they improved
#vendor-talk 2024-10-30
Wednesday47 messages11 participantstimes are UTC
Highlights from this day
- monoisotopic — if a vendor is 20 percent cheaper per mg and runs 12 percent light on fill, you saved 8 percent and bought more uncertainty 21:35
- monoisotopic — five vials i have weighed myself this year, gross mass corrected for the stopper, so treat the deltas as rough 21:38
- vial_ledger — underfills, slow support, one lot that came in at 94 and another at 99. that is a variance problem, not a crime 22:22
- monoisotopic — depends entirely on what you are doing. the trial dose ladders are public and they are not vague 22:49
- monoisotopic — if your vial is 14 percent light you are not on the rung you think you are on. that is the whole reason fill accuracy is a vendor question and not a pedantry question 22:50
not by dm
per mg including shipping
how many suppliers do people actually keep on rotation
i asked for a non standard vial size and got it without a surcharge. that told me more than any certificate, i think
✅3🧊11💀12
do the arithmetic
thats the synthesis house
weigh the vials
nobody here gets paid to say anything about any supplier and the mods would end me if i did
how do you tell a synthesis house from somebody with a sticker printer
quoted lead time was 7 days, real one was 14. is that typical
i have never had a problem i could not resolve with WXT, which is a low bar and a lot of suppliers fail it
🧊2
three orders no issues
📈1💀7
what packaging have people had from TFC
screenshot the invoice
ask who actually makes it. about a third of suppliers answer honestly and that answer is worth a lot
i am going to say the unpopular thing. cheap per mg is a trap and people in here keep falling for it
no it is not, it is arithmetic
it is arithmetic that assumes the mg on the label is in the vial
then weigh the vial
most people do not own a balance that resolves 2mg
this is the actual crux and it comes up every six weeks
if a vendor is 20 percent cheaper per mg and runs 12 percent light on fill, you saved 8 percent and bought more uncertainty
sure, if they run light. that is a big if
five vials i have weighed myself this year, gross mass corrected for the stopper, so treat the deltas as rough
| Vendor | Label mg | Measured mg | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wuhan Wansheng | 10 | 8.6 | -14% |
| Wuhan Wansheng | 10 | 9.9 | -1% |
| Qingdao Sigma Chemical | 5 | 4.4 | -12% |
| JEEP Peptides | 10 | 10.1 | +1% |
| JEEP Peptides | 10 | 9.8 | -2% |
that first WWB number is ugly
the second WWB number is nearly perfect though. that is the point. their variance is wide, not their honesty
which is exactly my argument. wide variance is a cost you pay in not knowing
Wuhan Wansheng have been fine for me on four orders. cheap, arrived, worked out on paper
i would not buy a single vial from them and stake anything on it though
that is a reasonable position and it is not the same as calling them bad
so is Qingdao Sigma Chemical bad
no. QSC gets the most mixed write ups in here of anyone and none of them are fraud
underfills, slow support, one lot that came in at 94 and another at 99. that is a variance problem, not a crime
and their paperwork has always matched what i measured on purity. it is the mass that wanders
and the expensive end
WuXi TIDES. you will pay two to three times per mg and you will get exactly what the sheet says every time
for gram scale. which most people in here are not buying
correct, and that is why the cheap end exists at all
so we agree
we agree on the facts and not on the conclusion, which is the normal state of this channel
leaving it unresolved, it is a genuine disagreement not a fight
how much does the difference even matter clinically
depends entirely on what you are doing. the trial dose ladders are public and they are not vague
if your vial is 14 percent light you are not on the rung you think you are on. that is the whole reason fill accuracy is a vendor question and not a pedantry question
ok that actually landed
💡8✅5
*four orders, five now, one landed yesterday. still no complaints from me