# Rough synthesis vs. "perfect" - P88 vs. P93 **URL:** \ **Category:** Men's Pheromone Advice & Field Reports\ **Created:** [August 11, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741 "2010-08-11T20:33:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jasmin](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/jasmin/32/287_2.png) [@Jasmin](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Jasmin)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/1 "2010-08-11T20:33:38Z")
P88 vs. P93 - Rough synthesis vs. “perfect” (or what chemists call “standard” synthesis) I think we’ve blind tested the two long enough to reveal this. While the bulk of the chemicals in our P line are absolutely unique structures, sometimes we do have two different synthesis paths of what _should_ technically be “the same” molecule. In this case, P93 and P88 have a very unique relationship. P93 is the absolute laboratory standard, meticulously synthesized in small batches with TLC at every synthesis step, and then further purified. P88 is more of a commercial style luck-of-the-draw (hard or impossible to repeat) rapid style synthesis. The numbers may seem a bit backward (you might think the more pure version would appear before the less), but P93/P88 was a structure we wanted to try for a long time. It was a pure oddball of timing that the more pure version became available soon after the less pure. What you can clearly see is that the two different synthesis processes lead to two different results. P88 displays some effects P88 that P93 doesn’t (and vice versa) and probably are to at least one of two reasons: **First** , the “actives” in the impurities, byproducts and intermediates are found in a rough synthesis, are “purified out of” a highly purified, standard version. Useful actives in “impurities” have been observed in areas other than [pheromone](https://a314.com/) chemicals. For example, studies have found some chemicals used in insect sprays aren’t as active as the impurities. In fact, the impurities were more active and more useful in many ways than the “supposed” active. That is to say, one of the more useful actives in that industry was “hidden” like a stow-away in the impurities generated by a commercial process that created one of the popular insect related chemicals. I can’t remember the exact figure, but I believe it took decades to notice and figure out. **Second** , some effects might be attributed to the larger amount of desired active in P93 vs. P88, as well as less unknown impurities that could theoretically counteract some of the primary actives effect. This again, is seen in other areas. For example, “dirty” “vitamin C” made in some of the worse Chinese labs actually contains impurities that have much the opposite effect of clean synthesis of vitamin C. That’s why a few of the more cognizant nutrient makers like [life-enhancement.com](http://life-enhancement.com) and [lef.org](http://lef.org) use highly pure vitamin C from one of the most competent vitamin synthesis labs, Hoffman-LaRoche. [Hoffmann?La Roche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoffmann%E2%80%93La_Roche) It’s even present in the perfume industry. Sometimes “the same” chemical with _reportedly_ similar levels of impurities is available from Givaudan, IFF and Symrise, yet they all SMELL different. All versions may have the same core structure, but details matter. Different processes make for different results. The active:impurity ratios may explain why, as one example, some of Steve’s mixes that that use P93 contain so little. He and many others see markedly different effects at ultra low quantities of P93 (3mcg) vs. what most of us would consider “normal” (10mcg +) or high (50mcg +). I don’t think most information about chemicals impurities and how they affect outcomes ever reaches the public. Many industries don’t even stop to think about them at all, although they are discussed to a degree in the pharmaceutical realm where they use concepts such as API. Sometimes these concepts and the realities they describe seem to change usefulness of certain pheromone compounds as much as they change the effectiveness of vitamin formulas, OTC and prescription drugs, to colorants used in pants (which BASF experienced problems with). After years of observing the differences in my own industry, I’d say it matters more where the pheromonal relationship is “fragile”, as it is with many of the more social compounds. While you can say that higher purity is always necessary for research, where repeatability is king, I don’t think you can say that about truly commercial style synthesis. Where the effects of the molecule are _supposed_ to be rough, for example, a slightly dirtier (but not too dirty like a kitchen sink synthesis) synthesis can sometimes be viewed as positive for some applications. Old internal split tests we did with highly pure vs. “commercial batch” style androstenone, for example, we sometimes preferred the less pure anone to help deliver what people viewed as “the anone effect”. Not so w/ something like anol, where higher purity often meant more of a valuable result. Impurities in cases like _that_ are like “static” on your radio. _You might want static and harshness with anone (which is like hard rock or “industrial”), but usually you don’t with something like anol (a symphony)._ It’s just the matter of using the right chemical for the job. Of course, since we’re more focused on recipes and repeatability here, the purest chemicals are really the most appropriate. I am preparing a public split test where you can try a standard anol vs. a rougher synthesis. Maybe I can do this with anone, too. I just need to source the rougher chemicals. In the meantime, feel free to compare and contrast P88 vs. P93 here. Jas PS – Another major difference you should remember, of course, is that we can always make more P93 reliably (since it’s “the standard”) whereas a new batch of P88 will almost definitely be different. Even when a commercial process does something useful, it’s never as reliable as a more academic process. In the long term, it’s best to figure out what the useful impurities in a commercial synthesis are. Extensive lab analysis is lengthy, and expensive (often more than our current budget allows, which is another reason we like to stick to standards whenever possible), but it’s ultimately more reliable than exclusively depending on “luck of the draw” when it comes to commercial bulk style synthesis. ---
**Author:** ![SteveO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/87869e/32.png) [@SteveO](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/SteveO)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2010, 10:50pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/2 "2010-08-11T22:50:42Z")
Thanks for posting this Jas. I am currently working diligently with Dancing Joker categorizing each putative molecule and its possible components. LOL, all this time and so far we have about three molecules hypothesized 🙂. Maybe we can offer a test pack with [P93](https://a314.com/product/p93/) and P88 for testing to the forum. Well everyone have a terrific rest of week. I’m heading to wrestle a bear… ---
**Author:** ![reddog](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/reddog/32/2091_2.png) [@reddog](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/reddog)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 12:12am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/3 "2010-08-12T00:12:40Z")
It is good to see you posting again Jasmin. I hope thinks are going well for you. Any time frame on DJ’s A2 or Catlord’s next MX’s? ---
**Author:** ![JohnnyHard](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/johnnyhard/32/1753_2.png) [@JohnnyHard](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/JohnnyHard)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 2:59am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/4 "2010-08-12T02:59:46Z")
> [@Steve](#): > > Maybe we can offer a test pack with P93 and P88 for testing to the forum. Or P88 alone… Please… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Pagodeiro](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/pagodeiro/32/1226_2.png) [@Pagodeiro](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Pagodeiro)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 3:21am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/5 "2010-08-12T03:21:14Z")
Does this mean that we see P88 soon back in stock ? Pago ---
**Author:** ![hoplessly](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/hoplessly/32/2319_2.png) [@hoplessly](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/hoplessly)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 3:22am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/6 "2010-08-12T03:22:45Z")
> [@Jasmin](#): > > P93 is the absolute laboratory standard, meticulously synthesized in small batches with TLC at every synthesis step, and then further purified. P88 is more of a commercial style luck-of-the-draw (hard or impossible to repeat) rapid style synthesis. so if I’m reading this correctly, p88 is very difficult to make and that there are no guarantees that what we think will be p88 might not be the p88 that has been tested before because impurity levels may be different? ---
**Author:** ![Maidenfan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Maidenfan01](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Maidenfan01)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 3:49am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/7 "2010-08-12T03:49:01Z")
> [@hoplessly](#): > > so if I’m reading this correctly, p88 is very difficult to make and that there are no guarantees that what we think will be p88 might not be the p88 that has been tested before because impurity levels may be different? Thats what I got from it. Basically the impurities could lead to a slightly different effect from batch to batch and possibly a dramatic change in effect from [P93](https://pheromonelabs.com/product/p93/). I have half a to-go of P93 at 20mcgs that I really haven’t touched too much. Maybe that’ll get whipped out for classes at school. ---
**Author:** ![JohnnyHard](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/johnnyhard/32/1753_2.png) [@JohnnyHard](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/JohnnyHard)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 3:56am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/8 "2010-08-12T03:56:44Z")
> [@Maidenfan01](#): > > Thats what I got from it. Basically the impurities could lead to a slightly different effect from batch to batch and possibly a dramatic change in effect from P93. > > I have half a to-go of P93 at 20mcgs that I really haven’t touched too much. Maybe that’ll get whipped out for classes at school. What can you say about P88, what do it, it’s a sexual bomb? 🙄😕 ---
**Author:** ![Maidenfan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Maidenfan01](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Maidenfan01)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 4:08am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/9 "2010-08-12T04:08:55Z")
> [@JohnnyHard](#): > > What can you say about P88, what do it, it’s a sexual bomb? 🙄😕 Haha no idea, I’ve never used the stuff. ---
**Author:** ![P51Mustang](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/p51mustang/32/1266_2.png) [@P51Mustang](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/P51Mustang)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 4:46am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/10 "2010-08-12T04:46:53Z")
> [@Maidenfan01](#): > > Thats what I got from it. Basically the impurities could lead to a slightly different effect from batch to batch and possibly a dramatic change in effect from P93. > > I have half a to-go of P93 at 20mcgs that I really haven’t touched too much. Maybe that’ll get whipped out for classes at school. I’ve tested [P93](https://pheromonelabs.com/product/p93/) by itself a couple of times before, I got some attraction based hits on it but it could have been just the A314 AMMO. One week this month I’m going to test it out by itself and check it out ---
**Author:** ![wiihomebrewftw](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/wiihomebrewftw/32/1102_2.png) [@wiihomebrewftw](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/wiihomebrewftw)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 6:07am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/11 "2010-08-12T06:07:07Z")
I will gladly be a guinea pig for the rough synthesis. The possibility of it having different effects than normal is tempting. ---
**Author:** ![Aghor](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/aghor/32/1558_2.png) [@Aghor](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Aghor)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 10:59am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/12 "2010-08-12T10:59:02Z")
> [@Jasmin](#): > > PS – Another major difference you should remember, of course, is that we can always make more P93 reliably (since it’s “the standard”) whereas a new batch of P88 will almost definitely be different. Even when a commercial process does something useful, it’s never as reliable as a more academic process. In the long term, it’s best to figure out what the useful impurities in a commercial synthesis are. > > . does this mean the original P88 everyone was raving about may never be replicated ? ☹ ---
**Author:** ![WildFlower](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/wildflower/32/1260_2.png) [@WildFlower](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/WildFlower)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/13 "2010-08-12T18:35:52Z")
I’ve never tired p88 but p93 is like nothing I’ve tried before. It’s sort of like a very light anone / A1 composite. From reading, I think it was Warrens report on p88 I would never have guessed they where - technically - the same molecule. Thanks for sharing this Jasmin. ---
**Author:** ![unknown0001](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/unknown0001/32/559_2.png) [@unknown0001](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/unknown0001)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/14 "2010-08-12T19:04:55Z")
> [@P51Mustang](#): > > I’ve tested P93 by itself a couple of times before, I got some attraction based hits on it but it could have been just the A314 AMMO. > > One week this month I’m going to test it out by itself and check it out I love ya Mustang, but why did that post get nominated?😕 ---
**Author:** ![P51Mustang](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/p51mustang/32/1266_2.png) [@P51Mustang](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/P51Mustang)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 7:15pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/15 "2010-08-12T19:15:52Z")
> [@happytappin](#): > > I love ya Mustang, but why did that post get nominated?😕 I don’t know lmao, I was as shocked as you this morning when I saw that. ---
**Author:** ![Sharpy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/sharpy/32/347_2.png) [@Sharpy](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Sharpy)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 9:59am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/16 "2010-08-13T09:59:38Z")
> [@Jasmin](#): > > P88 vs. P93 - Rough synthesis vs. “perfect” (or what chemists call “standard” synthesis) > > I think we’ve blind tested the two long enough to reveal this. > > While the bulk of the chemicals in our P line are absolutely unique structures, sometimes we do have two different synthesis paths of what _should_ technically be “the same” molecule. > > In this case, P93 and P88 have a very unique relationship. P93 is the absolute laboratory standard, meticulously synthesized in small batches with TLC at every synthesis step, and then further purified. P88 is more of a commercial style luck-of-the-draw (hard or impossible to repeat) rapid style synthesis. > > The numbers may seem a bit backward (you might think the more pure version would appear before the less), but P93/P88 was a structure we wanted to try for a long time. It was a pure oddball of timing that the more pure version became available soon after the less pure. > > What you can clearly see is that the two different synthesis processes lead to two different results. P88 displays some effects P88 that P93 doesn’t (and vice versa) and probably are to at least one of two reasons: > > **First** , the “actives” in the impurities, byproducts and intermediates are found in a rough synthesis, are “purified out of” a highly purified, standard version. > > Useful actives in “impurities” have been observed in areas other than pheromone chemicals. For example, studies have found some chemicals used in insect sprays aren’t as active as the impurities. In fact, the impurities were more active and more useful in many ways than the “supposed” active. That is to say, one of the more useful actives in that industry was “hidden” like a stow-away in the impurities generated by a commercial process that created one of the popular insect related chemicals. I can’t remember the exact figure, but I believe it took decades to notice and figure out. > > **Second** , some effects might be attributed to the larger amount of desired active in P93 vs. P88, as well as less unknown impurities that could theoretically counteract some of the primary actives effect. > > This again, is seen in other areas. For example, “dirty” “vitamin C” made in some of the worse Chinese labs actually contains impurities that have much the opposite effect of clean synthesis of vitamin C. That’s why a few of the more cognizant nutrient makers like [life-enhancement.com](http://life-enhancement.com) and [lef.org](http://lef.org) use highly pure vitamin C from one of the most competent vitamin synthesis labs, Hoffman-LaRoche. [Hoffmann?La Roche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoffmann%E2%80%93La_Roche) > > It’s even present in the perfume industry. Sometimes “the same” chemical with _reportedly_ similar levels of impurities is available from Givaudan, IFF and Symrise, yet they all SMELL different. All versions may have the same core structure, but details matter. Different processes make for different results. > > The active:impurity ratios may explain why, as one example, some of Steve’s mixes that that use P93 contain so little. He and many others see markedly different effects at ultra low quantities of P93 (3mcg) vs. what most of us would consider “normal” (10mcg +) or high (50mcg +). > > I don’t think most information about chemicals impurities and how they affect outcomes ever reaches the public. Many industries don’t even stop to think about them at all, although they are discussed to a degree in the pharmaceutical realm where they use concepts such as API. > > Sometimes these concepts and the realities they describe seem to change usefulness of certain pheromone compounds as much as they change the effectiveness of vitamin formulas, OTC and prescription drugs, to colorants used in pants (which BASF experienced problems with). > > After years of observing the differences in my own industry, I’d say it matters more where the pheromonal relationship is “fragile”, as it is with many of the more social compounds. > > While you can say that higher purity is always necessary for research, where repeatability is king, I don’t think you can say that about truly commercial style synthesis. Where the effects of the molecule are _supposed_ to be rough, for example, a slightly dirtier (but not too dirty like a kitchen sink synthesis) synthesis can sometimes be viewed as positive for some applications. > > Old internal split tests we did with highly pure vs. “commercial batch” style androstenone, for example, we sometimes preferred the less pure anone to help deliver what people viewed as “the anone effect”. > > Not so w/ something like anol, where higher purity often meant more of a valuable result. Impurities in cases like _that_ are like “static” on your radio. _You might want static and harshness with anone (which is like hard rock or “industrial”), but usually you don’t with something like anol (a symphony)._ > > It’s just the matter of using the right chemical for the job. Of course, since we’re more focused on recipes and repeatability here, the purest chemicals are really the most appropriate. > > I am preparing a public split test where you can try a standard anol vs. a rougher synthesis. Maybe I can do this with anone, too. I just need to source the rougher chemicals. > > In the meantime, feel free to compare and contrast P88 vs. P93 here. > > Jas > > PS – Another major difference you should remember, of course, is that we can always make more P93 reliably (since it’s “the standard”) whereas a new batch of P88 will almost definitely be different. Even when a commercial process does something useful, it’s never as reliable as a more academic process. In the long term, it’s best to figure out what the useful impurities in a commercial synthesis are. > > Extensive lab analysis is lengthy, and expensive (often more than our current budget allows, which is another reason we like to stick to standards whenever possible), but it’s ultimately more reliable than exclusively depending on “luck of the draw” when it comes to commercial bulk style synthesis. Firstly, it’s awesome to see you posting again, my dear Jasmin. And WELCOME BACK!!! Secondly from what I understand from your post is, you _cannot_ reliably replicate the effects of P88, as in the _“The Urge to Merge”_ post I have so clearly read over and over again, and receive the same the same results?? …DAMNED!! 😮 (I was so ‘convinced’ I needed to try this ‘no longer created’ product known as P88!) If this is true, was a (now deleted..) line; [Instant Female Magic](https://a314.com/product/instant-female-magic/) demise as a result of a similar reasons, or was it, that a better product was created in it’s place?? (??? AMMO ???) Thirdly, are you also telling us that P93 And P88 are in fact the **same produc** t created in different labs with different levels of care?? (I’m sorry Jasmin, I am a little confused at what this comparison actually means, and whether you’re using P88 and P93 as purely an example, or whether it is a comparison of like/same products, created with different levels of care!:o) I am asking this, as I am trying to get my head around which products are perfectly synthesized WITHOUT unreliable creation & impurities issues. (And not necessarily having to stick to the consumables either…) ---
**Author:** ![Warren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/97f17d/32.png) [@Warren](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/Warren)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 6:41am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/17 "2010-08-14T06:41:52Z")
Does this mean I should return one of my TOTWs? 😮 [After hyping P88 as the “Holy Grail of Sex Pheromones”](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/p88-the-urge-to-merge/33120), I don’t know whether to feel embarrassed or disappointed. I’m both. If I had heard this from anyone other than Michael or Jasmin I would have refused to believe it! Here are the four things that I experience as separating P88 from P93: (1) Unlike P93, P88 has ugly side-effects including extreme irritation and (according to some) headaches. (2) I have described P93 as having [a throat chakra effect](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/p93-caucasian-attractant-or-the-first-known-racist-pheromone/12830/17), but I experience P88 affecting lower chakras, much sexier. (3) P93 is “[Caucasian Magic](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/p93-caucasian-attractant-or-the-first-known-racist-pheromone/12830/7)”, but I don’t notice that effect with P88. (4) P88 has a trippy quality that I don’t notice with P93. This all reminds me of the _Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde_: > [@](#): > > Eventually, the potion began to run out, and Jekyll was unable to find a necessary ingredient to make more. Ironically, Jekyll learns that this most necessary ingredient was in the first instance of his experiments, sullied. Subsequent supplies are pure and thus lacking the quality that makes the potion successful for his experiments. His ability to change back from Hyde into Jekyll slowly vanished. Jekyll writes that even as he composes his letter he knows that he will soon become Hyde permanently… [Wikipedia] Jasmin, you have certainly convinced me of the difference between standard vs commercial grade chemistry. I’m gonna be more careful where my vitamins come from, too! P88 and P93 are just different. And I _really_ liked P88!! I like P93, too, but it is just different. I guess I should start thinking of my beloved P88 as MX088. MX088 contains P93 and other [pheromones](https://a314.com/shop/) unknown and possibly unknowable, which are the result of a rough synthesis, less purified. My preferred dose of 20mcg P88 is in fact less than 20mcg of P93 with unknowns bringing it up to 20mcg. Is that a reasonable interpretation? Jasmin, do you have any idea what the unknowns might roughly consist of? Androstenone is known to exist in higher levels in noncaucasians. If androstenone were one of the “impurities” in P88 it could balance out the “Caucasian Magic” effect of the P93 as well as cause irritability in a non-party atmosphere. I tried 10mcg P93 with 7.5mcg -none this afternoon. It seemed consistent with part of what I get from P88, but it still lacks the trippy, magical flow of P88, and there are not many unused mcg left to work with. Next, I think I’ll try equal amounts of P93, androstenone and betanol. If I find a close approximation to P88, at some time in the future, I’ll post it on [my P88 thread](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/p88-the-urge-to-merge/33120). For reference, my previous discussions of P88 and P93 have occurred here - > [@P88 - The Urge to Merge](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/p88-the-urge-to-merge/33120): > > I have been experimenting with P88 for the past several months and I have come to the conclusion that ninety-five percent of the men (and most of the women), who come to this website, are looking for P88. They may not know that they are looking for P88, but they probably are. Holy Grail of Sex Pheromones? Here are some of the earlier posts that piqued my interest: P88 seems to be a definite candidate for the Holy Grail of sex pheromones and a PUA favorite. It reportedly lacks the ugl… and here - > [@P93 -- Caucasian Attractant or The First Known Racist Pheromone?](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/p93-caucasian-attractant-or-the-first-known-racist-pheromone/12830/7): > > From the reports I have read, P93 attracts caucasians. Tater said especially blonds. Later he said readheads even more so. There seems to be a small consensus that it works best for noncaucasians, but for caucasians it will also attract other caucasians (more than other races), but it does not make the dramatic difference that it makes for noncaucasians wearing it. Some people have said that it has a slightly off-putting effect on noncaucasians. Others have said it also attracts noncaucasians, b… ---
**Author:** ![P51Mustang](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/p51mustang/32/1266_2.png) [@P51Mustang](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/P51Mustang)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 7:28am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/18 "2010-08-14T07:28:32Z")
> [@Warren](#): > > Does this mean I should return one of my TOTWs? 😮 > > [After hyping P88 as the “Holy Grail of Sex Pheromones”](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/p88-the-urge-to-merge/33120), I don’t know whether to feel embarrassed or disappointed. I’m both. If I had heard this from anyone other than Michael or Jasmin I would have refused to believe it! Here are the four things that I experience as separating P88 from P93: > > (1) Unlike P93, P88 has ugly side-effects including extreme irritation and (according to some) headaches. > > (2) I have described P93 as having [a throat chakra effect](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/p93-caucasian-attractant-or-the-first-known-racist-pheromone/12830/17), but I experience P88 affecting lower chakras, much sexier. > > (3) P93 is “[Caucasian Magic](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/p93-caucasian-attractant-or-the-first-known-racist-pheromone/12830/7)”, but I don’t notice that effect with P88. > > (4) P88 has a trippy quality that I don’t notice with P93. > > This all reminds me of the _Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde_: > > Jasmin, you have certainly convinced me of the difference between standard vs commercial grade chemistry. I’m gonna be more careful where my vitamins come from, too! P88 and P93 are just different. And I _really_ liked P88!! I like P93, too, but it is just different. > > I guess I should start thinking of my beloved P88 as MX088. MX088 contains P93 and other pheromones unknown and possibly unknowable, which are the result of a rough synthesis, less purified. My preferred dose of 20mcg P88 is in fact less than 20mcg of P93 with unknowns bringing it up to 20mcg. Is that a reasonable interpretation? Jasmin, do you have any idea what the unknowns might roughly consist of? > > Androstenone is known to exist in higher levels in noncaucasians. If androstenone were one of the “impurities” in P88 it could balance out the “Caucasian Magic” effect of the P93 as well as cause irritability in a non-party atmosphere. I tried 10mcg P93 with 7.5mcg -none this afternoon. It seemed consistent with part of what I get from P88, but it still lacks the trippy, magical flow of P88, and there are not many unused mcg left to work with. Next, I think I’ll try equal amounts of P93, androstenone and betanol. If I find a close approximation to P88, at some time in the future, I’ll post it on [my P88 thread](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/p88-the-urge-to-merge/33120). > > For reference, my previous discussions of P88 and P93 have occurred here - > > [P88 - The Urge to Merge](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/p88-the-urge-to-merge/33120) > > and here - > > [P93 -- Caucasian Attractant or The First Known Racist Pheromone? - #7 by Warren](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/p93-caucasian-attractant-or-the-first-known-racist-pheromone/12830/7) Out of all people, I don’t think you have ANYTHING to be embarrassed/disappointed about. ---
**Author:** ![andrew88777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@andrew88777](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/andrew88777)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 2:59pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/19 "2010-08-15T14:59:23Z")
Due to this lab closing, are there any other Putatives that will no longer be available? I am specifically asking about P106 and P97. I have had both, and neither one has been in stock for a long time. Both of them are in my top 5 favorite Putatives. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Sebastian](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/john_sebastian/32/1060_2.png) [@John\_Sebastian](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/John_Sebastian)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 2:49am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741/20 "2010-08-22T02:49:16Z")
It’s pretty interesting Jasmin because I see the same thing happen with film production. We always make sure to buy blank film from canisters that match batch numbers and were manufactured in serial order. This is because chemicals vary so much that in the development process you want them to be as similar as possible, however you can still always see the difference in color. This is because no chemical is ever exactly the same when being manufactured no matter how reliable the company or its process. [Next page](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/rough-synthesis-vs-perfect-p88-vs-p93/40741.md?page=2)