Bad Batch of QV Enanthate?

**poppapump58** · 07-11-2003, 03:03 AM

if their are 3 companies right now making fakes, someone needs to spot them as soon as possible.

**Ironweb** · 07-11-2003, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by saint808

there are evidently at least 3 "companies" making fakes of QV right now, even with proper holograms and everything... can't even use the tear test.

That makes some sense as to why we have different respones to batch # 007. I read several people mention that the batch number was stamped on. Mine was not stamped on it was printed. First on the vial and second on the sleeve. It had to be done on-line during production. The sleeve was shrink wrapped as well. By veiwing the printing it appears that it was printed on by a Video Jet thermal printing head. First after the filler, then after the sleever and right before the shrink wrap tunnel. They are expensive printing machines. They can be used for porous, non porous, glass, plastic and metal type of surfaces. No stamp can compare. After taking my last shot for the third week of my course I am feeling the test already from batch 007. Of course I will know more in a couple of weeks.

The web site has laboratory test that claim batch 007 10/05 to be 249 mg per ml. I do not think a company would boost such claims on their website if they were not true. It is bas business. That is a very bold thing to do and I respect QV for doing it.

**the dent depot** · 07-11-2003, 09:11 AM

Now I just dont get it...every shot has left me sore up until now. I did one last night...and I still haven't gotten sore yet. I dont know if its that I have gotten used to it, or what. I hate to keep bashing QV, but I just dont seem to have had much consistency with their stuff. Granted, I could have a simliar experience with my next human gear cycles too. I guess I'm just too damn analytical...

D

**johnsomebody** · 07-12-2003, 03:06 PM

As for me I'm still convinced my vials were genuine not fakes.

I checked the printing on my QVE vial with my loupe (a little magnifying glass printers use to check ink registration and negs) and the ink looks solid, not like it came from an inkjet printer, which uses multi color ink dots to create a colormatch to the original and is pretty obvious under a loupe.

I hate to be too cynical but I wouldn't put much faith in ANY company's report on its own quality, even Volvo's. Only an independent lab should be given any validity, seems to me.

Here's a quote from that MassMonsterz thread that I thought was interesting, about underground vet gear...
"they pick and choose what lot they want to make more profit on and drop the active ingredients to nothing or next to it. . .they don't do it every time because they want at least a few people to say they like it; so they keep getting your money and you get to play roulette with your gains (and money that you thought you were saving!)."

I hear batch #007 is being tested right now.

**TheJuicer** · 07-12-2003, 03:09 PM

What about the newer batches? Have you guys been getting good gains off of them?

**poppapump58** · 07-12-2003, 04:03 PM

whats the difference between ink that is stamped on the bottle vs. solid black in that is on the bottle. does one or the other mean its a fake.

**johnsomebody** · 07-12-2003, 04:39 PM

Personally I would assume that a stamped lot # and exp date would be an indication of real vs. fake gear. On a per-label cost it's much cheaper for a co to print thousands of labels and then stamp each lot number on it than to have to have a new label printed for each batch to accomadate the exp date and lot #. That's why I'd be suspicious of anything with a lot or batch # that's part of the ordinary printing of the label. It makes sense for a counterfeiter to not want to bother with trying to fake a stamp as well as fake printed label and it makes sense for the company to use a separate stamp.

**the dent depot** · 07-12-2003, 11:31 PM

So I'm going into week 10, and now I'm starting to get puffy. Nice water-filled chubby cheeks......I didnt get that with the 1st bottle. So I upped my Proviron . I know there is a possibility that the test is just starting to react that way with me, but 8-10 weeks in and just starting to bloat?
Hope the addl Proviron does the trick.

D

Oh! And did I mention that my bp is through the fucking roof?!

**Ironweb** · 07-13-2003, 04:36 AM

You hit it right on the money for the labels johnsomebody. Not only would you gain economy of scales for labels, but you gain control of what you code. If changes for coding needed to be made, you could do it with your existing labels.

Do I trust that the test results posted on the site to be absolute? No I do not, but pretty close. To place a result such as that is showing confidence in their product. Independent studies will be done.Those results can be tested and they will. That would be a great way for a competitor to knock em down. I am sure GM and Ford buy a Volvo and strip it down looking for discrepancies to discredit their competition and gain more knoweldge. Why would this be any different? If I wanted my business to go bankrupt, that would be the quickest way to do it. I look forward to see authentic independent lab results. Until then that is the best results you will get (except word of mouth). That is why this is a good thread.

**Juicifer** · 07-13-2003, 08:04 AM

3 companies making fakes? "so what do you do for a living?" "oh i specialize in making fake quality vet products" assholes

**TheJuicer** · 07-13-2003, 08:33 AM

Well if the fake have the real holograms...well then I guess I will never get QV products again because...I really dont want to spend my money on fake shit...SCAMMERS!!!

**johnsomebody** · 07-13-2003, 11:33 AM

Well, I hate to see a company that may be just having quality control problems go under because someone else is faking their product.

I don't personally buy the idea that someone is capable of making labels that are absolutely identical to QV's. QV deserves some credit for making labels that it are as hard or harder to fake as credit cards. There are fakes out there and their pics have been posted and it's pretty obvious they ARE fakes when you look at them -it's not hard to tell.

It hasn't yet been absolutely established that batch #007 is underdosed, though there's plenty of evidence from people who should know. I think there should be more evidence that real QV-labeled products are in fact fakes before people assume no QV product can be trusted. That's just my opinion, for what it's worth.

**TheJuicer** · 07-13-2003, 03:09 PM

I understand what you are saying..I have friends that love QV's Deca and wouldnt use anything else but if the fakes are even using the real hologram like some said earlier then why would you take the chance of buy QV and have the ? in your head...Yes right now i'm using QV EQ with a real hologram and a cute little doggy in the right corner...I hope the fakes haven't copied the dog yet....I hope they catch the guys that are doing the fake and hangem high!!

**ichabodcrane** · 07-13-2003, 08:27 PM

- GAL -->

**Lift Chief** · 07-14-2003, 09:08 AM

I took QV EQ last year and thought it sucked.

The enanthate was OK but i wasnt at all impressed with that either.

I posted this last year when everyone was raving about QV, and now that everyone is realizing that QV is hit or miss... im posting it again.

Human grade human grade humane grade... only way to be sure.

**Gettin'Old** · 07-14-2003, 09:42 AM

But there is no human grade eq.

**Lift Chief** · 07-14-2003, 11:25 AM

Right- so the closest thing i'd go with is a UG lab's EQ.

**johnsomebody** · 07-14-2003, 12:21 PM

As far as the "3 "companies" making fakes of QV right now" should we also take into account the disclaimer at the bottom of the post that reads "saint808 is presenting fictitious opinions"?

**Gettin'Old** · 07-14-2003, 12:22 PM

LIft Chief, what do you think about Fort Dodge EQ?

**Lift Chief** · 07-14-2003, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Gettin'Old

LIft Chief, what do you think about Fort Dodge EQ?

Haven't tried it myself, but i've heard it's one of the best.

Except it doesn't come in 200mg/ml like other EQs do so you're facing a lot of oil.

**Gettin'Old** · 07-14-2003, 12:31 PM

Ya, 50mg/ml ; which is why I wanted to go the QV route. But this post has me pretty jittery on that.

**johnsomebody** · 07-14-2003, 10:25 PM

I went back and checked the EQ posts that first got me interested and the people who posted were getting their results with Ttokkyo EQ. I actually with I'd gone with that instead.

This was my first cycle and I didn't get anything like the pumps people talked about, like while typing and such. I got some good ones while working out, and I made some good gains in the gym, it just wasn't what I expected. If I did use QV again I'd go 500mg/wk.But keep in mind that if the 400mg/wk of QVE I was also doing had been 100% I might not have needed that extra EQ.

**Billmister** · 07-25-2003, 01:18 PM

hey on the picture of the enantat the green cap, what's the black mark on it? Does it say QV? because i never saw any cap having a QV on it.

**kman** · 07-25-2003, 03:55 PM

bump yea my cap says QV on it also lot#10 and the holgram is on a different side of the box then most pics I see. ANYONE care to explain that... thanx