Ilfosol 3 Date of Manufacture?

[SodaAnt]

Is there any way to tell whether a bottle of Ilfosol 3 was made recently, or if it's been sitting on a dealer's shelf for ten years?

I bought a bottle recently and it has a batch code of 14C007 printed on the bottle.

 

[runswithsizzers]

You need to email Harman, give them the batch code and they will tell you the manufacturing date and the recommended shelf life.
the email adderss is: technical@harmantechnology.com

It turned out that the packets of Ilfosol 3 which I ordered online were already well past their recommended "use by" date when I received my order.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Or better yet, why not just put a legible manufacturing date on the packaging? Why use a “code”? Who benefits from the secrecy?

 

[MattKing]

Or better yet, why not just put a legible manufacturing date on the packaging? Why use a “code”? Who benefits from the secrecy?

Retailers benefit, because customers have a habit of pushing the oldest bottle to the back of the shelf, and buying the newest.

 

[SodaAnt]

You need to email Harman, give them the batch code and they will tell you the manufacturing date and the recommended shelf life.
the email adderss is: technical@harmantechnology.com

It turned out that the packets of Ilfosol 3 which I ordered online were already well past their recommended "use by" date when I received my order.

Thanks. I emailed Harman and they quickly replied saying my bottle of Ilfosol 3 was made in May 2022.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Retailers benefit, because customers have a habit of pushing the oldest bottle to the back of the shelf, and buying the newest.

Retailers also benefit when they sell outdated products to unknowing customers at full retail prices. If the retailer would delay putting newer stock on the shelf until after the old stock is gone, then problem solved.

If buying online, then obviously those pesky customers do not get the option to pick out the fresher stock. I wonder what percentage of photo chemistry is sold in brick and mortar stores compared to online sales?

Hiding the manufacturing date from the consumer does not benefit the consumer, and as a consumer, I don't like it.

I will say this, Harman does quickly and efficiently respond to any requests for product info. I get the feeling that Harman's tech support email team is more sympathetic to the needs and concerns of the end-use customer than whoever in administration is making their policies.

 

[pentaxuser]

Retailers benefit, because customers have a habit of pushing the oldest bottle to the back of the shelf, and buying the newest.

I can't speak for the U.S. or Canada but in the U.K. food producers and retailers are required to use "best before" and "sell by" dates for the benefit of the consumer so I am unsure why such dates should not apply to photographic chemicals where their efficacy is time bounded. Yes retailers may be left with an "out of date" bottle of a developer that may or may not be affected but isn't this the same as film expiry dates where the usual solution is to offer it to customers at a reduced price?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Retailers also benefit when they sell outdated products to unknowing customers at full retail prices. If the retailer would delay putting newer stock on the shelf until after the old stock is gone, then problem solved.

While I agree with you respecting outdated products, the approach is actually directed to product that is well within its optimum use by date range.
The retailer can control its inventory based on the code - emphasizing first in and first out - and the customer still gets top quality product.

 

[SodaAnt]

I can't speak for the U.S. or Canada but in the U.K. food producers and retailers are required to use "best before" and "sell by" dates for the benefit of the consumer

That’s the case here in the States too. Food products are also required to put nutrition information on their labelling as well.

 

[MattKing]

I can't speak for the U.S. or Canada but in the U.K. food producers and retailers are required to use "best before" and "sell by" dates for the benefit of the consumer so I am unsure why such dates should not apply to photographic chemicals where their efficacy is time bounded. Yes retailers may be left with an "out of date" bottle of a developer that may or may not be affected but isn't this the same as film expiry dates where the usual solution is to offer it to customers at a reduced price?

pentaxuser

There is a push in Canada to do away with a significant amount of the "best before" labelling for many food products, because of the large amount of waste of safe and edible product.
"Best before" is very different from "use before", with the former being oriented more to freshness and taste, and the latter being related to safety and effectiveness.
With non-food products, which are not inherently perishable, the "use before" dates are often related not as much to the product, but the likely integrity of the container they are sold in.
Photographic film and paper are more akin to perishable food.

 

[runswithsizzers]

While I agree with you respecting outdated products, the approach is actually directed to product that is well within its optimum use by date range.
The retailer can control its inventory based on the code - emphasizing first in and first out - and the customer still gets top quality product.

Yes, that is the way it is supposed to work.

But the Simplicity Ilfosol 3 which I bought (online) from B&H Photo in Feb, 2022 was manufactured in Nov 2018. According to Ilford's <data sheet> "New sachets can be kept for up to 2 years..." so the developer was over a year past past Ilford's recommended use date when I got it. And by the time I was ready to use it in October 2022 it was almost 4 years old.

But without emailing Harman, I had no way of knowing any of this. If there had been a date on the product - either a manufacturing date or a use-by date - then I would have known to contact B&H as soon as I received the product. But by the time I discovered the issue, it was well past the B&H 30-day return window. Fortunately Harman replaced the product, so I did not have argue with B&H about it.

So, I have to wonder, Is the retailer really the best entity to trust if doing the right thing can have a negative impact on their bottom line, and ignoring old product dates is more profitable? Conflict of interest, maybe?

The Russian proverb, "Trust, but verify" comes to mind. So for anyone who has purchased Ilford photo chemicals and wants to verify that you have received in-date product, the email address is: technical@harmantechnology.com.

 

[MattKing]

Yes, that is the way it is supposed to work.

But the Simplicity Ilfosol 3 which I bought (online) from B&H Photo in Feb, 2022 was manufactured in Nov 2018. According to Ilford's <data sheet> "New sachets can be kept for up to 2 years..." so the developer was over a year past past Ilford's recommended use date when I got it. And by the time I was ready to use it in October 2022 it was almost 4 years old.

But without emailing Harman, I had no way of knowing any of this. If there had been a date on the product - either a manufacturing date or a use-by date - then I would have known to contact B&H as soon as I received the product. But by the time I discovered the issue, it was well past the B&H 30-day return window. Fortunately Harman replaced the product, so I did not have argue with B&H about it.

So, I have to wonder, Is the retailer really the best entity to trust if doing the right thing can have a negative impact on their bottom line, and ignoring old product dates is more profitable? Conflict of interest, maybe?

The Russian proverb, "Trust, but verify" comes to mind. So for anyone who has purchased Ilford photo chemicals and wants to verify that you have received in-date product, the email address is: technical@harmantechnology.com.

I spent a fair few years working in retail, so there is little doubt that my perspective is affected by that.
We hated old inventory! If inventory was old, it meant we were losing money on it. So anything that helped us avoid ever having old inventory on the shelves was looked at as a benefit.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but that is different than wanting to clear old inventory by selling it.
With some inventory, it doesn't matter to the customer. A tripod accessory or a filter doesn't "spoil". The only party suffering from old inventory is the retailer who paid for that inventory, and effectively the interest they are most likely paying on the money advanced to pay for that inventory.

But the Simplicity Ilfosol 3 which I bought (online) from B&H Photo in Feb, 2022 was manufactured in Nov 2018. According to Ilford's <data sheet> "New sachets can be kept for up to 2 years..." so the developer was over a year past past Ilford's recommended use date when I got it. And by the time I was ready to use it in October 2022 it was almost 4 years old.

FWIW, that 2 year figure is probably referencing the time that the customer owns the product, not the time between manufacture and use. Calculation of any such estimate would normally factor in an additional typical period of time between manufacture and retail sale.

 

[pentaxuser]

FWIW, that 2 year figure is probably referencing the time that the customer owns the product, not the time between manufacture and use. Calculation of any such estimate would normally factor in an additional typical period of time between manufacture and retail sale.

Do you know this to be a fact, Matt? It sounds from what you are saying that the retailer can legitimately sell a product way beyond its expiry date and then and only then has the customer 2 years within which to use it? The way it is written it sounds as if it is 2 years from the customer's purchase so its newness starts with that????

So what in heaven's name does new sachets can be kept for 2 years actually mean? I have to say that your interpretation makes it sound as if it is vague enough to be the classic "get out of jail" clause which enables the retailer to do just that

I am all for small retailers "getting a fair crack of the whip " but your interpretation gives them a licence to sell items beyond my sense of reasonableness

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Do you know this to be a fact, Matt? It sounds from what you are saying that the retailer can legitimately sell a product way beyond its expiry date and then and only then has the customer 2 years within which to use it? The way it is written it sounds as if it is 2 years from the customer's purchase so its newness starts with that????

So what in heaven's name does new sachets can be kept for 2 years actually mean? I have to say that your interpretation makes it sound as if it is vague enough to be the classic "get out of jail" clause which enables the retailer to do just that

I am all for small retailers "getting a fair crack of the whip " but your interpretation gives them a licence to sell items beyond my sense of reasonableness

pentaxuser

No - there is no expiry date on most non-light sensitive photographic materials.
There are only recommendations respecting storage life.
And when those recommendations are directed to consumers, the recommendations are calculated based on "typical" times, incorporating average time lags between manufacture and customer purchase.
That includes factors like the fact that Ilford branded chemicals are shipped by boat from the UK (or the EU) to the USA - the USA being the largest market for them.

 

[pentaxuser]

No - there is no expiry date on most non-light sensitive photographic materials.
There are only recommendations respecting storage life.
And when those recommendations are directed to consumers, the recommendations are calculated based on "typical" times, incorporating average time lags between manufacture and customer purchase.
That includes factors like the fact that Ilford branded chemicals are shipped by boat from the UK (or the EU) to the USA - the USA being the largest market for them.

Thanks Matt for the reply. I remain unsure of quite what it means in terms of where there is common ground between us on what you think of the implications of what I wrote in terms of Ilford's and the retailer obligations towards the consumer but I suspect we may never reach any common ground here

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

I am unsure why such dates should not apply to photographic chemicals where their efficacy is time bounded.

Surely you can figure out the difference between food and photochemistry in terms of policy requirements. If you sit down with a cup of tea and mull it over for half an hour or so, I'm sure you can come up with something. Give it a try.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks I have sat down with that cup of tea for half an hour and sadly in principle of items that are know to deteriorate beyond a certain time such as film to use one example only I sadly cannot come up with something

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Thanks I have sat down with that cup of tea for half an hour and sadly in principle of items that are know to deteriorate beyond a certain time such as film to use one example only I sadly cannot come up with something

pentaxuser

Perhaps the milk in your tea was off .
The words in your last post that are most problematic are "known" and "certain time" - particularly "certain time".

 

[koraks]

Thanks I have sat down with that cup of tea for half an hour and sadly in principle of items that are know to deteriorate beyond a certain time such as film to use one example only I sadly cannot come up with something

pentaxuser

Hint: it's how we might use these products. There's a difference.

If you can't work it out, don't lose any sleep over it and leave it to policy makers.