classic advance fee
#scam-watch 2025-03-19
Wednesday46 messages12 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
pressure tactic
follow up i was wrong to call something a scam in 2024 and it was a fill problem. i try to remember that
is it worth reporting or does nothing happen
report it even if nothing happens. the pattern is the value, not the individual case
if you cannot tell an impersonator from bad support, treat it as an impersonator until you can
somebody is using the room name to sell things, who do i tell
a bad batch is not a scam. an underfill is not a scam. slow support is not a scam, i have it written down somewhere
the room holds no money and runs no escrow. anybody offering to is speaking for themselves
read the domain character by character. that is the entire defence and it works
is a bad batch ever grounds for calling something a scam
thats forged
❤️4🙏5📈6
thats retail not fraud
is an underfilled vial fraud or a bad batch
screenshot it
📈14🤝2🧪1
report it even if nothing happens. the pattern is the value, not the individual case
coming back after 24 months, is the watchlist still maintained
somebody is relabelling and marking up, is that a scam or just retail
i have four certificates from four different sites and i think three of them are the same document
send them
the four traces side by side, headers cropped so nobody jumps to conclusions yet
coa-compare-4up.png
image stub · 1240x880 · 310 KB · not retained in the public archive
oh that is not subtle
1, 2 and 4 are the same trace. same baseline wobble at 3.8 minutes, same tiny artefact at the tail, identical peak areas to the decimal
baseline noise is effectively a fingerprint. two real runs never share it, not even on the same instrument the same day
so somebody just reused a picture
somebody reused a picture and typed new numbers into the header, badly
cert 1: purity 99.2 peak area 1,884,203 RT 12.44
cert 2: purity 99.6 peak area 1,884,203 RT 12.44
cert 4: purity 98.8 peak area 1,884,203 RT 12.44
same integration, three different purity claims. the numbers in the header are not derived from the trace at all.that is the tell that finishes the argument every time. the stated purity has to fall out of the peak areas
and cert 3
cert 3 is a real report from a real lab and the numbers reconcile. that one is fine
cert 3 is the JEEP one. the other three are all sites i found through a search and had never heard of
names, carefully, and only the domains
two of them are on the lookalike list already. the third is a site with a made-up company name that claims to be a GL Biochem distributor
GL Biochem does not need a distributor with a free-mail contact address
😐9
and the trace they reused is old. i have seen that exact baseline in circulation for at least two years across unrelated sites
how would a normal person catch this
keeping this one somewhere findable, people ask for it every month
quick fake-COA checks, no chemistry needed:
1. does the stated purity roughly equal main peak area / total area?
2. is there an instrument model, a column, a method and an operator?
3. does the lot on the certificate match the vial glass?
4. is the trace an image pasted into a document, or vector output from software?
5. reverse image search the trace. seriously.
any two of these failing = bin itworth being precise about what we are claiming here and what we are not
we are talking about anonymous sites and forged paperwork. we are not saying any established manufacturer forged anything
correct. and a bad certificate from a real company is usually a bad certificate, not a forged one. sloppy is more common than criminal
so what do i do with the three
domains to the watchlist, nothing bought, no contact, and we do not name whoever runs them
why not
because we are not confident who runs them and we are not in the business of accusing individuals
the archive is permanent. that cuts both ways and the mods are right to be careful
the useful output here is the five checks, not the three names
agreed. i will write them up for the notes
✅12🙏4
*five checks, four certificates. i keep swapping those numbers