Question Faber sold in Europe can't be tested in the US?

[Scuba-74]

I don't think ISO bottles do not always imply M25 threads. Maybe. Maybe not? Note the markings above show 3/4-14 NGT.

I've never encountered a UN/ISO bottle in the wild, so that is why I am particularly keen to see the markings on OP's bottles.

The the hydro shop I referenced above (by a stroke of luck, it is actually local to the OP) says specifically

View attachment 881284

I expect they are up to speed regulatory requirements and hardware, whatever those are, 3/4 or M25.

Absolutely no UN circle logo unfortunately.

Also, M25 is stamped on the tanks.

 

[OMyMyOHellYes]

Absolutely no UN circle logo unfortunately.

Also, M25 is stamped on the tanks.

Thanks for the clarification. It was, however, an interesting exercise.

 

[Scuba-74]

Thanks for the clarification. It was, however, an interesting exercise.

Indeed it was, for me especially. As early as Tuesday this week, I thought I know enough about the tanks. Maybe not "all there is to know", but enough to get by. Then on Tuesday, I learned that tanks without "DOT" or "TC" are not good in he US. Now I know there is a third category, the grey area with the circle logo that some facilities will touch and some won't. And it's only Thursday.

 

[rjack321]

Small claims

 

[Scuba-74]

Small claims

Yup, that's where the cops said I should go.

On that note, here is the claim statement that I prepared (has to be 1500 characters or less, and it's about that number right there). It also has to be a single paragraph to fit on the form. I also have both screenshots and the transcript of all the communications.

I'm not looking for a legal advice, but I welcome anyone's input as to whether it is on point, or anything is lacking:

"On 12/19/2024, the defendant sold to the plaintiff goods on Facebook Marketplace, while being fully aware that these goods (4 used scuba cylinders) can't be safely and legally used and inspected in the US, as they do not have required DOT certification markings, which must be imprinted on the cylinders at the time of manufacture for the cylinders to be usable in the US. Without these markings, the cylinders can't undergo required periodic hydrostatic testing, or be filled by any commercial fill station. At the time of sale, the defendant falsely stated that he acquired these cylinders from his friend/roommate in Phoenix, AZ, who used to fill them at a local dive shop in Phoenix. He also falsely stated in the listing that the cylinders were up to date with required tests. In fact, as the plaintiff found out on 01/28/2025, the defendant purchased the cylinders in September, 2024, from a person who he never met before, in Rhode Island. The defendant tried bringing the cylinders for testing after he bought them, and was rejected because of the missing DOT markings. When contacted about this on 01/28/2025, the defendant: 1)
admitted that he knew that these cylinders can't undergo required testing in the US or be filled by a commercial fill station; 2) admitted that he fabricated the story about these cylinders being filled in AZ; 3) told the plaintiff "I can tell you as many stories as I want" and "I made a bad purchase and you did too"; 4) refused to pay the plaintiff back"

 

[greeniguana]

Yup, that's where the cops said I should go.

On that note, here is the claim statement that I prepared (has to be 1500 characters or less, and it's about that number right there). It also has to be a single paragraph to fit on the form. I also have both screenshots and the transcript of all the communications.

I'm not looking for a legal advice, but I welcome anyone's input as to whether it is on point, or anything is lacking:

"On 12/19/2024, the defendant sold to the plaintiff goods on Facebook Marketplace, while being fully aware that these goods (4 used scuba cylinders) can't be safely and legally used and inspected in the US, as they do not have required DOT certification markings, which must be imprinted on the cylinders at the time of manufacture for the cylinders to be usable in the US. Without these markings, the cylinders can't undergo required periodic hydrostatic testing, or be filled by any commercial fill station. At the time of sale, the defendant falsely stated that he acquired these cylinders from his friend/roommate in Phoenix, AZ, who used to fill them at a local dive shop in Phoenix. He also falsely stated in the listing that the cylinders were up to date with required tests. In fact, as the plaintiff found out on 01/28/2025, the defendant purchased the cylinders in September, 2024, from a person who he never met before, in Rhode Island. The defendant tried bringing the cylinders for testing after he bought them, and was rejected because of the missing DOT markings. When contacted about this on 01/28/2025, the defendant: 1)
admitted that he knew that these cylinders can't undergo required testing in the US or be filled by a commercial fill station; 2) admitted that he fabricated the story about these cylinders being filled in AZ; 3) told the plaintiff "I can tell you as many stories as I want" and "I made a bad purchase and you did too"; 4) refused to pay the plaintiff back"

If you win, you get a judgement. Then good luck collecting on that judgement. Been there.

Where I live, the filing fees would probably be more than half of what the tanks are worth. Plus the process is a huge time suck.

 

[Nitrogenius]

It's the same the other way around. DOT or TC stamped tanks can't/won't be hydroed in Europe. Tanks have to be CE marked.

Yes I had that issue the other way around.. But then I self filled in Germany so.. eh.. If you have a shop you have good relations to you might be able to have them test them anyhow, but not stamp them. I don't think there is any regulation that forbids the pure act of testing, just the certification is an issue. This is what I did in Germany. I threw in the occasional pressure test to be sure that it was sefe for myself to continue to fill them.
Also I think there is a procedure in place to have them "restamped" but it is honerous and costly, so that nobody does that because it is easier to just by different tanks.
And lastly there is also the option of DIY DOT stamp them, but of course you wouldn't want to commit fraud over such a topic

 

[Nitrogenius]

He replied. Admitted he knew the tanks were not good, he tried getting them hydroed. Admitted to fabricating the story about the buddy in Arizona. Insists he did nothing wrong and won't give the money back.

I'm attaching some screenshots. First 2 is his response to me today. 3d one is his response in our original exchange when he lied about Arizona. Finally, the last one is his super high moral comment about the goodness of people that he left in the original post where he got the tanks. Ironic, isn't it.

Sorry about my countryman here.
He clearly is an a**hole. and stupid enough to admit to his own fraud, now you even got it in writing which increases your chances as you now have evidence, however the caveat being the "sold as is" topic, so from that perspective I am not sure if you have legal recourse despite the admission

 

[Scuba-74]

If you win, you get a judgement. Then good luck collecting on that judgement. Been there.

Where I live, the filing fees would probably be more than half of what the tanks are worth. Plus the process is a huge time suck.

The damages I'm seeking is $350. The filing fee is $40. I gather if I win, he owes me $390.

I just don't want to let it slide. It is just wrong.

As a quick update, about 36 hours into this ordeal:

1) The seller had to flee NE scuba divers FB group
2) Had to make his FB page private
3) Has been proclaimed "the most despised diver in New England"
4) Had his employer contacted (not by me, I advised people against it)
5) Allegedly, his family members have been threatened (which is horrible and unfortunate)

So maybe even if I don't win, he still gets the message across that what he did was wrong

 

[Nitrogenius]

Standby ....

We didn't get to see the tank stampings. On the outside margin, is there any chance they were ISO or UN certified?

UN/ISO tanks are legit in the US and their inspection procedure and criteria are discussed in detail in the PSI/PCI inspector course and training materials. I am not a hydro authority, and I can't vouch for the veracity of the following, but I did some kindergarten-grade googleating and found this site - a hydro tester in your general neighborhood (+/- 40 miles?):

What is an ISO tank? Can you test them? – Paintball Hydro-Testing

I have found, however, that the technical expertise re: hydro rules and specifications is all over the place and there are a lot of testers that will improperly refuse testing simply because they have no fracking idea what the specifics of the DOT / CFR rules allow/require. It often takes some significant digging to find knowledgable hydrotesters. Also, if testing requirements/procedures differ, it is possible that a knowlegeable retester may not have the proper equipment to complete testing.

Also cogently discussed in another SB thread: Advice Needed on Newly Acquired Faber Steel Tanks with Unfamiliar Markings

Separately -


View attachment 881272

That makes sense and aligns what I have collected on this topic over the years, you will need burst disc valves though in any case and make sure that you will get some with the proper thread. M25 and and the 3/4-14 NTG are super close meaning you will be able to screw the valve on, but then you are putting yourself and others in danger. There is plenty of accidents at fiulling stations over in Europe. And no DIN/ISO tank does not automatically imply that the tank thread is metric, hence the various accidents over on the old continent.