I have a batch with an alternate synthesis of rone in it, batch 22. That might even be available at the LA office for shipment.
It uses a completely different synthesis route of androsterone, with a different starting material, which means the “impurities” (the part almost nobody considers) should be very different.
The reality of the matter is that the content of the impurities sometimes has a massive effect on the end result, when the impurities themselves are “actives”.
I’ve talked at length with a biochemist friend at BASF in France (one of the world’s biggest chemical companies) about this. The chemical industry tends to keep knowledge about impurities a bit hush hush, but their contents definitely do affect outcomes in certain cases.
One time, BASF used a new method of making a certain color blue for blue jeans. The blue jean maker was outraged, since the pants didn’t come out right, despite HPLC analysis saying the chemical was something like 97% the same.
They actually had to find a source of the old starter material, and make it the old way, for it to work the old way.
While this type of thing doesn’t appear in literature much, there was a study not too long ago which actually focused on impurities that anybody could read. It was about anti bug spray or pesticide of some sort. They compared the efficacy of a technical (crude) grade of the chemical vs. an analytical (very fine, very pure ) grade of the chemical. Guess which one won?
The crude stuff!
In fact, it won by a mile. The analytical grade barely worked at all.
Turns out the chemical they thought was active wasn’t as important as one of the small impurities. i.e., was actually a chemical fraction, a very stinky noxious byproduct in the “impurities”, which was doing most, if not all of the work. Surprise, surprise.
That’s why testing trumps assumptions, even well formed scientific assumptions and theories, every time. Yes, it’s good to study, create models and practice good engineering practices as much as you can, but you always learn the most when the rubber actually meets the road.
So, anyway, we have this ultrafine version, probably the world’s cleanest version of androsterone, in revision 22. Sometimes ultrafines test better out there in the real world, sometimes they don’t. You’re free to try it if you want.
If you don’t like it, you can exchange for the more typical synthesis. That’s fine, and has always been fine. The chemicals don’t have any hard feeling or bear grudges, and neither do I in most cases. 
I just want to know what works best, or how something works differently out there in the world’s biggest laboratory: life.
As far as other special editions, what do you have in mind? I’m perhaps a little too overextended time wise at the moment to cook up anything new just this second, but I’ll certainly keep all suggestions in mind next time there’s a time opening.