The Vape Elite

Dive deep into the universe of vaping with the yocan uni pro box mod vape. Offering a design that screams sophistication and function, this is a must-have for those who value quality. Whether you're just starting on your vaping journey or are an experienced enthusiast, this mod will cater to all your needs. With cutting-edge technology and user-friendly interface, it is poised to redefine your vaping experience, taking it several notches higher.
preview

A Symphony of Flavors: Hyde 1500 Puffs

Dive into a world bursting with taste and innovation with our Hyde 1500 puffs flavors. The Hyde Edge is a masterpiece of vaping delight, delivering a staggering 1500 puffs in a sleek and compact design. Every puff is a symphony of flavors, meticulously crafted to satisfy even the most discerning palate. Curious to know more? Visit our product page and let the bold flavors of Hyde Edge lead the way to an extraordinary vaping experience.
preview

A Refreshing Adventure: Hyde Honey Dew Punch

Dive into a world of refreshing delight with Hyde Honey Dew Punch, a flavorful masterpiece in the realm of disposable vapes. This exquisite device promises a satisfying 1500 puffs, taking your vaping experience to new heights. The sweet and tantalizing notes of honeydew combined with a punchy twist create a symphony of flavors, ensuring every inhale is as delightful as the last. Compact and sleek in design, it's the perfect companion for on-the-go vaping. Don’t miss out on this exceptional blend of taste and convenience.
preview

VooPoo Argus P1s Pod Kit - 800 mAh, 2A Charging | Reviews by Z-Lee

UK Buy: FreeMax Friobar Napa 600 Disposable Vape

FreeMax Friobar Napa 600 Disposable – the ultimate hassle-free vaping solution. This disposable vape is all about pure flavour without complications. With a whopping 600 generous puffs, it guarantees a satisfying experience for even the most dedicated vapers.
Friobar_Napa_600.png

The magic behind the intense flavours is the Duomesh coil, which delivers concentrated flavour and dense vapour with each draw. There's no need to worry about refills or chargers; just open the packet, take a puff, and when you're done, toss it in the bin – it's that simple. No mess, no fuss.

In addition to the remarkable convenience, this device is TPD-compliant, ensuring it meets all EU safety standards, and allowing you to vape with peace of mind. Stylish, discreet, and ready to use, it's the epitome of hassle-free vaping.

We provide various vapes at the best online vape store, waiting for you to dig out.

Best Vapes Online:
https://vapesourcing.uk/vaporesso-luxe-q2-kit.html

Affordable Vaping Solutions: Elf Bar Online Cheap

Discover the perfect balance between quality and affordability with our exclusive range of Elf Bar online cheap vapes. Dive into a world of diverse and rich flavors without putting a dent in your wallet. This collection offers a fantastic vaping experience, maintaining high standards of taste and reliability while being incredibly budget-friendly. Don’t miss out on these unbeatable prices; explore our selection and find your new favorite vape today!
preview

VooPoo Argus P1s Pod Kit - 800 mAh, 2A Charging | Reviews by Z-Lee

VooPoo Argus P1s

VooPoo Argus P1s GIF.gif

Hello folks! Today we'll be taking a look at VooPoo's latest pod system, the Argus P1s. This is a taller and skinnier version of their Argus P1 that has more of a boxy shape. I wasn't given the chance to test their P1, but giving it a quick look over, it has almost identical features to the P1s. I'm going to guess that the "s" in the P1s is indicative of its slender aesthetic. If you actually know or have other ideas about what the "s" stands for, don't be afraid to leave a response! After a little bit of research, I figured out that the "s" stand for "stick-shaped", lol.

The P1s follows a long line of Argus Pod kits, and they've made quite a few improvements since some of the first few I tested. The biggest improvement is the 2A Type-C charging which was actually clocked higher than advertised, for once. I'll get more into detail about everything as we cruise through this review.

I want to thank VooPoo for sending this product out. As always, this critique will be conducted in a fair and honest manner. I've been quite critical of VooPoo in the past few years, so you can be sure that will not be changing for this review.

First I'll leave a few snippets of what VooPoo has to say about this product as well as some pictures from their site, and then will be leaving my own test results and experiences further below. If you want a more interactive look at the Argus P1s, please visit VooPoo's very own page. There are some things I purposefully left out, to give you an incentive to go check it out. ;)



- BRIEF SITE OVERVIEW -

Color Options:

Argus-P1s-Site-Colors.jpg

From left to right and top to bottom:
> Cyber Black
> Cyber Cyan
> Cyber Red
> Cyber White
> Cyber Green
> Creed Black
> Creed Rose
> Creed Cyan



Key Features:

Argus-P1s-Site-Features.jpg

> New Argus Cartridges (Doubled Coil Lifespan)
> 2A Fast Charging Type-C
> iCOSM


So what exactly is iCOSM?

Specs & Package List:

Argus-P1s-Site-Specs-&-Package.jpg


The package list for the Standard, US, and TPD versions are all the same being that the included cartridges are 2 mL in volume.



- TEST RESULTS & OBSERVATIONS -


Intro:

Argus-P1s-Intro.jpg

Everything comes packaged nice and tidy. There's a plastic crate that holds the battery and cartridge protecting it from taking any fall damage during transport. Inside the box, aside from the battery and cartridge, you'll receive a bag-o-goodies and a lanyard. Inside the bag-o-goodies, you'll receive a spare cartridge (1.2Ω), a USB Type-C charging cable (about a foot long), a User Manual, and an Argus Platform Card which tells you which devices the Argus cartridges and pods are compatible with. I say cartridges and pods, because the included cartridges are also compatible with Argus pods that are available in other kits and for separate purchase. The pods use VooPoo's replaceable ITO coils, which allows you to save the pod and replace the coil instead of throwing out the entire cartridge when the coil burns out. There's a picture below when we reach the cartridges that explains this a bit further.

Because this kit comes with a spare Argus cartridge and USB Type-C cable, I'd consider this a great starter kit for new vapers. Older vapers that are interested in a very loose MTL or very restricted RDL will find this kit to be a great transition from whatever it is they're using if convenience is what they seek.



The Argus P1s Battery:
Argus-P1s-Battery.jpg

I received the Cyber White colorway for this review, and as you can see it's quite sharp looking. I'm a huge fan of the cyberpunk look when it comes to mods and devices, so the aesthetic is right up my alley.

When holding the device flat in your hand, you'll notice in the aluminum alloy, two small pin-sized holes on each side of the mod near the top of the battery; these are your airflow holes. There is no airflow control for this device. Instead, the air restriction is controlled by the air inlets on the bottom of the cartridge, and this more or less depends on what resistance the cartridge is. Generally speaking, the higher the resistance of the coil/cartridge, the less airflow there will be. This is to stay consistent with RDL (Restricted Direct Lung - lower to mid ohms) and MTL (Mouth To Lung - higher ohms) draw methods.

As you work your way down from the aluminum alloy, there's a transition to the PCTG plastic housing that gives this devices it's transparency and gleam. On the front side, you can see the battery indicator that's pasted front and center on the chip that's positioned right behind it. The "pipes" you see are strictly in place to add to the cyberpunk look as far as I know.

Near the bottom of the battery on the front and back, there's a reflective iridescent sticker under the PCTG casing that gives the Argus P1s a bit of a futuristic look.

On the top of the battery where the cartridge or pod seats, there are the standard positive and negative spring-loaded, gold or brass-plated pins along with the auto-draw sensor and two small rectangular magnets to hold the cartridge in place. I would like to see a slightly deeper drip tray to ensure the auto-draw sensor stays well clear of getting clogged up, but supposedly the new Argus cartridges are leak-proof. I've not experienced any leaking during my testing (3 weeks), but it's usually a month or two in before you start experiencing any leaking - this goes for pretty much any pod device. We'll see down the line if the new Argus cartridges can stand the test of time like VooPoo claims they do.

At the bottom of the battery is where you'll find the Type-C fast charging port. VooPoo claims that this port charges at 2A, but I actually clocked it at up to 2.4A which is extremely impressive. It's very rare to see VooPoo under-advertise their specs, so this is a huge kudos to them. The Argus P1s does indeed fully charge in almost exactly 20 min., and reaches the trickle charge at 15 min., which is around 90% - this is a common safety feature for lithium-ion batteries. It should be noted that this device simply does not want to stand. You can get it to stand, but you'll want to hold your breath indefinitely if you want it to continue standing.

The battery LEDs when lit, transition between cyan, blue, purple, pink, white, yellow, and green. However, the colors themselves do not indicate the status of your battery, but rather how many bars there are. 3 bars = 60-100%, 2 bars = 30-60%, and 1 bar = 0-30%.

I noticed one thing about the safety features mentioned for this device, and in particular, the 5-second cutoff. I'm not sure when they implemented this, but I've been wondering when someone was going to reduce the usual 10-second cutoff, because I think that's entirely too long. I don't think I know a single person that takes a 10-second puff, and if the device auto-fires for 10 seconds straight, you might as well just throw it away - it's toast. 5-seconds is far more than reasonable, and I applaud VooPoo for finally doing this.

The battery fires up to 25W based on the cartridge or coil resistance but it's all auto-adjusting, so there is no concern on your part about needing to change any settings for which cartridge or pod you use.

I'm also not a fan of the 3 bar LED indicator system. Anywhere between 60-100% just seems like too much leeway for a long day out and about - that's nearly half the battery gone where you think it might be fully charged. A 4 or 5 bar LED system would be much better.



The Argus Pod Cartridge:

Argus-P1s-Cartridge.jpg


I'm a bit surprised that VooPoo did not give their new Argus cartridges and pods an updated nomenclature, such as Argus Pod Cartridge 2.0. There are a few key ways to tell if you're getting the new pods versus the older non-updated pods.

One of the first things you'll notice in the new cartridges is that the juice ports that feed the cotton wick are cut out a tad larger in diameter. Way up above in the Site Overview section under Key Features, there are 2 pods positioned vertically from one another that shows this a bit better. Unfortunately I don't have an older cartridge to show you the difference in juice port sizes. This is something you should keep in mind when reordering cartridges to ensure you're getting the newest ones.

The other telltale is a bit more obvious. On the backside of the cartridge where the VooPoo logo is engraved, you'll notice that it says Argus just below it. The older cartridges do not say Argus, just VooPoo. Let's hope vendors do not try selling their older stock under the guise of the new Argus cartridges.

The cartridges themselves vape very well. I've been quite impressed with the 0.7Ω cartridge. I would give it a flavor rating of 9, which is about as good as it gets. Furthermore, I've been more or less doing what I can to try and burn this coil out, and it's keeping up without a hitch. I've been testing out the 5-second cutoff safety feature quite a bit, and I have yet to reach a dry or burnt puff which again, is very astonishing. I'm going to have to give the new Argus cartridges a big thumbs up. The 1.2Ω is a bit lackluster in flavor output in comparison to the 0.7Ω cartridge, but not everyone is flavor chasing, and we also have to take into consideration the differing nicotine concentrations people seek. You can't have it all in a single coil, so I think both the 1.2Ω and 0.7Ω cartridges have their place in terms of demand.

I didn't notice much of an airflow difference between the cartridges which was a bit of a bummer. You can expect a fairly loose draw that I'd categorize in the very loose MTL or very restricted RDL.

The Argus cartridges included in this kit along with Argus pods (old and new cartridges and pods) are all compatible with the Argus Z, Argus Pod SE, Argus POD, Argus G, and Argus P1.

I see this asked all the time on Reddit - should I be concerned about bubbles? You should be concerned IF THERE ARE NO bubbles. Bubbles mean the wick is properly wicking. Bubbles in the tank are good.

Argus-Pod-SE-Removeable-ITO-Coil.jpg

As I had mentioned above, this is the Argus Pod. This pod works in tandem with replaceable ITO coils, shown at the very top, and is also compatible with the same devices that use the Argus cartridges included in the P1s kit. I believe the ITO coils are also getting a facelift, as they're mentioned in the iCOSM page shown here, but I am not entirely sure how to tell if you're receiving the newer or older ones.

The replaceable coil option is more environmentally friendly and cost-effective. Right now on VooPoo's online site, a 5-pack of ITO coils cost $17.99 (or ~$3 each) whereas the Argus Pod Cartridges come in 3-packs at the cost of $14.99 (or ~$5 each). Convenience or cost-effective and environmentally friendly? Pick your poison.



- CONCLUSION -

There really isn't anything bad to say about the Argus P1s. The only thing I'm not entirely sure of, is the battery size. I've sucked down an entire battery while writing this review which seems rather quick to me for an 800 mAh device, but that's just my opinion. I do not have the gear to prove otherwise. The device charges in the advertised 20 min, it charges faster than 2A which is nice to see for a change, and the new Argus cartridges certainly deliver; the 0.7Ω more so than the 1.2Ω in terms of flavor, but again - there's a place for both cartridges. In terms of a size comparison, the new Argus P1s is 2-3 mm taller than the Argus G found furthest to the right in the following picture:
20230314_121054.jpg



++ PROS ++

> Pocket-friendly

> No leaking as of yet

> Cyberpunk aesthetic

> Long-lasting cartridges

> Super fast charging (up to 2.4A)

> 20 min. full recharge

> Flavor monster (0.7Ω cartridge specifically)

> Comes with a lanyard

> Comes with a spare cartridge

> USB Type-C (can we consider this the norm, yet?)

> Argus cartridges are cross-compatible with several other Argus family products




- - CONS - -

> Not convinced the battery is a full 800 mAh



+- CONSIDERATIONS -+

> Little to no variation in airflow - Very loose MTL or very restricted RDL (plugging a hole doesn't really do much)

> 3 bar LED indicator (4 or 5 bar is certainly much more accurate)

> Argus cartridges are not as environmentally friendly as the Argus Pod + ITO coils




Overall Rating:
9.0



And that about wraps up this review on VooPoo's Argus P1s pod kit. I hope I didn't miss anything - feel free to ask questions. If you're interested in purchasing this kit, you can find it here for $23.99, and replacement Argus cartridges can be found here for $14.99. Thanks for sticking with me, and I hope to catch you in the next review.

Happy vape hoarding!

:rickroll:

Giveaways! Come and Win VOOPOO Vape!

Dear All,

Have you ever used VOOPOO DRAG X and DRAG S? What’s your impression of them and their atomization platform, PnP platform? Leave your comments and picture (optional) and win VOOPOO vape!

23101303-2(1).jpg


Please leave your comment and VOOPOO will randomly choose TWO of you and give each of you one VOOPOO vape!

Notes:

1. You must be 21 or older.

2. The contest will end on November 7.

3. We will choose the winners randomly.

4. Some regions may not win the giveaway gift activity because of regulatory restrictions.

For Sale Selling 3 day old Aegis Legend 2 and Z SE Tank w batteries

I am selling my stuff because I thought I wanted to get into vaping as a recreational hobby, but I changed my mind a few days in.

1 Geekvape Z SE Subohm Tank
1 replacement glass for tank
1 Geekvape Aegis Legend 2 Mod
2 Samsung 30Q 3000MAH 15A batteries
1 charging cable

20231023_030447.jpg

20231023_030513.jpg

20231023_030524.jpg

20231023_030636.jpg

20231023_030856.jpg

order proof.jpeg


All the gear is brand new, basically 72 hours old. The puff counter on mod is at 234 (I didn't look up how to reset it). The tank has only gotten strawberry harvest eliquid inside it before and I took it all apart and thoroughly cleaned it all

I threw out the original coil that the tank came with and installed the brand new 50-60W 0.4 ohms replacement coil that came with it, so it's brand new. All O rings and the little coil extractor tool are also new and included along with the small charging cable that came with the mod. I have two Samsung 30Q 3000MAH 15A batteries installed in the mod that I bought along with everything, all from geekvapes website.

If you buy everything here from the website just like I did, it will be around 115$. Since mine is basically brand new, with all boxes, manuals, and extra parts included, I'm selling everything for 70$ (free shipping) so 70 is the final price for the lot

Paypal is the method of payment. Message me if interested!

Nasty Bar 8500 Puffs Review - Disposable Vape Kit 17ml

The Nasty Bar 8500 Puffs disposable vape device is one of the latest additions to the disposable vaping market. With a striking design and a high puff capacity, it aims to impress both new and experienced vapers. In this review, we'll delve into the key features and performance of the Nasty Bar 8500 Puffs.
nasty-bar-flavors.jpg

Impressive Puff Capacity: The standout feature of the Nasty Bar 8500 Puffs is its massive puff capacity. With the ability to provide up to 8500 puffs, this device ensures you'll enjoy extended vaping sessions without the need for frequent replacements.

Variety of Flavors: Nasty Bar offers a wide range of flavors to cater to different preferences. Whether you're a fan of fruit, menthol, or dessert flavors, there's likely a Nasty Bar flavor that will appeal to your taste buds. The diverse flavor options make it an excellent choice for vapers who enjoy variety in their vaping experience.

Hassle-Free Operation: The Nasty Bar is designed for simplicity. It's a draw-activated device, which means there are no buttons to fuss with. You can simply inhale to start vaping. This straightforward operation makes it beginner-friendly, but experienced vapers will also appreciate the ease of use.

Compact and Portable: The Nasty Bar's slim and compact design makes it highly portable. It easily fits in your pocket or purse, allowing you to vape on the go. The sleek and modern appearance of the device is an added bonus.

Satisfying Nicotine Strength: The Nasty Bar comes with a 5% nicotine strength (50mg), making it suitable for those who prefer a strong nicotine hit. This level of nicotine is perfect for ex-smokers transitioning to vaping or anyone who craves a robust nicotine experience.

No Maintenance or Refilling: Disposable vapes are known for their convenience, and the Nasty Bar is no exception. There's no need for refilling e-liquids or replacing coils. Once the device is depleted, you can simply dispose of it responsibly.

Drawbacks to Consider: While the Nasty Bar offers many advantages, it's important to note that, like all disposables, it generates waste. Proper disposal in designated e-waste bins or recycling facilities is essential to minimize environmental impact.

Conclusion: The Nasty Bar 8500 Puffs offers a convenient and hassle-free vaping experience with a remarkable puff capacity and a variety of flavors to choose from. Whether you're new to vaping or an experienced user, this disposable device has something to offer. Keep in mind the importance of responsible disposal to minimize environmental impact.

Related kits you may like:
elf thc
Geek Bar Pulse 15000

Puffbar P8000 Review: My Honest Vaping Experience (8000puffs)

I recently got my hands on the Puffbar P8000, and it's been quite an experience so far. As a dedicated vaper, I was excited to try out this new entry into the market. Here's my honest review of the Puffbar P8000.
31c76b20-1945-41ac-ab8f-33bc45d54420.jpg


Specifications:
· 500mAh battery
· 12ML e-liquid capacity
· 8000 puffs
· 10 flavor options ( watermelon ice、mango ice、pineapple ice、maracuja guava、grape ice、peach、peach peach strawberry、orange ice、orange raspberry、mixed · melons)
· OLED display
· Crafted with an organic coating and glass base
· draw-activated mechanism.
· Type-C charger
· Contains 5% nicotine salt

The variety of 10 flavors piqued my interest, including unique combinations like Orange Ice / Watermelon Ice.​
卖点4(口味合集).jpg

Pros:

1. 12ML E-liquid Capacity: The most significant advantage of the P8000 is its massive e-liquid capacity. Having to refill the tank less frequently is a game-changer for me, ensuring longer-lasting vaping sessions.

2. Type-C Charger: The inclusion of a Type-C charger is a huge plus. Quick and efficient charging is something every vaper appreciates, and the P8000 delivers on this front.​
0a4fa1e5-d4c3-4397-a258-d77393653e47.jpg

3. OLED Display: I found the OLED display quite handy. It allowed me to keep an eye on my battery life , making it easy to gauge when I needed a recharge or a new device.​
95789ba4-b6fb-4ec2-b195-04f05a3a16b7.jpg

4. The Puffbar P8000 is aptly named as it offers an astounding 8000 puffs. This is a remarkable feat in the world of disposable vapes. The longevity it provides is unrivaled, making it an excellent choice for those who prefer less frequent replacements.

Cons:
1. 5% Nicotine Salt: The Puffbar P8000 contains 5% nicotine salt, which, I must admit, took me by surprise. It's pretty strong, and as a seasoned vaper, I found it manageable. However, I wouldn't recommend it for beginners or those with a low nicotine tolerance. It might be too intense for some.

So, the Puffbar P8000 is a compelling choice for vapers looking for a device with a substantial e-liquid capacity and modern features like Type-C charging and an OLED display. However, it's not without its drawbacks. The high nicotine content might be overwhelming for some, and the battery could have been more robust.

Ultimately, whether the Puffbar P8000 is the right fit for you depends on your vaping preferences and habits. If you're an experienced vaper who appreciates convenience and strong nicotine hits, you might find the P8000 to be a worthwhile addition to your collection. For newcomers or those with a low nicotine tolerance, I'd recommend exploring other options in the market.

Top-Tier Taste, Wallet-Friendly

For many, vaping is more than just a pastime; it's a journey of flavors and experiences. The search for the perfect balance between affordability and quality can be challenging. That's where our cheap and best top 10 esco bars come into play. Expertly curated, this collection ensures you don't have to compromise on the rich taste while staying within your budget. Every item on our list promises an exquisite vaping session that will leave you yearning for more. Experience a seamless blend of quality and affordability with our top 10 picks.
preview

Next-Level Vaping Experience

Ever felt the need to up your vaping game? Enter the smok novo bar al6000, the latest offering that promises a vaping experience unlike any other. Designed for perfection, this gadget is more than just a device; it's a statement. A blend of sleek design, outstanding functionality, and unmatched flavor profiles makes this one of the most coveted vaping devices in the market today. If quality vaping is your thing, this is the device to go for.
preview

Pre-Order! Digiflavor Digi-Q Pod Kit 1000mAh 2ml

Digiflavor Digi-Q Kit - a brand-new design with stylish pattern and aluminum alloy. Compatible with Geekvape Q Cartridge, Digi-Q brings extraordinary vape experience with precise adjustments for airflow and temperature. Thanks to 1000mAh battery and HD OLED display with RGB light, Digi-Q Kit provides worry-free and more intuitive experience.



Size: 70.96 * 48.80 * 16.80mm
Output Temperature: 67C-307C
Cartridge Capacity: 2.0ml
Coil Resistance: 0.6ohm/1.2ohm
Battery Capacity: 1000mAh
Charging Port: Type-C 5V
Display Screen: 0.32-inch OLED Display with RGB light
Breathing Light: RGB light
...

Click here for more:

Digiflavor Digi-Q Kit: Digiflavor Digi-Q Pod System Kit

GeekVape Digi Q Kit Giveaway, 1 winner, ends on Nov. 5th, 2023




Digi Q Kit is powered by built-in 1000mAh battery with Type-C charging. It features precise adjustments for airflow and temperature to bring you extraordinary vaping experience. Designed with 0.32-inch OLED display with RGB light, it can show you device status more intuitively. It also supports auto draw & button-triggered. In addition, it is compatible with GeekVape Q Pod Cartridge that features 2ml capacity and easy top filling system.

GeekVape Digi Q Kit Giveaway, 1 winner, ends on Nov. 5th, 2023

Enter here

Flavorings for diy: prices seem random

Dude asked me to look for flavorings. Costs between companies seem to vary wildly. Cappella for example is a fraction of FA, but still 5 times what flavor art flavors cost, and flavor jungle, while being twice the price of flavorwest, has some fa, RDA, and capella flavorings for a fraction of what they cost from the company. This said to me “buy from flavorwest” though their flavors often aren’t as good. Is there something I’m missing here?

Flavor Jungle "Ultimate" Flavors Reviewed by SessionDrummer

20230925_185311.jpg


Having had SOME great luck with a few of the “Ultimates” from Flavor Jungle (aka Jungle Flavors), I decided to pick up 8 more of the U’s, and a handful of their One-Shots. No free-bee’s, no sponsors, all self funded.


As always, all will be tested AT the listed percentages, running dual 24 ga. Kanthal vertical coils, in the beloved SteamCrave RDTA v.1. All flavors were mixed using a 70v/30p/3mg carrier, and tested at 65 watts. Fresh coils loaded before the tests, and dry burned with fresh cotton before every test. The flavors/One-Shots were all steeped at least 1.5 weeks prior to testing.


Commencing the testing !!!

Ultimate Birthday Cake (Flavor Jungle) 3.0% (10-8-23) – Starting out with this, the FIRST “Ultimate” in this new series with the UBDC. It smelled really good in the bottle, but not entirely as a cake, and testing it revealed much of the same. I would call this “cake-ish”, or “cake-y”, but not 100% a cake. At times throughout my testers, I actually got some light AP notes (Los Fritos), and that was unexpected/out of place. There were some generous helpings of generic vanilla (almost cake) notes, with perhaps some icing. It had some pretty good mouthfeel, and was fairly rich, but not buttery. All in, I might better call this one an “Ultimate Cake Mixer” flavor. At 3% it felt very full, and the only off-note I got as the occasional AP note. A great mixer for cake recipes, BUT, not the star of the show. It felt fair to place this squarely at a 6.5/10.

Ultimate Blueberry (Flavor Jungle) 3.0% (10-8-23) – OK, ok, ok. I may have to come up with my OWN names for these new “Ultimates”, just like I did with the UBDC. OK, what do we have with this one. I’m going to call it the “Ultimate Mashup”, and YES, you heard it here first. I grew concerned upon smelling it in the bottle, and then finger testing, not because it was horrid, but it came across as almost “jammed”, and that would NOT be my Ultimate BB. Testing it revealed much less of a “jammy” flavor, and much more of a mashup. Now, let me start off by saying it was good, REALLY good, BUT, not sure on the Ultimate Blueberry-ness of it. I got a mix of a great Blueberry with some lighter, funky notes (which really worked here), along with a light Concord Grape, AND, a White/Green Grape (maybe a Fuji Apple). There you go people, it IS a mashup, and not a solo Blueberry. Now, all cards on the table, my hands down Ultimate Blueberry is, and will probably remain Medicine Flower’s OG Blueberry for comparison.

This flavor is hard to explain (but not impossible), and maybe hard(er) to understand reading this. I would set the ratios of 50% Blueberry, 30% White/Green Grape (possibly Fuji), and 20% Concord Grape. Using berries to accentuate or boost Blueberries is well known, but using what I perceived to be grapes, was an interesting approach. All in, it WAS damned good, and I could see a LOT of uses for this, BUT, your mixing needs may vary, as well as your tastes, especially on a flavor like this. I could see ordering a bigger bottle of this one. At 3.0% it was very full and not lacking, and sweetness was just about mid-level, with no off-notes (except for the intentional mashup flavors), and the slight BB musky-ness which worked WITH the flavor, not against, so I’m not tallying that up as a take-off. All in, a great flavor, BUT, it was indeed a mashup, and a great one at that. Scoring this will be complicated for me, as it was billed AS a Blueberry. As a Blueberry mashup I would rate it at literally a 9.9/10, but as a Blueberry, I would have to pull it down a bit, and leave it at a 7.0/10. Even with a 7/10 rating, I would still recommend getting this one.

Ultimate French Vanilla (Flavor Jungle) 3.0% (10-8-23) – Ok, NOW we’re onto something, and it might JUST be, and Ultimate. Now many people don’t really know what a French Vanilla is, but I think Jungle Flavors does. French Vanilla isn’t really a specific Vanilla Bean, but more of an inclusion of Egg Yolks. Yes, that’s right, IN the Vanilla, and it was IN HERE !!! Yes, it presented as a somewhat darker, almost spicy Vanilla, with GREAT Custard elements. I’m writing this during the FIRST tester, so YES, it was THAT good. I think I might buy a bigger bottle before I finish this. The slightly darker Vanilla just simply worked here, and the custard elements while eggy, were not egg-heavy, which is going to appeal to a LOT of people, many of whom want some egg, but not slammed with egg. It was damned good at 3%, and I had NO desires to increase it. Sweetness was about a tick above mid-level, and I just couldn’t find any off-notes or take-offs to complain about. Great mouthfeel, fairly rich, and creamy, but without any overt cream notes if that makes sense. At times, I almost got a light bakery element in there, that just worked to thicken up the entire experience. All in, a slightly darker vanilla with just a hint of spicy-ness, with great custard notes, that weren’t overly eggy. I waited until the second tester before deciding to release the Kraken, and rock this one at a 10/10.

Ultimate Grape (Flavor Jungle) 3.0%. (10-10-23) – Just in case you missed it, as SOON as I tested this flavor, I KNEW it was also in the Ultimate Blueberry. Simply put, this was a fairly candied (but not entirely) Concord Grape, and a Green Grape. Story over. Sweetness levels were a few ticks above mid-level, and overall, it did present as candied-ish, SO, if you are/were looking for a completely natural Grape, this isn’t it. The good news is/was that it wasn’t entirely candied, SO, you could use it in more mixes, depending on your needs or wants. The green grape notes seemed to be more natural while the concord seemed more candied. As far as if it was the Ultimate or not, that’s going to have to be up to YOU guys, and/or your wants/needs. I didn’t detect any off-notes, and it did stay solidly on the grape train, with no deviations. Despite the fairly candied nature I felt it was smart to pair both types of grapes, as that could allow for even more uses. I struggled somewhat on the scoring here, as it wasn’t a full on natural grape, but more candied, so I don’t know if I would have renamed it the Ultimate Candied Grape or not, but I think I’ll have to leave it at a high 9.0/10 for the great grape pairings with some take-offs for the candied. If you like grapes, you will probably love this one.

Ultimate Lemon (Flavor Jungle) 3.0% (10-10-23) – Normally I test most lemons at lower percentages, but I decided to let this one roll with the rest, and there were no issues at 3%. It immediately struck me as a rather different take on Lemons, and in an interesting way. This was a combination of a Fresh Yellow Lemon, and a Lemon Drop candy. The fresh lemon was convincingly natural with some sweetness and a nice tart edge. The Lemon Runt notes were artificial, and had a nice candied edge. NOW, what is important here, is the RATIO of one to the other, which will dictate how or when you could/would use it. It was fairly hard to determine the EXACT ratio with all of the yellow lemony notes swirling around, but I’ll settle on 60% Natural Lemon, and 40% Lemon Drop. Despite it being labeled as “Ultimate” this type of mashup may work better in some mixes more than others, mostly because of the inclusion of the candy lemon drop elements. If you were in need of a purely natural tasting Lemon, this won’t be for you, but for everyone else, it might.

Despite being a mashup, I didn’t get any off-notes, and NO PLEDGE !!! The ratios between the two Lemon types was smartly done by leaning towards the natural. Sweetness was jsut below mid-level, and there was just enough tart/sour to keep it crisp. All in, not a bad Lemon, BUT, as always, it will depend on what you need in a mix. I think leaving it high, and equal to the previously tested Ultimate Grape felt fair, as the inclusion of the candy elements may or may not be for everyone. Leaving this squarely at a 9.0/10.

Ultimate Mango (Flavor Jungle) 3.0% (10-11-23) – As a big fan, and occasional purchaser of their Mango Mafia, I was curious to see how this one tasted, and to see if there were any similarities. They were very similar, and so much so, that I would have to spend some time later, and do a direct A:B comparison to see. This one smelled “punchy” in the bottle, and tasted the same when testing. This one was very good, and catered to my Mango palate. Bright, punchy, and juicy were my main take-aways on this one. Sweetness was a few ticks above mid-level, but it wasn’t fatiguing-ly so. It had very little of the darker, mellower Mango notes, but quite honestly, I didn’t miss them, as I do prefer the brighter, high end notes. Juicy, without any dry-ness, and fairly sweet, without being candied, and had a crisp, natural taste. At 3% it was very full, but didn’t taste overflavored, and I didn’t detect any florals, soaps, perfumes, or any other off-notes. Because it WAS so bright and punchy, it is possible it might not suit every mix, but for most of my preferred uses, it would work great, and probably not be overshadowed in a mix. If bright and punchy Mango is what you crave, this one will get it done. Leaving this one fairly high at a 9.5/10.

Ultimate Passionfruit (Flavor Jungle) 3.0% (10-13-23) – This one wowed right out of the gate, and never quit. Granted I don’t mix with PF much, I’ve started using it more in some Custard mixes, as well as the more expected fruit mixes. This one had a great authentic, and natural taste, with just the right amount of what I call a light “fermented” note. At 3% it was nicely full, and it didn’t feel underpowered, with a sweetness that was actually a few ticks below mid-level. No off-notes could be found, and I looked long and hard to find any nit-picks, and about my only issue would be it lacked just a few of the brighter, top end notes. It wasn’t completely devoid of them, but it seemed to be focused on the mid notes with a few low, and a few high, and I would have loved just a SMIDGE more of the high notes. Even as it was, it was hard to fault this one, as it was very accurate, and with a nice little fermented kicker on the finish. Tasty, and that’s coming from the NOT fruit guy at that. With minor take-offs for the slightly recessed brighter high end notes, this one felt good at a 9.0/10.

Ultimate Tutti Frutti (Flavor Jungle) 3.0% (10-13-23) – Many people don’t know this, but Tutti Frutti was the FIRST gum sold in a vending machine. YES, that’s right, back in 1888… At FIRST, I had thought this one was purely a Pink Bubblegum, BUT, as I worked my through the testers, I DID keep getting some light, to very light fruity undertones. Wow, talk about a delicious bubblegum, this one was it. No dry notes, except for maybe the powdered sugar coating that is. YES, it was in there too. The BBG was done very nicely, and it almost had you wanting to blow a bubble !!! Pink, just below mid-level sweet, and with no off-notes. It wasn’t the strongest BBG flavor, and I almost wished I’d tested it higher, at maybe 4.0%. Even still it was a great authentic pink BBG, with light fruity undertones. About my only two nit-picks would be the slightly lighter presentation, and the fact that I couldn’t BLOW any bubbles with it. Pink, authentic, and tasty. Leaving this, the LAST Ultimate in this series at a 9.0/10. Just almost as perfect as it could have been.


Quick and easy vape DIY

It's been a long time since I've been here. Hope all of you have been well. I need some help. I have lots of flavors and little time like I used to drum up recipes, I mix vape juice for my husband, who has been smoke-free for a very long time. He is looking for something new. I've been mixing shake and vape recipes, mostly 1 shots. I have lots of frozen Nic, vg and pg.. He has been vaping FA pazzo burlone (Cannoli) .. sometimes I'll mix some strawberry in it.

Any ideas for quick and easy vape recipes? The ones online are kinda hit and miss I want to ask here. Thanks!!

Vape extremely hard to pull through, even with new tank

So I noticed recently, I have to pull EXTREMELY hard to get a hit off of my Vaporesso Zero S. I ended up getting a new pod, thinking it may be the pod or the coil. (The pods come with the coil in them already), but even with a new pod (tank), I still have to pull extremely hard to get a hit. I've made sure it's fully charged and it's the same issue.

I've been looking around, and every solution says it's the tank or the coil. But when I replaced those, it's the same issue.

What could be causing this and how can I fix?

PGA extraction: cold or warm?

Hi everyone, I am new to this forum and my English might be not so good ( I am Dutch). I have a lot of questions about the ethanol extraction. I have been thinking about doing my own extractions for some time now and I hae been reading about the hot ethanol extraction methode. I don't have a slow cooker or something similar so before I invest in equipment I would like to know if you could also start with a cold maceration in alcohol for a few months and then freeze filter. Has anyone tried this before?
If so does it result in a different taste than when you do the 12 hour hot bath first and then filter freeze?

Not a complete newbie

Hi everyone,
I have been browsing this forum for some time now. Specifically the diy NET threads. I have been vaping for almost a year now and never smoked a cigarette since.
I smoked around 25 cigarettes a day, so a heavy smoker. I live in the Netherlands, a tiny country in Europe. It is getting more and more difficult to get good material and equipment. We also have a vaping forum but lately it is kind of dying. I hope to find some answers here.

NEW Wonder Flavors SFT by SessionDrummer

Thanks out to Frank from Wonder Flavors for sending these out for this review. I've already tested a lot of them during the Beta tests, but there are some new, new, new ones (for me), on top of that. I'm looking forward to getting into these final versions.



20230825_065346.jpg


20230825_065426.jpg


20230825_065523.jpg


20230825_073020.jpg


**Testing Setup (as always):**

Running these tests, on my SteamCrave RDTA v.1, with dual vertical kanthal, 24 ga. single wire coils, with fresh cotton and dry burned coils before every test. These flavors were steeped a bit past 1 week, and were all mixed/tested @ 3.5%, and in a 70v/30p/3mg carrier @ 65 watts.

6996c5b1055c8da8a80f401f78226a75915ab741.jpeg


a44d83ed0c33c2eadb423a910894f2d4f37e5f79.jpeg


85d890142e218cdd8e849d797c7bac434a110f4c.jpeg


ea6f2e0c6bb5770a34e87d8a34b8f0959a7c2537.jpeg




**Alaskan Berries (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-2-23)**
-- Ok people, let's get these new Wonder Flavors test going !!!!!! Now, I will admit, when I saw this name, wondering which Alaskan Berry/ies they meant, as there are more than a few. This flavor was very unique, and not easily identifiable, nor comparable which made it interesting to test. Overall, my BEST comparison would be a medley of a red currant, and red raspberry. That's close, but still not 100% accurate, but you get the idea. At a few ticks below mid level sweet, and plenty strong at 3.5%, those two main profiles stuck in my head from beginning to end. There was a nice almost tart, maybe slightly fermented kicker on the finish that was a nice touch. At times, I thought I caught just a WHIFF of florals, but as soon as I did, they were gone, so we'll chalk it up to "floral-free" overall. It presented as fairly "red" to my tastes, and hence my fruit comparisons. Because it was unique, and didn't fully encompass either a currant or r. raspberry it could be used in an entire plethora of fruit mixes. It tasted very natural, and with only the very slight whiff of a floral randomly, would be the only nitpicking here. An interestingly new fruit flavor IMO, and good tasting. It's great to start out a series, with a NEW flavor, that isn't/wasn't like any other. I'm going to leave this one high because of that, and with only the one slight nitpick, it felt solid at **9.0/10**.

**Black Currant Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-3-23)** -- I seem to have a currant problem, i.e. I can't get ENOUGH good currants, so I was looking forward to this one. Out of the gate, I got a pretty good currant, and I didn't get any of my typical "red" notes, but the currant-ed-ness was still there. It wasn't overly sharp, and didn't have much tart to it, and it def. leaned towards the "candy" side (duh). The paired candy notes, worked very well, and even while being above mid-level sweet, it wasn't cloyingly sweet.

Now onto the "gummy", hehe. I didn't really get much gummy from this one, and it seemed much more slanted towards a hard/squishy candy, than a gummy. I think "gummy" notes/nuances are very hard to quantify, BUT, you know them, if you taste them. I just didn't get the overhwelming sense of the gummy in this one. Maybe a hint, but that would be it. Because it was fairly heavily candied, the Black Currant tasted almost at a 50/50 mix of natural/artificial. If I had to change ONE thing, I would probably have UPPED the BC, just a bit. All in, a damned fine Black Currant "candy", but it might leave some of your "gummy" needs waiting at the door. At 3.5% it was full, but not overpowering, and could be said to be just a touch relaxed, and I got no off-notes with this one. About my only nitpicks would be the somewhat lighter BC, and very light gummy-ness. The flavor was very good, and rating it was somewhat tricky, but it felt good at **7.5/10**
.
**Bread (Ginger) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-3-23)**
-- Coming off the Ginger Beer, I was curious to see what they did with the ginger in this one. The good news is, it was completely different in this flavor. Much more of a baked ginger, and with some great molasses thrown in for good measure. Riding underneath both of them, was a very realistic dark cookie. Not overly sweet, and actually quite a bit below mid-level at that. At 3.5% it felt like it was maybe 75% of the way there, and maybe a hint more would fix it. The dark cookie, paired with the molasses was quite impressive, and realistic, and almost "crunchy". The ginger was placed well in between the molasses and cookie elements. There was/were some light spices in there as well, but I couldn't fully identify them. Like the Ginger Beer, there was a little TH, and bite with this one, BUT, at far lower levels, and I had to fight the urge to pair it up with some creams, and maybe a dash of sweetener, BUT, staying focused here. All in, with no off-notes, and only just a slight "bite", no real take-offs, or off-notes, and it continued to be impressive, and authentic throughout. A well played flavor. Leaving it high, at an authentic **9.1/10**.

**Buttercream (Strawberry Banana) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-4-23)** -- Sometimes things work, and others ..... This one perplexed me during the Alpha testing, and continued to do so here. A ripe banana greeted you on the front end, and then a creamy/creamery carrier rode you through the middle, with MAYBE a smidge of Strawberry on the finish. The cream, to my tastes, didn't really present as a butter cream, BUT, that is/was subjective. It came across as rather "hodge-podge-y" to me, and rather, lacked a clear focus. It was full at 3.5%, and there were no off-notes, and it stayed a few ticks below mid-level sweet. The ripened banana was actually pretty good, but when tempered with the cream, and very light strawberry, I just couldn't 100% get behind it. Tasty, different, just presented in a confusing way to my tastes. I can't see using it as a primary, but there could be a lot of good uses as a mixer for sure. In the end, I'm tallying this one up as a creamy, ripe banana, with a hint of Strawberry. Fairly placing this at a **6.5/10**.

**Buttercream (Peanut Butter) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-4-23)** -- Although I may not have been a huge fan of the "Buttercream" pairing in the previously reviewed BC SB, it just plain WORKED in this flavor. Yes, yes, and MORE yes. Now again, I can't say for SURE that it presenter exactly as a buttercream, but it was almost perfect with the Peanut Butter profile(s). The PB was natural, crunchy, and just a hint of salty, which just pushed the flavor up into even higher levels of delcious-ness. What was very interesting, was it was not simply a "Creamy Peanut Butter", but actually tasted like a natural crunchy PB, paired with a, or some creams, and I found that to be most interesting. Sweet, creamy, and slightly salty/crunchy. This one was one of my favs during the Alpha tests, and, it continued to be. Very nicely full at 3.5%, and ZERO off-notes that I could detect, and it sat a few ticks below mid-level sweet. Your perceptions might vary from mine, but in closing, it simply presented as a natural crunchy PB (with a hint of salty), and a smooth creamery element, perfectly paired. As opposed to the Alpha which seemed to have the PB lower in the mix, now it was almost even, maybe a smidge higher than the creamery(s), and at maybe a 55% PB, 45% Creamery ratio. Simply put, I cannot go lower than **9.75/10** for this one.

**Feijoa (Fruit) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-4-23)** -- I can see why this one is also known as the PineppleGuava fruit. That's about exactly what it tastes like. I would have to place it at about 70% guava, and 30% Pineapple. While the Guava was a pretty direct comparison, the Pineapple was much lighter in the mix, and was more of a "pretty close to", rather than an exact match. At 3.5% it was still kind of a lighter flavor, but it was still good. It tasted very natural, and fresh, with about mid-level sweetness. No off-notes to be found, and about the only nit-pick would be "whispy-ness" of it. Lighter, but still present if that makes any sense. All in, it was a very natural tasting, clean mashup of a Guava, with some light fermentation, and a very light Pineapple. Cleanly placing this one high for it's originality at **8.9/10**.

**Ginger Beer (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-2-23)**
-- This ones out to @big_vape who apparently has a Ginger Beer thing. :). Diving right into this one, which smelled pretty ginger beery in the bottle, and on the finger, and actually did continue that when testing. Kinda. First things first, this one had some TH to it, and a little "kick". I think it MAY have been what Wonder Flavors used for their sparkle or effervescence, if I had to guess. It did have SOME fizz to it, but nowhere as pronounced as say Sobucky's Cola. Still, it was present in this one, and did help to sell it as a beer in large part. It was below mid level sweet by a few ticks, BUT, it was sweeter than expected, and that, combined with the somewhat fizzy-ness, started it heading towards an almost Ginger Champaign. It was not a full on champaign, but it didn't taste like a full on beer either, so if you pressed me, I'd go 65% beer, 35% champaign, WITH some nice Ginger. The ginger while present, was somewhat relaxed, but not so much that it got lost in the mix, as it held it's own throughout. Beyond the TH and "kick"y-ness to this one, it was still a little relaxed at 3.5%, and might have benefited by an increase, BUT, the TH would increase as well. All in, a natural tasting Ginger beverage, with some fizzy-ness, modestly sweetened, and had both beer and (almost) champagne notes. The nitpicks would be the somewhat stronger than expected TH (throat hit), and somewhat relaxed presentation only, and marking it down JUST a bit for them, and it felt good at **8.6/10**.


**Grapefruit (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-5-23)** -- Well guys (and gals) I gotta call'em like I see them. Errrrr TASTE them that is. I might have to re-name this one, "A HINT of Grapefruit", because that's all I got. Mixed it up at 3.5% just like all of the rest, and I was barely getting any GF. As you may have guessed it WAS a very light flavor, and after I get this series done I may come back and DOUBLE this one, but I suspect, it is what it is. A very light, yet natural tasting citrus with HINTS of GF. Honestly it felt like it was maybe 30% of the way there at best. It might be good for people who's olfactory senses are offended by more robust GF's. No off-notes, and a fair bit below mid-level sweet, and very little of the expected "tart-ness" that you would expect. Not a terrible flavor, but man, "Where's the beef" ?? Very "whispy" would also be accurate. It tasted very natural, but I just needed a WHOLE lot more of it, for a passing grade. Going to leave this one fairly low, not because of any inaccurate notes, just a real lack OF the notes here. I'm going to be generous, and leave it squarely at a **4.0/10**.


**Grapefruit Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-5-23)** -- OK, could the addition of Gummy Candy SAVE the previously tested Grapefruit ?? Hehe, it appears NOT to be the case. Now, although I still wasn't getting a lot of "gummy", the additional "candy" elements did seem to wake up the slumbering GF just a bit. Not much, but a bit. The wispy thin GF was a little stronger and pronounced with this one, BUT, only up to a point. I did a test, and directly compared "testing" to "tasting" and it actually tasted (finger test) much better and somewhat stronger than testing, so it's starting to seem like whatever compounds were used for the GF, just didn't translate as well when atomized, as compared to just tasting it. Basically this review is identical to the previously tested GF, with slightly more GF, and some good sweetened candy elements thrown in. As far as how MUCH better, I can only go with a + 0.5 bump on this one, and again, generously leaving this one at a **4.5/10**.

**Honeyberry (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-7-23)** -- Having never heard of or eaten a Honeyberry, I had to do a least a little prelim research. Now what was interesting, was I was getting an interesting profile, that I didn't see mentioned anywhere. What was it ?? I was actually getting some nice HONEYSUCKLE from this one. Honeyberry, Honeysuckle, get it ?? OK, it was more than just that, but I was DEF. getting some honeysuckle in there. The other two main elements I got were very fresh, and light blueberries, and maybe some blackberries mixed in. Now I'm (pretty close to) the Blueberry and Blackberry, but it will get you in the ballpark. Despite not hearing anything about Honeysuckle, all the way till the third tester, I just kept getting it. This was a SUPER unique flavor, and a profile that I've never had before.

Now if you guys have been following me for years, you've heard me say, "No florals, medicinals, etc." when describing flavors, as typically those are NOT good. With this flavor, I did actually get some LIGHT florals, which were NOT off-putting, or intrusive in any way, and actually just WORKED. Go figure, right ?? Because I really just kept getting the two main elements, i.e. Honeysuckle, and Blueberry, I couldn't tell which was adding the florals, but it/they were light, and worked to just fully accent the entire flavor. All in, this was an interestingly fresh new flavor for me, and I liked it. At 3.5% it was full, and slightly light at the same time, if that makes sense, and beyond the aforementioned flavors (not the BAD florals), there were no off-notes. It was a few ticks below mid-level sweet, and (like sometimes happens), I completely blew through the 3 testers before I knew it. Coming from the Custard/Bakery/Cream Guy, I was surprised by how much I liked this one, and will be leaving it VERY high, at a **9.8/10**.

**Ice Cream (Dark Chocolate) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-8-23)** -- TWO things hit me RIGHT away, as soon as I loaded this into the first tester. The first was, the Chocolate here, was VERY good, and the second was the "Ice Cream" was rather missing. Diving in, the Chocolate did have some of the typical "darker" notes, BUT, it seemed more centered around a Medium Dark Milk Chocolate. At times, it almost reminded me of MF's Dark Chocolate tempered with maybe a Bavarian Cream, and possibly another light creamery. This was because there were some dark choco notes in there, but it was like they were sprinkled on top of an otherwise delicious MC.

Moving onto the Ice Cream, I did get a very nice mouthfeel, and creamy/creamery element, which clearly worked to take the rough edges off of the Choco, remove any bitterness, and added to the richness of the flavor, but it just never really took hold of the Ice Cream full on. Now while most people's sense of an "Ice Cream" will vary, I just didn't really get it here. No off-notes, no dry-ness, or bitterness from the Chocolate, and NO Band Aids !!!!! You guys know what I'm referring to, hehe. At 3.5% it was spot on for strength, and was just at mid-level sweet, and it was a damned fine flavor. I think in summary, I would call it more of a medium dark milk chocolate, with some great sprinkles of dark chocolate, layered into a smooth creamery base. I rather struggled how to rate this, because it WAS listed AS an Ice Cream, and I will be marking it down in that regard, BUT, it was damned delicious, none the less. As a creamy Milk/Dark Chocolate blend I would have rated it VERY high, but with the fairly missing "Ice Cream", I'll have to leave it at a **8.9/10**. Even though I'm rating this below a 9.0, I actually HIGHLY recommend picking this one up, as it was very good, just needed a little push in the Ice Cream department.

**Ice Cream (Toffee) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-9-23)** -- When I had previously tested this one, it never really took hold for me, and after it's release, it was kind of about the same. I continued to not really ever get a full on Toffee from it. There were HINTS of it in there, and unmistakably so, but really only on the perimeter. The ice cream as well, never really showed itself, and although there was SOME mouthfeel, and creamy-ness, it just didn't present as an ice cream. Now the flavor WAS indeed tasty, but as far as having FULL ON Toffee or Ice Cream, I didn't really get them. As far as off-notes, there was a slight sourness to the finish, but only slight. When smelling it, the "toffee" had some similarities to TPA's Graham Cracker Clear. All in, this one while being fairly tasty, never fully worked for a Toffee or Ice Cream. I'm rating this slightly higher than my Alpha rating and leaving it at a **5.0/10**. Fairly tasty, but I just didn't feel like it worked..

**Lemon Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-10-23)** -- Much like the other "gummy" candies here, I didn't get much, if any "gummy" from this one, SO, perhaps I'm gummy blind, hehe. The Lemon in this one was pretty good, and it favored a more candied (duh) approach. It was similar to FE's Lemon with some Lemonade thrown in for comparison. Candied, but still somewhat fresh tasting, and sweetness was about mid-level, and there were some nice tart and sour notes rolling around on the finish. I was getting a good "candy" effect, but just not the gummy part, and that could be my perception/tastes. No off-notes, but at times I almost felt like the "candy" might have been diluting the Lemon just a bit. I did fight the urge to add some FE Lemon or even some MF Lemon JUST to see if it could be spiked up. All in, a pretty good Lemon Candy flavor, just not real gummy for me. Placing it squarely at an **8.0/10**.

**Lime Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-12-23)**
-- Testing this on the heels of the LGC, this one was very similar, but with a Lime. The lime was not overly natural but candied (DUH), and had some hints of zest to it. Now, again with the "gummy" for me, I just wasn't really getting any, and it seemed like either it, or the candy notes, were reducing the Lime somewhat. When finger testing it was much stronger, and actually better, but when atomizing, or at least at my testing weight of 3.5% it was much weaker than expected. I don't know if this candy/gummy profile is pushing or pulling against the primary flavor. Sweetness was at about mid-level, and of what I did get, it was a good candied lime, I just wish there was more of it. I didn't get any off-notes, and that's never a bad thing. I will wait to see if other reviewers find this, and the Lemon GC as relaxed. It was curious to compare finger testing, vs. atomized, with finger testing being pretty superior. All in, for my tastes, a good Candied Lime, but no gummy, and fairly relaxed. It tasted like it had less impact than the Lemon GC, so I'll rate this one below it at a **7.0/10**.


**Mango Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-12-23)** -- This being the 5th gummy candy in this series, I was looking for the breakout flavor that really let me have some of the gummy. This one DID have MORE of the gummy-ness than I had gotten from the previous flavors, but only some, but that's a start. The Mango centered around the mid-body notes, and didn't have many punchy high notes. Sweetness was actually below mid-level, and it presented as "somewhat" candied. It was fairly full at 3.5%, and didn't feel like it needed to be stronger. NOW, as far as the off-notes, I DID get one here. It was very much like some "hints of plastic". Not a full ON plastic, but, it WAS there, throughout my tests. Once I tasted it, it was hard to UN-taste it. It was light enough that it wasn't overpowering, or overbearing, BUT, it never left, and was somewhat distracting. Because of that, and the only somewhat candied candy-ness of this one, I will have to mark it down somewhat. I had considered a lower rating initially, but finally settled on a **5.0/10**.

**Meringue (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-15-23)** -- Many meringue-ers are unaware there are basically three main types of meringue. I've always had a hard time trying to tell what type flavor house are trying to replicate. This one presented as a very good meringue, and I was NO closer to determining the exact style as always. Almost rich, with some good mouthfeel, but not "creamy" at the same time. Full, and rich would be the best descriptors. It did accurately portray the egg-white nuances, and the sugar, and it was about mid-level sweet. At 3.5% it was just about perfect strength wise, and I wasn't left wanting to increase it at all. What it did seem to be missing was, or were some of the darker "torched" notes. Wait, TORCHED ?? !!!!! Hehe, YES, torched. FA's Meringue has some of them, and it is not really a burnt note, but more of a slightly darker nuance. Even without that/them, it was a great meringue, and could easily be used in any application requiring one. No off-notes, and nothing really to nitpick. At times I could have sworn I was getting hints of an almost light vanilla, but it was very light, and could have been just my perception. All in, a good meringue, that was rich, and full at 3.5%, and it felt good, to leave it at a **9.0/10.**


**Mojito (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-16-23)**
-- As a heavy Mojito drinker, I love to test flavors claiming to be Mojitos, and see how they fared. This one got it in the ballpark, and maybe a bit more. This tasted a bit different than the last time I tested it, and I actually got some light Rum in this one, and that was bonus. Nicely sweet, and just below mid-level, and there were some nice Lime notes rolling around in there, but I almost got hints of Lemon. Now for any of you who DO mix up fresh Mojitos, it's ALL about the Lime, and Mint. While the Lemon (unidentified citrus) notes were fairly light, they WERE in there, and honestly, I felt like it pulled it a little towards a Rum and Sprite. Not entirely, BUT, there was some of that going on. It did have a very slight sparkle, which I assumed was an attempt at a slight fizzy-ness, so there was a tiny bit of that as well. The Mint was maybe a 50/50 split of Natural/Candied, so it wasn't the full "Fresh Mint" ride, but it got the job done. Now perhaps my critiques were over the top, perhaps not, and it's hard NOT to, when you grow fresh Mint in the backyard just FOR Mojitos !!!!!! I do. All in, it WAS a Mojito, just maybe not 100% like I make them, and it felt like (to my tastes), it was about 85% of the way there, and I'll leave it at an **8.5/10**.


**Mousse (Mango) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-16-23)** -- While not eating much mousse, except for maybe a chocolate one from time to time, I had NO CLUE what this one would hold in store. As the flavor was breaking in, on the first tester, I was almost SURE, this was an unholy pairing, and NOT a good idea. As it broke in however, it did start to settle into a rather unique flavor profile. Now I don't think I ever really got a "mousse", but there was def. some creamy/creamery elements going on and it did seem (oddly enough) to pair with the Mango. The mango was very similar to the one in the Mango Gummy Candy, along with the same light off-note. Because of the pairing with a creamy element, much/most of the bright upper notes of the Mango were subdued, and it centered most around the mid-body notes. The creamy/creamery did seem to dilute the mango somewhat, as it wasn't as present as it might have been solo'd. At 3.5% it was fairly strong overall, and sweetness was just at mid-level. The (almost) plasticky off-note that I got from the MGC was back again, and still fairly light, and there was an almost dry-ness to the finish. The off-note could probably easily be hidden, but be advised, it was still here. A "Creamy Mango" isn't exactly what it presented as, BUT, it is close enough for comparison sake. Although I liked it a lot more after it fully broke in, I was still not a HUGE fan of the pairing, and the slight off-notes would need to be tamed/tempered before I could really like it. Putting it a little higher than the Mango Gummy Candy, at a **6.95/10**.

**Orange Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-17-23)** -- If you're in a hurry, this flavor tastes exactly like [this](https://i.imgur.com/S3cy6yy.png). If you're NOT in a hurry, read on. This one presented literally almost exactly as an orange slice candy, with even SOME, of the sugar granules on the outside. It leaned almost entirely towards an artificial orange, with some of the "Tang" mixed in. It was very good at 3.5%, and like almost all of the other "gummy" candy flavors here, I didn't get much gummy. Now, with that said, when I think of "gummy" I'm thinking of Haribo Gummy Bears, which have the gelatinous gummy-ness to them. This one while NOT a hard candy, DID favor the aforementioned Orange Slice Candy. Now if that equals a "gummy" to you, then you ARE in luck with this one. Sweetness was just above mid-level, and no overt off-notes, except for maybe a slight "twinge" of sharpness on the finish, but it was minor. All in, an almost PERFECT Orange Slice Candy, that while def. a candy, didn't push the gummy envelope for me. It was soo authentically close to the Orange Slices, I will have to rate it much higher than the previously tested gummy candies, and leave it at a **9.1/10**.

**Pastry Cream (SC )(WF) 3.5% (3-22-23)*
* -- This one presented as a fairly neutral creamery, with some nicely defined mouthfeel. . Not sure if the attempt was for a Mascarpone Cream or not, but there were some clear BA notes that persisted throughout. I didn't get the clear sense of a Pastry Cream, but it was much more than a simple dairy or cream. There was some light undertones that resembled a pastry filling, but they were undertones only. It was fairly full at 3.5%, yet still somewhat light. It was sweetened, and tasted a little below mid-level. The BA did thicken it up a bit, and also added a slight sourness on the finish. Your BA sensitivity (or lack thereof) may decide whether or not this one is for you or not. All in, a fairly generic, mostly neutral cream, with some good mouthfeel with a slight sourness on the finish. It felt fairly placed at **6.5/10.**

**Peach (Juicy) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-18-23)**
-- As I always mention, I try to NOT read other flavor reviews before reviewing them, to avoid any "contamination" of my own review(s). I have some VERY interesting thoughts on this one, and did check others thoughts on it, JUST to see if anyone else got, what I was getting. Interestingly enough, no one did, or had. Pressing on with my seemingly unique thoughts on this one. When loading the first tester, I was immediately greeted with what I can only describe as a fairly "cactus" like dominant note. After that, I did get some good yellow peach behind that, and at times, slight hints of an almost Fuji Apple. Yeah, that's why I checked around, as no one else got that from this flavor. It never presented as a full on, juicy yellow peach to my tastes, and the peach notes I did get, while good, played almost second fiddle to the cactus note(s). It was quite a bit different than say TPA's Juicy Peach, which I use regularly. It wasn't that it was a bad flavor, but I've got a rather "hate/hate" relationship with cactus, and despite it adding "juicy-ness" to mixes, I cannot use it, so keep that in mind with this review.

It felt like a 6.5/10 on the strength scale, and it felt like it could be stronger, and that was at my 3.5% testing weight. Sweetness was a few ticks below mid-level, and no off-notes, BUT, for the cactus. It did have a fairly juicy overall profile, but I wouldn't call it mouth wateringly so. I didn't really get much if any skin, and that was probably (again), due to the cactus note. All in, I couldn't see using it to pull the main Peach freight, but def. could see it in mixes. With my disdain for cactus-es out in the open, I would have to leave this one at a **6.0/10**.

**Pecan Pie (SC )(WF) 3.5% (9-21-23)** -- Having tested the WF Pecan, this one was very similar to it, but tempered by a sweetened, almost thick, pie filling like main note. I didn't get much butter from this one, and that was great, as it was NOT a Butter Pecan flavor. The crust was much lighter in the mix, and would need some boosting to make this a full on "pie". The Pecan notes were actually very good, accurate, and had just enough earthy tones to keep it realistic. Throughout the 3 testers, this one proved to be really centered around the deliciously sticky rich filling of the pie, WITH Pecans mixed in. The stand along Pecan was earthier, but with this one, it was much lower to the "filling". At 3.5% it was very good, convincing, and almost thick, and with no off-notes. About my only nit-pick would be the very light (if at all) crust, but that could easily be fixed. This one tastes improved from the Alpha tests somehow, and was just a great Pecan Pie Filling. All it needed was some crust. Pushing this one up higher to **9.0/10**.

**Persimmon (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-22-23)**
-- I have never eaten a Persimmon, so (as always), had to research it a bit to give you a more comparative review. From what I found, this one appears to be spot on. This one presented as an ALMOST Apricot, tempered in Honey. Now it wasn't EXACTLY like an Apricot, but it was damned close to a lighter version of one. The Honey part, just seemed a bit MORE accurate, as I couldn't think of a closer comparison. If any of you have indeed tried honey flavors in the past, and have blown up, hehe, fear not, there's none of that here. It was very natural tasting, AND, with no off-notes or florals.

It was just almost strong enough at 3.5%, but felt like it could use a SMIGE more, but only a smidge. This is/was a fairly unique flavor, and I could see a LOT of uses for this, in a lot of mixes. There was just a hint of tart in the beginning, but the honey-like elements smoothly rolled from the middle to the finish. I can't think of any of my flavors that are exactly like this, and I have a LOT of flavors, so you may want to pick this one up and experiment with it. Very tasty, and will rate this "Honey Apricot"-ish flavor very high @ a **9.5/10**.

**Powdered Donut (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-26-23)** -- I spent some extra time with this one, to better try and figure it out before posting this. I have had very few good donuts, and a lot of terrible donuts. This one, thankfully was one of the good ones. It does seem however, that many people have different takes on what a "donut" should or does taste like. For my American friends, this wass NOT a Krispy Kreme donut, but actually more like the small Hostess powdered donuts. The donut body was more of the slightly denser yellow cake-ish type, than the lighter deep fried type. The powered sugar aspect(s) kind of came and went, and didn't always present for me consistently, so I would call that a lighter note. The cakey bakery note(s) were convincingly done, and although I didn't get any spice or cinnamon, there was ALMOST (but not quite) an undertone of it. At 3.5% it was very full, and I didn't feel the need to increase it. Sweetness was about mid-level, and good for this type of flavor. There were some "fried" notes going on, but they weren't intrusive, or "greasy", but still there. I didn't get any off-notes, BUT, I did get somewhat of an almost "powdered milk" undertone that actually seemed to work with the overall profile, so I didn't mark down for that. All in, a pretty impressive lightly fried donut, that was centered around a denser yellow cake interior with very light powdered sugar notes. It felt very good at a **9.3/10**.

**Pudding (Milk Chocolate) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-29-23)** -- I remembered my reaction to this one during the Alpha tests, and guess what, they IMPROVED it. NOW (unlike before), I was getting ONE clear profile, and that profile was Jello Chocolate Pudding !!!!!! It's NOT that it exuded raw pudding, BUT, it was unmistakenly, exactly that. The chocolate profile wasn't exactly what I would call a Milk Chocolate, but it wasn't a light or dark, so maybe that was more implied than not. Sweetness was actually below mid-level, which was surprising, but it actually didn't feel like it needed any more. No off-notes, and it was just a smidge below where I would have liked it to be at 3.5%. No rubber bands, or band aids, so the chocolate notes were very well done.

It was simply put, about as close to a Jello Choco Pudding. It was almost as if it tasted like a mix of both the dry (in the box) pudding mix, AND, one that had been mixed/heated with milk (finished), and I would put it at a ratio of 25% dry, 75% finished if that makes sense. Smelling it, the chocolate had this delicious darker coffee undertone, and testing it, it was still there, just somewhat lower in the undertones. If you want a chocolate pudding, that tastes just about as close as I have ever tasted, then you WILL love this one. I suffered (LOL) through 3 testers trying to find faults with this one, and I came up short. I even compared my Alpha notes, which did not seem to apply to this, the finished version. All in, it was just below perfect to my tastes, and it felt solid at **9.9/10**.

**Raspberry Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (9-30-23)** -- While never fully getting what I would call a "gummy" from these gummy flavors, this one seemed to have more than the rest, but just by a bit. The star of THIS show was the Raspberry. It did not present as a darker purple RB, but much more of a candied Red Raspberry. I think what made the RB soo much better in this one WAS the pairing with the "candy" elements, errrr "gummy" elements. The Raspberry was somewhat unique, and reminded me of a candied red raspberry, with some hints of INW Raspberry Malina, and maybe a touch of RF's Yummbery. Yeah, hehe, that's as close as I can get, and it was good. NOW, the RB felt like it was somewhat diluted (as in the case of another gummy candy flavor) by the gummy candy elements. It tasted like it was about 75% of the way there, and I don't think increasing the flavor percentage would make it pop any more due to the (along for the ride) gummy candy-ness

With that said, it was still fairly strong and present, and I couldn't detect any florals (like Raspberries LOVE to do), or off-notes. The gummy candy was present, but instead of being gummy (for my tastes), it just seemed to "candy up" the RB, and it DID work. VERY good RB profile overall, but just not as strong as it needed to be to fully POP, and the gummy-ness was questionable. The RB did have a nice little tarty kick on the finish, and that helped pull it from being completely candied, and added some natural-ness to it. All in, and very good RB flavor, with good candy notes. About the only take-offs (like before) would be for the lightness of the "gummy", and for a slightly diluted RB overall profile. It was too good to take-off too heavily for the minor aforementioned nit-picks, and it felt good at a punchy **9.1/10.**

**Redcurrant Gummy Candy (SC) (WF) 3.5% (10-2-23)**
-- This one didn't change much at all from the Alpha tests, and proved to be my not most favorite of the Gummy Candies. There were some aspects of Redcurrants in there, but I still continued to get an almost Pomegranate undertone throughout, while lower in the mix, was always there. I also got a sort of "funkyness" from it, again, while lower in the mix, stuck around for the entire show. Surprisingly the "gummy" was a little MORE present than in most of the other gummy candy flavors, so that was a plus. At 3.5% it was full, but still felt like it could use some MO Redcurrant to be honest. Sweetness was a few ticks below mid-level, and there was a nice tart pinch on the finish, that I really enjoyed, and kept it somewhat interesting. Not terrible, but it would also probably not be the main RC note in your mixes. About the only overt off-note would be the slight funky-ness previously mentioned. My opinion on the Alpha was about the same, and I decided to better hone in my rating on this one, and am going to place it squarely at a **6.5/10**. Not terrible, not great, but somewhere in between.

**Red Velvet Cake (SC) (WF) 3.5% (10-6-23)** -- I knew this one was a keeper as soon as I tested it. VERY accurate Red Velvet Cake, with delicious almost cocoa notes, tempered by a velvety smooth (sorry) cake profile. I have gotten more than my fair share of "baby powder" notes from more than a few RVC's, but NOT HERE. Clean, accurate and just almost rich, with no off-notes. The cake element(s) were so accurate that at times I thought I was getting hints of baking soda !!!!! Needless to say that cake profile was just about as close as you could make it, short of a mixing bowl. I typically use Vanilla when I make the actual cake, and I didn't get a lot of that in here, as (you guessed it), the Cake and Cocoa notes were the stars here. At 3.5% it didn't leave me wanting, BUT, I wouldn't have argued with a smidge more so the % will be up to you guys to decide. Sweetness was actually just below mid-level, and I did blow through all 3 testers before I knew it, and I hadn't written a single word LOL. All in, a VERY good, and accurate Red Velvet Cake with super delicious cocoa and cake notes. NOT a chocolate cake, but squarely a RVC. I'm moving this one up a tick from my original Alpha rating, to a **9.85/10**.

**Strawberry (Sparkling) (SC) (WF) 3.5% (10-7-23)** -- 2nd to LAST one on deck people. Normally something in the smell or finger test sets the tone for me with flavors, but this one, it might just have been the COLOR. Post steeped this one had a somewhat lighter pinkish, almost amber color which was interesting being a Strawberry flavor. Normally they are clear, so WHAT exactly WAS in this flavor ?? Well, I can make it easy for you, it tasted like a juicy red strawberry, mixed with a light, sweet champagne, with a touch of marshmallow. Yes, I know what that sounds like, hehe. Now, I have to clarify the previous profiles. The champagne was my best, closest comparison, but without any dry-ness, wine-ish notes, but with some "sparkle" in it. The marshmallow was more about some of the mouthfeel I got from this one, and a hint of the taste, as opposed to a full on marshmallow assault. There weren't any "sharp" edges on this one, and had a slight smoothness to it, hence my thoughts of MM. The strawberry, while reduced somewhat due to the other profiles, tasted mostly red, juicy, and with hints of white/green SB thrown in. 3 testers later, I couldn't find any off-notes, and overall, it was full at 3.5%, BUT, the SB was not as pronounced as I would have liked.

This is where YOUR personal preferences will come into play. The ratios. The SB did NOT taste like it was dominant here, so that may decide for you where to rate this flavor. A completely guessed ratio would be 40% Red Strawberry, 50% light, sweet champagne, and 10% marshmallow. Wow, this one was tough to describe for you guys, but there you have it. It indeed DID "sparkle", and did so in a very unique fashion. Overall, my only complaint would be the somewhat recessed SB, so I finally decided on an **8.0/10**. Dropping in some SB on top would easily resolve it for my tastes.

**Sugar Cane (SC) (WF) 3.5% (10-7-23)** -- Finishing up this series I started about a month ago, with this, the Sugar Cane. I really liked this one during the Alpha tests, and that continued here as well. This presented as a fairly rich, almost buttery (without any butter notes) sugar cane. It had an almost "thickness" to it that really added to the realism. There were some darker sweetened notes, BUT, not of the molasses type, just darker sweet notes. At 3.5% it was damned good, rich, and full, and didn't leave you wanting. Sweetness was just at about mid-level, but it wasn't cloying OR annoying (hehe). Despite not being overly complex, it was still a very enjoying flavor to test.

I couldn't get past the (repeating) buttery richness of it SANS the butter, and I'm not sure how Frank and his crew over at Wonder Flavors did it. No off-notes to be found EXCEPT (gotcha), I got a very distinct undertone from beginning to end, and I'm going to ask @Lynda_Marie to chime in on this and see if she got it as well. I think one (or more) of the compounds used in this flavor are/were also used in more than a few DONUT flavors. I knew it the moment I tasted it. I'm NOT going to qualify it as an "off-note" because it seemed to help push the "darker" envelope, and it just worked. All in, this one was a great, darker, sugary, almost buttery rich flavor, that kept you coming back for more. I'm pushing this up a tick from my Alpha rating and dropping it at a solid **9.3/10**.

Filter