't hear - usually just after they have spent a small fortune on an equipment upgrade ...:lol:

It doesn't really matter though - as long as people are enjoying different aspects of their chosen hobby, then its a free world and all that.


----------



## steelghost (Aug 20, 2015)

It's very true, no-one ever says their newly purchased £100 tub of wax is "just OK, not a lot different to the cheap stuff really" :lol:


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

GleemSpray said:


> This is, i think, a little bit like the world of audiophile hi-fi enthusiasts, who can hear astonishing differences in tone and clarity that others can't hear - usually just after they have spent a small fortune on an equipment upgrade ...:lol:
> 
> It doesn't really matter though - as long as people are enjoying different aspects of their chosen hobby, then its a free world and all that.


I agree, I'm not knocking people for buying expensive waxes. An old friend from Mexico once told me a proverb: 'everyone is free to do with their own a.. hole whatever they want!' If one gets enjoyment out of trying different waxes, that's cool. I just wasn't seeing the difference and wanted to see if there was a blind test anywhere...



steelghost said:


> It's very true, no-one ever says their newly purchased £100 tub of wax is "just OK, not a lot different to the cheap stuff really" :lol:


Nobody wants to admit an expensive purchase was 'meh'...


----------



## cargainz (Jul 25, 2016)

On one of the forensic detailing videos on YouTube they mentioned some equipment that costs thousands upon thousands that can measure gloss. None of us mere mortals have got a small fortune to spend measuring gloss so we just go by "sight".


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

it all started with masters of wine undergoing years of training to be paid lots of money to convince you a £100.00 bottle of wine looks/smells/tastes better than a bottle costing £4.99.....and everybody knows champagne tastes exactly the same as cava/prosecco


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Ah, I remember this age old discussion from years ago.. my thoughts on the matter were well publicised and written, but I amend my feelings to this: 

detailing for many is a relaxing and enjoyable hobby and you do it for you and nobody else. For many, having some nice waxes to be able to choose from is one of life's enjoyable luxuries and whether or not there are differences in a clinical scientific sense makes no odds whatsoever... if you feel you can see the differences, great, enjoy the collection of waxes and don't give a monkeys about what others think :thumb:


----------



## andyfish (Feb 4, 2006)

I know the square root of jack about this. I used Meguire's NXT Tech Wax before I got the detailing bug this year. Based on reviews I bought the Natty's Blue paste wax. 

I don't have the vocabulary to describe exactly what I see between the two but would say that the Megs gives the colour more depth than Nattys but is less clear than the Nattys. The Nattys makes the colour of mine and wifey's care 'sing' - i.e. added punch. 

Ideally I'd like a wax that gives the depth of the Megs with the sing of the Nattys and lasts 6 months of winter!!! Not a lot to ask...


----------



## andyfish (Feb 4, 2006)

Dave KG said:


> Ah, I remember this age old discussion from years ago.. my thoughts on the matter were well publicised and written, but I amend my feelings to this:
> 
> detailing for many is a relaxing and enjoyable hobby and you do it for you and nobody else. For many, having some nice waxes to be able to choose from is one of life's enjoyable luxuries and whether or not there are differences in a clinical scientific sense makes no odds whatsoever... if you feel you can see the differences, great, enjoy the collection of waxes and don't give a monkeys about what others think :thumb:


^^^That^^^


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

cargainz said:


> On one of the forensic detailing videos on YouTube they mentioned some equipment that costs thousands upon thousands that can measure gloss. None of us mere mortals have got a small fortune to spend measuring gloss so we just go by "sight".


Perceived Gloss and reflectivity will surely change with the ambient light.

My early career was spent working for Kodak as a technician and i can tell you that when you try to "measure" the amount of light reflected by any surface in daylight ( not in artificial light ), it will be influenced by not only the intensity of the sun, but by the colour temperature depending on the time of day, also by any polarising effect caused by the angle of the Sun.

The brightest light is not direct sunlight, it is when the skies are sunny, but lightly overcast, as the sunlight is reflected evenly off all surfaces - that's when you get the strongest shadows.

That's also - I would suggest - when car paint has that really, really glossy look - when even unloved cars can look quite sparkly.

Back on topic - the OP is asking ( i think ) if the difference in wax's is real and technically measurable and i don't think it actually is, because that can't include the all-important feelgood factor, which is so important to any leisure time activity.

"all art is subjective" as they say.


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

To add some perspective on this.

However much a tub of wax costs, it is but nothing compared to the cost of smelling an expensive fragrance that you like in a department store and then picking up the after-shave, the shower gel and matching underarm deodorant stick and heading to the tills.

Detailing really is a cheap hobby, in the wider scale of things.


----------



## Sun_King (May 2, 2016)

It all depends on you easily someone is taken in by marketing hype, ridiculous prices and in some cases equally ridiculous pots and labels. Having said that, Dave KG is perfectly correct.


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

GleemSpray said:


> Perceived Gloss and reflectivity will surely change with the ambient light.
> 
> My early career was spent working for Kodak as a technician and i can tell you that when you try to "measure" the amount of light reflected by any surface in daylight ( not in artificial light ), it will be influenced by not only the intensity of the sun, but by the colour temperature depending on the time of day, also by any polarising effect caused by the angle of the Sun.
> 
> ...


Indeed I was asking if it was measurable. Seems that it isn't...

Now that doesn't mean I'll stop waxing, on the contrary. I enjoy it and the results I get after are worth the work. I was simply asking so I can see if there's worth to me spending £100 on a tub of wax if I'm already happy with the others I've got!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cargainz (Jul 25, 2016)

It is measurable, you just need $40K burning a hole in your pocket








Wiki defn said:


> The glossmeter provides a quantifiable way of measuring gloss intensity ensuring consistency of measurement by defining the precise illumination and viewing conditions. The configuration of both illumination source and observation reception angles allows measurement over a small range of the overall reflection angle. The measurement results of a glossmeter are related to the amount of reflected light from a black glass standard with a defined refractive index. The ratio of reflected to incident light for the specimen, compared to the ratio for the gloss standard, is recorded as gloss units.
> Three measurement angles are specified to cover the majority of industrial coatings applications. The angle is selected for a particular application based on the anticipated gloss range.


Some whizkids have something called the Rhopoint IQ 
http://news.esotericcarcare.com/gloss-meters-and-automotive-paint/


----------



## andyfish (Feb 4, 2006)

GleemSpray said:


> To add some perspective on this.
> 
> However much a tub of wax costs, it is but nothing compared to the cost of smelling an expensive fragrance that you like in a department store and then picking up the after-shave, the shower gel and matching underarm deodorant stick and heading to the tills.
> 
> Detailing really is a cheap hobby, in the wider scale of things.


Thank you - wifey spends a fortune on expensive smelly things. Without exception, they all smell like bog cleaner to me (and yes I tell her), but it gives me an argument for when I next press the 'BUY' button!:buffer:


----------



## shelton (Jul 24, 2017)

andyfish said:


> I know the square root of jack about this. I used Meguire's NXT Tech Wax before I got the detailing bug this year. Based on reviews I bought the Natty's Blue paste wax.
> 
> I don't have the vocabulary to describe exactly what I see between the two but would say that the Megs gives the colour more depth than Nattys but is less clear than the Nattys. The Nattys makes the colour of mine and wifey's care 'sing' - i.e. added punch.
> 
> Ideally I'd like a wax that gives the depth of the Megs with the sing of the Nattys and lasts 6 months of winter!!! Not a lot to ask...


I haven't tried enough varieties of carnauba to decide whether I could identify them in a blind test (at Soft99 we only have a few varieties of carnauba waxes), but this post highlights a very significant development.

There has been a lot of confusion about Soft99 products because they label anything solid as 'wax', whether it's carnauba wax, montan wax, purely synthetic polymers, even PTFE-derivatives! This is because the word for wax in Japanese is obviously different (ROU), so we use the English word "wax" to mean "paste that protects your car and makes it shiny". This may or may not contain "Carnauba Rou"!

Now, there is DEFINITELY a visible difference between these various products, because the ingredients are totally different! But, aside from Soft99 products, this confusion never used to be much of a problem in the West, because sealants didn't get called "wax", except by mistake sometimes.

But Megs NXT Tech "Wax" CONTAINS NO carnauba! Like the Japanese, they've tried hard to replicate the carnauba look with synthetics, but it will inevitably look different. So, now the Americans are at this "synthetic wax" game too!

A lot of (most?) carnauba waxes do contain other ingredients, but I feel they are usually overpowered by the effect of the carnauba. Indeed, at Soft99 the other ingredients are only there to provide physical support for durability, or for some other property like polishing, filling, hydrophobicity, etc.

OP, I really sympathize when it comes to carnauba-heavy blends (though, as others have said, you probably need to do the whole car to really see a difference), but I have to disagree if you include all products sold as car wax


----------



## Taxboy (Aug 23, 2006)

Sun_King said:


> It all depends on you easily someone is taken in by marketing hype, ridiculous prices and in some cases equally ridiculous pots and labels. Having said that, Dave KG is perfectly correct.


I agree with you but if it makes people happy then carry on. I guess an analogy would be if you removed the logo from a polo shirt could you tel, the difference against a good range plain version. But at the end of the day isn't that what building a brand and marketing is all about ?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

shelton said:


> I haven't tried enough varieties of carnauba to decide whether I could identify them in a blind test (at Soft99 we only have a few varieties of carnauba waxes), but this post highlights a very significant development.
> 
> There has been a lot of confusion about Soft99 products because they label anything solid as 'wax', whether it's carnauba wax, montan wax, purely synthetic polymers, even PTFE-derivatives! This is because the word for wax in Japanese is obviously different (ROU), so we use the English word "wax" to mean "paste that protects your car and makes it shiny". This may or may not contain "Carnauba Rou"!
> 
> ...


So what is the difference then, for example between Fusso and King of Gloss in their make up? What makes King of Gloss Glossier than Fusso and is King of Gloss a true 'wax'?


----------



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

There isn't any difference in "looks", "depth"etc,only durability and water behaviour. I haven't met a single individual who can distinguish between different waxes that a car is wearing without guessing. Including manufacturers.
Feel free to challenge them on it. Use some products of your choice, including theirs.

If you want gloss, you need to create it by polishing, sanding etc. You can't just buy it in a pot of wax, the surface needs to be smooth and imperfection free if you want high gloss levels. The better the condition of the surface, the better the reflectivity.

It really is, all in the prep.


----------



## Rotiform (Nov 16, 2013)




----------



## shelton (Jul 24, 2017)

roscopervis said:


> So what is the difference then, for example between Fusso and King of Gloss in their make up? What makes King of Gloss Glossier than Fusso and is King of Gloss a true 'wax'?


Fusso is essentially PTFE-derivative. That's like "Teflon" (brand name PTFE) coating your car. It's obviously not applied in the same way as to frying pans, so it eventually comes off, but it IS tough stuff. It's supported by a hard, naturally occurring non-carnauba wax that gives it better gloss and hydrophobicity. Sorry I can't say the name of this ingredient. Apparently people overseas like its looks too, but it was made essentially for durability.

King of Gloss is carnauba supported by synthetic resin, and made - obviously - for looks. As such, the durability is nowhere near Fusso, but it has carnauba gloss!

In terms of what is 'true wax', chemically speaking carnauba, montan wax, synthetic waxes, &c. are all waxes, but often in the detailing industry 'sealant' is used with the meaning 'as opposed to wax', when in actual fact a lot of 'sealants' contain wax. Just never carnauba.


----------



## shelton (Jul 24, 2017)

On Topic:

Carnauba is often considered to have a unique quality of gloss. This is a subjective assessment, but one I agree with. 

For me the depth/glow goes: carnauba>other waxes>non-wax (polymer-based) sealants. This is not an assessment of reflectivity, and I often think non-carnauba products are actually more shiny, but flatter. Some people like that!

If you feel the surface of carnauba compared to a polymer-based sealant, you will notice the difference in smoothness. On a molecular level, carnauba is spiky, which is what gives it its hydrophobicity, and what some people (including myself) perceive to be a different look.

If it feels different to the touch, I don't think it's so far-fetched to say it could look different. 

Bear in mind that I have never paid for a detailing product in my life, and I know the actual materials costs of these products (all pretty similar, including the laughable stuff at £100s or £1000s)* so I'm unaffected by the 'snob effect'. This is still, however a subjective thing, and I would shrug it off if someone told me they can't see any difference. I shell out for expensive sake, but some people say all they can taste is alcohol. Same difference.

For what it's worth, I would never be able to identify different carnauba-heavy blends in a 'blind' test. Also, as DJ said, the condition of the paint will make the looks entirely different. This makes direct comparisons in the field nigh impossible. =j

*No disrespect to the latest wave of makers in the West for selling slightly expensive (sub £100) products. Economies of scale make it tough to compete with big companies on price, but they do something different by bringing innovation from enthusiasts to the field. Which we subsequently copy haha.


----------



## Pittsy (Jun 14, 2014)

Very interesting read, thought I would add my 2 pennies worth to the debate....

1) There are visual differences between waxes, you can see it when applying and buffing off. Whilst they are not very big differences but they are there, the addage is 95% of the finish is from the prep and 5% from the LSP. Some waxes can give a clean optical appearance whilst some darken and add depth to the finish.

2) Could i tell you the difference between 2 waxes on a single panel possibly but then again possibly not, in fact is probably the latter If I am honest. But could I appraise a panel that I am waxing with a certain product and comment on its effect on the panel then yes I could.

3) Could I tell you wihich wax is applied then no I could not, I could guess but would 99% get it wrong.

4) As some have alluded to its more than the appearance that makes up the waxing experience, scent, looks and the tactile feeling that a wax gives is more important then how it looks so its more a holistic experience rather than concentrating on the finished product.

So if you wanna wax then wax, if you wanna seal then seal just crack on and enjoy what you are doing.


----------



## Sun_King (May 2, 2016)

steelghost said:


> It's very true, no-one ever says their newly purchased £100 tub of wax is "just OK, not a lot different to the cheap stuff really" :lol:


I did. I wasted £100 on Glasur. Not worth all the hype so I sold it on Fleabay.

After actually talking to a chemist who physically made detailng products, my opinion totally altered.

Marketing.


----------



## wanner69 (Mar 14, 2010)

I like the wax experience hence the once £10,000 collection, since sold lots off though as it was getting ridiculous but still own about 40 pricey pots. For me it's the whole experience of the product, scents, colours, pots, packaging etc and the fact that I simply enjoy applying and removing a wax product over a spray on, wipe off sealant. Having once owned over one hundred 200ml sized pots, mostly "boutique" waxes £100+ I can say honestly say there were some differences in the finish of lots of waxes I compared between brands, but applying an expensive wax in a special pot floats my boat, that's what I prefer.


----------



## Rich (Oct 26, 2005)

Like others I have a huge amount of waxes on the shelf - including some stupidly expensive ones (Luckily I won those thanks to DW and Zymol!) But waxes despite there price point do each undoubtedly add something of there own to the finish, look and appearance. 

Found a pot of Swisswax Saphir lingering at the back of the shelf unused in maybe 6/7 years last week. Decided to throw a coat on the car the other evening and nice warm glow it left me feeling that was the best the car had looked since owning it the past few months.

On the downside the water behaviour and beading this morning in the heavy rain is very poor compared to when it has a coat of Sonax BSD on it.


----------



## Taxboy (Aug 23, 2006)

wanner69 said:


> I like the wax experience hence the once £10,000 collection, since sold lots off though as it was getting ridiculous but still own about 40 pricey pots. For me it's the whole experience of the product, scents, colours, pots, packaging etc and the fact that I simply enjoy applying and removing a wax product over a spray on wipe off sealant. Having once owned over one hundred 200ml sized pots, mostly "boutique" waxes £100+ I can say honestly say there were some differences in the finish of lots of waxes I compared between brands, but applying an expensive wax in a special pot floats my boat, that's what I prefer.


And I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's the experience that people buy into not simply the results.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


----------



## dooka (Aug 1, 2006)

The best wax on the market is the one you like the most. They are all there to do the same thing, just with different looks and beadage etc ..

You will also find, one wax may suit one colour amazingly well but not another colour It is all subjective ..


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

Sun_King said:


> I did. I wasted £100 on Glasur. Not worth all the hype so I sold it on Fleabay.
> 
> After actually talking to a chemist who physically made detailng products, my opinion totally altered.
> 
> Marketing.


I think it seems to be that there may well be differences in water behaviour and longevity between waxes, but theres little or no scientific evidence to suggest there is a real difference in anything else.

If people enjoy the process of buying and using different waxes, that's fine! I have another expensive hobby/obsession that other people may not understand (watches - nothing dodgy.) The point of my post was just that though - to see if there was any hard evidence (not opinions) to suggest there is a difference in finish.

I think I have my answer and I'll stick with the waxes I already have in my collection!


----------



## Sun_King (May 2, 2016)

Cracking post. Keep it going!


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

Just because someone can't tell the difference, doesn't mean it isn't there. In practice most people make a decision guided by the 'law of diminishing returns'. 
This cat will always have shallow pockets but expensive tastes = torment :buffer:

I can example 3 waxes I've used...
AG HD wax - very good durability, pain to apply, but good vfm
Desire- better result and easier to apply- worth the upgrade
Race glaze Black Label- easier still, delight to use, spreads for miles so actually very cost effective, durability excellent and provides a newly waxed look with every wash- still worth the upgrade


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

Really really want to try Crystal Rock but it's a big outlay and worried it won't justify the price tag. But I'll never know unless I try it...:wall:


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

suds said:


> Just because someone can't tell the difference, doesn't mean it isn't there. In practice most people make a decision guided by the 'law of diminishing returns'.
> This cat will always have shallow pockets but expensive tastes = torment :buffer:
> 
> I can example 3 waxes I've used...
> ...


My point was more about whether there is a 'scientifically' measurable difference. It's easy to say that you can see a difference and myself and others have alluded to the idea that a lot of this could be because one expects a difference or isn't willing to admit it after spending 'x' amount of money.

It's a bit of a shame none of the wax makers here haven't commented.

To clarify, I'm not knocking anyone. I spent a few hours the other day applying some Dodo OC by hand and enjoyed the experience of it very much. There's no difference in the finish compared to the colli 845 it had a few weeks ago though and I'd challenge anyone to find it...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

Never seen any scientific data/tests Rj, obs a machine can measure amount of light reflection but it will always come down to personal opinion/preference. As users we will have different requirements. Some members like to wax on a monthly basis so they might be very happy using a low cost wax to achieve their aims. As regards telling one wax from another- I doubt anyone could "name that wax" but people can see the finish they prefer albeit it marginally depending on the wax composition. But even on the question of can you see the difference- even if I can't I will still opt for the product which supplies all my requirements because telling one wax from another isn't one of my requirements- if that makes any sense


----------



## chongo (Jun 7, 2014)

To be honest I can and have seen the difference between waxes I've applied in the past even after a 2 stage polish when the paint is completely free from defects.

Just take the case last year when I prepared my mates GTO for a concours show at Footmans James show. I spent 3 weeks getting that paint ready only to then after I used victory red concours show wax did I noticed it changed the colour of the paint (muted the gloss) so I removed it the best I could and applied M&K C7 which added amazing gloss.

So in theory you can see the difference in what wax you apply as I've found out on all his cars that you can tell the difference by just looking with your own eyes. Some might say different but I can. Not forgetting that if you don't prepare your paint ready for a wax, then you are not going to see the true finish before a wax is applied.


----------



## MAXI-MILAN (Oct 26, 2008)

If you can't see the difference between waxes after first coat , then try 50/50 wax test and apply 3 coats , for example 3 coats of Vics Concours Vs 3 coats of P21s Concours I think you will notice the difference easily. I noticed some wax gives darkening effect like Souveran , Vics , Onyx and Some waxes gives high reflective finish like P21s and SN and some waxes gives fake gloss honey gloden reflection like RG55 , CTR , AF Illusion.


----------



## MAXI-MILAN (Oct 26, 2008)

The difference between waxes is like Playing in your TV contrast , brightness , sharpness to get best picture .


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

suds said:


> Never seen any scientific data/tests Rj, obs a machine can measure amount of light reflection but it will always come down to personal opinion/preference. As users we will have different requirements. Some members like to wax on a monthly basis so they might be very happy using a low cost wax to achieve their aims. As regards telling one wax from another- I doubt anyone could "name that wax" but people can see the finish they prefer albeit it marginally depending on the wax composition. But even on the question of can you see the difference- even if I can't I will still opt for the product which supplies all my requirements because telling one wax from another isn't one of my requirements- if that makes any sense


I agree with this. Whether or not there are any visible or measurable differences, using a wax which suits your requirements is all you can really do. Again, I think this goes towards answering my initial question... My current (modest) wax collection of around 10 different types/brands is enough given that I enjoy all of them. I won't be adding to it until I need to!


----------



## steelghost (Aug 20, 2015)

chongo said:


> To be honest I can and have seen the difference between waxes I've applied in the past even after a 2 stage polish when the paint is completely free from defects.
> 
> Just take the case last year when I prepared my mates GTO for a concours show at Footmans James show. I spent 3 weeks getting that paint ready only to then after I used victory red concours show wax did I noticed it changed the colour of the paint (muted the gloss) so I removed it the best I could and applied M&K C7 which added amazing gloss.
> 
> So in theory you can see the difference in what wax you apply as I've found out on all his cars that you can tell the difference by just looking with your own eyes. Some might say different but I can. Not forgetting that if you don't prepare your paint ready for a wax, then you are not going to see the true finish before a wax is applied.


I think is quite telling though - you are talking about a car which is completely clean, has basically perfect paint, under ideal lighting to judge these things, and you're someone used to looking for slight differences in appearance.

For Mr Weekend Warrior with his daily driver wave, subject to all manner of abuse that the GTO doesn't have to put up with, paint that is most decidedly not perfect (even ignoring the factory fit orange peel) and is probably only actually "clean" about 3 or 4 days a month, the difference in appearance will be unnoticeable. All the other factors like durability, water behaviour, ease of application, price, smell, container, etc, become far more relevant.


----------



## ShaunV90 (Jul 26, 2017)

Cracking read:thumb:


----------



## chongo (Jun 7, 2014)

steelghost said:


> I think is quite telling though - you are talking about a car which is completely clean, has basically perfect paint, under ideal lighting to judge these things, and you're someone used to looking for slight differences in appearance.
> 
> For Mr Weekend Warrior with his daily driver wave, subject to all manner of abuse that the GTO doesn't have to put up with, paint that is most decidedly not perfect (even ignoring the factory fit orange peel) and is probably only actually "clean" about 3 or 4 days a month, the difference in appearance will be unnoticeable. All the other factors like durability, water behaviour, ease of application, price, smell, container, etc, become far more relevant.


I would get your facts right before you post

This car is used sometimes daily and weekly, it is used in all weathers and on mostly dirty roads so have a nice day bud and don't be a smart a...:wave:


----------



## steelghost (Aug 20, 2015)

chongo said:


> I would get your facts right before you post
> 
> This car is used sometimes daily and weekly, it is used in all weathers and on mostly dirty roads so have a nice day bud and don't be a smart a...:wave:


chongo, I didn't write my post to imply the GTO is not used (in fact how often it was or wasn't used before or after the show isn't really relevant to the point I was trying to make).

(However often it *is *used though, I'm pretty sure it doesn't have small children painting faces in the dust on it, shopping bags and push chairs being dragged in and out of the back, small children putting gritty feet all over the shuts as they climb in and out, etc etc etc - which is the abuse to which I was referring).

I do my best to keep it tidy, but my car hasn't had a (semi?)-pro detailer work on the paint for weeks to prepare it for a concours show. I'm assuming that during this period of time, it *wasn't* being taken out for drives in bad weather on dirty roads?

The point here being - that GTO, at the end of all that work, in a well lit workshop and under your practiced eye, is pretty much a best case scenario for spotting any differences that might be noticeable between different waxes. However for most cars, most of the time, the paint condition or some other factor will make any such differences impossible to spot.

Not everyone's here to take pot shots at you, least of all me - please remember that next time you want to start accusing folks of being smart-anythings.


----------



## dave-g (Nov 14, 2009)

Going back to some of the posts on previous pages, I actually buy waxes as I'm always interested in the water behaviour side, I never look for differences in appearance, it just becomes obvious in certain lighting. I've used AF spirit which bought the flake out in turn making the car appear a lot more golden, bouncers billet which very much darkened the paint looking almost dark grey, and carbon collective coating which looks normal colour..

And it's the other half that points it out, so somethings going on :lol::lol:


----------



## chongo (Jun 7, 2014)

steelghost said:


> chongo, I didn't write my post to imply the GTO is not used (in fact how often it was or wasn't used before or after the show isn't really relevant to the point I was trying to make).
> 
> (However often it *is *used though, I'm pretty sure it doesn't have small children painting faces in the dust on it, shopping bags and push chairs being dragged in and out of the back, small children putting gritty feet all over the shuts as they climb in and out, etc etc etc - which is the abuse to which I was referring).
> 
> ...


There you go again talking a load off .... the fact is as I said before GTO and all the other cars are used daily and with kids in I can spot the difference even between a normal daily driver as well

As for the semi/pro Detailer what's that got to do with this thread? Er nothing at all. And who is taking pot shots at me and am not accusing anyone.

Let's just leave it at that because it will get you know where, if you really wanted to carry on then you won't be looking for a response from me:wave:


----------



## cargainz (Jul 25, 2016)

It would be interesting if the DW product awards carried on and people gave their opinions of their "best wax". AF Illusion was listed as the wax winner in 2014 and when i look it up on PB they say



> Aesthetically speaking, Auto Finesse Illusion is probably the best wax we've ever used. *If you apply it to a car already treated with Auto Finesse Desire, the improvement in depth and gloss is immediately noticeable (this is a significant point, given how good Desire is).* In addition to more depth and gloss, which adds up to a dripping wet finish, Auto Finesse Illusion also intensifies colours significantly, with lighter coloured cars becoming brighter looking and darker coloured cars becoming a shade richer looking. Overall, it's a deeply impressive wax and perfect for use in cases where show-winning looks are more important than durability.


That would mean a cool £200 (AF Illusion £80 plus AF Desire £120) if I wanted to play with that combination. 

I've seen stunning pictures posted recently of Alien 51/Nebula (available at £60ish for both) so it would be interesting to see what people rated as best wax.


----------



## Welshquattro1 (Dec 6, 2013)

MAXI-MILAN said:


> The difference between waxes is like Playing in your TV contrast , brightness , sharpness to get best picture .


Maxi that is a very clever way to look at it :thumb:


----------



## wanner69 (Mar 14, 2010)

cargainz said:


> It would be interesting if the DW product awards carried on and people gave their opinions of their "best wax". AF Illusion was listed as the wax winner in 2014 and when i look it up on PB they say
> 
> That would mean a cool £200 (AF Illusion £80 plus AF Desire £120) if I wanted to play with that combination.
> 
> I've seen stunning pictures posted recently of Alien 51/Nebula (available at £60ish for both) so it would be interesting to see what people rated as best wax.


Everyone's "best wax" will be different. We all look for different things in a wax product


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

7 pages of posts and still no blood shed! What's happened to everyone since I've been away? :devil:


----------



## cargainz (Jul 25, 2016)

wanner69 said:


> Everyone's "best wax" will be different. We all look for different things in a wax product


I know that is why people have up to a dozen pots of wax. :lol: It would still be interesting to read of other people's favs, i got stuff because of reviews on DW.


----------



## Kam09 (Apr 11, 2014)

Sun_King said:


> I did. I wasted £100 on Glasur. Not worth all the hype so I sold it on Fleabay.
> 
> After actually talking to a chemist who physically made detailng products, my opinion totally altered.
> 
> Marketing.


Absolutely and more so very recently and past few months there has been a lot of advertising going on and not just with waxes.. it's amazing what an effect a quirky looking label has on some people.. what irks me is the same people who are blatantly advertising certain manufacturers on here and other forums just because they have an affiliation in one way or the other or that they are trying to push their own popularity up! But I guess this has been the case for a good while and will carry on in to the future, I'm just glad that I know longer fall for the "fake hype"!


----------



## shelton (Jul 24, 2017)

Gloss IS scientifically measurable. We buy expensive equipment and hire scientists to test this stuff. I don't do it personally, but I am a chemist by training, I've been round our labs, and let me assure you, it is not just some charlatanry. 

Durability, contact angle (hydrophobicity), gloss, hardness, smoothness etc. are all assessed by scientists using machines. 

If this reassures you that the difference some people see is real, great. If it also makes you upset that you can't see the difference, I don't know what to say other than in a sense you're lucky to be easily pleased.

But something can still be scientifically measurable, while having facets which are subjective or emotionally evocative, and so cannot be scientifically analysed. 

For example, I can identify and chemically analyse all the components of various whiskies, but I'm still just a chemist... I can't tell you which one will win the awards.

EDIT: Forgot to mention earlier, I work at Soft99


----------



## cargainz (Jul 25, 2016)

shelton said:


> Gloss IS scientifically measurable. We buy expensive equipment and hire scientists to test this stuff. I don't do it personally, but I am a chemist by training, I've been round our labs, and let me assure you, it is not just some charlatanry.
> 
> Durability, contact angle (hydrophobicity), gloss, hardness, smoothness etc. are all assessed by scientists using machines.
> 
> ...


I did gather that you worked for the Fusso/Soft99 people. As others have said if you pay say £300 for a suit, you can reassure yourself that its worth it even when you walk past a less fashionable store selling a similar one for £80. 

I do know about the different machines to measure gloss/reflectivity etc but these are beyond every day use by ordinary folk.

I don't expect other chemists/wax makers from other wax manufacturers to post in this thread because there is nothing in it for them. They don't usually reveal the contents of their products and would not engage in discussions like these. (Sorry OP).


----------



## shelton (Jul 24, 2017)

You're right, the only reason I feel comfortable talking here is because all our products are about the same price, so it's not a particularly sensitive issue whether people can tell them apart or not. 

I can imagine people who sell products that are 100 times the price of the raw materials might steer clear of any discussions about "proof" haha


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

Even if something is scientifically measurable using expensive equipment, it seems a bit of a moot point to me if it can't be told apart from a different wax sitting on an adjacent panel without said equipment. 

A lot of people have said they can tell the difference and to this all I can say is that I'm surprised and perhaps a bit dubious. I'd love to see someone organise a blind test and prove me wrong though...!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

MrRJ said:


> Even if something is scientifically measurable using expensive equipment, it seems a bit of a moot point to me if it can't be told apart from a different wax sitting on an adjacent panel without said equipment.
> 
> A lot of people have said they can tell the difference and to this all I can say is that I'm surprised and perhaps a bit dubious. I'd love to see someone organise a blind test and prove me wrong though...!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





MrRJ said:


> Even if something is scientifically measurable using expensive equipment, it seems a bit of a moot point to me if it can't be told apart from a different wax sitting on an adjacent panel without said equipment.
> 
> A lot of people have said they can tell the difference and to this all I can say is that I'm surprised and perhaps a bit dubious. I'd love to see someone organise a blind test and prove me wrong though...!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Totally agree :thumb:

As Shelton alluded to, under laboratory conditions there will obviously be a trace of a substance on a surface on a molecular level. It just won't be visible by the naked eye, unless you cake it on like my kids do with Nutella 

As I've mentioned before,we detailed a car once for one of my friends who buys every wax under the sun and he was adamant that he could differentiate between Crystal Rock , and Nattys Blue (IIRC ) on a half and half of a bonnet .He swore blind he could see where each was applied.

He couldn't though, because we didn't even wax it , it was just polished and washed with 3M Car Soap Shampoo .


----------



## MAXI-MILAN (Oct 26, 2008)

cargainz said:


> It would be interesting if the DW product awards carried on and people gave their opinions of their "best wax". AF Illusion was listed as the wax winner in 2014 and when i look it up on PB they say
> 
> That would mean a cool £200 (AF Illusion £80 plus AF Desire £120) if I wanted to play with that combination.
> 
> I've seen stunning pictures posted recently of Alien 51/Nebula (available at £60ish for both) so it would be interesting to see what people rated as best wax.


I have tried AF Desire + Illuison it gives nice result but I prefer the look of 3 coats of Illusion , AF Desire smell better , easier to apply than Illusion and gives more clarity while Illusion wax gives fake gloss very wet very warm .

The combination between polish , glaze and LSP will determines the final look the final result .


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

To me it seems the wax argument is exactly like the hi-fi cable argument. Lots of people swear blind that they can hear a difference between hi-fi cables, making the sound brighter, bassier, justifying a high price tag. YET in blind listening tests no-one has ever successfully been able to tell cables apart.

I think it is the same with waxes, if you're happy doing what you're doing, carry on. However, I don't think anyone can argue with the fact that prep is the key to how good a car will ultimately look.


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

roscopervis said:


> To me it seems the wax argument is exactly like the hi-fi cable argument. Lots of people swear blind that they can hear a difference between hi-fi cables, making the sound brighter, bassier, justifying a high price tag. YET in blind listening tests no-one has ever successfully been able to tell cables apart.
> 
> I think it is the same with waxes, if you're happy doing what you're doing, carry on. However, I don't think anyone can argue with the fact that prep is the key to how good a car will ultimately look.


Any HI-Fi heads on here old enough to remember Peter Belt and his theories (and bizzare products) claimed to improve the sound of HI-FI systems ??


----------



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

Haha, dusting off my Pink Triangle turntable ,Chord Cobra interconnects, QED Silver Anniversary speaker cable and NAD 3020 amp as we speak


----------



## Berylburton (Sep 14, 2013)

roscopervis said:


> To me it seems the wax argument is exactly like the hi-fi cable argument. Lots of people swear blind that they can hear a difference between hi-fi cables, making the sound brighter, bassier, justifying a high price tag. YET in blind listening tests no-one has ever successfully been able to tell cables apart.
> 
> I think it is the same with waxes, if you're happy doing what you're doing, carry on. However, I don't think anyone can argue with the fact that prep is the key to how good a car will ultimately look.


It isn't just cables! There all sorts of magic in HiFi from special stones, cable lifters to green pens to paint the outside edge of your CD! 
Whilst there is so silliness is care car products, its many many times less than the HIFi world!


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

DJ X-Ray said:


> Haha, dusting off my Pink Triangle turntable ,Chord Cobra interconnects, QED Silver Anniversary speaker cable and NAD 3020 amp as we speak


Still got a Dual 505 Turntable, Arcam Alpha amp and a pair of Celestion DL speakers sitting in the attic, along with two big loops of QED 79 strand cable !!

There is a Philips Original CD player up there too, somewhere :doublesho


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

DJ X-Ray said:


> Haha, dusting off my Pink Triangle turntable ,Chord Cobra interconnects, QED Silver Anniversary speaker cable and NAD 3020 amp as we speak


My NAD 3020 is used and loved daily, along with the same QED cable!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

And I got Ruark temple II floor standers....somewhere


----------



## cargainz (Jul 25, 2016)

MAXI-MILAN said:


> I have tried AF Desire + Illuison it gives nice result but I prefer the look of 3 coats of Illusion , AF Desire smell better , easier to apply than Illusion and gives more clarity while Illusion wax gives fake gloss very wet very warm .
> 
> The combination between polish , glaze and LSP will determines the final look the final result .


Cheers for this. Detailing can be expensive but part of the fun is discovering stuff for yourself.


----------



## cargainz (Jul 25, 2016)

shelton said:


> You're right, the only reason I feel comfortable talking here is because all our products are about the same price, so it's not a particularly sensitive issue whether people can tell them apart or not.
> 
> I can imagine people who sell products that are 100 times the price of the raw materials might steer clear of any discussions about "proof" haha


Thanks for being honest. I'll get some samples from Soft99 as I like your down to earth approach.


----------



## Deadshot (May 23, 2017)

I put angelwax enigma on half the Bonnet and poorboys nattys blue on the other half on Saturday. It rained today and wow the difference is marked, the beads are much tighter and ran clean off the panel









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## steelghost (Aug 20, 2015)

Deadshot said:


> I put angelwax enigma on half the Bonnet and poorboys nattys blue on the other half on Saturday. It rained today and wow the difference is marked, the beads are much tighter and ran clean off the panel
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Angelwax is on the...left?


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

Deadshot said:


> I put angelwax enigma on half the Bonnet and poorboys nattys blue on the other half on Saturday. It rained today and wow the difference is marked, the beads are much tighter and ran clean off the panel
> 
> 
> 
> ...


BUT, most people here insist you can't see any difference? :driver:


----------



## Deadshot (May 23, 2017)

Yes angel wax on the left. And to be honest thought when it was dry and first applied it doesn't look shinier or have more pop etc if anything it looked slightly darker maybe because the wax is coloured but it's only the durability and water behaviour that really sets waxes apart for me. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

suds said:


> BUT, most people here insist you can't see any difference? :driver:


Of course there is a visible difference !!

... The Nattys has left a big black air vent in the bonnet !! :doublesho

Must have been poor application technique ... :lol::lol:


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

suds said:


> BUT, most people here insist you can't see any difference? :driver:


Most people here are saying they can't see a visible difference between two waxes in terms of finish but that durability and water behaviour are what sets them apart. I think this is spot on.

I'll perform a similar test tomorrow (weather permitting). On the bonnet of my car (which has almost perfectly corrected paint) I will apply a half with Collinite 845 and the other with OCD Nebula which should hopefully be arriving tomorrow. I have a few others too if need be... I'll post a photo. I look forward to eating my words if someone can tell which is which or even if they can see a difference! Being that one is a show wax and the other not necessarily rated for its gloss, the difference should be obvious...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

There's massive difference in water behaviour and durability, that isn't the argument. The argument is when it is dry and just waxed. Or better still after the first wash and then - how does the car look? 

I'm always doing half and half's on my cars, mainly for durability and water behaviour tests.


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

MrRJ said:


> Most people here are saying they can't see a visible difference between two waxes in terms of finish but that durability and water behaviour are what sets them apart. I think this is spot on.
> 
> I'll perform a similar test tomorrow (weather permitting). On the bonnet of my car (which has almost perfectly corrected paint) I will apply a half with Collinite 845 and the other with OCD Nebula which should hopefully be arriving tomorrow. I have a few others too if need be... I'll post a photo. I look forward to eating my words if someone can tell which is which or even if they can see a difference! Being that one is a show wax and the other not necessarily rated for its gloss, the difference should be obvious...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The game is afoot.... :thumb:


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

roscopervis said:


> There's massive difference in water behaviour and durability, that isn't the argument. The argument is when it is dry and just waxed. Or better still after the first wash and then - how does the car look?
> 
> I'm always doing half and half's on my cars, mainly for durability and water behaviour tests.


But what about the waxes which keep the 'just waxed' look for longer- way past the first wash?


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

suds said:


> The game is afoot.... :thumb:


Well, the wax arrived, but so did the rain. No update yet but will be doing it as soon as I can!


----------



## chrisc (Jun 15, 2008)

Dont wax anymore too gimmicky now prefer sprays like sonax or tac systems coating much better looks sheeting and beading.and yes you can notice a difference in them.
If i want a wax ill knock a big tub up for couple of quid


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

The weather was just about perfect this morning to do a wash and as promised, a wax comparison. Gave the car a full foam prewash with some APC to aid removing a little of the previous wax followed up by a soft clay and a full wash and dry.

The whole car was then waxed with OCD Nebula, except for the bonnet which got half with Collinite 845 and the other half with OCD Nebula. One of these is a show wax and the other not necessarily known for its 'gloss'.

I will say that application and removal of Nebula was a much more 'enjoyable' experience. Obviously a better smell and it goes on and off very easily. I'll definitely use it again and whilst I think the results speak for themselves, it is in every sense a 'good' wax. Excellent results.

Results:

In short, both sides look the same. Excellent results, but no difference in terms of appearance whatsoever. Both sides are smooth and feel no different to the touch. Reflections look the same. As many have mentioned, myself included, I expect water behaviour will be different as well as longevity but that's about it.










































I will continue to use Nebula along with a couple of others as it's an enjoyable wax to use. Easy on and off. Good smell and good results. There may well be a measurable difference with expensive equipment, but in terms of appearance alone, they're all but the same.


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

suds said:


> But what about the waxes which keep the 'just waxed' look for longer- way past the first wash?


To me, that part is covered in durability. I would only use durable products that work well for a decent amount of time. If the wax is durable, it will protect well the pre wax prep work done, so when washed, it will reveal excellent gloss/shine/reflectivity again.


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

Rosco durability and 'just waxed' finish do not necessarily go hand in hand. A durable wax doesn't necessarily have that 'as new' look after 2-3 months


----------



## pt1 (Feb 8, 2014)

For me personally the colour of the car makes a big difference.for example,i have put bh double speed wax and nebula on my mrs black golf and cant really tell the difference yet if i do the same on my silver civic there is a significant change in the gloss/slick level.also,i find you dont get much difference on a flat panel,its more the curved wings and spoilers were you see the difference 

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


----------



## cargainz (Jul 25, 2016)

OP, I would have liked to see you do maybe half of the car with a control wax e.g. Simoniz Original and then the second half with your show wax. Then 24 hours later a second thin coat.

Then we can assess how looks become secondary because getting two thin coats of our control wax is easier said than done for most people. 3 to 5 months later your show wax will also be gone.


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

suds said:


> Rosco durability and 'just waxed' finish do not necessarily go hand in hand. A durable wax doesn't necessarily have that 'as new' look after 2-3 months


I know it doesn't necessarily, but that is one of the components of durability surely? Playing devils advocate for a second - If a wax looked decent but lasted 6 months, and looked the same all the way through, would that be better than a wax that also lasted 6 months and that looked amazing when first applied but lost all it's looks after 2 washes and that at the end it looked average?

To me, a product (not just wax) that lasts and produces the just applied look time after time counts towards it's durability claim.


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

shelton said:


> Fusso is essentially PTFE-derivative. That's like "Teflon" (brand name PTFE) coating your car. It's obviously not applied in the same way as to frying pans, so it eventually comes off, but it IS tough stuff. It's supported by a hard, naturally occurring non-carnauba wax that gives it better gloss and hydrophobicity. Sorry I can't say the name of this ingredient. Apparently people overseas like its looks too, but it was made essentially for durability.
> 
> King of Gloss is carnauba supported by synthetic resin, and made - obviously - for looks. As such, the durability is nowhere near Fusso, but it has carnauba gloss!
> 
> In terms of what is 'true wax', chemically speaking carnauba, montan wax, synthetic waxes, &c. are all waxes, but often in the detailing industry 'sealant' is used with the meaning 'as opposed to wax', when in actual fact a lot of 'sealants' contain wax. Just never carnauba.


Thanks for that. I appreciate you're knowledge into Soft99 products - I'm a big fan of them.

I understand from what you've said that the dark products are more likely to have carnauba in - which paste products out of the range have carnauba in or, if it's easier, which ones don't have carnauba in?


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

roscopervis said:


> I know it doesn't necessarily, but that is one of the components of durability surely? Playing devils advocate for a second - If a wax looked decent but lasted 6 months, and looked the same all the way through, would that be better than a wax that also lasted 6 months and that looked amazing when first applied but lost all it's looks after 2 washes and that at the end it looked average?
> 
> To me, a product (not just wax) that lasts and produces the just applied look time after time counts towards it's durability claim.


Has nothing to do with durability. Its about the quality of ingredient's.:thumb:


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

cheekymonkey said:


> Has nothing to do with durability. Its about the quality of ingredient's.:thumb:


I think it is a part of the durability assessment. It might be that quality ingeredients help with that or something else.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

roscopervis said:


> I think it is a part of the durability assessment. It might be that quality ingeredients help with that or something else.


Nope, looks come from different ingredients to what durability comes from. It is the quality of the ingredients that determine how long the newness of the wax lasts.


----------



## roscopervis (Aug 22, 2006)

I disagree. I've said all along that it's the prep that counts and if the paint is perfect, no wax adds. You disagree. I think that if a product can't keep a surface looking clean wash after wash, it counts against it's durability claims, even if the product is still 'working'. You disagree. 

So be it. I know what I like, you know what you like. However, you can't tell me I'm wrong, it's an opinion not a fact.


----------



## cheekymonkey (Mar 15, 2008)

roscopervis said:


> I disagree. I've said all along that it's the prep that counts and if the paint is perfect, no wax adds. You disagree. I think that if a product can't keep a surface looking clean wash after wash, it counts against it's durability claims, even if the product is still 'working'. You disagree.
> 
> So be it. I know what I like, you know what you like. However, you can't tell me I'm wrong, it's an opinion not a fact.


I didn't disagree. I disagreed that the new look has anything to do with durability. Keep on topic. You are wrong. The new look of a wax has nothing to do with durability. 
And yes you are wrong. New look has nothing to do with durability. Facts will always trump your limited opinion


----------



## steelghost (Aug 20, 2015)

Any sources for this assertion? Otherwise it remains just that... an assertion.


----------



## chongo (Jun 7, 2014)

Well I still STRONGLY believe you can definitely see the difference between wax A and wax B as I said before on paint that is in good condition and a daily/weekly driver:wave:


----------



## shelton (Jul 24, 2017)

roscopervis said:


> Thanks for that. I appreciate you're knowledge into Soft99 products - I'm a big fan of them.
> 
> I understand from what you've said that the dark products are more likely to have carnauba in - which paste products out of the range have carnauba in or, if it's easier, which ones don't have carnauba in?


Sorry, I actually made a little mistake in that post, Fusso DOES contain carnauba. It's carnauba + PTFE-derived polymer.

I think in the products we export there is no example of only the dark label having no carnauba (although domestically, there are some).

But the dark label products always have _more_ carnauba. And the white label products have more solvents for cleaning. This makes the white label products much softer. The logic being clean white paint will outshine the wax anyway, so cleaning and protecting it is most important, whereas black absorbs all the light, so giving it the highest gloss possible will enhance contrast, making the lines stand out, and the non-specular (from your viewing angle) areas look relatively darker.

If I had already meticulously cleaned my white car, I'd use dark-label as a LSP every time.

If youre concerned about which products have wax in, Kiwami, King of Gloss, Fusso, Mirror Shine (solid type), &c. I think in exports *everything in a pot* has carnauba (each dark ver. has *more*) except Water Block Wax, where Water Block Wax Extra Gloss is (was) the version with carnauba.

For liquid LSPs, all the recent ones like Smooth Egg, TRIZ, Mirror Shine (liquid type) do NOT have wax, although Fusso 7 does.

In terms of quantity: Authentic>KoG/Kiwami>Mirror Shine (solid)/Fusso 12>other

'others' generally have some other main purpose, like hydrophobicity/swirl filling/etc.


----------



## Bulkhead (Oct 17, 2007)

shelton said:


> Sorry, I actually made a little mistake in that post, Fusso DOES contain carnauba. It's carnauba + PTFE-derived polymer.
> 
> I think in the products we export there is no example of only the dark label having no carnauba (although domestically, there are some).
> 
> ...


This raises an interesting point - the white label products contain cleaning additives at the expense of wax. I would imagine that, for most on here, this makes them irrelevant unless people were after more of an AIO product. After all, paint cleaning prior to LSP application would be almost a given. By applying the white label product, you'd gain nothing in terms of paint cleaning but lose out on appearance and longevity.


----------



## shelton (Jul 24, 2017)

Yes, the products are originally made for the Japanese domestic market, where 'ordinary' people wax their vehicles even if they have no interest in detailing. The very same people overwhelmingly tend to buy white vehicles for ease of maintenance, so we have ranges of products for white, which include more solvents and sometimes ultrafine compound (harder than most dirt, softer than white paint) to clean the paint more thoroughly before protection.

The durability is not necessarily compromised, as the same layer remains on the car after the solvents evaporate. Appearance is highly subjective, as this thread demonstrates, but you can't logically get _more_ gloss with same-or-less amount carnauba haha. However, what's certain is that you do get less carnauba _per tin_ because you're paying for other ingredients as well.

So yes, your conclusion is essentially correct, anyone reading this forum would probably be most satisfied with dark products, even on white cars.


----------



## dax (Dec 9, 2016)

Yes, I do see differences between certain waxes. But i also believe people here who don't see the difference. Preperation, paint color, light, plus the fact there are subtle differences in how people perceive color, shadow and shine makes that we see a difference, or not. People all see different, how subtle it might be, it is really in eye of the beholder. 



shelton said:


> Yes, the products are originally made for the Japanese domestic market, where 'ordinary' people wax their vehicles even if they have no interest in detailing.


Not only in the Japanese market ordinary' people wax their car and have zero interest, i think. I know a lot of people who wash and wax once or twice a year, and that's it.


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

So chaps, those of you that are able to see the difference - from the previous photos I posted, tell me which side of the bonnet has the Colli and which has the OCD show wax. I'd have thought these two would be like chalk and cheese if there were visible differences....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chongo (Jun 7, 2014)

MrRJ said:


> So chaps, those of you that are able to see the difference - from the previous photos I posted, tell me which side of the bonnet has the Colli and which has the OCD show wax. I'd have thought these two would be like chalk and cheese if there were visible differences....
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's impossible to see which side has what wax on unless you can actually see it in person :wall: a bit pointless :wave:


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

You, or anyone else, is welcome to come and take a look. So confident am I, I'll even re-prepare the test for anyone that wants to take me up on the offer...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

MrRJ said:


> You, or anyone else, is welcome to come and take a look. So confident am I, I'll even re-prepare the test for anyone that wants to take me up on the offer...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Where u live boy, i'mma gettin ma robin unreliant outta storage an kick starting ma engine :devil:


----------

