Quote:
Originally Posted by GoudyL
Except that they are unpersuasive to anyone familiar with fine chemical manufacturing.
We've establisted, that the "most carnauba" is vague/meaningless in the context of product(s) that is a mixture of functional ingredients.
Also no one has ever explained what the 61% is relative too? Is it 61% of the weight of total solid ingredients, 61% of the net weight of the finished product, 61% of the wax ingredients etc.
My own guess is that its 61% of the wax ingredients, which may be only fraction of the total formula.
Sounds like an argument based on an appeal to authority.
How about if the folks involved are well adjusted and without the pathalogical need to find meaning in thier lives/impress others with displays of wealth?
Since the company was founded in 1980, that's quite a feat.
Why? Because you can afford it. 
It's been amply demonstrated in so many examples that having money is not a reliable indicator of any other personal quality except for having money.
If you belive that ethics/values have an objective or even semi-objective basis than anyone with basic reasoning ability is qualified.
Just cause a multi-billionaire says 2+2 =5, doesn't mean it is so.
Why? If it can be established that Zymol vintage offers no tangible improvement over other waxes, then it can be shown that the incremental money spent on Zymol Vintage is wasted/could be better spent on other things. |
This is the kind of discussion I was looking for. We can all go to the website and look at what it is, and even call the company. But that's a biased answer to the question. While it can be used in part to form a conclusion, I think discussion here is useful.
I don't hazard a guess as to what the 61% means. I assumed it to be 61% by volume, but that's really not important to me. Is 61% better than 50%? The 'more is always better' argument is a lie, so it remains to be seen what the advantage is, and if there is such thing as too much. If there's something else that works better, then more is certainly not better. I refer that to what scottwax said.
It was developed in 1947. And? I'm not of the opinion that old is better. And I'm certainly not in favor of continuing to do something just because that's the way it's always been done. They didn't have clay back then. There's been too many advances in not only car care innovation, but advances in paint as well. Being established doesn't always equal what's best.
I'm equally interested in the technique about using it by hand. Does it add to the product, or is it a visceral experience? Either way, could it also be applied to other waxes? Or does either of those things only enhance the product in question?
I've already established my opinion that it
could be financially a good idea to purchase it based on the concept of free refills. I wonder if that wasn't in play, how much that remains true. Companies don't last forever, and I'm sure they could rescind the offer whenever they choose. Apollo has already stated that the refills don't really matter to him since he's upcharging (or I may have inferred that). I wonder what others would have to say on that.
I could certainly afford buying it. The question isn't a matter of being able to afford something. The question is one of value. And if you can only say that you prefer it and that's it, that's cool. There's a few things in my life that I can't explain why I prefer something, so I definitely get that aspect. I'll even take theories and guesses over a corporate wax job (pun intended). But for someone who's genuinely curious about the product, it's a question I like to ask.