View Full Version : How do you compare the look of a wax/sealant/LSP?
I`ve tried various ways of comparing the looks of a particular wax/sealant to another. I`ve tried small squares (hood divided into up to 8 squares), small squares surround by just polished paint, and 1/2 hood comparisons. Maybe I need glasses, but I don`t see a whole heck of a lot of difference. The smaller the area, the harder to compare. When I divided the hood into eight squares, I could not tell the difference between several popuplar LSPs. If I do half and half, I can see a bit of difference but its not that great, its splitting hairs at best. This makes it hard to compares LSPs on different cars. Just curious what others are doing.
I think most people on here will tell you that the LSP has very little to do with your car`s finish. 95% of the depth, gloss, and shine comes from proper surface preparation. If you properly prep the surface, determining the difference between LSP`s will be like, as you put it, "splitting hairs".
Try to focus on other aspects of the LSP besides just looks. Do you want durability? Ease of use? Price, shelf life, and application method should all come into play.
Try to focus on other aspects of the LSP besides just looks. Do you want durability? Ease of use? Price, shelf life, and application method should all come into play.
Durability, ease of Use, beading, and slickness are cake to judge. Long term results and looks are not IMO. You say 95%, for me its close to 99% of the look comes from the prep. I`m just curious as to how others come to their conclusions. The way some folks talk it is night and day between the looks of different waxes/sealants. I can`t seem to duplicate that.
RCBuddha
12-13-2006, 08:42 PM
I usually can`t tell the difference b/w two like products (carnauba vs. carnuaba). However, I`ve noticed differences between a sealant and a carnauba. In the end, its all a shiney car, so don`t sweat it if you can`t tell the difference...
"The way some folks talk..."
Maybe its just talk. I mean if there really were night and day differences don`t you think that there would be more of a consensus on what the best LSP actually is. But the fact is, there is no consensus. You say long term results and looks are difficult to judge. I say they are impossible. (I`m not sure what you mean by long term, especially when we are talking about LSP`s. The words long-term and carnauba don`t belong in the same sentence as far as I`m concerned).
We agree that so much of the look comes from the prep. So let`s leave it at that. If prep is 99% of the look, how is an LSP responsible for 1% going to make any difference at all?
We can split hairs and say that waxes like souveran and megs hi-tech yellow wax will leave a deeper wetter look on dark colors. Some call it a "warm" or "glowing" look. I can`t say for sure since I haven`t used them but that is what I`ve been reading. I`ve also read that waxes that are clear like #16 or p21s look better on lighter colors. I`ve heard people say that 2 coats of KSG looks as good as any wax and lasts alot longer. NXT has synthetic ingredients that hide imperfections. I could go on all day.
In the end, use whatever makes you happy
Bigpoppa3346
12-13-2006, 08:48 PM
Side by side, I probably couldn`t tell a difference. On a larger scale though, like say a well prepped black car, and another well prepped black car, I can tell. Also, some shades of black look different. A black GMC Yukon(one of my favorite colors to detail, btw) is going to look different(wetter, glossyer) than say a black Toyota.
imported_Bence
12-13-2006, 10:25 PM
I think we are representing a unique art. We are the sommeliers of automotive finishes. Wine experts use colorful expressions to describe the exact taste of the wine. Do you think there is truly "forest soil" or "spicy red fruits" in that wine which is made of grapes?
Let your senses tell you what you see, and don`t want to see what you *know*. If you concentrate more of the subtle details, tiny little light refractions, different angles, sparkle points, the flakes, etc., you`ll be able to characterize a given product, telling more about it - realizing its true optical potential.
I think we are representing a unique art. We are the sommeliers of automotive finishes. Wine experts use colorful expressions to describe the exact taste of the wine. Do you think there is truly "forest soil" or "spicy red fruits" in that wine which is made of grapes?
Let your senses tell you what you see, and don`t want to see what you *know*. If you concentrate more of the subtle details, tiny little light refractions, different angles, sparkle points, the flakes, etc., you`ll be able to characterize a given product, telling more about it - realizing its true optical potential.
Bence,
That`s the sort of insight I was looking for. It is an art, not a science, judgeing the looks of the LSP. It is simply too hard to do on a small panel and may even be hard to do on a larger scale. Seems like the more someone spent on a LSP, the more inclined they are to fabricate all sorts of adjectives to describe their recent purchases. The wine analogy is perfect.
BTW, the silence (lack of responses to this thread) is almost deafening. :D