Sugar Daddy Sweeteners Single Flavor Tests by SessionDrummer TESTING NOW!

TESTING NOW !!! Stay Tuned …

Thanks out to @RichardwL (Rick) from SugarDaddy for sending these out for review. Included were:

  • SugarDaddy Regular
  • SugarDaddy Vanilla 2x
  • SugarMamma Regular
  • SugarDaddy Regular 2x

I have NEVER done a test series on just sweeteners, so this will be all NEW for me, and you guys. Because Rick included (2) 2x (Double Strength) samples as well, beyond mixing testing in mixes, I felt it best to test ALL of them at the same testing weight, to not only compare/contrast, but to see how much stronger the 2x versions were.

All testing done with dry burned coils, and fresh cotton between every test, on the beloved SteamCrave RDTA v.1 using dual vertical, Kanthal, 7 wrap coils. All tested @ 65 watts, at 1%, and in a 70v/30p mix.

SugarDaddy (Regular) (Rick’s) 1% (09-17-22) – Alright, alright, alright, FINALLY down to the testing. Having seen Rick’s sweeteners used over the years and never having tried any of them, I finally get to see what’s what. Starting out with Rick’s SugarDaddy regular sweetener. I finger tested ALL of these sweeteners, which is something I never do, but, my thoughts were, if a flavor/sweetener tasted bad on the finger, it probably wouldn’t taste any better when vaping. This one, tasted SUPERIOR to about EVERY sweetener I currently use, off the finger. WOW, that’s saying something. Sweet (duh), but it actually DID taste like a real sugar cube. ZERO aftertaste, chemical notes, or anything off-putting. Just clean, sweet goodness. Moving onto the vape test, it stayed EXACTLY the same.

Now, only for YOU GUYS, do I vape JUST sweeteners, just remember that LOL. At 1% in a 70v/30p mix @ 65 watts, the “sugar cube”-ed-ness continued, with just as clean of a taste as it had when finger testing. There was a slight cotton candy aspect to it, but only slight. When testing the sweetener in live mixes, I DID notice something INTERESTING, and I think Rick might have eluded to this when he shipped these out. The sweetener needs some time to STEEP !!! Yes, something I have NEVER done before with ANY sweetener. It actually UP-steeped, just like many of my Medicine Flower flavors. QUITE interesting. This is VERY important, because if you were trying to nudge up some sweetness in a mix, added a few drops, tasted it, and it didn’t taste sweet enough, and you added more, it could probably become TOO sweet after steeping, so keep that in mind.

I was actually quite impressed that I got NO off-notes, or even a hint during vaping or finger testing. I did not experience any muting in my bakery/fruit mixes at or below 1% which may be high for usage, but for my SFT, it was a perfect testing point. After checking my coils, it CLEARLY showed far less gunking than my usual sweeteners. Strength wise, I would put it dead smack in between TPA Sweetener and CAP Super Sweet. Maybe I’ll hate the other ones, but this one, I couldn’t find anything to fault. This one stomps out of the gate, as a clean, almost sugar cube-like sweetener that does exactly what it should, with no artificial or chemical aftertastes. I tried hard to find something to nit pick on this one, but could not. Just simply, a 10/10.

SugarDaddy (Vanilla 2x) (Rick’s) 1% (09-18-22) – Yes, you read this right, DOUBLE STRENGTH SugarDaddy with Vanilla. As you would expect, this was just like the regular version of SugarDaddy, but stronger, AND, with just a slight touch of Vanilla. Even doubled, I still got NO after-taste or off-notes, pretty impressive. Now, as far as my perceived strength compared to the Regular, it didn’t appear to be linear, meaning it didn’t appear to be twice as strong. After steeping it felt more like 1.5 times as strong, which would put it at, or just above CAP’s Super Sweet for comparison. The taste was just as clean, and sugar-cube like as the Regular version. The Vanilla was very light, but still present, and hard to nail down, as the cotton candy notes present in the SugarDaddy worked to conceal it’s exact style. Not spicy, but maybe similar to FA’s Madagascar would be in the ballpark. It was just light enough to avoid complete analysis, but strong enough to be present. I would better call it SugarDaddy enhanced by Vanilla. As I’ve stated before, steeping is important for SugarDaddy sweeteners to allow them to fully bloom. Starting light, and increasing after a steep if needed is the way to go. At 1% this was fully sweet, but surprisingly it wasn’t sickeningly sweet, or over flavored. It showed no signs of hitting the ceiling, or folding over on itself as flavors (and sweeteners) sometimes do when used to heavily. Because this was double strength, solo’ing it @ 1% was fairly high, but the addition of the vanilla enhancement(s) kept it interesting, even as a solo. At this fairly high rate, I did experience slight muting in my fruit recipe, but only slight, and the bakery recipe, showed no issues. Your usage, and rates, will depend on how sweet you need, I will admit to rather enjoying this solo’d, and that caught me by surprise. With no off-notes, no artificial-ness present, and only minor muting at high levels, this one (again) was hard to fault. Simply a stronger version of SugarDaddy, kissed by a light vanilla accent. Too hard to knock this one down, and easily 9.9/10.

SugarMama (Regular) (Rick’s) 1% (09-18-22) – Moving onto Rick’s SugarMama. This one was still VG based, and had the exact same ingredient list as SugarDaddy minus the Sucralose. How much of a different would it make ?? The SugarMama tasted good off the finger, with a very close likeness to the SugarDaddy, but with a little less impact and “sugar lips” effect. It still had the same clean, almost sugar cube like taste with no artificial, or off-putting notes. It did have the same slight cotton candy nuance that SugarDaddy had. At 1% it felt a little less sweet than SD, but only slightly, which made sense sans the Suc. If you don’t like PG, and Suc, this sweetener should be on your rack, as it worked great with no detectable muting when used as high as 1%. It worked well in both my test mixes, and should be steeped as mentioned above in the SD review, as it will almost upsteep. So let it steep before adjusting in any mixes. Obviously YOUR tastes in sweeteners will dictate whether or not you like, or want Suc included or not. As was the case with SD, the SugarMama did seem to be far less gunky on the coils than my typical sweeteners. All in, SugarMama was just as clean, and aftertaste free as SugarDaddy, and it did so without any Suc. Placing it just below SD, to slightly less impact and sugar lips effect only. Felt great @ 9.25/10.

SugarDaddy (Regular 2x) (Rick’s) 1% (9-20-22) – After a SMIDGE of delay, got to wrap my hands around this one, the last in this series of sweeteners from Rick’s at SugarDaddy. As you may have guessed, but much changed from the original (regular strength) SugarDaddy and this one BUT for the doubling of the strength. As mentioned previously, I purposely wanted to test these all at the same strength, so I could better gauge the relative differences. This one continued the EXACT same super clean, sugar cube sweetness as the original, albeit stronger. I did feel that this didn’t present as double strength comparatively, but more like 1.5x stronger, at least that was my perception. This again, placed it just at or a bit stronger than CAP’s Super Sweet. Tasting this in the bottle was stronger, but still just as clean, and sugary sweet as it was vaping. At 1%, although fairly sweet, I detected no ceiling smashing, or flavor folding that you can get when over flavoring, and only minor muting in one of the two mixes I tested it in. All in, it seems that Rick really put some time into these, and the claims of “Less Gunking” and “Very little or NO Suc” were accurate claims. Clean, sugary, and sugar cube like sweetness just like the original. Finishing out this series with yet another 10/10.

Due to some recent issues with counterfeit / altered versions of the SugarDaddy sweeteners, currently (soon to change), OSDIY is stocked with the real versions.

8 Likes

Looking forward to your review and recommendations for a better product .
Thanks big guy!

5 Likes

Roger that @RichardwL, and thank you for the opportunity. I am actively testing now, and have setup the forum posts and recipes as place holders as I typically do, so people know what’s coming. Some people frequent the forums, and others the recipe side, and that is why I dup the reviews for each, with cross linking.

4 Likes

SugarDaddy (Regular) (Rick’s) 1% (09-17-22) – Alright, alright, alright, FINALLY down to the testing. Having seen Rick’s sweeteners used over the years and never having tried any of them, I finally get to see what’s what. Starting out with Rick’s SugarDaddy regular sweetener. I finger tested ALL of these sweeteners, which is something I never do, but, my thoughts were, if a flavor/sweetener tasted bad on the finger, it probably wouldn’t taste any better when vaping. This one, tasted SUPERIOR to about EVERY sweetener I currently use, off the finger. WOW, that’s saying something. Sweet (duh), but it actually DID taste like a real sugar cube. ZERO aftertaste, chemical notes, or anything off-putting. Just clean, sweet goodness. Moving onto the vape test, it stayed EXACTLY the same.

Now, only for YOU GUYS, do I vape JUST sweeteners, just remember that LOL. At 1% in a 70v/30p mix @ 65 watts, the “sugar cube”-ed-ness continued, with just as clean of a taste as it had when finger testing. There was a slight cotton candy aspect to it, but only slight. When testing the sweetener in live mixes, I DID notice something INTERESTING, and I think Rick might have eluded to this when he shipped these out. The sweetener needs some time to STEEP !!! Yes, something I have NEVER done before with ANY sweetener. It actually UP-steeped, just like many of my Medicine Flower flavors. QUITE interesting. This is VERY important, because if you were trying to nudge up some sweetness in a mix, added a few drops, tasted it, and it didn’t taste sweet enough, and you added more, it could probably become TOO sweet after steeping, so keep that in mind.

I was actually quite impressed that I got NO off-notes, or even a hint during vaping or finger testing. I did not experience any muting in my bakery/fruit mixes at or below 1% which may be high for usage, but for my SFT, it was a perfect testing point. After checking my coils, it CLEARLY showed far less gunking than my usual sweeteners. Strength wise, I would put it dead smack in between TPA Sweetener and CAP Super Sweet. Maybe I’ll hate the other ones, but this one, I couldn’t find anything to fault. This one stomps out of the gate, as a clean, almost sugar cube-like sweetener that does exactly what it should, with no artificial or chemical aftertastes. I tried hard to find something to nit pick on this one, but could not. Just simply, a 10/10.

7 Likes

SugarMama (Regular) (Rick’s) 1% (09-18-22) – Moving onto Rick’s SugarMama. This one was still VG based, and had the exact same ingredient list as SugarDaddy minus the Sucralose. How much of a different would it make ?? The SugarMama tasted good off the finger, with a very close likeness to the SugarDaddy, but with a little less impact and “sugar lips” effect. It still had the same clean, almost sugar cube like taste with no artificial, or off-putting notes. It did have the same slight cotton candy nuance that SugarDaddy had. At 1% it felt a little less sweet than SD, but only slightly, which made sense sans the Suc. If you don’t like PG, and Suc, this sweetener should be on your rack, as it worked great with no detectable muting when used as high as 1%. It worked well in both my test mixes, and should be steeped as mentioned above in the SD review, as it will almost upsteep. So let it steep before adjusting in any mixes. Obviously YOUR tastes in sweeteners will dictate whether or not you like, or want Suc included or not. As was the case with SD, the SugarMama did seem to be far less gunky on the coils than my typical sweeteners. All in, SugarMama was just as clean, and aftertaste free as SugarDaddy, and it did so without any Suc. Placing it just below SD, to slightly less impact and sugar lips effect only. Felt great @ 9.25/10.

7 Likes

Thank you for the in-depth reviews mate, they are greatly appreciated. I wonder if you can help me here please? I mostly use Caps Super Sweet at 0.50% but how much Sugar Daddy would I need to use for the same desired effect/level of sweetness?

4 Likes

@JimmyLee first things first, thank you very much for your kind words, it always means a lot.

I have to admit, I struggled to determine exactly WHERE SugarDaddy fit into the existing Sweetener scale, BUT, I finally settled on this. I feel that SugarDaddy (Original) is mid way between TPA’s Sweetener (Suc/EM), and CAP’s Super Sweet.

Because CAP’s Super Sweet is almost twice as strong as TPA’s, I would suggest STARTING @ 0.65-0.80%.

The one thing I have to STRESS here, is if you add Sugar Daddy, and immediately test your mix, it WILL seem UNDER-sweetened. Let it steep for a few days because it DOES up-steep.

5 Likes

Thank you S.D for answering my question, it helped me a great deal. Now it’s just a waiting game for the real Sugar Daddy to become available in the U.K.

4 Likes

You’re very welcome @JimmyLee, maybe @RichardwL can better elaborate on that.

4 Likes

I had a few questions about my testing setup, and rather than re-type …

6 Likes

Thanks S.D for your in-depth review and testing of SugarDaddy.
I will take your notes and put them in my files for further evaluation and development such as tweaking SD on lessing the cotton candy note.
I want it clean…CLEAN I TELLS YA!!!
There was always a slight cotton candy note since the beginning which kinda bothered me but…in a way that tone is part of SD’s uniqueness.

I’ll send you an updated sample for you to test when I get around to getting my ass to the mad lab to check the formulation.

Again…Thanks for your time.
This is really good news.
:metal: :ok_hand:

4 Likes

You’re very welcome @RichardwL, and thanks for the opportunity.

Regarding the slight Cotton Candy note(s), I don’t know if I would worry about removing them to be honest. It seems to really help PUSH the Sugar Cube effect IMO.

Working on the SDV2X now …

4 Likes

There’s always a way.
At least I can try.
haha!

4 Likes

That SD 2X…
You’re gonna get a mouthful of sugar sweetness.
lol

4 Likes

@JimmyLee
Yeah…it seems you’s are at the mercy of your DIY merchants over there across the pond.
It’s unfortunate that I have not heard from Chefs or any other merchant as of yet since I have advised of the counterfeit SD product.
They have my email so I don’t understand what is the hold up.
Maybe their last order from TBV was the fake and it wasn’t selling any longer OR the word about SD didn’t spread.
I don’t know which or maybe both.
Hopefully a B&M over there will reach out to stock SD .
:crossed_fingers:

3 Likes

SugarDaddy (Vanilla 2x) (Rick’s) 1% (09-18-22) – Yes, you read this right, DOUBLE STRENGTH SugarDaddy with Vanilla. As you would expect, this was just like the regular version of SugarDaddy, but stronger, AND, with just a slight touch of Vanilla. Even doubled, I still got NO after-taste or off-notes, pretty impressive. Now, as far as my perceived strength compared to the Regular, it didn’t appear to be linear, meaning it didn’t appear to be twice as strong. After steeping it felt more like 1.5 times as strong, which would put it at, or just above CAP’s Super Sweet for comparison. The taste was just as clean, and sugar-cube like as the Regular version. The Vanilla was very light, but still present, and hard to nail down, as the cotton candy notes present in the SugarDaddy worked to conceal it’s exact style. Not spicy, but maybe similar to FA’s Madagascar would be in the ballpark. It was just light enough to avoid complete analysis, but strong enough to be present. I would better call it SugarDaddy enhanced by Vanilla. As I’ve stated before, steeping is important for SugarDaddy sweeteners to allow them to fully bloom. Starting light, and increasing after a steep if needed is the way to go. At 1% this was fully sweet, but surprisingly it wasn’t sickeningly sweet, or over flavored. It showed no signs of hitting the ceiling, or folding over on itself as flavors (and sweeteners) sometimes do when used to heavily. Because this was double strength, solo’ing it @ 1% was fairly high, but the addition of the vanilla enhancement(s) kept it interesting, even as a solo. At this fairly high rate, I did experience slight muting in my fruit recipe, but only slight, and the bakery recipe, showed no issues. Your usage, and rates, will depend on how sweet you need, I will admit to rather enjoying this solo’d, and that caught me by surprise. With no off-notes, no artificial-ness present, and only minor muting at high levels, this one (again) was hard to fault. Simply a stronger version of SugarDaddy, kissed by a light vanilla accent. Too hard to knock this one down, and easily 9.9/10.

7 Likes

Excellent.
Thanks S.D
With your in-depth review I think I know where to aim the arrow to fix the muting and other slight issues.
Vanilla isn’t available yet to the public as I sent you a sample for testing and get some notes.
What you provided is exactly what I need to hit the lab and make a few changes.
Superb info.
Much thanks.
I’ll keep you informed on updates toward improvements.

4 Likes

@RichardwL the Vanilla was a nice addition to the line, and actually worked very well.

4 Likes

I think this is a jolly poor show and extremely rude of them not to even acknowledge you after you contacted them about this matter. More than likely they want to sell the stock that they already have wether it’s fake or not so that they don’t make a loss before ordering any more. By acknowledging your emails they would be confirming this action which doesn’t make them look good to others. I may be totally wrong and I hope that I am but I can’t deny that this is my gut feeling about this matter.

3 Likes

I agree …
and if you are correct about your assumption…well…I wouldn’t blame them to try and recoup their probable losses. I did advise them to request a full refund for a “false advertised” product…but at the same time by keeping the stock they have (counterfeit) they are making SD seem like a bad product hence in the end will hurt SD’s reputation on quality.

4 Likes