• The above Banner is a Sponsored Banner.

    Upgrade to Premium Membership to remove this Banner & All Google Ads. For full list of Premium Member benefits Click HERE.

  • Join The Silver Forum

    The Silver Forum is one of the largest and best loved silver and gold precious metals forums in the world. Join today for FREE! Browse the sponsors topics (hidden to guests) for deals and offers, check out the bargains in the members trade section and join in with our community reacting and commenting on topic posts. If you have any questions whatsoever about precious metals collecting and investing please join and start a topic and we will be here to help with our knowledge :) happy stacking. 

Serendipity

Fake Krugerrands or Just Low Gold Content?

Recommended Posts

Fake Krugerrands or just low gold content? Chards has discovered a major gold discrepancy in one of the world’s most recognised and trusted bullion coins - the South African 1oz gold Krugerrand. The 22 carat gold coin was found to contain nearly 2% less gold than it should have. The coin should be 916.66 parts per thousand gold, so why is it showing as 901 parts per thousand? https://www.chards.co.uk/blog/krugerrand-gold-content/507

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Serendipity said:

Fake Krugerrands or just low gold content? Chards has discovered a major gold discrepancy in one of the world’s most recognised and trusted bullion coins - the South African 1oz gold Krugerrand. The 22 carat gold coin was found to contain nearly 2% less gold than it should have. The coin should be 916.66 parts per thousand gold, so why is it showing as 901 parts per thousand? https://www.chards.co.uk/blog/krugerrand-gold-content/507

This is worrying!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it possible copper has migrated to the surface giving these results?  

I'd have expected them to test more coins or do destructive testing on one.  Given they want the assay office to engrave it I don't think destructive testing would worry them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Murph said:

Isn't it possible copper has migrated to the surface giving these results?  

I'd have expected them to test more coins or do destructive testing on one.  Given they want the assay office to engrave it I don't think destructive testing would worry them.

i expect Chard and the Assay Office have a lot of experience with testing coins and other pieces of gold. The planchette in question was defective - if it wasn't it would check out fine, that is all that matters - it was defective and resulted in a defective coin. i will take it what Chard is saying is correct, i do not believe they would have put this out if it weren't. You would have thought the South African Mint would have treated this very seriously - this is their flagship coin - unless they already know about it and they hope no-one notices.

Edited by sixgun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, goldstacker94 said:

Hm don't they say that they suspect it would only affected the 2017 series? It would be very worrying if it was across the board for all Krugs.

No - according to Chard there have been previous problems with Krugerrands.

Quote

History of Inconsistencies

This is not the first time Krugerrands have been noted as having an insufficient gold content. In 2011, some proof Krugerrands were discovered to be underweight in their gold content. 

In 2010 the specifications of three of the four sizes of Krugerrands, as published on the website of Rand Refineries, the promoters of Krugers, were discovered to be incorrect. The same incorrect information appeared on hundreds of websites worldwide.

We were the first people to spot this; we contacted Rand Refineries with our research, and after initially referring us to their incorrect "specifications" page, eventually agreed with us and corrected their errors.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the 'research' stand-up to legal/scientific scrutiny?

I note that as I write Chards have listed a 1/2oz 2017 privy marked gold proof - no stock - but priced at £1467.06. Who would be responsible for losses if any - and do Chards make a point of checking every krug they sell following-on from their 2011 success?

617849689_Screenshot_2019-04-232017GoldKrugerrand05ozProofCoinCoinChard.thumb.png.c15e8836f8cc18a8f2dad9058ed77237.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, kneehow2018 said:

Would the 'research' stand-up to legal/scientific scrutiny?

I note that as I write Chards have listed a 1/2oz 2017 privy marked gold proof - no stock - but priced at £1467.06. Who would be responsible for losses if any - and do Chards make a point of checking every krug they sell following-on from their 2011 success?

617849689_Screenshot_2019-04-232017GoldKrugerrand05ozProofCoinCoinChard.thumb.png.c15e8836f8cc18a8f2dad9058ed77237.png

 

You could attempt to alert @ChardsCoinandBullionDealer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Murph said:

Isn't it possible copper has migrated to the surface giving these results?  

I'd have expected them to test more coins or do destructive testing on one.  Given they want the assay office to engrave it I don't think destructive testing would worry them.

It would seem so from the following?

 

Quote

We sent the coin to Sheffield Assay for further analysis. The 6 trials with XRF came out at 901-902 parts per thousand gold, confirming our suspicion. 

The cupellation results however, had a mean average of 91.72 parts gold, which is what we would expect from the coin. Whilst this is indeed an anticlimax, it's interesting to know that the assay office XRF machine gave the same results as ours.

At Chard we're happy to test all incoming coins and we believe we are one of only a few bullion dealers who regularly check arriving stock. If we find something to be low gold content, we will investigate the matter, even if it means sending the coin for cupellation. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly confused?

The outcome to the story is that the "cuppellation process" (new word had to google, something learned) showed the gold coin to be what it should be, but the XRF machines at Chard and Assay centre showed an anomoly!

Take home is that the coin is OK, but dont read on XRF instrument - does that mean XRF equipment not calibrated or suitable for measuring gold content of gold Krugs? Are XRF 100% fool proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ansel said:

Whilst this is indeed an anticlimax

ergo...ego

Also what are the details of the tests carried out in 2011? - Cuppellation involved? Results presented to whom?

Further any sense of victory in 2010 appears to be with the advertising - loosley put I know. I personally wrote to them in order to correct the 200 mintage to 400 re the SA Mint 2oz Gold Proof 2019 ed. They corrected it - I didn't do a lap of honour though!!!!

 

Edited by kneehow2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good afternoon, 

Good timing with the question as we were in the process of updating the page to include extra content, the test results and more photos. We also added a conclusion and what we could learn from the process given that the ultimate destructive test by SAO was somewhat of an anti climax .......

https://www.chards.co.uk/blog/krugerrand-gold-content/507

Happy to get more thoughts and if you do find references for the historical issues we list do let us know.l A google search has failed to find anything .....

Ian

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ChardsCoinandBullionDealer said:

Good afternoon, 

Good timing with the question as we were in the process of updating the page to include extra content, the test results and more photos. We also added a conclusion and what we could learn from the process given that the ultimate destructive test by SAO was somewhat of an anti climax .......

https://www.chards.co.uk/blog/krugerrand-gold-content/507

Happy to get more thoughts and if you do find references for the historical issues we list do let us know.l A google search has failed to find anything .....

Ian

 

What about Simga Metalytics testing equipment? I thought with this you don't need to drill a hole into the piece of PM as it pentrates the whole piece, doesn't it? Is it less reliable? I'm asking because I'm planning to buy one of them.

Edited by silenceissilver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Clens92 said:

Long and rather self-righteous investigation confirms nothing new. 

 

XRF is not perfect; the only perfect method is a destructive test.

How are Chards trying to make a story out of this?

Of course the are using this to promote themselves. So what, they are a business and that's what businesses do. At least it's not a typical we are simply the best, so buy from us promotion but backed up by actual deeds. I'd rather have them testing their PMs too much rather than not sufficiently. I think self-righteous is just as inadequate an adjective to describe this story as it would be to describe your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, silenceissilver said:

Of course the are using this to promote themselves. So what, they are a business and that's what businesses do. At least it's not a typical we are simply the best, so buy from us promotion but backed up by actual deeds. I'd rather have them testing their PMs too much rather than not sufficiently. I think self-righteous is just as inadequate an adjective to describe this story as it would be to describe your post. 

Claiming to be the only bullion dealer in the UK to have rigorous testing procedures?

 

Yeah, alright... pull the other one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Clens92 said:

Claiming to be the only bullion dealer in the UK to have rigorous testing procedures?

 

Yeah, alright... pull the other one.

You have a point here, they say

" We might be the only large bullion dealer in the UK with a robust quality testing procedure."

I'm more generous with them about this than you are, as all in all I still don't consider it a version of a cheap "we are simply the best so buy from us" although this very sentence is, a bit. The reason is, you can see why they claim to be very good in testing. A bit of exaggeration and even in the subjunctive - I have seen a lot of much more annoying self promotion. All in all it's on the low end of baseless exaggeration but of course that's my subjective opinion.

Edited by silenceissilver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Clens92 said:

XRF is not perfect; the only perfect method is a destructive test

How are Chards trying to make a story out of this?

Regardless of your thoughts on their motives. It is self promotion and there is nothing wrong with that.

They position themselves as a bullion dealer but foremost as a coin dealer of long standing that has gone out of its  way to educate as well as supply.

Of course that also has an element of promotion and business sense about it, but it does make them stand out from the crowd.

This episode has been a useful report, conducted in pseudo-scientific manner and shows a willingness to refer matters to a more expert centre to help elucidate matters if necessary.

The only thing I would say is they should have waited until they had the final answer before rushing to print.🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will a final answer ever come from the South African mint? Business suicide to confirm if it is true, before you even think about the fraud potential. I would imagine they published what they have as brick wall had been met so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.