SK68 Camo Clone is worst trash i ever seen.

first one i seen in painted Camo.

sweet Thanks ordered a couple

Update on this Camo SK68.
I received it today. It has to be the crappiest SK68 clone i ever seen. It would run on a AA 1.2 or 1.5 volt battery, only runs on a 14500. Even on a 14500 with full charge, its ’high” output is at best 50 lumens of freezing cold blue light from the crappiest tinted XP-E emitter i ever seen. The quality is horrible, paint chips off easily, focus head is loose and wobbly, star is held in with a rough plastic washer jammed in, switch only works sometimes, it flickers, threads feel like they were cut with a rough file, Driver is jammed in angled and loose, Aspheric lens is horribly shaped producing a “blob” of light, the list of fails go on.
I’m guessing the days of getting “good” SK68 clones are disappearing, and all we can get soon is absolute garbage like this one…

“This listing was ended by the seller because there was an error in the listing”

You scared him ?!?

You dont need an emitter in that light. The “camo” makes it visible miles away :bigsmile:

Yes i agree, its the brightest color green camo ever.

New tubes for camouflaged flashlights spotted:

Interestingly i managed to snag one of each camo style of the SK68 clones from ebay, all for $2 or less just to add bright color to my SK68 lineup. :slight_smile:

Today two ultrafires arrived
A sipik 68 and 98 clone
I will do a review on them, I told Bella Headlight I would let know about them but I can’t find the thread so well it is funny to do a review on these two (iconic) little lights. In 2 minutes I am going to feed the late neighbours cat and will be able to get a first impression how they to at 100meter.

They put the money into “flash” and left out the “light” :-(( Pretty is as pretty does, and I’m more interested in performance than appearances, YMMV.

My “Ultrafire” SK68 clone from about half a year ago is decent for the price and may even have a real “Cree” emitter- I haven’t checked nor does that mean today’s version is the same or similar.

Phil

Well interesting mine are actually decent shiners. Even the small one reaches the house from 100 meters away (on a 14500 KeepPower will test with AA tonight)
And the 98 has a LatticeBright but no blueish tint, as matter of fact it is a very pleasant tint, and shows the least green at the edges of the beam from all my zoomies.
I am not even going to start a dispute, if they would have offered this tint I would have chosen it over a genuine Cree, sorry for cursing in the Church but it is true.

Hi The Miller do you have a link to the SK68”s please ?

Finally someone who isn’t “stuck on nameplates”

I have a couple flashlights that I thought to be the advertised Cree XM-L U2 from days gone by and they look great and perform well,
If it had not been for the close up pictures of the LatticeBright’s I never would have been the wiser.
It doesn’t offend me in the least as back then when they were purchased no vendors were aware of the issue.

Has anyone De-Domed one of these LB’s to see what the tint and performance would be?
I am aware they are never going to be Cree beaters, but when you buy a working bright light for $3-5 can you really be that upset?

here you go , I am testing it right now for the review I am planning.
It is not easy to mod, there is a alu plate pressed over the star, no point to grab the pill, of way to expose the led star. The 98 is much easier.
I am abusing a cheap primary AA cell right now
just to se how muh runtime I can squeze out of it, by ooooh how dangerous recharging it when the light is so dim (and the voltage has dropped to 0.8xx. No fear I touch it the whole charging time to make sure no heat comes up, it is running for the third time (so second charge) now, interesting how much loss in time thse alkaline cells have

And it is bound to happen that even the Latticebrights become good, the machines thay use to produce them are very high tech so why not make something good with them, I have two other LBs LEDs that looked very nice in terms of tint and Maukketested it to discover a faitly high CRI. So well,when they produce nice light why not use them. My beef is with sellers who SAY Cree but providing something else, just say it is a LatticBright.

The emitter problem is two-fold. LB makes them to look like Cree (LB’s fault) and the light manufacturer uses them to fake a Cree (not LB’s fault).

LB does make some decent emitters considering the price of the lights being so low, but I doubt they will change designs since the fakers must be a large part of their buyers. At least we now know what to look for even if the average buyer does not.

Phil

I would like to see them advertising LatticeBright, you know instead of sneaky clone let them be proud of what they make for a low price. Step up so to speak and become a brand to advertise with, I have the proof they can make good stuff, the tests from Maukke prove a high CRI.
And in the process while China becomes reputable India or another her country maybe in Africa can step in and provide xlixli LEDs :wink:

Assuming you mean cheap carbon-zinc, not alkaline and not lithium primary

— the only danger is you won’t notice when it leaks in the flashlight.
The zinc shell on the alkaline battery is part of the chemical reaction.
Zinc is being removed chemically from the inside and eventually you get a pinhole.

The alkaline chemistry takes a little longer before the contents leak out.

You’re not doing “ooooh how dangerous recharging” with either of those.

Well, unless you’re pushing so much that you’re boiling the innards and you get a steam explosion with shrapnel.

Hey, you can do it if you really try.

+ 1

if only the sellers would be “honest” and post that their lights have Latticebright LEDs when they do, and only Cree LEDs when they have real Crees in them it would be better, but that never going to be the case, they all will list them as “Cree” because they know it will get sales from the majority of un-educated consumer, while having to pay less for the cheaper cree knock off LED.