Gold Purchase - Verified Sigma

[Abyss]

I recently purchased almost 2 oz Gold in the form three coins sold as 22ct from reputable seller on the forum for spot. My intentions take these to India to be melted and to make four bangles for my mum's 70th Birthday and all the coins in my stack pristine condition so I did not fancy putting any of these into the melting pot. As these coins are from a smaller mint I was reluctant to buy but the seller offered to provide sigma tested photos passing 22ct test. Received the coins and performed gravity test the larger laurel coin was within expected range for 22ct but the other two failed the gravity test. I was bit unsure so I took them local pawn broker one of the staff is a member of the forum and fellow stacker who stated after viewing the coins through a magnifying glass inscription on the smallest coin that stated the gold content only 9ct instead of 22ct. Contacted the seller and obtained a refund for all the coins (although I am out of pocket for special delivery postage both ways).

Why would Sigma tester come back with results verified 22ct Gold when this not the case?

Edited June 16, 2022 by Abyss

[LawrenceChard]

1 hour ago, Abyss said:

I recently purchased almost 2 oz Gold in the form three coins sold as 22ct from reputable seller on the forum for spot. My intentions take these to India to be melted and to make four bangles for my mum's 70th Birthday and all the coins in my stack pristine condition so I did not fancy putting any of these into the melting pot. As these coins are from a smaller mint I was reluctant to buy but the seller offered to provide sigma tested photos passing 22ct test. Received the coins and performed gravity test the larger laurel coin was within expected range for 22ct but the other two failed the gravity test. I was bit unsure so I took them local pawn broker one of the staff is a member of the forum and fellow stacker who stated after viewing the coins through a magnifying glass inscription on the smallest coin that stated the gold content only 9ct instead of 22ct. Contacted the seller and obtained a refund for all the coins (although I am out of pocket for special delivery postage both ways).

Why would Sigma tester come back with results verified 22ct Gold when this not the case?

 

Did the seller list what the coins were?

Is he really a "reputable seller"?, and who says so?

Did you check the list of coins by Googling them before agreeing to buy them?...

... or when you received them?

I notice you have not listed them here, and the photos provided are not good enough to be able to easily identify what they are supposed to be.

You ask about the Sigma. We received 2 Sigma machines a few weeks ago, but I have not spent much time with them. The ony two times I have used it so far left me unimpressed.

Do you think the seller actually tested all 3, or just one?

Did he explain the Sigma reading? Did he miss anything out?

In my opinion, a lot of people now place too much reliance on equipment, and don't use or develop their own skills and abilities as much as they could. For example, it should not have been difficult for you to Google all 3 coins, to check their specified composition. Numista is a good resource. In addition, if your pawnbroker friend found a hallmark (or other quality mark), why did you not find it first, and have you now studied it to ensure you could find another in future?

Do you have a magnifying glass? A "2" or "2.5" eyeglass is more useful than a 10x loupe.

I apologise if my response sounds harsh or over critical, but I prefer to try and help people to be able to use their own judgement and provide their own answers, rather than simply answer their questions. (Teach A Man To Fish).

😎

[Goldfever20]

5 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

2" or "2.5" eyeglass is more useful than a 10x loupe.

@LawrenceChard where can one get a decent "2.5" eyeglass from, any recommendations please.

I have looked on FAmazon and Feebay and there is only a Chinese rubbish. 

[LawrenceChard]

59 minutes ago, Goldfever20 said:

@LawrenceChard where can one get a decent "2.5" eyeglass from, any recommendations please.

I have looked on FAmazon and Feebay and there is only a Chinese rubbish. 

We @ChardsCoinandBullionDealer have recently been looking for a further supply, but almost all seem to come from China.

IMO, they don't need to be super high quality. 

I think some may have been included in the Chard Mystery Box.

While on this subject, I used to think "2" or "2.5" indicated the magnification, but someone recently claimed that it does not. I made some enquiries, including asking our local optician, because I thought it migh refer to dioptres, but apparently not.

Does any TSF member know the answer?

😎

Edited June 16, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[ArgentSmith]

When using the wand on thinner items the calibration disk should be used behind the item being tested, having said that the Sigma test is just another "tool" incorrect use can result in misleading readings especially with lower ct when I say lower I mean lower than less than 999, either way is just another non destructive test.

As Lawrence said the Numista listing would be more helpful than photos as I cant see any 9ct markings?

All tests including SG tests can be performed incorrectly due to inexperience, hopefully the seller will reimberse postage costs if he confirms items are indeed 9ct. 🤷‍♂️

 

[James32]

16 minutes ago, ArgentSmith said:

When using the wand on thinner items the calibration disk should be used behind the item being tested, having said that the Sigma test is just another "tool" incorrect use can result in misleading readings especially with lower ct when I say lower I mean lower than less than 999, either way is just another non destructive test.

As Lawrence said the Numista listing would be more helpful than photos as I cant see any 9ct markings?

All tests including SG tests can be performed incorrectly due to inexperience, hopefully the seller will reimberse postage costs if he confirms items are indeed 9ct. 🤷‍♂️

 

Well said.

I'm more curious as to why the seller went the pre 13 britannia route for 22ct? There an obvious .917 setting straight after .999+ 🤷‍♂️

 

[BackyardBullion]

3 minutes ago, James32 said:

Well said.

I'm more curious as to why the seller went the pre 13 britannia route for 22ct? There an obvious .917 setting straight after .999+ 🤷‍♂️

 

Yeah, this is my thoughts. 

The different settings on these machines are supposed to be very finely calibrated to those specific coins but they are not then suitable for other coins.

The sigma machines have too much weight attributed to them as the definitive stackers tool for testing.

They are best used as part of a bigger testing regime and what @Abyss has demonstrated here that further testing is always needed even when a sigma indicates all is OK. 

I am glad that you got a refund, if it was me as the seller I would have made you completely whole on postage too. 

There is arguably responsibility here for the seller to ensure what they are selling is correct and of course the buyer to just check before committing too. Who has more responsibility in this case? Difficult to say but I am sure many on the forum will have their own opinions!

Lesson to be learned here: don't rely on the Sigma. It is a tool that should be part of a bigger picture, nothing more. 

[LawrenceChard]

12 minutes ago, James32 said:

Well said.

I'm more curious as to why the seller went the pre 13 britannia route for 22ct? There an obvious .917 setting straight after .999+ 🤷‍♂️

 

Probably doesn't know how to use it, like me!

Seller's name would be interesting.

I am all for including such provenance info.

If it ever happened to be my company, I would be happy to respond, and either admit the mistake, or defend myself / ourselves robustly.

😎

 

[LawrenceChard]

6 minutes ago, BackyardBullion said:

Yeah, this is my thoughts. 

The different settings on these machines are supposed to be very finely calibrated to those specific coins but they are not then suitable for other coins.

The sigma machines have too much weight attributed to them as the definitive stackers tool for testing.

They are best used as part of a bigger testing regime and what @Abyss has demonstrated here that further testing is always needed even when a sigma indicates all is OK. 

I am glad that you got a refund, if it was me as the seller I would have made you completely whole on postage too. 

There is arguably responsibility here for the seller to ensure what they are selling is correct and of course the buyer to just check before committing too. Who has more responsibility in this case? Difficult to say but I am sure many on the forum will have their own opinions!

Lesson to be learned here: don't rely on the Sigma. It is a tool that should be part of a bigger picture, nothing more. 

The overwhelming responsibility here is and should always be on the seller.

The prospective buyer is relying on initial information from the  seller, so at worst could only ever be "an accessory after the fact".

I agree postage should have been refunded, without need for asking.

"Name?"

😎

[vicamy]

32 minutes ago, James32 said:

Well said.

I'm more curious as to why the seller went the pre 13 britannia route for 22ct? There an obvious .917 setting straight after .999+ 🤷‍♂️

 

There is a different between those two settings. The first 22k setting is for copper as balance metal, and Britannia 90-12 is both copper and silver used as balance metal. Therefore, the resistivity would be different.

The Sigma is mainly for that you know the alloy and composition then check if it is what it says, not the other way around. XRF needs to be used if the alloy is not sure or the alloy is not set up within the Sigma. However, one problem with XRF is that it cannot penetrate deep enough into the alloy if it is heavily plated. 

[BullionMan89]

As the seller of these coins I am happy to respond.

The coins were sold to me by a fairly big and very experienced gold dealer where they would have been XRF tested prior to my purchase. I am not willing to name the dealer until I have carried out further tests and spoken to them directly as I don't think that would be fair. That said I think many people on this forum would know the name.

Two of the coins came with certificates and while these don't really prove anything it does at least state what the coins are supposed to be and everything else matches up as expected. The buyer was not happy with the coins he received and asked to return them, as a gesture of goodwill I accepted the return but until I receive them back and can get them tested more thoroughly I am still of the opinion that they are 22ct. Whilst I understand the Sigma isn't completely fool proof, as stated earlier in the thread specific gravity tests can also be misread and that appears to be the only test that has been done on these coins. There is also mention of a pawnbroker looking at the coins but no testing procedures were carried out at all beyond looking at the coins with a magnifying glass.

So far we have three coins as follows:

Five Laurels (40g) - Passed both the Sigma and specific gravity tests, not sure what the pawnbroker made of it but assume all is well as nothing mentioned

Platinum Jubilee (16g) - Passed Sigma test, had COA stating details of the coin and came from the same lot as the Five Laurels so I have no reason to doubt it other than the buyer's own failed SG test. Also no comment from the pawnbroker

Brexit Coin (8g) - Passed Sigma test, buyer/pawnbroker claims 9ct inscription on the coin which if true both I and the very experienced dealer I bought from have missed. If that is the case then of course I apologise but I would like to see this for myself.

As I understood the workings of the Sigma machine there are different 22ct settings that will apply to the different alloys that may be used which is why they have different settings for Krugerrands, Britannias etc. Happy to be educated on this if I am wrong of course, I am quite new to the Sigma.

Regarding the postage costs, the buyer agreed that he would cover the return postage. I wasn't aware that he was unhappy with this arrangement but as he has now asked me to cover it I will do so. I had planned to refund postage anyway should any of the coins prove to be anything less that what I sold them as. My personal opinion is still that they are 22ct gold and I wouldn't sell any coin if I wasn't confident of the purity. I am of course willing to be proved wrong though and will update the thread if that proves to be the case.

Without meaning any offence at all, I don't think the buyer was ever 100% happy with the purchase even prior to receiving the coins and I thought I was being quite generous in accepting a return which many sellers/dealers wouldn't do.

Edited June 16, 2022 by BullionMan89

[Abyss]

Thank you Kindly @LawrenceChard really appreciate your input and expertise. I will try my best to answer your questions

Did the seller list what the coins were?

The seller stated he bought them from a reputable dealer (did not mention who)

Is he really a "reputable seller"?, and who says so?

Unfair for me to mention any names because I have been fully refunded the purchase price of the coins and they have been returned to the seller. The seller been a member on the forum since March 2021 with over 200 positive feedback.

I notice you have not listed them here, and the photos provided are not good enough to be able to easily identify what they are supposed to be.

I have posted high resolution photos in the today I have received thread here

Do you think the seller actually tested all 3, or just one?

Seller tested on three of the coins

Did he explain the Sigma reading? Did he miss anything out?

No explanation in the Sigma reading but I have seen it being used on YouTube but I have never used the machine before.

Do you have a magnifying glass? A "2" or "2.5" eyeglass is more useful than a 10x loupe.

Sorry nope all I have is my digital scales, caliper and small rectangular plastic box use for gravity testing been more than sufficient for all the coins bought so far (1 oz QB, Britannias (24ct but 5 of them being 22ct). The pawnbroker did have a eye piece magnifying glass allowed him to see inscription for 9ct gold.

[LawrenceChard]

20 minutes ago, Abyss said:

Thank you Kindly @LawrenceChard really appreciate your input and expertise. I will try my best to answer your questions

Did the seller list what the coins were?

The seller stated he bought them from a reputable dealer (did not mention who)

Is he really a "reputable seller"?, and who says so?

Unfair for me to mention any names because I have been fully refunded the purchase price of the coins and they have been returned to the seller. The seller been a member on the forum since March 2021 with over 200 positive feedback.

I notice you have not listed them here, and the photos provided are not good enough to be able to easily identify what they are supposed to be.

I have posted high resolution photos in the today I have received thread here

Do you think the seller actually tested all 3, or just one?

Seller tested on three of the coins

Did he explain the Sigma reading? Did he miss anything out?

No explanation in the Sigma reading but I have seen it being used on YouTube but I have never used the machine before.

Do you have a magnifying glass? A "2" or "2.5" eyeglass is more useful than a 10x loupe.

Sorry nope all I have is my digital scales, caliper and small rectangular plastic box use for gravity testing been more than sufficient for all the coins bought so far (1 oz QB, Britannias (24ct but 5 of them being 22ct). The pawnbroker did have a eye piece magnifying glass allowed him to see inscription for 9ct gold.

Most of my questions were semi-rhetorical.

I looked at your other post, and can see, in combo with this thread:

2021 TDC 5 Laurels

2021 Solomon Islands xxx ...

and

2020 xxx ...

So, from the above you could have looked them up. It is still worth trying now for the experience, IMO.

LMO, and numerous other Coin Marketing Companies sell TDC and Solomon Islands new issues to undiagnosed dementia patients, but even though I detest a lot of their marketing, many of the coins are not so crappy they should be melted, although it is better if they still retain their original boxes, certificates, and perfect condition.

I recommend getting an eyeglass (2 or 2.5), it should not cost more than about £5, much better value than a Sigma, and so much easier to use.

Your TSF member supplier should have checked he was giving accurate information, and the "reputable dealer" he bought from should definitely be named, IMO.

There is a "reputable dealer" and TSF member who seems to believe that owning and using a Niton tester guarantees his coins are genuine. I have previously named him.

Owning a calculator does not make someone a mathematician.

😎

 

[Abyss]

27 minutes ago, BullionMan89 said:

Without meaning any offence at all, I don't think the buyer was ever 100% happy with the purchase even prior to receiving the coins and I thought I was being quite generous in accepting a return which many sellers/dealers wouldn't do.

No offence taken as these coins were outside of the realm of what I usually buy I wanted more assurances these were indeed 22ct Gold and you provided that with the sigma test (apologies but I am not familiar with settings on the Sigma tester and took this as 100% authentic). Happy to buy Gold for spot for the purpose of re-using for Jewellery but I was always going to carry out a gravity test at home to verify for myself.

The Five Laurels (40g) passed gravity test, the Two Laurels (16g) very close maybe within margin of error but Brexit Coin (8g) was way off. I needed a second opinion that was provided by the pawn broker who had a 1 oz Gold coin on him at the time. After his comments I wanted a refund and to send all the coins back as doubt of the Gold content for the two smaller coins had now entered into my mind. The four bangles that are going to be made with the Gold are going to be passed down to my wife and kept in the family and then eventually passed down to my daughter in law (considering son only 5 years old that is a long time away). I obviously wanted the purity of what I am paying for. I could have made a mistake as I am not use to testing these smaller size coins but I hope you can appreciate once the pawn broker stated the smallest coin was 9ct at this point I wanted a refund and to call the whole deal off.

[LawrenceChard]

9 minutes ago, Abyss said:

No offence taken as these coins were outside of the realm of what I usually buy I wanted more assurances these were indeed 22ct Gold and you provided that with the sigma test (apologies but I am not familiar with settings on the Sigma tester and took this as 100% authentic). Happy to buy Gold for spot for the purpose of re-using for Jewellery but I was always going to carry out a gravity test at home to verify for myself.

The Five Laurels (40g) passed gravity test, the Two Laurels (16g) very close maybe within margin of error but Brexit Coin (8g) was way off. I needed a second opinion that was provided by the pawn broker who had a 1 oz Gold coin on him at the time. After his comments I wanted a refund and to send all the coins back as doubt of the Gold content for the two smaller coins had now entered into my mind. The four bangles that are going to be made with the Gold are going to be passed down to my wife and kept in the family and then eventually passed down to my daughter in law (considering son only 5 years old that is a long time away). I obviously wanted the purity of what I am paying for. I could have made a mistake as I am not use to testing these smaller size coins but I hope you can appreciate once the pawn broker stated the smallest coin was 9ct at this point I wanted a refund and to call the whole deal off.

🙂

A very quick test for fine gold is to heat it up to red hot.

If it retains it's colour when it has cooled then it should be OK, although I have not thoroughly checked 24ct gold-plated material.

If it discolours, then it is not 24ct.

Of course, this may not always be acceptable to the supplier, and may also cause "orange peel", which would be undesirable on valuable coins.

 

[CollectForFun]

3 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

For example, it should not have been difficult for you to Google all 3 coins, to check their specified composition. Numista is a good resource.

Good advice in general, but easier said than done for these "coins". I could not find any of them on Numista and there are generally very few hints as to them anywhere else on the internet.

Anyway, it seems the real issue is only with the smallest (Brexit) one? BTW @BullionMan89 why do you think the dealer who sold the coins to you XRF tested all of them? Do you know they do this for every coin they sell? Or is it just your assumption?

[BullionMan89]

5 minutes ago, CollectForFun said:

Good advice in general, but easier said than done for these "coins". I could not find any of them on Numista and there are generally very few hints as to them anywhere else on the internet.

Anyway, it seems the real issue is only with the smallest (Brexit) one? BTW @BullionMan89 why do you think the dealer who sold the coins to you XRF tested all of them? Do you know they do this for every coin they sell? Or is it just your assumption?

I don’t want to go in to too much detail regarding my supplier until I’ve had chance to check the coins again myself and spoken to them about it but they are a shop that buy from the public and test coins when purchasing. 

As I said I would prefer to deal with this once all of the relevant information is known and without damaging anyone’s reputation publicly. Having refunded the buyer I had hoped that would be the end of the matter and I could take it up with my supplier myself in private but as this thread was posted suggesting the coins had been sold incorrectly I felt I needed to at least comment to defend myself to a certain extent. 

[LawrenceChard]

53 minutes ago, CollectForFun said:

Good advice in general, but easier said than done for these "coins". I could not find any of them on Numista and there are generally very few hints as to them anywhere else on the internet.

Anyway, it seems the real issue is only with the smallest (Brexit) one? BTW @BullionMan89 why do you think the dealer who sold the coins to you XRF tested all of them? Do you know they do this for every coin they sell? Or is it just your assumption?

Yes, probably because TDC issue so many coins, that it might be a full time job keeping up with them, which is where any certificates often come in handy, and why I suggest that we always photograph certs at @ChardsCoinandBullionDealer, so we have a quick easy reference source for our own, and others' future use.

😎

[LawrenceChard]

40 minutes ago, BullionMan89 said:

I don’t want to go in to too much detail regarding my supplier until I’ve had chance to check the coins again myself and spoken to them about it but they are a shop that buy from the public and test coins when purchasing. 

As I said I would prefer to deal with this once all of the relevant information is known and without damaging anyone’s reputation publicly. Having refunded the buyer I had hoped that would be the end of the matter and I could take it up with my supplier myself in private but as this thread was posted suggesting the coins had been sold incorrectly I felt I needed to at least comment to defend myself to a certain extent. 

It's a good sign that you join in.

I understand you wanting full information before fully responding.

I also understand if you prefer not to identify someone who might be a regular supplier.

😎

[ArgentSmith]

1 minute ago, LawrenceChard said:

It's a good sign that you join in.

I understand you wanting full information before fully responding.

I also understand if you prefer not to identify someone who might be a regular supplier.

😎

Id wet myself if it was Chards 😃

Edited June 16, 2022 by ArgentSmith

[LawrenceChard]

Just now, ArgentSmith said:

Is wet myself if it was Chards 😃

So would I!

😎

[paulmerton]

On 16/06/2022 at 09:55, Abyss said:

Why would Sigma tester come back with results verified 22ct Gold when this not the case?

Because all it does is tell you whether the test sample has the same resistivity as 22ct gold.

It does not, and cannot, tell you that a test sample is 22ct gold.

[Abyss]

In conclusion to this tale @BullionMan89 fully refunded me the postage to and from for special delivery as he has confirmed the smallest coin is 9ct gold the other two Laures are both 22ct. I have purchased close to spot 2 x 1 oz Gold Krugerrands from @HelpingHands and @entsor thank you supplying the Gold I need to take to India for the melting pot to make my mums 70th Birthday bangles.

I have certainly learnt a few lessons myself along the way…….. 

[James32]

10 minutes ago, Abyss said:

In conclusion to this tale @BullionMan89 fully refunded me the postage to and from for special delivery as he has confirmed the smallest coin is 9ct gold the other two Laures are both 22ct. I have purchased close to spot 2 x 1 oz Gold Krugerrands from @HelpingHands and @entsor thank you supplying the Gold I need to take to India for the melting pot to make my mums 70th Birthday bangles.

I have certainly learnt a few lessons myself along the way…….. 

Glad you got sorted in the end.

Well done @BullionMan89 for making good also ( knew you would but still nice to hear)

Edited June 22, 2022 by James32

[ArgentSmith]

9 minutes ago, Abyss said:

I have certainly learnt a few lessons myself along the way…….. 

Good job didn't expect anything less, one lesson is you can rely on most of the members here to put things right if they go wrong. 

Jolly good show, I think it panned out exactly as it should have imo 👏