QSC low purity test decanoate raws

[readalot]

You can ask for HPLC / mass tests, that I learned to never trust again, because they don't match the janoshik results when shit happens and it's always +99% when it's sent to you.

So if I understand your POV, there is no pressure on these raws manufacturers to properly test their raws using mass purity with HPLC? All you ever see from them is the area count BS method and no large manufacturer goes to the trouble to properly characterize their raws purity with adequate HPLC + MS or NMR?

These AAS are ancient compounds (relatively speaking) and the methods to make them in high purity are well understood. So the issue is there is not the appropriate feedback loop to drive manufacturers to a higher standard?

Genuinely interested in your prospective/thoughts.

 

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

Looks like someone doesn't like the taste of the shit sandwich they are eating! You could have handled this a lot better....

When you're starving for days, you sure will bitch way less about the pickles in your sandwich. Eat it or leave it.

That's what's happening for steroid raws.

When the existing supplier get busted, and the only available one is supplying 70% purity raws, you will be forced to accept the new standard, the same way you accepted the 90% for EQ and anadrol, and 70% for tren base.

Offer and demand.

We are here to do business, we try to get the buyers the best quality available, from the best options we have.

Any supplier will be happy to get only 99% purity raws.

But as far as there is a demand, the market dictates the standards, not you.

You're free to boycott 40% of raw powders that are below 96% because you can live without EQ and deca in your life, that's for sure personal. You don't need them, it's ok, you can't tell the supplier to adjust his standards based on your choices.
Actually you can, but he won't, and NBC.

 

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

So if I understand your POV, there is no pressure on these raws manufacturers to properly test their raws using mass purity with HPLC? All you ever see is the area count BS method and no large manufacturer goes to the trouble to properly characterize their raws purity with adequate HPLC + MS or NMR?

These AAS are ancient compounds (relatively speaking) and the methods to make them in high purity are well understood. So the issue is there is not the appropriate feedback loop to drive manufacturers to a higher standard?

Genuinely interested in your prospective/thoughts.

I think you understood my point.

It's kind of take it or leave it.

You need the manufacter more than he needs you.

And there is a ton of chinese who will be more than happy to get what he sells.

Because 99% of chinese in the market don't know who is janoshik and don't care.

And the few ones who start selling in public haven't tested 80% of their finished products (except QSC). And they are mainly here to supply glp buyers.

There is no pressure on them, because we (the chinese trading companies) can't do any.

And we have no pressure, because the few unhappy guys here are small buyers. Buying 100g from time to time. Throwing a $120 for testing 2-3 times a year max.

The main pressure on us can be from big buyers, like big domestic sellers and 3rd party manufacters who supply several brands here in the forum.

But the reality is that the big domestic buyers are always happy because they are experimented, so no matter the results, 90% is acceptable for most/all. You might get a complaint from small ones if a batch tested low. He can choose to buy from another one, he will get the same results on that specific low purity item like EQ, then get back to you, he get more experience, next time when he tests deca, and find similar results, he won't complain and do the same mistake.

Why is that? because he is selling you the finished product, you only see his finished testing results. Why will he cares if the purity is 90%?
Especially that 99.99% of the impurities aren't contaminations, but just degraded steroid.

 

[sushak]

My problem with this is that the linked test in the price list for the td is 98%, so as I buyer I have a reasonable expectation that if I were to buy td, that I am getting THAT batch. If batches get sold then replaced with new ones, then the price list test links should be removed/updated accordingly

 

[deadbeef]

And we have no pressure, because the few unhappy guys here are small buyers. Buying 100g from time to time. Throwing a $120 for testing 2-3 times a year max.

Everyone should read this carefully. This is why he’s ok being a lazy thieving asshole and stealing your money when his people f up.

 

[egruberman]

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

I believe you, I'm commenting more on my recall than anything else. I'm an old man, you know.

The point of my original question was to clearly establish what was expected vs. what was agreed upon.

 

[deadbeef]

My problem with this is that the linked test in the price list for the td is 98%, so as I buyer I have a reasonable expectation that if I were to buy td, that I am getting THAT batch. If batches get sold then replaced with new ones, then the price list test links should be removed/updated accordingly

I bet he won’t replace that test in the price list with this one.

 

[QuantumCornerie]

"Acceptable"

Yikes.

As someone who bought raws recently as well, I now genuinely have no idea what the purity is without sending for testing and then agains once brewed. Good stuff.


"They can do it, but they won't, because they don't control it.
If a batch ends up 90%, it will be sold to the market."

Then market it as 90%. Not with an old 98% test. That's called lying.

Don't try to sell us bullshit that you also didn't know purity. You need to know purity to brew accurately or else you've wasted money on underdosed vials and you've explained very well in depth through multiple posts that this is all about not "wasting".

 

[readalot]

I think you understood my point.

It's kind of take it or leave it.

You need the manufacter more than he needs you.

And there is a ton of chinese who will be more than happy to get what he sells.

Because 99% of chinese in the market don't know who is janoshik and don't care.

And the few ones who start selling in public haven't tested 80% of their finished products (except QSC). And they are mainly here to supply glp buyers.

There is no pressure on them, because we (the chinese trading companies) can't do any.

And we have no pressure, because the few unhappy guys here are small buyers. Buying 100g from time to time. Throwing a $120 for testing 2-3 times a year max.

The main pressure on us can be from big buyers, like big domestic sellers and 3rd party manufacters who supply several brands here in the forum.

But the reality is that the big domestic buyers are always happy because they are experimented, so no matter the results, 90% is acceptable for most/all. You might get a complaint from small ones if a batch tested low. He can choose to buy from another one, he will get the same results on that specific low purity item like EQ, then get back to you, he get more experience, next time when he tests deca, and find similar results, he won't complain and do the same mistake.

Why is that? because he is selling you the finished product, you only see his finished testing results. Why will he cares if the purity is 90%?
Especially that 99.99% of the impurities aren't contaminations, but just degraded steroid.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and experiences. Another great reason to use GCMS to "look behind the curtain" so to speak on finished oils that test acceptable by HPLC.

There is a widespread education issue here that I frankly underestimated. Many/most are thrilled to get a properly dosed finished oil (by HPLC) and don't think about whether the raw API to make it was 80, 90, or 99% pure. Community pressure to demand vendors share their raw purity for each batch will help to address this gap along with adoption of GCMS testing on raws and finished oils.

For the betterment of the community I hope we can find additional common ground as we discuss these issues.

As a show of good faith can you at the least offer @deadbeef a store credit for the 6-8% gap between 90% (actual) and the typical expected purity ~96-98%+ on the Test D?

Take the purity gap and calculate the pro-rated credit? This is how standards get established and good faith is restored.

 

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

My problem with this is that the linked test in the price list for the td is 98%, so as I buyer I have a reasonable expectation that if I were to buy td, that I am getting THAT batch. If batches get sold then replaced with new ones, then the price list test links should be removed/updated accordingly

The main problem is that you don't ask the correct questions.

Is every batch of raws tested ? No
Have I ever said that the testing results in the price list of the raws are the ones you will get? No

The fact that a lab test is linked in the price list, doesn't mean any kind of guarantee.

Atorvastatin in the price list is 68%. Does it mean you are getting only that purity, definitely no. You might have gotten 90%+ many times you buy it. But I am not willing to pay another $380 on testing of that specific product in the hope to score higher.

the same way when I had a 99% purity HGH test, was no guarantee that you will get that purity, and I said it was a lucky vial. But it's a marketing tool for me to sell plenty of it.

The only products I test every batch are the peptides, because there have been a need for it, and given the consistency of the results and its frequency, you can get grosso modo an idea about what you will be getting.

Should I leave the price list empty with no tests linked because they aren't representative of the actual batchs?
That's your opinion, it can satisfy your ego if I do it, but it won't pay my bills, I spent money testing those batchs randomly in the past, and I posted the good and the bad, I am willing to take advantage of that investment as much as I can.

When I link a 98% purity test in the price list, and you get 90%, you might be unhappy and want compensation.
But the fact that I am linking a 88%purity epistane lab test and it ends up +98% you don't reach me to pay an extra 10% for the extra 10% score you weren't expecting.
That goes both sides.

If I don't link any, you will say QSC don't test his products, and if I link the lowest updated one, you will say QSC only sell the 90% purity raws, and extend your conclusion to other products, the same way this dumb fuck OP said in a past comment while clearly 96% of raw tests posted in forum of our products are tested over 96%.

 

[deadbeef]

As a show of good faith can you at the least offer @deadbeef a store credit for the 6-8% gap between 90% (actual) and the typical expected purity ~96-98%+ on the Test D?

I’ll take the L on this one. He needs to reship the order his people messed up the address on.

 

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

I bet he won’t replace that test in the price list with this one.

For several reasons.
One of them is that there is no QSC mention in the lab test.
Second one, there is no guarantee that you didn't stick your finger in your dirty asshole before dipping it in the raw sample before sending it to janoshik.
I link mainly the tests done by me, or performed by trusted buyers so that I can have a minimum of peace of mind on the sampling method.

 

[readalot]

The main problem is that you don't ask the correct questions.

Is every batch of raws tested ? No
Have I ever said that the testing results in the price list of the raws are the ones you will get? No

The fact that a lab test is linked in the price list, doesn't mean any kind of guarantee.

Atorvastatin in the price list is 68%. Does it mean you are getting only that purity, definitely no. You might have gotten 90%+ many times you buy it. But I am not willing to pay another $380 on testing of that specific product in the hope to score higher.

the same way when I had a 99% purity HGH test, was no guarantee that you will get that purity, and I said it was a lucky vial. But it's a marketing tool for me to sell plenty of it.

The only products I test every batch are the peptides, because there have been a need for it, and given the consistency of the results and its frequency, you can get grosso modo an idea about what you will be getting.

Should I leave the price list empty with no tests linked because they aren't representative of the actual batchs?
That's your opinion, it can satisfy your ego if I do it, but it won't pay my bills, I spent money testing those batchs randomly in the past, and I posted the good and the bad, I am willing to take advantage of that investment as much as I can.

When I link a 98% purity test in the price list, and you get 90%, you might be unhappy and want compensation.
But the fact that I am linking a 88%purity epistane lab test and it ends up +98% you don't reach me to pay an extra 10% for the extra 10% score you weren't expecting.
That goes both sides.

If I don't link any, you will say QSC don't test his products, and if I link the lowest updated one, you will say QSC only sell the 90% purity raws, and extend your conclusion to other products, the same way this dumb fuck OP said in a past comment while clearly 96% of raw tests posted in forum of our products are tested over 96%.

You raise some intriguing points here. As a whole the community has significant work to do to identify and enforce standards collectively. That's on the membership here to act as a whole instead of for themselves only.

 

[Cereal masturbator]

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and experiences. Another great reason to use GCMS to "look behind the curtain" so to speak on finished oils that test acceptable by HPLC.

There is a widespread education issue here that I frankly underestimated. Many/most are thrilled to get a properly dosed finished oil (by HPLC) and don't think about whether the raw API to make it was 80, 90, or 99% pure. Community pressure to demand vendors share their raw purity for each batch will help to address this gap along with adoption of GCMS testing on raws and finished oils.

For the betterment of the community I hope we can find additional common ground as we discuss these issues.

As a show of good faith can you at the least offer @deadbeef a store credit for the 6-8% gap between 90% (actual) and the typical expected purity ~96-98%+ on the Test D?

Take the purity gap and calculate the pro-rated credit? This is how standards get established and good faith is restored.

That’s an interesting point, there’s a 6% discrepancy between what OP thought he was buying and what he received. If someone ordered oils that were 6% lower dosed than expected no one would give a fuck, I’d you ordered 250MG deca and revived 235MG you couldn’t really complain.

 

[deadbeef]

This idiot source doesn’t even realize that by saying you can’t count on the testing, it’s the same as not being tested.

, the same way this dumb fuck OP said in a past comment while clearly 96% of raw tests posted in forum of our products are tested over 96%.

You’ve got so many lies going on you can’t even keep straight who said what.

 

[readalot]

That’s an interesting point, there’s a 6% discrepancy between what OP thought he was buying and what he received. If someone ordered oils that were 6% lower dosed than expected no one would give a fuck, I’d you ordered 250MG deca and revived 235MG you couldn’t really complain.

Yes good point. 6% low on 100 ml of 200 mg/ml is one thing.

6% low on a kg of raw powder quite another.

Classic issue of relative vs absolute discrepancies.

Then we bring in the question of what are the impurities when the raw is 80 vs 90 vs 99% purity. So much BS government has forced onto AAS users who give a F by pushing these substances UG.

 

[deadbeef]

For several reasons.
One of them is that there is no QSC mention in the lab test.
Second one, there is no guarantee that you didn't stick your finger in your dirty asshole before dipping it in the raw sample before sending it to janoshik.
I link mainly the tests done by me, or performed by trusted buyers so that I can have a minimum of peace of mind on the sampling method.

You lying sack of shit. You’d use it if it had QSC on it just like you’ve done many times. That’s exactly why it doesn’t. People shouldn’t pay to give this thieving source free testing.

 

[deadbeef]

That’s an interesting point, there’s a 6% discrepancy between what OP thought he was buying and what he received. If someone ordered oils that were 6% lower dosed than expected no one would give a fuck, I’d you ordered 250MG deca and revived 235MG you couldn’t really complain.

I didn’t think I was buying anything. I got it tested and asked more experienced people what test d normally tests at.

 

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

As a show of good faith can you at the least offer @deadbeef a store credit for the 6-8% gap between 90% (actual) and the typical expected purity ~96-98%+ on the Test D?

It's a common practice used by QSC when the buyer gets a low purity batch of something, mainly for steroid raws, we always offer "something" next.

The debate wasn't about the resolution and I don't see that as a blocking point, knowing how much we spend on testing and other expenses, offering your suggestion is nothing actually, it's like a $3-$5 and we usually offer more valuable gifts to keep the buyers happy when they are disappointed about some results.

Now we're talking about a douchebag, to whome I've been respectful and had tons of successful orders, and came today to pressure me with a stupid lab test, accusing me of stealing, because his delivery failed due to his incomplete address. Probably some appartment number missing or something. It's not how things work here.

For this kind of buyers, I prefer to tell him to go eat dog shit.

 

[Qingdao Sigma Chemicals]

I didn’t think I was buying anything. I got it tested and asked more experienced people what test d normally tests at.

Experienced people according to you are just small brewers who tested test D once or twice maximum in their lives, and got two different results.

Deadbrain