[Lab] 5th independent test on SGN — 98.3% on a claimed 98.0%, and the trend is the interesting part
The claim in the title is exactly the claim I am making: 5th independent test on SGN — 98.3% on a claimed 98.0%, and the trend is the interesting part. Nothing implied beyond it.
Figures up front so nobody has to dig: 98.3% and 98.0%.
The order I actually check things in, for anyone building a process rather than asking about one supplier.
First, the record: source page, verification log, and how many separate lots have been tested rather than how many tests exist. Second, the paperwork: ask for a batch-specific certificate and see what comes back and how fast. Third, the logistics: quoted lead time, minimum quantity, which lines are held in regional stock. Fourth, buy small and test it yourself.
Nothing in that list is exotic and all of it is answerable before you spend real money. Most of the disappointment posts on this board skipped step two.
Regional stock made more difference to my planning than anything else — ordering from a warehouse in the UK took the customs question off the table entirely.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
- SGSGN source pageSangon Biotech (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. · Shanghai · 95% here, rank 8 · shop at sangonbio.com →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
the source page log is more useful than the score above it
Left up. It names an operation, it carries a date and a lot, and it is written as a report rather than an accusation.
Same view. A record you can read beats a rating you cannot inspect, every time.
[removed by moderator]
ask for the batch record before you ask for a discount
lead time quoted at checkout is the number to hold them to
Where a supplier holds regional stock, ask which lines are actually held there rather than drop-shipped. It changes the lead time and it changes the customs question.
Started buying small deliberately, tested every lot for the first four, then stopped testing every lot because there was nothing to find.
Independent testing is worth more than a supplied certificate for one structural reason: the chain of custody. A member who buys, ships and pays is testing the same thing you would receive.
Not convinced by the ranking-by-vibe approach here. The community number is derived from reports; your feeling is derived from four posts you remember.
three independent results beat thirty forum posts
Which service did the testing, and did you pay for it yourself?
Mild pushback: a supplier with fewer entries is not worse, it is less sampled. Those are different claims and the table says so.
That is a report count, not a test count. The table lists both and they are very different numbers.
reship policy in writing before the order, not after
Small fix — the figure you quoted is the claimed purity from the certificate, and the independent result was the higher of the two.
That reads as a recommendation and the source pages deliberately are not. They are a record you use to make your own decision.
Minimum order and lead time — did they quote both up front?
- 1Where a supplier holds regional stock, ask which lines are actually held…13 comments in this branch · started by u/teodor_lokken
- 2the source page log is more useful than the score above it6 comments in this branch · started by u/throwaway_titration