Sysmax will not be able to tell him with any certainty unless he sends it to them. They could ask him to take a photo of the insides, send it to them and they might verify that way, but I doubt they would. Im not sure they can be opened and reassembled easily anyway.
All Sysmax can tell him without inspecting the unit is the number he tried to enter, has already been entered. He already knows that.
The system of verification is flawed, as is most systems like it. Holograms can be faked, as can just about anything else. Its a system, it kind of works and is at least an attempt at dealing with it, and while not perfect, is better than nothing at all. Well, marginally anyway.
Well, does entering the number also include entering any purchaser identifying information, giving them your email for example?
Is it like registering for warranty records?
If it’s just “someone, maybe even you or your seller, has already queried our system with that number” —- they really do have a broken system.
Compare how the Underwriters Laboratory number label system works.
You enter the number, they tell you what it should be on if it’s a good number — so you know you got a good number on the proper product.
The number ought to be associated with what it’s attached to, not just “something we made somewhere had that number and someone already got it”
That would be “Not Proven” — is that a thing in the UK, or only something we hear about Scotland?
@ bugsy. It is you that are changing words. First of all I NEVER said I have a defective charger! I simply asked a question regarding the termination voltage and read out on my charger. As for this post looking like revenge, that’s utter nonsense. I verified my product and was told the code is not valid. Then I posted. It is not up to me to proove my unit is fake above any beyond what I have already done. I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to make me look like the bad guy by saying I am looking for revenge and misquoting me.
Marcl, I’m just a bystander here, but I’m strongly in favor of clear, understandable English.
Right now, this is the text of the heading on the thread — which you wrote, and only you can edit:
That’s confusing as well as misleading.
We know Nitecore’s website, even if it’s working (giving any response), is giving a wrong answer almost every time.
You understand that. Something’s wrong with their validation system,
because any one person can enter a number one time, have it validated, then the site rejects that same number any time afterward.
So Nitecore’s website is not a way to validate a number — no matter where you got the product.
Indeed, if you were to try selling the product you own, Nitecore’s website would “confirm” you were selling a fake.
Right? Because whoever checks the number you’ve already used, gets told it’s not valid.
Please don’t try to just fiddle with the wording. Make a clear, simple headline.
It’s also not up to Banggood or any seller to make Nitecore’s validation system work efficiently or at all. However your wording strongly implies that Banggood IS selling faker chargers, and that it’s CONFIRMED by Nitecore’s website, if the website is working correctly.
Tbh Hank I changed the title a couple of days ago due to the pressure from some members and when it became clear the validation system was suspect. That’s why there is now a question mark and why i made reference to the validation. The problem is, everyone is guessing, we need an explanation from Nitecore. I will change it again when BG /Sysmax explain and make this a little clearer.
What is it with Blf these days, things are really going downhill as of late. Trolls upon trolls, racists and generally bottom of the barrel kind of folks.
So I have a new Xtar “USB detector” with a code; I put it in and it returns:
Dunno if that’s better than before or not.
It’s still problematic if you want to resell something.
I can’t guess if it’s susceptible to being spoofed — it could be safeguarded against a DDOS.
Better than nothing, for sure.
Susceptible to being improved further, for sure
(like, record the email and IP of the inquiring site and confirm by return mail with the timestamp, so you have a record to keep of authenticity)
It should also include the number of times that serial number has been queried along with the first and last date stamps. If I bought a new product and it has been queried more than a couple of times, then I may be slightly concerned, but if it had been queried tens or hundreds of times, then I would be highly suspicious. I don’t think email tracking should be necessary, but the previous few IPs would be useful. If it all came from the same IP, then it could be nothing, but several queries all from different regions would be an indication that fakes with the same serial were being sent to different buyers.
Facilating resale need not be their concern, but the effectiveness of their verification system for the primary sale should be. If we were to take the current functionality of the system as is and the advice of the manufacturer, then anyone who gets a negative result as the OP did, would have to assume the item was a fake. We can speculate whether the reseller proactively checked the serial number or if it was a return, but we cannot confirm that the item is genuine from the serial number, which was the whole reason the system was set up in the first place.
I said earlier it was a flawed system. My post, was not about the reliability of the system (something I already addressed), but the post directly above mine that mentions the issue of selling items 2nd hand and verification of authenticity in said cases. Makers such as Sony offer no such system for several thousand dollar TVs for original purchasers let alone 2nd hand. Im not sure why a flashlight/charger maker should be expected too. They like other manufacturers, rely on good sense and purchasing from reputable retailers.
Sellers cant check without your knowledge in XTARS case anyway (Ive not looked at Nitecore), as the number is on the unit not the packaging and you must scratch away the covering to reveal the number, like scratchy lotto tickets. XTAR uses 3 lots of 6 numbers for the ID, at least on my VP2 they do (or someone has if its fake).
A mix of letters and numbers makes it harder for a faker to spoof them. However only people who deal in these often would know a system exists and sellers of fakes arent going to draw attention to it being missing. Most people wouldnt know to buy say an XTAR or Nitecore over a cheaper dumb charger anyway, let alone understand there might be a reason to know a real one from a fake, or that a system exists flawed or not to verify it.
So the only people it helps is us really. And we encourage fakes, or as we prefer to call them, ‘clones’. If its a good fake, its a ‘clone’ and highly recommended in order to save $2. If not, its the scum of the earth fakers. Were a fickle lot, that unfortunately do not like to accept our part in encouraging the scams that we sometimes run foul of. Im part of that, but I at least accept that.
Last up, these are flashlights and chargers. Sony and Panasonic dont have a system for ensuring the TV you buy for several thousand dollars is genuine. They rely on common sense and buying from reputable dealers. That doesnt stop you from buying down the pub. The systems implementation, and cost to maintain will add to the costs of lights and chargers, and well we already know, those who would benefit from these numbers, enthusiasts, not simple consumers, tend to buy clones if they can save $2. It hardly encourages makers to invest.
Just a reality check. Im not saying they shouldnt do something, Im not saying I dont like the idea, Im saying this is the situation. Im not sure why they bother to be honest and theres a point that the system becomes too expensive too maintain. Best case scenario IMO, is a combo of letters and numbers, no patterns, on unit not on the packaging, and a scratch off layer is about the best we can hope for. Will still be flawed, and will do nothing for 2nd hand. Buy from reputable dealers, with decent returns policies, and stop trying to get it $2 cheaper. Or, you know, actually accept the risks you already assumed.
Unless youre happy to pay Maha prices? What does Maha offer as security against fakes?
Anyway, its just an opinion.
As BG have been implicated, to ensure that is addressed too, the item should go from buyer to Nitecore, if anything.
troll.