Toss them? No! Post them at the top of the page under "Frauds"! n/t

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Henna Page Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Lauren on October 11, 2002 at 15:05:44:

In reply to: Re: I was thinking that, and... posted by Maureen on October 11, 2002 at 01:34:24:

: Hi Lauren,
: Here is a process for any manufacturers or suppliers who wish to
: participate:
: When a new crop comes in, have the manufacturer send a sample. At
: the same time when the supplier receives their supply, have the
: supplier send a sample. The two should at least appear the same
: under the microscope. If they don't...toss them from the study.
: This would eliminate any reason for some exporter to send something
: for testing different from what they sent to the supplier to sell.
: Problem with this is that if the manufacturer sends a sample that
: the same as the sample the supplier sent and then the supplier
: determines that the henna powder does not meet his/her standards,
: that henna powder is probably not going to be sold. There are
: standards that a supplier looks at that have nothing to do with
: shows up under the microscope. If I get the cleanest henna powder
: the world based upon what the microscope indicates, it still might
: not meet my standard for staining. So putting that on a list is
: meaningless. It won't be sold so how is that information useful.
: Additionally, there are exporters who will send you one henna
: this month and when you reorder you get something that has nothing
: common with the previous batch. I don't think that is about crop.
: think that is about a different henna powder entirely.
: There are some exporters who are manufacturers who produce their
: crop. There are others who purchase their powder from somewhere
: and someone else. The latter have less control over their powders
: than the first group. It appears that it is the first group...the
: manufacturers who produce and grow their henna powders who manage
: be the most consistent and their powders tend to change less over
: time. It appears that there are some exporters from the latter
: who do a better job of quality control and who are managing to put
: out henna powder that is equal to those manufacturers and producers.
: Testing frozen in time will reveal nothing very useful no matter
: the samples are collected. Testing would have to be ongoing and
: updated with a speed that would present a daunting task.
: I also think it is important to admit and recognize an apples and
: oranges problem that exists between some henna powders sold in
: and those sold through online those we are familiar
: with. For example, testing Jamila from a store can provide results
: very different from those obtained when testing Jamila from online
: suppliers. I don't know why but it is so. A box of Asfan
: spelled wrong) can be full of stems and other stuff recognizable to
: the eye when purchased at one point in time and from one store and
: the next purchase can be smoothe and a dream to use. I don't know
: why but purchasing it to test lets me that to be so as well. So
: there is something that isn't controlled related to the consistency
: of the henna powders found in stores...certainly not to the degree
: which the consistency is controlled for henna powders exported to
: online suppliers here. I would just think that "apples and
: thing should be acknowledged somewhere and somehow. Especially if
: henna powders bought from stores and made part of the exercise are
: not ones that anyone is attempting to get improved or to be made
: consistent through contact with the manufacturer. They would just
: remain on a list sometimes looking good and sometimes not looking
: good. Information that is easily obtained by anyone willing to
: spending $6.00 during a three month period of time and purchasing
: powders themselves.
: Just a few other things that can impact the process.
: Maureen


Follow Ups

Post Followup


Optional link URL:   
Link title:   
Optional image URL:   

[Home] [How] [Why] [What] [Where] [FAQ] [Forum] [Journal]

Served by ruboard 2.1.1; Copyright © 1998 by Andrew Maltsev.