Why are posted COAs so old?

[catwitch]

When I look into a vendor and open their freshly shared COAs, I often find that the testing date is 6 months back or even earlier. Is it possible that peptide sellers are reusing old COAs? I realize that the majority (though not every) of peptides are stable and could easily remain good for that long in storage, but does business truly move so slowly that a single production lot needs many months to be fully sold? A lot of you have cautioned newcomers like me against putting too much faith in COAs (and I appreciate it); is this the kind of thing you meant? Should test results from long ago be treated as a warning sign? I'd like to hear your opinions.

 

[Calm Logic]

catwitch said:

When I look into a vendor and open their freshly shared COAs, I often find that the testing date is 6 months back or even earlier. Is it possible that peptide sellers are reusing old COAs? I realize that the majority (though not every) of peptides are stable and could easily remain good for that long in storage, but does business truly move so slowly that a single production lot needs many months to be fully sold? A lot of you have cautioned newcomers like me against putting too much faith in COAs (and I appreciate it); is this the kind of thing you meant? Should test results from long ago be treated as a warning sign? I'd like to hear your opinions.

Compared to 3P testing, all of this raises red flags—especially when a group buy or testing server does it and ideally uses 2+ vials.

 

[randompersonrandom]

catwitch said:

When I look into a vendor and open their freshly shared COAs, I often find that the testing date is 6 months back or even earlier. Is it possible that peptide sellers are reusing old COAs? I realize that the majority (though not every) of peptides are stable and could easily remain good for that long in storage, but does business truly move so slowly that a single production lot needs many months to be fully sold? A lot of you have cautioned newcomers like me against putting too much faith in COAs (and I appreciate it); is this the kind of thing you meant? Should test results from long ago be treated as a warning sign? I'd like to hear your opinions.

Affirmative.

catwitch said:

When I look into a vendor and open their freshly shared COAs, I often find that the testing date is 6 months back or even earlier. Is it possible that peptide sellers are reusing old COAs? I realize that the majority (though not every) of peptides are stable and could easily remain good for that long in storage, but does business truly move so slowly that a single production lot needs many months to be fully sold? A lot of you have cautioned newcomers like me against putting too much faith in COAs (and I appreciate it); is this the kind of thing you meant? Should test results from long ago be treated as a warning sign? I'd like to hear your opinions.

Negative.

catwitch said:

When I look into a vendor and open their freshly shared COAs, I often find that the testing date is 6 months back or even earlier. Is it possible that peptide sellers are reusing old COAs? I realize that the majority (though not every) of peptides are stable and could easily remain good for that long in storage, but does business truly move so slowly that a single production lot needs many months to be fully sold? A lot of you have cautioned newcomers like me against putting too much faith in COAs (and I appreciate it); is this the kind of thing you meant? Should test results from long ago be treated as a warning sign? I'd like to hear your opinions.

Affirmative.

catwitch said:

When I look into a vendor and open their freshly shared COAs, I often find that the testing date is 6 months back or even earlier. Is it possible that peptide sellers are reusing old COAs? I realize that the majority (though not every) of peptides are stable and could easily remain good for that long in storage, but does business truly move so slowly that a single production lot needs many months to be fully sold? A lot of you have cautioned newcomers like me against putting too much faith in COAs (and I appreciate it); is this the kind of thing you meant? Should test results from long ago be treated as a warning sign? I'd like to hear your opinions.

Affirmative.

 

[catwitch]

lol thanks for answering!

 

[Airborne Daddy]

randompersonrandom said:

catwitch said:

When I look into a vendor and open their freshly shared COAs, I often find that the testing date is 6 months back or even earlier. Is it possible that peptide sellers are reusing old COAs? I realize that the majority (though not every) of peptides are stable and could easily remain good for that long in storage, but does business truly move so slowly that a single production lot needs many months to be fully sold? A lot of you have cautioned newcomers like me against putting too much faith in COAs (and I appreciate it); is this the kind of thing you meant? Should test results from long ago be treated as a warning sign? I'd like to hear your opinions.

Affirmative.

catwitch said:

When I look into a vendor and open their freshly shared COAs, I often find that the testing date is 6 months back or even earlier. Is it possible that peptide sellers are reusing old COAs? I realize that the majority (though not every) of peptides are stable and could easily remain good for that long in storage, but does business truly move so slowly that a single production lot needs many months to be fully sold? A lot of you have cautioned newcomers like me against putting too much faith in COAs (and I appreciate it); is this the kind of thing you meant? Should test results from long ago be treated as a warning sign? I'd like to hear your opinions.

Negative.

catwitch said:

When I look into a vendor and open their freshly shared COAs, I often find that the testing date is 6 months back or even earlier. Is it possible that peptide sellers are reusing old COAs? I realize that the majority (though not every) of peptides are stable and could easily remain good for that long in storage, but does business truly move so slowly that a single production lot needs many months to be fully sold? A lot of you have cautioned newcomers like me against putting too much faith in COAs (and I appreciate it); is this the kind of thing you meant? Should test results from long ago be treated as a warning sign? I'd like to hear your opinions.

Affirmative.

catwitch said:

When I look into a vendor and open their freshly shared COAs, I often find that the testing date is 6 months back or even earlier. Is it possible that peptide sellers are reusing old COAs? I realize that the majority (though not every) of peptides are stable and could easily remain good for that long in storage, but does business truly move so slowly that a single production lot needs many months to be fully sold? A lot of you have cautioned newcomers like me against putting too much faith in COAs (and I appreciate it); is this the kind of thing you meant? Should test results from long ago be treated as a warning sign? I'd like to hear your opinions.

Affirmative.

I came across something saying that if a vendor purchases from the same manufacturer or batch, they're able to reuse the same COAs. The only detail that gets swapped out is the vendor name at the top. That would make sense of why you see 15 different sellers offering lavender top R30, all with a Sep 15th test date....

 

[Chili777]

Since testing costs money, and profit is the top priority, buyers are left to bridge that gap on their own—or simply roll the dice.

 

[extropy]

I need to start approaching testing with more seriousness.

The group testing situation in this community isn't very good. Any advice?

 

[5byfive]

I’ve been trying to keep my orders limited to US warehouses. So far, I haven’t come across anyone who has tested anything from that route. I’d be really interested in seeing it happen, though I realize it wouldn’t be easy. Stock disappears fast, so a group would need to be lined up and ready to move the moment something becomes available. If anyone knows of solid options, please share.

 

[catwitch]

Chili777 said:

Since testing costs money, and profit is the top priority, buyers are left to bridge that gap on their own—or simply roll the dice.

Wow, so even with all those “dear”s, I guess the affection isn’t real

 

[DjJoshua]

catwitch said:

Chili777 said:

Since testing costs money, and profit is the top priority, buyers are left to bridge that gap on their own—or simply roll the dice.

Wow, so even with all those “dear”s, I guess the affection isn’t real

A vendor calling me “dear” is an instant no

 

[Danger1212]

DjJoshua said:

catwitch said:

Chili777 said:

Since testing costs money, and profit is the top priority, buyers are left to bridge that gap on their own—or simply roll the dice.

Wow, so even with all those “dear”s, I guess the affection isn’t real

A vendor calling me “dear” is an instant no

When they ring you up, does being addressed as “friend” improve things??

 

[ltjltj]

DjJoshua said:

catwitch said:

Chili777 said:

Since testing costs money, and profit is the top priority, buyers are left to bridge that gap on their own—or simply roll the dice.

Wow, so even with all those “dear”s, I guess the affection isn’t real

A vendor calling me “dear” is an instant no

Nope — basically every CN vendor does this. For me, it's a baseline expectation!