Overrated products
- Thread starter Paulie Walnuts
- Start date
Deep Gloss Auto Salon
New member
dogma said:
DG 105 and CG Jet Seal are Big Boy sealants IMO.. Just as good (if not better) than any orther sealant I have tried..
Since you named Sealants you dont like, name some you do
Deep Gloss Auto Salon
New member
dogma said:
fair enough.. IMO Dg has a very similar look to Z, WG just doesn't last long enough (which is the whole point of a sealant), M Seal mehh nothing to rave about, Klasse yup that's a winner, JS109 is a go to...
I am in the process of downsizing the number of products I use, 2 sealants, 2 waxes, 2 polishes (brands not aggresiveness), etc... JS109 and DG105 are my two that I am keeping in full rotation.
I just don't understand how I (and others) get such a variance in results from the DG offerings (especially 105 & AW) when compared to some other users...Thank goodness we have choices:usa
PWORLDSTANG
New member
MotorCity said:
Believe me man, when I say disappointed, I mean disappointed. I wanted to be satisfied with the products, I really did. Lol.
But, the looks just wasn't there for me. After applying 105, I literally could not notice a difference in looks before applying, and noticed my car looked a little dull than it normally would after a straight wash.
Those two products receive so many rave reviews on here, I thought I couldn't go wrong. I really wasn't even expecting much as far as looks goes. I thought to myself 'Even if it doesn't look good, It'll only be for winter, and I'll be protected' .... But, that wasn't the case. Looked horrible, and I really regretted buying it. Then the durability was competely dependant on how often I applied AW.
But one positive thing I can say is that for the first week, it bead better than anything I've ever used. But this wasn't the case 3 weeks later.
BTW, to anyone reading this, I am not bashing DG by any means. I'm just stating my experience with the product, and how I think it looks - which is completely subjective.
:2thumbs:
SVR
Dream Machines
Alfisti said:So it's a glaze, not a true polish (unless you're using Meguiars definition)
Do polish (with the real stuff) before using the Glare 'polish'?
What do you class as a true polish. One that gives a true shine or those with abrasives
They are definately not in the same class as menzerna and such, they are a totally different type of polish all together, being non abrasive.
I don't want to abrasive polish the car anymore. It's been done three times and that's enough. I don't want the car to be resprayed at all.
Why remove marks with abrasives on an already triple cut paint finish when you can permanently fill them by hand or machine and get a better shine than any abrasives can deliver anyway.
Most likely, glare is not a glaze either. A glaze contains fillers that will wash out. These fillers do not.
I actually call a polish that which restores gloss by removing the defects and actually polishes the surface, so that without anything else applied, the surface is...well...polished! 
To me, what you described is a glaze. IMO, a glaze is defined as a product that enhances gloss and hides defects by coating it. It hides and smoothens, but it's a coating. Whether its temporary or permanent is irrelevant to the definition, as I see it. If Glare is permanent, then it's just a superior glaze, but not a polish.
I know some companies, like Meguiars, market the same thing as a glaze and a polish, but I think that just leads to confusion for everyone, especially the consumer.
In the paint refinishing industry, it's accepted that a compound removes severe defects with abrasives, a polish refines that further by removing defects with milder abrasives, and a glaze fills and coats the surface without abrasives. I believe that's the terminology used on this forum so that we understand each other.
I know one can argue dictionary definitions to support both sides of the argument, but in the end it just leads to confusion. I'm not trying to be argumentative, so I apologize if I appear to be. I just feel strongly about how marketing companies promote their products in a fashion that leaves the consumer confused and dazed.
How many time have I had to explain myself: "Your car needs polishing. It'll cost $XXX." "You're kidding! I just polished it last week and it only took 30 mins." "I don't think you polished it - you just waxed it." "What's the difference? The bottle says 'Polish'." etc, etc. :grrr
To me, what you described is a glaze. IMO, a glaze is defined as a product that enhances gloss and hides defects by coating it. It hides and smoothens, but it's a coating. Whether its temporary or permanent is irrelevant to the definition, as I see it. If Glare is permanent, then it's just a superior glaze, but not a polish.
I know some companies, like Meguiars, market the same thing as a glaze and a polish, but I think that just leads to confusion for everyone, especially the consumer.
In the paint refinishing industry, it's accepted that a compound removes severe defects with abrasives, a polish refines that further by removing defects with milder abrasives, and a glaze fills and coats the surface without abrasives. I believe that's the terminology used on this forum so that we understand each other.
I know one can argue dictionary definitions to support both sides of the argument, but in the end it just leads to confusion. I'm not trying to be argumentative, so I apologize if I appear to be. I just feel strongly about how marketing companies promote their products in a fashion that leaves the consumer confused and dazed.
How many time have I had to explain myself: "Your car needs polishing. It'll cost $XXX." "You're kidding! I just polished it last week and it only took 30 mins." "I don't think you polished it - you just waxed it." "What's the difference? The bottle says 'Polish'." etc, etc. :grrr
imported_Aurora40
New member
While "overrated" is pretty subjective, the only products I've ever used that I felt really were terrible were Super Shine. A while back they were trying to get attention here and I don't recall if they gave products away or sold a package for fairly cheap for evaluation. Anyway, that was the worst wax product I've ever used. It worked I guess, though it was really dusty, even by hand, didn't do any of the things it said for correction or hiding minor swirls, and didn't last long at all. It did look shiny though for a few days.
They also had some spray tire shine and spray glass cleaner. They were mediocre at best. The tire shine, well it worked ok (how bad can tire shine be). The glass cleaner had very little cleaning ability.
I still have the 'metal madness'. Again, it worked ok. It smells awful but does do a decent job on metal. I'm not sure I'd try it on wheels though as it seemed pretty harsh.
They also had some spray tire shine and spray glass cleaner. They were mediocre at best. The tire shine, well it worked ok (how bad can tire shine be). The glass cleaner had very little cleaning ability.
I still have the 'metal madness'. Again, it worked ok. It smells awful but does do a decent job on metal. I'm not sure I'd try it on wheels though as it seemed pretty harsh.
SVR
Dream Machines
Alfisti said:I actually call a polish that which restores gloss by removing the defects and actually polishes the surface, so that without anything else applied, the surface is...well...polished!
To me, what you described is a glaze. IMO, a glaze is defined as a product that enhances gloss and hides defects by coating it. It hides and smoothens, but it's a coating. Whether its temporary or permanent is irrelevant to the definition, as I see it. If Glare is permanent, then it's just a superior glaze, but not a polish.
I know some companies, like Meguiars, market the same thing as a glaze and a polish, but I think that just leads to confusion for everyone, especially the consumer.
In the paint refinishing industry, it's accepted that a compound removes severe defects with abrasives, a polish refines that further by removing defects with milder abrasives, and a glaze fills and coats the surface without abrasives. I believe that's the terminology used on this forum so that we understand each other.
I know one can argue dictionary definitions to support both sides of the argument, but in the end it just leads to confusion. I'm not trying to be argumentative, so I apologize if I appear to be. I just feel strongly about how marketing companies promote their products in a fashion that leaves the consumer confused and dazed.
How many time have I had to explain myself: "Your car needs polishing. It'll cost $XXX." "You're kidding! I just polished it last week and it only took 30 mins." "I don't think you polished it - you just waxed it." "What's the difference? The bottle says 'Polish'." etc, etc. :grrr
No your not being argumentive. your making very good points and I totally agree. too damn confusing for most with this marketing, especially in the UK.
In my eyes a polish can be two things. One that contains abrasives and removes defects and enhances gloss and the other being a non abrasive polish that may or may not fill in defects and makes the paint even glossier than the polish that contains abrasives.
For everyone else, the glare is a glaze because it fills.
Anyway I think that's just where we differ and we can move on now.
I'll continue to fill in defects to keep my ten year old clearcoat on the car and use abrasive products and the glare and permagard non abrasive systems as well.