*For more information on how I do reviews see Diaper Test Methodology. For a list of all product reviews see the Product Index.
  |
Summary
When procuring the Darlings 8 youth diaper I also discovered a more budget-friendly variant of it sold as the Velvet Premium Comfort. Along with the Darlings 8, the size 8 of the Velvet diaper sits at the top of the market as the largest youth diaper sold in retail stores (again only in Kuwait). Both have a recommended weight-based sizing of 35 kg+ (77 lbs+). These fill a rather underserved gap between baby and adult diapers. Most other products that fill this gap, like Goodnites, tend to be a protective underwear style.
The structure and materials of the Velvet 8 are very similar to the Darlings 8. Both are tab-style diapers with a single hook & loop tab per side coupled with a rectangular fastener landing zone at the front. The biggest difference between the two is the backsheet pattern and the fastener mechanism. These have a particularly interesting fastener mechanism that I haven’t seen elsewhere, with a narrow region of elastic material connecting the tapes to the rear wings. The rear wings themselves are made of an inelastic material. It looks flimsier than the Darlings 8 fastener mechanism, but in practice I found it quite effective and slightly more durable. Otherwise, the performance between the two was pretty similar and the Velvet 8 generally outperformed the Darlings 8 in terms of absorbency.
As a reviewer who is primarily focused on adult incontinence products I find it interesting to see the innovations done in youth products that haven’t necessarily made it into adult equivalents. The small sizing makes these reviews particularly challenging and the number of products in this category that are even remotely feasible to review are quite limited.
Key Features:
- Cloth-like backsheet
- Standing inner leak guards
- Fastener landing zone
- Playful backsheet prints
- Repositionable fasteners
- Rear waistband
Pros:
- Comfortable/breathable design
- Granular sizing (newborn-to-youth)
- Discreet
- Stretchy sides & snug fit
Cons:
- Limited availability (mostly just Kuwait)
- Relatively low absorbency (designed for youth bladder)
- Sizing ends at 35 kg+ (77 lbs+)
Product Details
For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the stage 8 Velvet Premium Comfort Youth Diaper. However, other available sizes are listed below:
Packaging
Brand: Velvet
Manufacturer: MTC HYGIENE
Origin: Kuwait
Units Per Bag: 22
Cost Per Unit: $
Dimensions (L x W x H): 22 cm (8.7") x 11 cm (4.3") x 27 cm (10.6")
Weight: 0.95 kg (2.1 lbs)
Available Sizes: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
Advertised Absorbency: Junior
 
   |
| 1.1 Velvet Premium Comfort 8 Packaging |
Diaper
Backsheet: Cloth-like (non-woven)
Wetness Indicator: No
Standing Inner Leak Guards: Yes
Leg Gathers: Yes
Product Style: Tab-Style Brief
Refastenable Tabs: Yes
Number of Tapes: 1
Repositionable Tabs: Yes
Outer Color: White (blue and yellow dots/icons + blue rear waistband)
Inner Color: White
Front Waistband: No
Rear Waistband: Yes
Folded Thickness: 1.10 cm (0.43")
Folded Length: 27 cm (10.6")
Dry Weight: 45 g (1.6 oz)
Fragrance: No
Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 58.5 cm (23") x 38 cm (15") x 20 cm (7.9") x 40 cm (15.8")
Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular
Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 46 cm (18.1") x 10 cm (3.9") x 10 cm (3.9") x 10 cm (3.9")
Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 0 cm (0") x 0 cm (0") x 0 cm (0") x 0 cm (0")
Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Flat, Flat
Total Padding Area: 460 cm2 (71 in2)
Tape Spacing (t1): 4 cm (1.6")
Tape (W x L): 3 cm (1.2") x 3.5 cm (1.4")
      |
| 1.2 Velvet Premium Comfort 8 Diaper |
Laboratory Absorbency Tests
Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 470 ml (16.6 oz)
Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 480 ml (16.9 oz)
Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (39 s, 37 s)
Wet Folded Thickness: 4 cm (1.6")
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 96%
Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 1.02 ml / cm2 (0.23 oz / in2)
Press Out Volume: 10 ml (0.35 oz)
Surface Dampness Rating: 8
The Velvet 8 was similar to the Darlings 8 when it came to resistance against surface dampness. Both diapers proved remarkably strong given their level of absorbency. During the paper towel check in the lab test there was no significant surface dampness after the first wetting. There was more from the second wetting, but not quite the same extent. Both diapers were a bit susceptible to initial pooling on the second wetting, but it was a little less noticeable on this diaper during the lab test. In real world testing I also rarely noticed any surface dampness and noticed these diapers to be exceptionally resistant to pressout moisture.
 
|
| 2.1 Wet vs Dry Diaper After Capacity Test |
 |
| 2.2 Used vs Unused Padding After Capacity Test |
"Real World" Absorbency Tests
Posture Tests
Standing-Sitting
Total Absorbed Volume: 605 ml (21.3 oz)
Total Wettings: (2 standing)
Leaked After Sitting: No
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 90%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 1.32 ml / cm2 (0.30 oz / in2)
Standing-Sitting Rating: 3
The Velvet 8 demonstrated a strong performance given its sizing when tested when standing and sitting. Like the similar Darlings 8 diaper, I was clearly above the intended sizing for this diaper, but again gave it a test to assess its relative performance. The first wetting while standing was fully absorbed without any signs of leakage, though there was some initial pooling in the mid-section that subsided a short while later. Once absorbed the padding swelled a bit, but moisture felt well contained without notable surface dampness. There wasn’t any obvious pressout moisture upon sitting shortly afterward and I found it more comparable to the Pampers or EasyUps than the Goodnites or Pull-Ups in this regard. Also, unlike the similar Darlings 8, there wasn’t any leakage even after an extended time seated. At this point the front padding was mostly wet but there was still a bit of dry padding at the rear. The second wetting while seated was clearly going to leak and quickly pooled in the front before settling back into the mid padding where a large leak formed through the leg gathers. The leak guards were surprisingly strong, though it may have been partly due to the tight fit. At the end of the test there was even a bit of remaining dry padding at the rear where moisture couldn’t quite wick to before the leak. Overall absorbency was decent and I’d expect for its targeted sizing it could quite consistently manage 1 or 2 wettings without leakage.
Lying Down
Total Absorbed Volume: 680 ml (24 oz)
Total Wettings: 2
Used to Total Padding Ratio: 100%
Padding to Absorbency Score: 1.48 ml / cm2 (0.34 oz / in2)
Lying Down Rating: 3
The Velvet 8 performed surprisingly well when tested while lying down. I was certain it would leak on the first wetting and it did indeed come close, but somehow the barriers managed to contain it. Moisture pushed both directions backward into the rear padding and forward into the front padding. There was notable pooling in the front padding and it felt like it might push through the leak guards and out the side, but it remained contained long enough for the padding to capture the excess and there was no obvious leakage. As you might expect with me being above this diaper’s targeted sizing, the padding was nearly all wet at this point with very little obvious remaining dry padding. That said, moisture was well contained and I only really noticed a bit of swelling without any obvious pressout moisture and little noticeable surface dampness. The second wetting was very clearly going to leak. Initially there was substantial pooling up the front with significant leaks through the front leak guards into the wings as well as leaks through the leg gathers. The diaper was clearly saturated at this point, with pressout and surface dampness quite obvious. The overall absorbency was impressive for a youth diaper and comparable to what I’ve seen from some retail adult diapers. It performed better than the slightly more expensive Darlings diaper and better than any other youth diapers or protective underwear tested so far aside from the Goodnites XXL. For its intended sizing this diaper should be a good choice for managing bedwetting.
  |
| 2.3 Pattern of Used vs Unused Padding Test Stand/Sit (right) Lying Down (left) |
Daily Wear and Bedwetting
Like most of the youth products reviewed so far, I was far too large to test these from a practical daily living standpoint. I could fasten the diaper around my waist but the fastener placement wasn’t ideal and, when under continuous stretch or strain from different movements, the glue holding the fastener extensions to the rear wings would eventually give out causing it to pop off. It generally held out for a longer duration than the Darlings 8, which was a bit more susceptible to this problem. The stretchy tab extenders were pretty interesting and oddly enough caused a different fit, with the rear of this diaper sitting much higher than the front compared with the Darlings 8. To extend the life of these I would occasionally have to re-glue the fastener extension to the rear wings and I found that easier to do with these than the Darlings diapers. I also found these to be slightly larger than the Darlings 8 with a total diaper area of 1670 cm2 (258 in2) vs 1635 cm2 (253 in2) and padding area of 450 cm2 (69.8 in2) vs 460 cm2 (71.3 in2). The sizing is about equivalent to the previous Goodnites L/XL or perhaps the current L. These diapers generally performed better in terms of absorbency. They consistently absorbed a full wetting without leaks and were remarkably resistant to pressout. The rate of absorption may have been slightly better, though both these and the Darlings will initially have noticeable pooling after a wetting. Unlike the Pampers products, these don’t have any obvious moisture channels, so perhaps with better channeling they could absorb even faster with less pooling. In terms of market fit, I feel they again likely fill the gap of a product like Goodnites and perhaps act as a bridge product for special needs youths. These are a more budget friendly product than the Darlings diapers and have a relatively low unit price in their home market for what you get with them. That said, the quality and particularly resistance to pressout/surface dampness remains impressive and it’s certainly a product I’d consider if more widely available and of a size I could properly fit.Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 8
The Velvet 8 diaper should perform as well as any youth diaper for bowel containment. I’m ranking it the same as the Darlings 8 diaper in this regard. Like most youth diapers, the padding doesn’t rise all the way up the rear, but the backsheet coverage is far greater up the rear and this diaper seems to have a fastener design that pulls the rear much higher compared with the front. It also has a cloth-like backsheet and, as is the case for many similar diapers, the breathability may reduce its ability to contain odors. For its target sizing I imagine this should be a decent diaper for bowel containment, but not quite at the top.
Wear & Tear Tests
Fitting
The Velvet 8 is a youth-style tabbed diaper with a single hook & loop fastener per side and a narrow area of stretchy material extending behind the fastener. It features a rectangular landing zone and like other youth diapers has small tabs from the front of the diaper that form the front wings. This diaper is very similar to the Darlings 8 in dimensions, perhaps even slightly larger as I measured a little more in diaper and padding length. Both diapers are designed for youths larger than 35 kg (77 lbs) and no other standard retailing youth-style diaper comes close to this in terms of marketed sizing. Once again, the sizing of these is similar to the old Goodnites L/XL or perhaps the current generation of Goodnites L. The padding area is the same as the Pampers UK 8 at 460 cm2 / 71.3 in2, but the surface area of the diaper is much larger at 1670 cm2 / 259 in2 vs 1381 cm2 / 214 in2 for the Pampers product. That gives it a slightly larger fit than the Goodnites XL in terms of surface area, although that’s partly due to the difference in design where the sides of the Goodnites are stretchier and cover more when actually worn. I found it notable that the structure of this diaper gives it a higher rise up the rear compared with the Darlings diaper. Unlike the Darlings diaper, the rear wings on this diaper don’t have any stretch on their own, but there’s a narrow area of elastic material that gives them flexibility for fastening. Unstretched, the tabs will fasten on the landing zone for a hips/waist of about 62 cm (24.4”), the same as the Darlings diaper. The stretchy material connecting the fasteners has about 2 cm (0.79”) of additional stretch per side, so realistically at full stretch these will fit the landing zone on a maximum hips/waist of 66 cm (26”), which is a little short of the Darlings max stretch fit. However, the maximum feasible fit to connect it around a waist regardless of fastener is about the same for both around 96.5 cm (38”), which is achieved by connecting the fasteners directly to the front wing tabs. These tabs are strongly held in place and won’t come undone, but under a long enough period of stretch the part holding the stretchy material to the rear wings will eventually pull loose. So even though these are dimensionally slightly larger than the Darlings 8, the realistic range of fit is a bit narrower with a best fit between 62 cm (24.4”) and 66 cm (26”).
 |
| 3.1 Velvet Premium Comfort 8 Fastener |
Ease-of-Use Rating: 8
The Velvet 8 diaper should generally be quite user friendly. Though I rank it slightly lower than the Darlings 8 due to the more limited range of fit. The fasteners are a hook & loop material and they will easily attach and detach from the landing zone without damaging material or losing their adhesiveness. Like the Darlings diaper they have a strong grip and will hold in place with little-to-no movement once attached. From my testing they had the same fastener malfunction as the Darlings, where those who wear these with a persistent stretch will find the stretchy fastener bit can pull out of place. Although, I actually found that part to be a little more durable on these (possibly just the batches tested). Moreover, these diapers don’t include a wetness indicator, which can be helpful in some caregiver environments. On the plus side, like the Darlings diapers, these also come in a very wide range of sizing, so youths could wear these for many years and they will likely act as a transitional product for those experiencing bedwetting.
 |
| 3.2 Velvet Premium Comfort 8 Diaper Fit |
Comfort
Comfort Rating (dry): 9
The Velvet 8 is about the same as the Darlings 8 when it comes to dry comfort. It’s slightly larger, but otherwise the biggest obvious difference is the fastener system and for anyone able to fit this with the fasteners on the landing zone you wouldn’t really notice because the stretchy fastener extension on these would be sitting completely over the backsheet. The general topsheet and backsheet material is about the same and in both cases very soft and comfortable. These diapers are highly breathable and barely noticeable in their dry state. The fasteners also have an incredibly strong grip that won’t give out over time (minus the overstretch issue I’ve mentioned earlier, which wouldn’t generally be the case for someone more appropriately sized for these). The padding and structure are otherwise highly durable and I didn’t notice any significant clumping or tearing. The rear waistband gives this diaper a decent stretch so it isn’t purely superficial like some, but it’s not quite as stretchy as the Darlings diaper because of the smaller area of elastic material on the rear wings.
Comfort Rating (wet): 9
I rank the Velvet 8 diaper about the same as the Darlings 8 diaper when it comes to wet comfort. The primary difference between the two diapers is the front wings, but both fastener designs are more than strong enough to prevent any sagging. In the lab test I noticed less pooling with this diaper, though in real world testing they weren’t too dissimilar. It’s possible that the slightly faster wicking on this diaper was the reason tested absorbencies generally ended up greater than the very similar Darlings 8. Again, if you’re a size that can properly fit these I’m certain you’d find them equally comfortable when wet compared with their dry state.
  |
| 3.3 Velvet Premium Comfort 8 Topsheet and Backsheet |
Durability
Dry Padding Deterioration Proportion: 5% (topsheet), 5.3% (backsheet)
Shake Deterioration Test: 4 shakes to deterioration
Durability Rating (dry): 9
Once again, I pushed this diaper to its limit by testing at a size larger than its intended market. I found it to be a little more durable than the Darlings 8 diaper, primarily because the bit holding the fastener extension to the rear wing held on a bit strong. It still wasn’t foolproof and I had several of them rip off, but it was notably better. Sitting for an extended period of time essentially guaranteed a failure in the Darlings diaper, whereas in this diaper the fasteners connector bit would only really start to weaken after various different exercises or movements put pressure on the fasteners and eventually they gave out. The fastener grip itself was outstanding and they will easily hold up to anything you could throw at them without slipping or coming loose once fastened. In terms of padding condition, I never noticed any significant clumping or tearing and considering I pushed them to their limit the padding was in impressive shape at the end of the dry durability test. Like the Darlings diaper, I feel this diaper could be improved with a better adhesive to keep the fastener extensions connected to the rear wings, but otherwise I can’t find any durability faults in this diaper.
Durability Rating (wet): 9
The Velvet 8 diaper performed strongly when tested for wet durability and I again rank it a little higher than the Darlings diaper because the fastener extension weakness was less pronounced in this diaper. Otherwise, it performed similarly with the padding showing no obvious additional susceptibility to clumping or tearing when wet. The fasteners have a remarkably strong grip for their size once attached and don’t shift or loosen with wear. Structurally this is a highly durable diaper that’s made of good quality, strong materials. The bit connecting the fastener extension to the wings could be a bit stronger, but otherwise they’re about as durable as you could ask for in a diaper.
 
| |||
| 3.4 Velvet Premium Comfort 8 Dry Test Deterioration |
Discretion Tests
Profile
Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 0 cm (0"), 1 cm (0.4")
Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 0 cm (0"), 0 cm (0")
Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 0 cm (0"), 0 cm (0")
Profile Discretion Rating: 10
The Velvet 8 diaper is about the same as the Darlings diaper when it comes to profile discretion, which itself is similar to the Goodnites L/XL. You couldn’t really ask for a more discreet diaper than this, especially given its absorbency level. I didn’t notice any hint of a diaper bulge and the backsheet pattern is pretty subtle and wouldn’t be super noticeable above the waistline.
  
|
| 4.1 Velvet Premium Comfort 8 Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right) |
   | ||||
| 4.2 Velvet Premium Comfort 8 Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right) |
Noise
Noise Rating: 10
The Velvet 8 diaper didn’t produce any obvious sound when tested for noise discretion. These diapers have a cloth-like backsheet that doesn’t generate much resistance with movement. If you’re able to fit them I wouldn’t expect anyone to notice.
 |
| 4.3 Velvet Premium Comfort 8 Noise Profile |
Odor Reduction
Odor Reduction Rating: 8
The padding and structure of the Velvet 8 diaper is nearly the same as the Darlings 8 diaper aside from the different fastener mechanism and slight dimensional differences. The padding has a very strong resistance to surface dampness and ultimately odor formation. Being cloth-backed they can be a bit susceptible to odors if they do form and the padding doesn’t run very far up the rear of the diaper. But considering the sizing these should be more than sufficient for resisting odors.
