Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;-jeffB, post: 8099718, member: 27832&quot;]I&#039;m not 100% on board with Sigma for gold testing. However, it&#039;s more useful than a magnet -- any magnetic fake would have to weigh <i>way</i> less than a standard coin, or be <i>way</i> thicker, because steel has less than half the density of gold.</p><p><br /></p><p>Check dimensions, check weight, and carefully check the coin&#039;s appearance. I think the only gold <i>substitute</i> that would pass dimensions-vs-weight is tungsten, and while we&#039;ve seen &quot;gold&quot; fakes with a tungsten core, I don&#039;t think they&#039;re very common yet. <i>Those</i> should still turn up on a Metalytics test.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for &quot;how temperamental is the Sigma&quot;, I can&#039;t answer, as I don&#039;t have one. I was really skeptical about their technology as a whole, until I read their user&#039;s manual, which is quite specific about what you can and can&#039;t expect from the machine. It&#039;s not perfect, but it&#039;s useful, and I think it&#039;s under $1K for a new machine, vs. over $10K for a new XRF machine.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in