Now that DWG ( Danase Wet Glaze ) is gone forever, what are my alternatives?

wannafbody said:
None of this relabeling stuff would ever have been an issue if Chemical Guys had some ethics and kept their legal agreements with distributors/wholesalers/relabelers confidential. Chemical Guys should never tell anyone that they or Warner Chemical or any other name they use manufacturers products for ABC, MNO or ZXY companies. I be quite pissed if I were Poorboys, Adams, or Danase for publicly revealing confidential business info.
Click to expand...



Ok, I don't know how someone can go and make a post like this without some type of supporting documentation.



Do you have a link or some kind of source that you can point us to that shows that this actually occurred?



Do you realize that if what you say above is true, that any of these companies could file lawsuits against CG for breach of contract etc. and cause serious damage to CG? I'm not aware of that happening, are you?



Again, please provide proof that CG has ever violated confidential contractual agreements with any of their "re-labelers" as you call them.
 
lasthope05 said:
it's been known that DWG is a very slightly reformulated CG EZ creme.
Click to expand...



I can see now why Bob was exasperated with experts claiming his product to be another.



Quoting Bob, to set the record straight:



“I really wish some of you would get your facts straight. If I have to say it again I am going to scream! LOL Danase Wet Glaze is NOT the same as Ez Creme!”



http://www.autopia.org/forum/car-de...6-questions-danase-wet-glaze.html#post1044235



And



“Another one of these post huh? I wish I had the chemical engineering degrees a lot of you have because I'd save myself a ton of money. They are not the same stuff. We use a different formula. Same smell and color though, but then again my silver Subaru and silver Ford smell and look the same color so they must be the same car!”



http://www.autopia.org/forum/car-detailing/106631-menzerna-danase.html#post1119406



What on earth would I learn by PM'ing you?
 
khjr said:
I can see now why Bob was exasperated with big-mouthed know-nothings claiming his product to be another.



Quoting Bob, to set the record straight:



“I really wish some of you would get your facts straight. If I have to say it again I am going to scream! LOL Danase Wet Glaze is NOT the same as Ez Creme!”



http://www.autopia.org/forum/car-de...6-questions-danase-wet-glaze.html#post1044235



And



“Another one of these post huh? I wish I had the chemical engineering degrees a lot of you have because I'd save myself a ton of money. They are not the same stuff. We use a different formula. Same smell and color though, but then again my silver Subaru and silver Ford smell and look the same color so they must be the same car!”



http://www.autopia.org/forum/car-detailing/106631-menzerna-danase.html#post1119406



What on earth would I learn by PM'ing you?
Click to expand...



:wall We taking things to PM is so we dont turn a good forum like Autopia into a crappy hostile site. But I'm sure you couldnt see that point either.



I'll PM you back so we dont clutter the thread.
 
lasthope05 said:
:wall We taking things to PM is so we dont turn a good forum like Autopia into a crappy hostile site. But I'm sure you couldnt see that point either.



I'll PM you back so we dont clutter the thread.
Click to expand...



I think many of us would prefer to see this discussion in the open...and to see you give proof of your allegations.
 
I went ahead and bought a bottle of DWG from PakShak. This gave me an excuse to buy a couple of their ultra-soft waffle weave towels I love so much.



I imagine this new bottle of DWG will last me a good while. Perhaps by the time it runs out another compny will have produced an identical product. I really don't want a glaze with cleaning abilities. I simply want a glaze. DWG fit the bill.
 
Here's a little secret. Read the description of the product. When two products sold under different names use the exact same prewritten marketing blurb then think for a minute or in some cases maybe ten minutes and then arrive at a logical conclusion. The exception to the above would be if a manufacturer claims to actually formulate their own proprietary product and own their own manufacturing facility-Duragloss, Optimum, Zaino, Megs and possibly Mothers come to mind.
 
wannafbody said:
None of this relabeling stuff would ever have been an issue if Chemical Guys had some ethics and kept their legal agreements with distributors/wholesalers/relabelers confidential. Chemical Guys should never tell anyone that they or Warner Chemical or any other name they use manufacturers products for ABC, MNO or ZXY companies. I be quite pissed if I were Poorboys, Adams, or Danase for publicly revealing confidential business info.
Click to expand...



Rob Tomlin said:
Ok, I don't know how someone can go and make a post like this without some type of supporting documentation.



Do you have a link or some kind of source that you can point us to that shows that this actually occurred?



Do you realize that if what you say above is true, that any of these companies could file lawsuits against CG for breach of contract etc. and cause serious damage to CG? I'm not aware of that happening, are you?



Again, please provide proof that CG has ever violated confidential contractual agreements with any of their "re-labelers" as you call them.
Click to expand...



How does this post:



wannafbody said:
Here's a little secret. Read the description of the product. When two products sold under different names use the exact same prewritten marketing blurb then think for a minute or in some cases maybe ten minutes and then arrive at a logical conclusion. The exception to the above would be if a manufacturer claims to actually formulate their own proprietary product and own their own manufacturing facility-Duragloss, Optimum, Zaino, Megs and possibly Mothers come to mind.
Click to expand...



respond to the above??
 
Rob Tomlin said:
Ok, I don't know how someone can go and make a post like this without some type of supporting documentation.



Do you have a link or some kind of source that you can point us to that shows that this actually occurred?



Do you realize that if what you say above is true, that any of these companies could file lawsuits against CG for breach of contract etc. and cause serious damage to CG? I'm not aware of that happening, are you?



Again, please provide proof that CG has ever violated confidential contractual agreements with any of their "re-labelers" as you call them.
Click to expand...





I dont think it has been said directly, but im trying to remember and find where a detailer went to chemical guys and spoke with paul who mentioned why he couldnt understand why everyone likes natty's paste wax as it is the exact same thing as their xxx hardcore wax.



now as for adams, dylan(i believe) has said that warner chemical formulates their products (doesnt mean its identical to CG)



ill come back with links....not to spread the fire further :nervous2:
 
black03mach said:
I dont think it has been said directly, but im trying to remember and find where a detailer went to chemical guys and spoke with paul who mentioned why he couldnt understand why everyone likes natty's paste wax as it is the exact same thing as their xxx hardcore wax.



now as for adams, dylan(i believe) has said that warner chemical formulates their products (doesnt mean its identical to CG)



ill come back with links....not to spread the fire further :nervous2:
Click to expand...



Can Paul prove it? CG seems to want to take credit for everything. As I understand it, CG is a rebottler too...they just happen to sell similar products from a similar source. Do they likely have a common heritage?



I wish Bob would now reveal his blenders and what he actually changed the formulas since he has nothing to lose/gain from withholding information. We could use another view besides Paul's.



Chocolate cookie recipes are numerous with all the same basic ingredients..I just like some better than others..
 
Bob has already stated in the past that Chemical guys and another unnamed company are his blenders. To what was changed in the formulas are still up in the air.
 
lasthope05 said:
Bob has already stated in the past that Chemical guys and another unnamed company are his blenders. To what was changed in the formulas are still up in the air.
Click to expand...



someone on the site must have access to some cool CSI technology :P
 
black03mach said:
I dont think it has been said directly, but im trying to remember and find where a detailer went to chemical guys and spoke with paul who mentioned why he couldnt understand why everyone likes natty's paste wax as it is the exact same thing as their xxx hardcore wax.



now as for adams, dylan(i believe) has said that warner chemical formulates their products (doesnt mean its identical to CG)



ill come back with links....not to spread the fire further :nervous2:
Click to expand...



I believe that it was Burlq who made that claim.
 
nonsensez9 said:
someone on the site must have access to some cool CSI technology :P
Click to expand...



It doesnt take CSI to use the search button. But many on here are like babies and like to be spoon fed their information instead of taking their own time to searching for themselves.



Danase said:
Yeah, I figure you are all a smart bunch so I don't even try to pretend I have some sort of personal chemist or that I am making chemicals in my bath tub. I use Chemical Guys and a couple of other places to do custom blending for me. Basically I am paying for a chemical company to make products to suite my wants.



As for price, I think I am a little higher than other quick detailers, I look to be at par with Adam's, but I have not had one complaint on my products. The Speed Shine is more slick, leaves more shine, and has better cleaning ability than anything I have used. I know it doesn't mean much coming from the guy selling it so I ask that you try it out for yourself before making any conclusions.



Sincerely,



Bob Daniels
Click to expand...



http://www.autopia.org/forum/car-de...anase-speed-shine-vs-adam-s-detail-spray.html
 
OK, for those who say DWG doesn't have cleaners...



If you use it on bare aluminum wheels the pad turns black very quickly. That to me means that it does in fact have some abrasive characteristics, no?



I have both, and both seem to pretty much be interchangeable.
 
lasthope05 said:
It doesnt take CSI to use the search button. But many on here are like babies and like to be spoon fed their information instead of taking their own time to searching for themselves.







http://www.autopia.org/forum/car-de...anase-speed-shine-vs-adam-s-detail-spray.html
Click to expand...



a search will give two million useless posts stating this product has cleaners / fillers.... no it doesn't.... this product does.... no it doesn't that product does.... yes it does... no it doesn't.... look at this, no look here.



I want to know the chemical compositions... that's where CSI comes in :P
 
Bunky said:
Can Paul prove it? CG seems to want to take credit for everything. As I understand it, CG is a rebottler too...they just happen to sell similar products from a similar source. Do they likely have a common heritage?



I wish Bob would now reveal his blenders and what he actually changed the formulas since he has nothing to lose/gain from withholding information. We could use another view besides Paul's.



Chocolate cookie recipes are numerous with all the same basic ingredients..I just like some better than others..
Click to expand...

I dont know, He may be able to, but why would he an offhand comment like that could be viewed as "its similair" or "its the same exact thing" and i doubt whoever is relabeling their products is going to file a lawsuit because then they have to disclose the exact specifics of the relationship (meaning disclose whether its a relabel or a whole new chemical compisition)
 
Geez people, get over it... Buy what you like and skip what you don't...



As is public knowledge CG EZ is similar... Am I going to say the same, No I am not because I do now know definitively and to make such statements without tangible, hard, quantitative proof is ignorant...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top