No need for Sealant if I do this

Wow, that's all I can say, I got my hygroscopic on from reading this thread!
 
PiPUK--- perhaps the most informative individual on this forum and now one of the funniest--thanks for the great after Christmas laugh!!!
 
pikiki said:
Dictionary.com
Hygroscopic - (adjective)
absorbing or attracting moisture from the air.
Click to expand...

Hygroscopic !

I used an exclamation point, not a question mark

I am excited, not confused
 
Isn't Hygroscopic the property used when you add rice to salt to keep the salt from caking? The rice absorbs the moisture. I am still not sure how that applies to a wax.
 
Some of you guys need a 30min HBO comedy special.

The wit, the humor, the delivery, the timing -WOW!!!!

The wife goes, are you laughing on the car wash forum again?? What's so funny? My reply, NOTHING lmao...
 
1st off I want to thank everyone on this thread about their opinions. But most of all I was cracking up about the funny comments!

Here is an update from back in April.

I do want to let all of you know from 1st hand experience (or opinion), I am back to applying a sealant and then a wax. I experimented earlier this year and IMO I feel doing both is the best for me and the final results (at least to me) are better. More depth and wet look with a sealant and a wax than just a wax itself or a sealant by itself.

Doing both gives the extra wet look I am looking for.

In fact, the wax that I used (very famous no names as I do not want to cause a stink as many AGO members love the wax and AGO does not sell) was actually a "lousy" wax. I donated that wax to an AGO member earlier and it was expensive 3 digit figure wax $$$!!! UGH!!

Any how, again thank you guys for the laughs this morning!! Everyone have a great New Year!!

Peace!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top