QSC low purity test decanoate raws

[readalot]

Summary on TE purity:
96%+ via HPLC
(78 to 89%*] range via GCMS
* 89% estimated by normalized percentage considering only API and ene impurity


Summary on TC purity:
98%+ via HPLC
(70 to 85%**] range via GCMS
**85% estimated by normalized percentage considering only API and ene impurity

Hope to get an answer to this as a group project next year.

 

[TurboJet]

I'm broke till the middle of January but don't mind chipping in once money starts coming back in.

 

[Sampei]

On December 3red order a considerable amount as well sure it all the same batch.

Wanna chime in for the GCMS test?

 

[Ghoul]

There's also the factor that this is all that's out there for the foreseeable future.

Maybe it'll get better soon, or maybe it won't.

TBH I'm pretty sure other vendors are hoarding what raws they have left to make oils so QSCs offerings fall under "better than nothing".

Still, recent tests so one knows what to expect would be good. It's not like QSCs been shy about less than great test results before. Like I said, I'd expect there are more recent tests to accommodate the oils, it would be good to replace the old ones with the current results to prevent buyers feeling like they've been had.

 

[readalot]

Response from Tracy when emailed about it:



View attachment 309277

If it makes you feel any better, there's a thread for that as well (90% purity raw). Great you are bringing awareness and that folks are starting to pay attention.

Thread 'The harm reduction question...'

Jan 28, 2024

Still just crickets...

Guessing substance ID and purity percentage, right?

Assuming a vendor tests raws and gets back, for example, 90% purity, you’re ok with the vendor adjusting the raws used in the brew so that the final oil reaches the advertised mg/ml dose? That’s the only thing that matters to you?

You have no concern with what’s in the other 10% of the raws, right?

Just trying to clarify your position on the additional testing suggested by readalot.

See bold above. What's your answer Dear Reader?

Are you here only to ensure your gear has the...

• readalot
• analytical best practice harm reduction potency purity testing usp
• Replies: 99
• Forum: Steroid Forum

• 
• 

 

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

That is fairly incorrect Tracy and you know it. Test RAWS in general test always 96+ or 98+.

Boldenone deca and Anadrol are the one testing low 90% on average.

This is the first time I saw a lab test of testosterone raw with a purity same as boldenone or deca.

Just say that you ain't giving a shit and that's ok but don't try to bullshit us saying it's something that happens normally. Test RAWS at 90%? Lol that's a lemon, that's what it is.

Instead of acting like lazy assholes who don't know what they are talking about, let's all take a second, if needed an hour, and take a look on 6-7 different HPLC threads in the forum, of different suppliers and brewers who test their raws and see some data.

Attached some examples, it took me few minutes to get.

@Sampei some you did them yourself lol

 

[Ghoul]

If it makes you feel any better, there's a thread for that as well (90% purity raw). Great you are bringing awareness and that folks are starting to pay attention.

Thread 'The harm reduction question...'

Jan 28, 2024

Still just crickets...

Guessing substance ID and purity percentage, right?

Assuming a vendor tests raws and gets back, for example, 90% purity, you’re ok with the vendor adjusting the raws used in the brew so that the final oil reaches the advertised mg/ml dose? That’s the only thing that matters to you?

You have no concern with what’s in the other 10% of the raws, right?

Just trying to clarify your position on the additional testing suggested by readalot.

See bold above. What's your answer Dear Reader?

Are you here only to ensure your gear has the...

• readalot
• analytical best practice harm reduction potency purity testing usp
• Replies: 99
• Forum: Steroid Forum

• 
• 

There's the intersection between availability and quality.

In my own crusade, the most common pushback I got to "stocking up" (mostly for the TRT crowd) months ago was effectively "everything will always be available from somewhere, like heroin is.", which is true.

But along with scarcity making price go up, it also pushes quality down.

The fact is, if this is all there is, it's all there is.

Pushing up UGL standards requires ample supply, or, in a shortage, standing on principles and going without,

 

[Dirthand]

Wanna chime in for the GCMS test?

I dont mind just hit me up when your ready...I haven't received mine yet I think they are in one of my packs that's been stuck in customs for about 14 days.. id have to look..

 

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

Man go check in the Lab test thread, I have posted like 10 different RAWS and 90% were 96+ or 95%.

@Spaceman Spiff has posted lately all RAWS 96+ or 98+

So what makes the 95% for test D tested by you acceptable, but 90% tested by him unacceptable?

Is there like some specific number as reference between what's acceptable or not ?

I also tested test D +98% in the past, does it guarantee that your other batchs will be same from any other supplier, now you got 95% next time it can be 90%, or 98%

 

[Sampei]

Instead of acting like lazy assholes who don't know what they are talking about, let's all take a second, if needed an hour, and take a look on 6-7 different HPLC threads in the forum, of different suppliers and brewers who test their raws and see some data.

Attached some examples, it took me few minutes to get.

@Sampei some you did them yourself lol

Yeah man the average is 94.5/95% of those tests you just found, quite a lot different I would say then 90% isn't it?

I know very well the RAWS I bought how they tested.

I have got an average of 95% except for bolde and deca (as expected).

Test D at 90% it's an odd one. You can't deny it.

 

[Ghoul]

Instead of acting like lazy assholes who don't know what they are talking about, let's all take a second, if needed an hour, and take a look on 6-7 different HPLC threads in the forum, of different suppliers and brewers who test their raws and see some data.

Attached some examples, it took me few minutes to get.

@Sampei some you did them yourself lol

Not rushing to Tracey's defense here, he can stand up for himself, but the fact is what's the alternative? He can't source anything better now anyway. No one can. It's a moot point. It is what it is.

Maybe take care of those precious raws as best you can until new supply emerges....that's about it.

 

[deadbeef]

Instead of acting like lazy assholes who don't know what they are talking about, let's all take a second, if needed an hour, and take a look on 6-7 different HPLC threads in the forum, of different suppliers and brewers who test their raws and see some data.

Who is the lazy asshole who won’t even verify that the address I gave you is the exact same as numerous other orders you’ve successfully shipped to? That’s all it would take to verify your assistants or shippers messed up.

 

[Sampei]

So what makes the 95% for test D tested by you acceptable, but 90% tested by him unacceptable?

Is there like some specific number as reference between what's acceptable or not ?

I also tested test D +98% in the past, does it guarantee that your other batchs will be same from any other supplier, now you got 95% next time it can be 90%, or 98%

Well as the average raws except bolde and deca test 96% or better I can accept a 1% less but surely I wouldn't be happy with 90%.

BST for example refunded the clients that got a bad batch of 8x % deca and found a new batch that tested mid 90%.
Just an example, I don't expect you to refund but 90% for test D is shit that we can all agree with.

Plus lower is the purity more question into what the fuck is in those RAWS for being 90%?

 

[TurboJet]

Yeah man the average is 94.5/95% of those tests you just found, quite a lot different I would say then 90% isn't it?

I know very well the RAWS I bought how they tested.

I have got an average of 95% except for bolde and deca (as expected).

Test D at 90% it's an odd one. You can't deny it.

It's only 45-50 grams per kilo no biggie right? RIGHT!?!?

 

[Sampei]

Not rushing to Tracey's defense here, he can stand up for himself, but the fact is what's the alternative? He can't source anything better now anyway. No one can. It's a moot point. It is what it is.

Maybe take care of those precious raws as best you can until new supply emerges....that's about it.

That's why I'll just keep this RAW as a last resort and use the better one I have for now. If the situation changes and improve I'll just throw this one away and buy new one. If it doesn't.. well I guess I'll have to accept it.

 

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

Yeah man the average is 94.5/95% of those tests you just found, quite a lot different I would say then 90% isn't it?

I know very well the RAWS I bought how they tested.

I have got an average of 95% except for bolde and deca (as expected).

Test D at 90% it's an odd one. You can't deny it.

Not really, you guys just lack of testing, that's the facts you can't deny.

I've seen ton of testing in my life, more than any of you. And I can tell you that I've seen raw purities, ranging on occasional basis to much lower.

I know in 96% of cases, these raws will test 96%+
But that 4% will always exist, an experienced source and brewer mainly public labs, who performed a lot of testing can tell you the surprising results they get in their life.
On average yes, my raws are way over 96%+
That's a single 90% among tons of +98%.
But when you see the few examples I posted in the past comment of test e, test c, and others testing 89%, 92%, 93%, you need to understand that these exist, the fact that you don't test enough and you only see the few tests posted here, mainly from us which are +98% doesn't make it a standard.

 

[Ghoul]

That's why I'll just keep this RAW as a last resort and use the better one I have for now. If the situation changes and improve I'll just throw this one away and buy new one. If it doesn't.. well I guess I'll have to accept it.

My thoughts exactly.

All the good stuff that meets my "usual" standard gets used first, then the more recently acquired lower grade gear only once I've run out and I can't source something better. Thankfully that's a long way off before I get to that point and it really would have to be the anabolic apocalypse.

 

[Sampei]

Not really, you guys just lack of testing, that's the facts you can't deny.

I've seen ton of testing in my life, more than any of you. And I can tell you that I've seen raw purities, ranging on occasional basis to much lower.

I know in 96% of cases, these raws will test 96%+
But that 4% will always exist, an experienced source and brewer mainly public labs, who performed a lot of testing can tell you the surprising results they get in their life.
On average yes, my raws are way over 96%+
That's a single 90% among tons of +98%.
But when you see the few examples I posted in the past comment of test e, test c, and others testing 89%, 92%, 93%, you need to understand that these exist, the fact that you don't test enough and you only see the few tests posted here, mainly from us which are +98% doesn't make it a standard.

Ok that is true but why should I accept a 90% as good when it's clearly shown even by your own old RAWS test that 96/98% is easily attainable? There should be standard for RAWS as well.

We wouldn't be pleased if your oils were 10% under dosed right? So why would I be ok my RAWS are quite lower than the average floating around until not so long ago? Especially because again the question raise; why it's 90%? What's in it that decrease the purity that much compared to other test D RAWS?

Standard in the present situations are not attainable but I hope in the future if the raw ordeal ger better, we will get more quality control on the RAWS offered. Because I would pay even a premium if I had the assurance that I was getting 98% for example.

 

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

When you see for example this example:

Thread 'Analysis of Anadrol powder'

Oct 3, 2023

So as some of you know. I was getting irritated with my Anadrol capsule making, it was 20% overdosed. Also some of the test reports havent been great.

I have made 3 sets of capsules and tried to fix my recipe. all have been overdosed. Last time was only 10% overdosed when I decided not to intentionally not make up for the lack of purity. This is when I was questioning if the filler and mixing process was drying out the water from the anadrol?

Some of those that do not know about Anadrol is that it is flour like. I was suspecting water content could play a role. At the same time some...

• Rido
• Replies: 12
• Forum: Analytical Lab Testing

• 
• 

the same batch can test 92%, 98%+ and 95%. You should take a break and give it some thinking.

When you see the different testing results, using the same samples, sent to jano and analiza, you will understand, that in the raws industry, there is no specific references or standards.

The fact that you expect test D to be +98% while you have seen 3 tests of test D in your life, is likes expecting the HGH to be +99% because you're used to tirz being +99%, the reality is far from this.

 

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

Ok that is true but why should I accept a 90% as good when it's clearly shown even by your own old RAWS test that 96/98% is easily attainable? There should be standard for RAWS as well.

We wouldn't be pleased if your oils were 10% under dosed right? So why would I be ok my RAWS are quite lower than the average floating around until not so long ago? Especially because again the question raise; why it's 90%? What's in it that decrease the purity that much compared to other test D RAWS?

Standard in the present situations are not attainable but I hope in the future if the raw ordeal ger better, we will get more quality control on the RAWS offered. Because I would pay even a premium if I had the assurance that I was getting 98% for example.

We are not discussing what should be accepted or not, the fact that you accept a certain purity or not won't change the reality that these raw materials will test the differently everywhere and there is nothing you will be able to control.

Talking about "attainable" is not right. Because it's not a manufactered finished products, you are dealing with trading compagnies, reselling these raws. They have no access to production parameters.

+98% is attainable on deca, EQ and Anadrol.
It doesn't make it a standard nor something you can work on.
You can keep getting samples each time a new batch from the factory is produced and send it for testing and hoping that it ends up 98%, you might end up supplying your customers once a year.

In the meantime there is a market to supply who needs deca and EQ to make the oils every month.

The average floating around isn't calculated based on the 3-4 tests posted on meso, it's not representative of reality.

the reality is that the factory who can supply test D will produce a large batch, and supply hundreds of trading compagnies, who will supply hundreds/thousands each of end buyers, and 2-3 of them might test it for purity.
If they are lucky enough, they end up in the same forum, willing to post their results in public, and get a match.