If you guys want to take that risk, you can. Whether or not and comes back and bites you is not my business. If you think it’s perfectly fine, that’s your decision. I am stating a fact that a) it’s a monitored chemical and b) the company this thread is about would have no reason to go this route when they are selling it to be ingested. There’s nothing to argue about here.
Edit: I’m not sure if you’re honestly still arguing that olivetol is not a DEA monitored chemical because I used a screenshot of a Wikipedia article that referenced something from 1992 but it was, is, and still is a DEA monitored chemical. As with all things, even aluminum foil, the amounts purchased will determine how much they care to read into it. If and when they decide they don’t like you selling synthetic cannabinoids for consumption, you’re just making their job easier. That’s not hemp derived anymore.
I mean, what difference does that make? Olivetol is a resorcinol. These are VERY commonly used to make all kinds of cannabinoids. Almost all CBC on the market is made with it and a couple other things. All the THCv and CBDv on the market is similarly made with its C-3 analogue. @stoopkid I’m not trying to attack you, but dude, your opinion/conception of this is just wrong here.
So was CBD…… it’s not now. Do you think CBD is or isn’t a better precursor on your route to D9? Honestly. It would seem neither of us are getting through to one another here so I’ll stop clogging the feed with this dispute.
That wasn’t my opinion. Those were just facts. Whether or not you think it’s a non-risk is your opinion.
I also should not need to explain why we don’t need to compare this with hemp derived CBD. It seems to me you are trying to rationalize here and I don’t think I need to be part of it.
That’s the crux of our argument. The only “factual” part about your original statement is that someone was able to derive that this was watched around the same time people “watched” new episodes of Seinfeld. Your position that it’s still the case IS PURE CONJECTURE. I’d challenge you to provide any legitimate evidence it’s still the case. I’ll start by providing some that it’s not.
I wonder if you are aware that there are
Specialty synthesis labs out there (many)
That can run batch size synthesis for a fee
Often a whole lot cheaper than expected
Most RC that are made Are Made this way if the reaction can be scaled
If you have a high yielding sop just ask them a quote and they will give it to you
Some are already gmp rated and most will help you make an sop often at rates that are not green taxed
Yes you will have to run a certain volume for it to make sence for them to do it
But I think that over the years
The most expensive synthesis has been
5mapb at 14K a kg made in a lab in Europe
And that’s a difficult synth as is stg-151
These synthesis are not that hard and can be scaled so I doubt any would be that expensive
China labs can t help you for all noids have been illegelized but there are many many more that can
Even letting these labs do most of the steps
And finalize the end product there where needed has been a solution often
I often did not feel comferable synthezing certain compounds and choose this path
I think this is how they’re getting around the patent
@eyeworm, do you know if using formic as a hydrogen donar would get you around the patent? I haven’t read it in a while but I know it coverted all the different metals you can use and different inert environments
what’s there to translate? it’s HHC as shown (which is a discrete compound), the wiggly line denoting that the C9-methyl group can be attached sticking out in either direction of the molecular plane.
Yep I have my limits as a cook and for that same reason I hope to encourage other members not to give up on there dreams
But realize there s more ways to skin this cat
To avoid confusion this is not 9α-OH-HHC, it is a racemic mix of two stereoisomers of HHC, which has a couple cis/trans isomers as well (if made via the route like @boutybouty mentioned, which this is not). This is all shown in the picture in the first post. The difference in the two stereoisomers produced in this method is in the orientation of the C9 methyl group, the chain sticking out the top of the molecule, as was mentioned.
All the THCv and CBDv on the market is similarly made with its C-3 analogue. 
