[Lab] GGPeps warehouse vial vs direct vial, same nominal batch, same day — 97.4 vs 98.6
This is the experiment I have wanted to run for about a year and nobody had bothered.
| Stock | Batch | Service | Claimed | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EU warehouse | GY-2604W | Janoshik | 98.0% | 97.4% |
| Factory direct | GY-2604D | Janoshik | 98.0% | 98.6% |
Same vendor, same nominal batch number, same compound, sent together, same service, same day. 1.2 points apart.
That is at the edge of what I would call variance and it is in a consistent direction, which is the part that bothers me. Warehouse stock has had an extra leg, extra handling and extra time. One pair proves nothing. Somebody please replicate this.
best — the order this archive was captured in
This has been an open question on the source page since 2024 and nobody has closed it. I will run a pair next month on a different compound.
The thing that makes it hard to interpret: "same nominal batch" is doing a lot of work. If warehouse stock is repacked, the batch number can survive a process that the material did not.
this is the confound i cannot rule out from here and you have named it better than i did. the batch number is a label, not a chain of custody.
which is why i keep saying the batch number tells you what document to look for, not what is in the vial. it is an index key, not a guarantee.
so the practical advice is "ask which stock you are getting"?
yes, and it is on the source page as a standing note. warehouse is faster, direct has tested marginally better twice, and two is not a finding.
and for a lot of people two days from a domestic warehouse beats 1.2 purity points, which is a completely defensible trade as long as you know you are making it.
Logged as a corroborating entry on the existing open question rather than a new one. This is the highest-volume vendor in the directory and the widest spread of member experience, and that is exactly what you would expect from the largest sample.
eleven independent tests on this vendor in the log. spread is wider than anywhere else. more sampling reveals more variance and people read that as "worse vendor", which it is not necessarily.
this is a general problem with the whole directory and nobody has solved the presentation of it. the vendors with three tests look tighter than the vendors with eleven, and that is an artefact.
i have tried putting n next to every average and people still compare the averages.
Homopeptide has the same warehouse-versus-direct split in the log — warehouse 4/4 on time, direct 6/9. different metric, same shape of finding.
that split is real and it is on their source page. two fairly different stories averaged into one rating, which is almost misleading.
- 1This has been an open question on the source page since 2024 and nobody has…6 comments in this branch · started by u/peptidemeter_pat