Shocking results with Sigma Major failure

[Spyder]

Went today see a local person who was interested in purchasing a couple of sovereign. Well I took my Sigma with me to prove that they were genuine. Cut a long story short He had this gold bar which he had bought on eBay. He was suspicious and open the blister pack and it was quite shocking. We ran some test. The result were not good. Luckily for him he got his money back from the seller. Anyway he gave me this bar. I ran plenty of tests when I got back. 

This is why I do not buy Gold bars. I would advice those who have bars in blister pack to open and run proper tests. This was Perth mint fake bar. These fake bars are getting better. How would you know your bar is underweight if you do not take out of the tamper proof blister pack.  See my results. I am disappointed with the sigma.

Spyder

Edited June 12, 2023 by Spyder

[Uksilverstackers]

Are you going cut it in half if it is fake?

[Spyder]

The edge is filed and that is good enough to prove it is not gold. Why cut it up. 

[harrygill111]

That is worrying! 

[Roy]

Why are you disappointed in the Sigma?

It did its job 😇

[Spyder]

12 minutes ago, Roy said:

Why are you disappointed in the Sigma?

It did its job 😇

Only once removed from it's blister pack. How many people buy these bars and never remove then, thinking they will lose value. If that bar had stayed in the blister pack, the sigma verified it as real.

[James32]

Easiest way to tell is turn the blister pack sideways, the bar in question is far too thick. Perth mint bar's are the most faked I've ever seen unfortunately.

[Roy]

1 minute ago, Spyder said:

Only once removed from it's blister pack. How many people buy these bars and never remove then, thinking they will lose value. If that bar had stayed in the blister pack, the sigma verified it as real.

I disagree. I'd suggest your testing method was wrong, I'd use the wand for anything under an ounce sized coin.

If you had tested the bar in its blister with the wand, it would have shown 'fake'.

As for weighing the bar, you only need a control pack once, i.e. you determine the weight of an empty blister pack and add that to the supposed weight of the bar.

10g plus 0.3g for example.

[Spyder]

On 12/06/2023 at 23:19, James32 said:

Easiest way to tell is turn the blister pack sideways, the bar in question is far too thick. Perth mint bar's are the most faked I've ever seen unfortunately.

Yes, this is because you know about it. Unfortunately, there are thousands who do not know. Now say I was a crook and bought hundreds of these bars and sold them to precious metal virgins and showed then that the bars passed the sigma test. I could tell them do not remove from the tamper proof pack or you will lose value. Twenty years later, they go to sell and that point they get found out to be fake as better testing equipment would have been invented. 

I bet there are thousands out there locked away.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Spyder

[NGMD]

Out of curiosity, what is the weight in the assay? 
Does look thicker than 10g should from specs.

Thought Sigma would easily pick up that though TBH. 😡

[James32]

6 minutes ago, Spyder said:

Yes, this is because you know about it. Unfortunately, there are thousands who do not know. Now say I was a crook and bought hundreds of these bars and sold them to precious metal virgins and showed then that the bars passed the sigma test. I could tell them do not remove from the tamper proof pack or you will lose value. Twenty later, they go to sale and that point they get found out to be fake as better testing equipment would have been invented. 

I bet there are thousands out there locked away.

This I completely agree with, it's sad but very true.

[MancunianStacker]

Most US bars are probably now tungsten wrapped in a thin sheet of gold.

It’s why China insists on it being melted and re-assayed before being sent to them to be melted down into Kilo bars etc.

Ive never bought a bar of gold 😬 just for this reasons 

[Rains]

How thick  was it ?

[Gypsy]

So I take it the sigma is inaccurate?

[Spyder]

Just because you asked @Roy. I tested again with the wands while in the blister pack. The smallest would not register anything, the medium is in the photo. I moved the wand around the bar and eventually it stopped on this outcome.  The sigma should never be fooled like this 

[Spyder]

38 minutes ago, NGMD said:

Out of curiosity, what is the weight in the assay? 
Does look thicker than 10g should from specs.

Thought Sigma would easily pick up that though TBH. 😡

16.65g in blister pack

[Roy]

14 minutes ago, Spyder said:

Just because you asked @Roy. I tested again with the wands while in the blister pack.

Wow! That is both confusing and worrying.

I shall 'follow' this thread, please maintain it 👍

[Rains]

Just wanted to thank @Spyder thanks for bring this to our attention

[NGMD]

A great subject on not relying on one method of checking and the horrors an Assay can hide.👍

I like PAMP bars and check the following. This is probably the best to my knowledge I can do.

Totally agree that it is very difficult to spot fakes and is big business.

Visual check.

VeriScan website.

weigh accounting for Assay.

Measure using specialist Shadowgraph(don’t need to open). Details on PAMP site.

Sigma small wand in four places per side.

Keep my fingers crossed.

If it beats that then I’m happy with a fake.😁

I may be wrong but I thought Sigma was good to a thickness of a couple of mm?

Attached is an example of genuine dimensions including card vs Fake.

[jultorsk]

Yes, PM minted bars are notorious. PM has attempted to educate buyers but these fakes are just too ubiquitous and.. "cheap". 

Most people do not read product manuals, I know I'm one of them. Here's what I found from Sigma PMV Original's Manual:

https://www.sigmametalytics.com/_files/ugd/cdfbbc_a95f61af6c78448bbb91cf8867828c58.pdf 

 

[monkey]

Thanks for bringing this to light. 👍

Its always good to see a well documented example of when things are not as expected with multiple points of examination.

Always go for a 360 degree view of examination.

[Spyder]

9 hours ago, Rains said:

How thick  was it ?

Length 26mm

Width 16mm

Thickness 3mm. 

Would the average Joe know what they should be.  I had no clue as I have never been interested. Bought one bar on this forum and sold it within a month. I prefer coins. 

[paulmerton]

13 hours ago, Spyder said:

Only once removed from it's blister pack. How many people buy these bars and never remove then, thinking they will lose value. If that bar had stayed in the blister pack, the sigma verified it as real.

No, the sigma did not verify it as real. It verified that the resistivity of the test subject was similar to that of pure gold. Reading the instructions in full and understanding the limitations of the tools your're using is important with this sort of thing.

[Petra]

So, is this bar getting chopped or something to see what’s inside?

[Spyder]

27 minutes ago, Petra said:

So, is this bar getting chopped or something to see what’s inside?

Why ruin such a specimen. I like it the way it is.