Shellac: Why isn't it a gel polish?

SalonGeek

Help Support SalonGeek:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
i personally love that shellac is a power polish, says exactly what it is?? a polish with more lasting power!

I am a gel girl at heart andhave used most of the gels on the market in the last 15 years, they all needed a primer, they all needed the natural nail to be etched as such and to remove they needed to be buffed before soaking off or just buffed off.

Shellac doesnt have a primer
shellac doesnt need the natural nail to be etched/buffed
shellac doesnt need to be buffed off
shellac doesnt need topcoat buffing prior to soaking
shellac leaves the natural nail looking as new after removal

those are five reasons (there are more) why it is not a gel in the traditional sense and so needs to be not referred to as a gel so that clients can differentiate it from other products.

THERE IS NOTHING ELSE LIKE IT! so it needs its own name, scientific or not, its a name clients can relate to. if they like polish but want it to last longer shellac is the one. there is no strength in it as such. xx

I'm afraid i must disagree with the comment a polish with more lasting power'.
I have tried most gel polishes, and out of them all shellac did not last the longest. It was gelicure and gelish that far out lasted the rest.
That being said Shellac is lovely. I think at the end of the day it just boils down to personal preference. If it works for you and client that's fab, whichever the make xx
 
I'm afraid i must disagree with the comment a polish with more lasting power'.
I have tried most gel polishes, and out of them all shellac did not last the longest. It was gelicure and gelish that far out lasted the rest.
That being said Shellac is lovely. I think at the end of the day it just boils down to personal preference. If it works for you and client that's fab, whichever the make xx

You have misunderstood. She said it was like a nail polish but with more lasting power... i.e more lasting power than a normal nail polish. She didn't mention it in comparison with a gel polish.
 
Please .... tell me a polish that can stand alone without mentioning the name "Shellac" ....... honestly (from a well educated clients point of view).

EVERY competitor mentions "Shellac" when promoting (dare I say) excusing their less than publicly recognized product .... "it's just like Shellac", only different, CND did a wonderful job of making themselves the "original" and in fact promoted every other product available (and all other similar products should thank them).

Shellac is the "BENCHMARK", look up the definition of benchmark and you will understand ......
 
I'm afraid i must disagree with the comment a polish with more lasting power'.
I have tried most gel polishes, and out of them all shellac did not last the longest. It was gelicure and gelish that far out lasted the rest.
That being said Shellac is lovely. I think at the end of the day it just boils down to personal preference. If it works for you and client that's fab, whichever the make xx

just out of curiosity how long did your shellac last? my clients get 3 weeks from it and even the ones that have had trouble keeping any sort of enhancement/coating on manage 3 weeks from shellac xx
 
Please .... tell me a polish that can stand alone without mentioning the name "Shellac" ....... honestly (from a well educated clients point of view).

EVERY competitor mentions "Shellac" when promoting (dare I say) excusing their less than publicly recognized product .... "it's just like Shellac", only different, CND did a wonderful job of making themselves the "original" and in fact promoted every other product available (and all other similar products should thank them).

Shellac is the "BENCHMARK", look up the definition of benchmark and you will understand ......

I don't think Gelish uses a comparison to Shellac in it's marketing. No-one is saying CND have not done a fantastic job of producing and promoting Shellac. That fact, I am sure, reaps massive benefits for the nails techs that choose to use Shellac. I think all this defensive talk is rather missing the point of the original question. Why is Shellac not a gel polish? A genuine question from someone who just wants to get her facts straight, not someone who is trying to say one product is better than the other.

I'm sure it doesn't matter to many of us what a product is described as, as long as we are happy with the results and have faith in the safety aspects. However, I am curious to hear the answer to the original question.
 
I don't think Gelish uses a comparison to Shellac in it's marketing. No-one is saying CND have not done a fantastic job of producing and promoting Shellac. That fact, I am sure, reaps massive benefits for the nails techs that choose to use Shellac. I think all this defensive talk is rather missing the point of the original question. Why is Shellac not a gel polish? A genuine question from someone who just wants to get her facts straight, not someone who is trying to say one product is better than the other.

I'm sure it doesn't matter to many of us what a product is described as, as long as we are happy with the results and have faith in the safety aspects. However, I am curious to hear the answer to the original question.

In Australia, I have never seen A "Gelish" poster, EVERY salon has a "Shellac" poster, the distinguishable poster that everyone recognises.

If a technician was to explain what is Gelish, the tech would almost be forced to say "it's like Shellac", it's the way of the world, all other products have to explain themselves by saying "it's like Shellac" merely to define what the hell their product is like and what it compares to ........ "it's like Shellac".

CND have done the marketing, have set the benchmark, explained the product, explained the process, explained the product and have the reputation, only to pave the way for other product names that people don't understand.

I own one of the most popular and highly publicized salons in Australia, as well as 5.6 million hits on Youtube ........ nobody has every come in to the salon, messaged me on Youtube/rang for Gelish (not one), they all say "Do you do Shellac"?

Shellac is not only a "brand", it's a "process" that all others are judged by, you guys just have to accept this, and the fact you are "second" choice, above the brand and process "Shellac" ...... it's a fact ..., it's not only Australia, it's worldwide.
 
Last edited:
Please .... tell me a polish that can stand alone without mentioning the name "Shellac" ....... honestly (from a well educated clients point of view).

EVERY competitor mentions "Shellac" when promoting (dare I say) excusing their less than publicly recognized product .... "it's just like Shellac", only different, CND did a wonderful job of making themselves the "original" and in fact promoted every other product available (and all other similar products should thank them).

Shellac is the "BENCHMARK", look up the definition of benchmark and you will understand ......

I strongly disagree. Gelish came out first and so hardly could be mentioning Shellac. OPI Axxium also predates Shellac and that is the standard that OPI uses. In addition, even if Shellac were the benchmark, it is like a lot of other products when the competitors leapfrog over the original and out-market it. There's even a term for it - getting "Betamaxed."It references the way VHS videotape system overtook and virtually eliminated the first (and arguably better) Sony Beta system. New entrants into the gel polish market bring LED curing, more colors, vitamin enhanced, and effects to the table, leapfrogging over Shellac.

I don't think Shellac is in jeopardy of getting eliminated. While it was not the first, or is arguably not the best, it is the the most known and is generic - for now. Industry giants like OPI jumping into the market is a game changer - many more clients know OPI than know CND and that's what OPI is banking on. If another big company jumps in, CND Shellac will have a tough time maintaining a lead.
 
Ive had three enquirers this week calling me to ask if I do Gelish or gel polish none specifically asking for Shellac...

I have Gelish and Shellac posters in my home salon ....

I advertise Gelish and Shellac on my flyers, business cards and price lists...

I offer Gelish and Shellac, 70% of my clients prefer Gelish.

Yes CND have done fantastic marketing and made a fantastic product, but I think it also comes down to how the salon markets the products too.

Ive never had to say 'Gelish is like Shellac' gelish is a gel polish and Shellac is a hybrid/power polish the only comparison that is made is that there both a 2/3 week manicure.

I do however agree that Shellac has been the benchmark for the gel polish market to come to light, and for that I am thankful, but things are changing and theirs nothing wrong with a bit of healthy competition, after all that only benefits us :)
 
While they all are performing a similar outcome, there is a difference in the technology between the approach (and outcome) of applying Shellac versus the many versions of gel polishes out there.

While it is arguable that Gelish was "first to market" (it depends on the market and what you would consider an actual "launch"), it is a new approach to existing technology while Shellac is a new approach to the technology. And aren't we sort of splitting hairs here with the first to market/leapfrogging thing? It isn't as if CND saw Gelish in the market and said "oh, i'll have one of those". They spent 5 fricken years developing it and in many markets, it was clearly launched first.

I believe the point Nailzoo was making is that Shellac is the most consumer recognised brand within the category (yes, the "gel polish" category) and therefore the brand most used as a comparison even if the tech is different.

Do the gel polish products and Shellac perform and compete in the same category? Of course. I don't see anything wrong with saying Shellac is CND's answer to the "gel polish" category - however trying to pretend it is the same technology is misleading. That is the reason why CND work so hard to differentiate their product and the years invested in making it... thier blend of monomers, polymers and solvents are a different approach and anyone who has applied and removed gel polish and Shellac can attest to that.
 
While they all are performing a similar outcome, there is a difference in the technology between the approach (and outcome) of applying Shellac versus the many versions of gel polishes out there.

While it is arguable that Gelish was "first to market" (it depends on the market and what you would consider an actual "launch"), it is a new approach to existing technology while Shellac is a new approach to the technology. And aren't we sort of splitting hairs here with the first to market/leapfrogging thing? It isn't as if CND saw Gelish in the market and said "oh, i'll have one of those". They spent 5 fricken years developing it and in many markets, it was clearly launched first.

I believe the point Nailzoo was making is that Shellac is the most consumer recognised brand within the category (yes, the "gel polish" category) and therefore the brand most used as a comparison even if the tech is different.

Do the gel polish products and Shellac perform and compete in the same category? Of course. I don't see anything wrong with saying Shellac is CND's answer to the "gel polish" category - however trying to pretend it is the same technology is misleading. That is the reason why CND work so hard to differentiate their product and the years invested in making it... thier blend of monomers, polymers and solvents are a different approach and anyone who has applied and removed gel polish and Shellac can attest to that.

I was not saying that Shellac leapfrogged Gelish. Gelish was first with a great idea and Shellac had a similar idea and also marketed it. Great minds think alike! But the technology among gel polishes, including Shellac is very, very similar; not exactly the same but close enough. And it is not the only one to combine monomers, polymers and solvents. That's why Gelish says that its base and top coats can be used with other gel polishes. What differentiates Shellac is primarily its incredible marketing machine along with the education and customer support. That is what made Shellac a household name, not just product quality. I would argue that everyone else is leapfrogging Shellac because of that.

But like many industry leaders, it is easy to rest on one's laurels, so to speak. Many newer brands have introduced significant improvements to the product category. So while Shellac is a great product, the others are nipping at its heels.
 
And aren't we sort of splitting hairs here with the first to market/leapfrogging thing? It isn't as if CND saw Gelish in the market and said "oh, i'll have one of those". They spent 5 fricken years developing it and in many markets, it was clearly launched first.

I disagree that you can refer too a correction of a clearly incorrect fact (that Shellac was first to market) as 'splitting hairs'. When an incorrect statement is made some us see it as our responsibility to insure that these inaccuracies are nipped in the bud. I absolutely accept that Shellac would have been the first in many markets due too the size and scope of their market plan but were clearly not the first in THE market.
 
This is like Question Time.

Loads of responses and opinions but no proper answer to the OP's question :lol:
 
I think there have been many informed answers to the OP's question on here, Nancy really covered it well on the first page 2nd post :)

But I guess its gone a little more in depth...
 
I disagree that you can refer too a correction of a clearly incorrect fact (that Shellac was first to market) as 'splitting hairs'. When an incorrect statement is made some us see it as our responsibility to insure that these inaccuracies are nipped in the bud. I absolutely accept that Shellac would have been the first in many markets due too the size and scope of their market plan but were clearly not the first in THE market.

I'm not sure the relevance. In some markets, Gelish was first to market, in others Shellac was. Nip the inaccuracies in the bud: Which launched first in your market and by how many days? Which started R&D first? How much does it seriously matter? Ultimately which was the brand consumers sought out and started a huge shift in the industry that benefited the professionals using ANY variation of a "gel polish"? Was it the makers of Gelish/Artistic/Red Carpet Manicure/etc... ?

Another poster mentioned Axium as the pioneer in this category, yet I don't recall the same level of change in the industry any more than Calgel or Biosculpture caused (which happened, but not on the same level). A lot of this is timing, but it also can't happen without the public voting with their wallet. You can dismiss it with "marketing", but I don't recall any real consumer marketing prepping the general public to start running into the salons asking for Shellac. That happened when they discover something that exceeded their expectations. Why is that bad when it benefits everyone in the industry? The rest seems a lot less like inaccuracies and a lot of splitting hairs.

Choose the product that meets your needs for the category (there are several... many of which are the same company) and provide the best service you can. It is a great time to be a professional with so many choices. But lets not get into a mud slinging match because our choice of systems differ.

This is like Question Time.

Loads of responses and opinions but no proper answer to the OP's question :lol:

Sorry, thought several did :)

Shellac could be considered a Gel Polish as it accomplishes the same results as others in the category, but it isn't just a removable gel in the same manner that others are. Its not that others are "bad", they just take a different approach to providing the service.
 
Last edited:
So, I have used both Shellac and Gellish since the beginning! i don't actually care who was the first to market! This is a global economy and the various brands will have different 'launches' in different countries. I'm sure the R&D for both categories have been extensive and probably parallel as the market need was recognised.

As to the difference....there are big differences. They are not necessarily obvious to the client/consumer but I believe the differences are crucial for the professional to understand!

CND have now called Shellac a 'power polish'. It was originally called a 'hybrid' but the consumer didn't understand this term. For professionals it should have been the perfect description. It IS a hybrid. It has the traditional solvent technology of traditional polishes in a clever formulation that harnesses the photoinitiators of UV gels.

It applies to an 'appropriate' natural nail just like a polish and looks like a polish. Under the right circumstances, it will remain perfect and glossy due to the UV cured characteristics but will release from the nail with ease due to its traditional polish characteristics. (I use the word 'appropriate' as not every nail is right just like not every nail will hold onto a polish without chipping. This also applies to gel polishes!)

Shellac is a traditional polish with solvents that harnesses UV technology to overcome evaporation as a method of drying/curing. The 'tiny tunnels' analogy shows how a solvent will permeate the coating and release it, in flakes, from the nail. This is quite specific to Shellac.

Shellac has not specific strength for the natural nail that is any more than traditional polish. A weak nail will not benefit that much more than polish but it's longevity can help, in general, protect nails.

Benefits of Shellac is that there is (usually) no need to buff the nail plate before application (which over many applications that require buffing will thin the nail plate). It is applied just like polish and it looks just like polish. It will release quickly without having to buff the surface of the coating. The downsides for Shellac is that the strength it gives to the natural nail is not that much more than traditional polish.

Gel polishes only use the UV curing technology. There are no solvents in gel polishes. Some brands use the 'no solvents' as a marketing plus but I don't believe this is relevant!

They are, in simplistic form, a low viscosity coloured gel. This has the capacity to provide some extra strength to a nail but has a slightly different appearance from a traditional polish.

Most gel polishes recommend a very light buff on the nail plate before application. This is not always necessary as some nail plate will hold on to the product without this. The 'tiny tunnels' don't apply to gel polishes and this can be seen as the coating usually comes away in a bigger piece. The soaking off takes marginally longer as the solvent needs to get through to the base coat to make it 'release' from the nail plate.

From a technological point of view, they are different. One is very close to a traditional polish with no 'health' issue to the natural nail. The other has a minimal 'health' issue but, in the hands of a good technician, this is negligible.

Removal is key to both! The most damage is caused by a rough removal. But this is the subject of a different thread.

Then there is the marketing aspect! Brand awareness is absolutely key to the success for the technician! Clients are hugely influenced by the media profile of the brand! It doesn't matter if you agree with this, it is a fact! Clients will ask for a brand although they have no idea what they are asking for!

Following this thread, people ask for 'Shellac'. This is because the marketing is working! Gellish is doing a fantastic job with the 'celebrity' aspect. In general, the consumer don't understand any differences They ask for what they have heard!

EVERY technician needs to understand the technology of EVERY product they use. This is what makes a professional different from a 'hobbyist' and an amateur!
 
No mudslinging here :) As I've mentioned a couple of times in this thread I use both Shellac and Gelish and I'm happy with both and use them dependent upon customer requirements.

As to your questions, Gelish entered my market first by about 3 months, I do not know who started R&D first as I'm not privy to that information and whilst it does not matter to me who was first to market, it does matter if a comment is made on a forum used by people to gather information that that information should be as accurate as possible :)
 
So, I have used both Shellac and Gellish since the beginning! i don't actually care who was the first to market! This is a global economy and the various brands will have different 'launches' in different countries. I'm sure the R&D for both categories have been extensive and probably parallel as the market need was recognised.

As to the difference....there are big differences. They are not necessarily obvious to the client/consumer but I believe the differences are crucial for the professional to understand!

CND have now called Shellac a 'power polish'. It was originally called a 'hybrid' but the consumer didn't understand this term. For professionals it should have been the perfect description. It IS a hybrid. It has the traditional solvent technology of traditional polishes in a clever formulation that harnesses the photoinitiators of UV gels.

It applies to an 'appropriate' natural nail just like a polish and looks like a polish. Under the right circumstances, it will remain perfect and glossy due to the UV cured characteristics but will release from the nail with ease due to its traditional polish characteristics. (I use the word 'appropriate' as not every nail is right just like not every nail will hold onto a polish without chipping. This also applies to gel polishes!)

Shellac is a traditional polish with solvents that harnesses UV technology to overcome evaporation as a method of drying/curing. The 'tiny tunnels' analogy shows how a solvent will permeate the coating and release it, in flakes, from the nail. This is quite specific to Shellac.

Shellac has not specific strength for the natural nail that is any more than traditional polish. A weak nail will not benefit that much more than polish but it's longevity can help, in general, protect nails.

Benefits of Shellac is that there is (usually) no need to buff the nail plate before application (which over many applications that require buffing will thin the nail plate). It is applied just like polish and it looks just like polish. It will release quickly without having to buff the surface of the coating. The downsides for Shellac is that the strength it gives to the natural nail is not that much more than traditional polish.

Gel polishes only use the UV curing technology. There are no solvents in gel polishes. Some brands use the 'no solvents' as a marketing plus but I don't believe this is relevant!

They are, in simplistic form, a low viscosity coloured gel. This has the capacity to provide some extra strength to a nail but has a slightly different appearance from a traditional polish.

Most gel polishes recommend a very light buff on the nail plate before application. This is not always necessary as some nail plate will hold on to the product without this. The 'tiny tunnels' don't apply to gel polishes and this can be seen as the coating usually comes away in a bigger piece. The soaking off takes marginally longer as the solvent needs to get through to the base coat to make it 'release' from the nail plate.

From a technological point of view, they are different. One is very close to a traditional polish with no 'health' issue to the natural nail. The other has a minimal 'health' issue but, in the hands of a good technician, this is negligible.

Removal is key to both! The most damage is caused by a rough removal. But this is the subject of a different thread.

Then there is the marketing aspect! Brand awareness is absolutely key to the success for the technician! Clients are hugely influenced by the media profile of the brand! It doesn't matter if you agree with this, it is a fact! Clients will ask for a brand although they have no idea what they are asking for!

Following this thread, people ask for 'Shellac'. This is because the marketing is working! Gellish is doing a fantastic job with the 'celebrity' aspect. In general, the consumer don't understand any differences They ask for what they have heard!

EVERY technician needs to understand the technology of EVERY product they use. This is what makes a professional different from a 'hobbyist' and an amateur!

A good unbiased post. Thank you!
 
So, I have used both Shellac and Gellish since the beginning! i don't actually care who was the first to market! This is a global economy and the various brands will have different 'launches' in different countries. I'm sure the R&D for both categories have been extensive and probably parallel as the market need was recognised.

As to the difference....there are big differences. They are not necessarily obvious to the client/consumer but I believe the differences are crucial for the professional to understand!

CND have now called Shellac a 'power polish'. It was originally called a 'hybrid' but the consumer didn't understand this term. For professionals it should have been the perfect description. It IS a hybrid. It has the traditional solvent technology of traditional polishes in a clever formulation that harnesses the photoinitiators of UV gels.

It applies to an 'appropriate' natural nail just like a polish and looks like a polish. Under the right circumstances, it will remain perfect and glossy due to the UV cured characteristics but will release from the nail with ease due to its traditional polish characteristics. (I use the word 'appropriate' as not every nail is right just like not every nail will hold onto a polish without chipping. This also applies to gel polishes!)

Shellac is a traditional polish with solvents that harnesses UV technology to overcome evaporation as a method of drying/curing. The 'tiny tunnels' analogy shows how a solvent will permeate the coating and release it, in flakes, from the nail. This is quite specific to Shellac.

Shellac has not specific strength for the natural nail that is any more than traditional polish. A weak nail will not benefit that much more than polish but it's longevity can help, in general, protect nails.

Benefits of Shellac is that there is (usually) no need to buff the nail plate before application (which over many applications that require buffing will thin the nail plate). It is applied just like polish and it looks just like polish. It will release quickly without having to buff the surface of the coating. The downsides for Shellac is that the strength it gives to the natural nail is not that much more than traditional polish.

Gel polishes only use the UV curing technology. There are no solvents in gel polishes. Some brands use the 'no solvents' as a marketing plus but I don't believe this is relevant!

They are, in simplistic form, a low viscosity coloured gel. This has the capacity to provide some extra strength to a nail but has a slightly different appearance from a traditional polish.

Most gel polishes recommend a very light buff on the nail plate before application. This is not always necessary as some nail plate will hold on to the product without this. The 'tiny tunnels' don't apply to gel polishes and this can be seen as the coating usually comes away in a bigger piece. The soaking off takes marginally longer as the solvent needs to get through to the base coat to make it 'release' from the nail plate.

From a technological point of view, they are different. One is very close to a traditional polish with no 'health' issue to the natural nail. The other has a minimal 'health' issue but, in the hands of a good technician, this is negligible.

Removal is key to both! The most damage is caused by a rough removal. But this is the subject of a different thread.

Then there is the marketing aspect! Brand awareness is absolutely key to the success for the technician! Clients are hugely influenced by the media profile of the brand! It doesn't matter if you agree with this, it is a fact! Clients will ask for a brand although they have no idea what they are asking for!

Following this thread, people ask for 'Shellac'. This is because the marketing is working! Gellish is doing a fantastic job with the 'celebrity' aspect. In general, the consumer don't understand any differences They ask for what they have heard!

EVERY technician needs to understand the technology of EVERY product they use. This is what makes a professional different from a 'hobbyist' and an amateur!

Fantastic as usual

Sent from my GT-P3110 using SalonGeek
 
So, I have used both Shellac and Gellish since the beginning! i don't actually care who was the first to market! This is a global economy and the various brands will have different 'launches' in different countries. I'm sure the R&D for both categories have been extensive and probably parallel as the market need was recognised.

As to the difference....there are big differences. They are not necessarily obvious to the client/consumer but I believe the differences are crucial for the professional to understand!

CND have now called Shellac a 'power polish'. It was originally called a 'hybrid' but the consumer didn't understand this term. For professionals it should have been the perfect description. It IS a hybrid. It has the traditional solvent technology of traditional polishes in a clever formulation that harnesses the photoinitiators of UV gels.

It applies to an 'appropriate' natural nail just like a polish and looks like a polish. Under the right circumstances, it will remain perfect and glossy due to the UV cured characteristics but will release from the nail with ease due to its traditional polish characteristics. (I use the word 'appropriate' as not every nail is right just like not every nail will hold onto a polish without chipping. This also applies to gel polishes!)

Shellac is a traditional polish with solvents that harnesses UV technology to overcome evaporation as a method of drying/curing. The 'tiny tunnels' analogy shows how a solvent will permeate the coating and release it, in flakes, from the nail. This is quite specific to Shellac.

Shellac has not specific strength for the natural nail that is any more than traditional polish. A weak nail will not benefit that much more than polish but it's longevity can help, in general, protect nails.

Benefits of Shellac is that there is (usually) no need to buff the nail plate before application (which over many applications that require buffing will thin the nail plate). It is applied just like polish and it looks just like polish. It will release quickly without having to buff the surface of the coating. The downsides for Shellac is that the strength it gives to the natural nail is not that much more than traditional polish.

Gel polishes only use the UV curing technology. There are no solvents in gel polishes. Some brands use the 'no solvents' as a marketing plus but I don't believe this is relevant!

They are, in simplistic form, a low viscosity coloured gel. This has the capacity to provide some extra strength to a nail but has a slightly different appearance from a traditional polish.

Most gel polishes recommend a very light buff on the nail plate before application. This is not always necessary as some nail plate will hold on to the product without this. The 'tiny tunnels' don't apply to gel polishes and this can be seen as the coating usually comes away in a bigger piece. The soaking off takes marginally longer as the solvent needs to get through to the base coat to make it 'release' from the nail plate.

From a technological point of view, they are different. One is very close to a traditional polish with no 'health' issue to the natural nail. The other has a minimal 'health' issue but, in the hands of a good technician, this is negligible.

Removal is key to both! The most damage is caused by a rough removal. But this is the subject of a different thread.

Then there is the marketing aspect! Brand awareness is absolutely key to the success for the technician! Clients are hugely influenced by the media profile of the brand! It doesn't matter if you agree with this, it is a fact! Clients will ask for a brand although they have no idea what they are asking for!

Following this thread, people ask for 'Shellac'. This is because the marketing is working! Gellish is doing a fantastic job with the 'celebrity' aspect. In general, the consumer don't understand any differences They ask for what they have heard!

EVERY technician needs to understand the technology of EVERY product they use. This is what makes a professional different from a 'hobbyist' and an amateur!

Thank you so much for this. This is exactly the kind of information I was looking for when deciding which system to start out with. Someone to say this is the difference without bias. As it was I ended up choosing Gelish because I was put off by so many people really trying to push Shellac down my throat but not being able to back up their reasons with any real evidence/explanation of the difference. Now I've had more time to play with the systems, and read more information I've introduced Shellac as well as I like aspects of both.
 
thank you mum! really appreciate the time you have taken to write this answer.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top