Precious metal verifier recommendations

VikingDude

I'm looking at purchasing a basic precious metal verifier. Any recommendations? How does Sigma Metalytics rate? I'm looking at their two basic sets (SM1501 and SM1501S1) from https://buysigmametalytics.com/products. Thoughts on with or without the wands?

Thank you everyone - appreciate your feedback on your experiences!

mkman123

Paging @Weiss since he has one which he uses. My friend has one with the wand but I haven't used it often enough

Mission16

I’m looking forward to this thread.

Yesterday I passed on several silver bars because there was something that didn’t feel right about them.
I’m getting to the point where a verifier is a must have tool,

Pokermandude

After having had the first PMV for a while, I now have the PMV Pro as of about a month ago. It has some neat bells and whistles. Check out their videos.

The basic PMV is fine for most applications though.

No matter which one you get, always get all of the wands. You'll want to be able to test 1 gram and 1/10 oz pieces with the tiny want, as well as 50oz+ size bars with the bullion wand.

derryb

I have the 1501 with all three wands. The third bullion wand is necessary for bigger bullion, spend the extra. Very satisfied with it. See no need to upgrade to the newer 2601.

Timbuk3

I have one and it's definitely useful and necessary !!!

derryb

Keep it mind it is a verifier. It does not arbitrarily tell you what precious metal content you have. It confirms the content of the metal percentage you asked it to verify.

Mission16

@derryb said:
Keep it mind it is a verifier. It does not arbitrarily tell you what precious metal content you have. It confirms the content of the metal percentage you asked it to verify.

So if I ask it if the item is 90% and it is actually .925, what will it say?

derryb

@Mission16 said:

@derryb said:
Keep it mind it is a verifier. It does not arbitrarily tell you what precious metal content you have. It confirms the content of the metal percentage you asked it to verify.

So if I ask it if the item is 90% and it is actually .925, what will it say?

If you set it on 90% it will indicate that the .925 is not 90%. It's a "pass/fail" test. You have to select a setting that matches what you are testing. You can't just throw a chunk of metal on it and use it to find out the percentage. It verifies the percentage/fineness you asked it to check for.

If you want to know the metal content of an unknown item, this is not the tool for you unless you test the item on each of the settings and are lucky to match one of them.

astrorat

I just picked up a pre-owned PMV (model SM1501 make in July 2015 with all 3 wands) and really like it. This is the SM1501S2 model at buysigmametalytics.com. The instrument is NOT a crystal ball for precious metals as it requires some understanding of how it operates. The online videos and the instructions are very helpful. I was unnerved as to how pure copper would "pass" as pure silver on the instrument. But a little better understanding of the instrument on my part helped. Plus, it cannot be used as the only tool for verifying metal content.

For grins, I just purchased several "pure" samples of metals to play with on the instrument and use in "measurement" mode.

If you buy from buysigmametalytics, contact him and as if there are any coupons available. He has had them in the past. He also sells on eBay, but the instruments are a bit higher to cover the eBay fees. I was going to purchase one from him and then a used one came available at a good price (I have not seen many used ones for sale).

Have fun!

Weiss

I've got the basic with the two wands. Agree with the others. On one hand it's very sophisticated and precise. But the trade-off is that it's not a mass spectrometer. You can't just plop down a coin or bar and have it tell you exactly what the item is made of.

Instead, you test your item against a known range. It sounds like splitting hairs, but there is a very real distinction and it does take some practice.

Say you've got a 1970s looking silvery round that isn't marked anywhere. You think there's at least a 50% chance that it's .999 silver (because you've used your experienced eyes, you've compared it to other rounds of a similar age, etc). So you set the machine to ".999 silver" and test your object.

If it reads outside of the brackets, then there is a pretty good chance it's not .999 silver. Bummer. But what's the next most common type of silver that rounds of this era are made of? Sterling. So set the machine to test for .925. If it reads within the brackets, you are now much closer, maybe 85% or 90% sure, that the piece is sterling. Weigh it. Compare it to others for size, weight, color. Research online. Ring test. Maybe rare earth magnets. If all of the puzzle pieces add up, then you move to 95%, maybe 97% certainty that it's sterling. Might not be perfect. But neither is just trusting someone's "sterling" or ".999" stamp.

It might not be worth the money for a single sterling silver round. But what if you're offered a great deal on a handful of sovereigns? You set the machine for "91.7% gold, balance copper" (that's what sovereigns were made of, and like many popular gold and silver coins, the machine comes with these presets).

You place the first sovereign on the bulls eye and it reads smack dab in the middle of the brackets. 95%+ chance it's good (or at least 22k gold). The next one reads smack dab in the middle. The next maybe fluctuates one spot left or right of the precise middle, but still within the brackets. You examine it and see it's an early Australian sovereign (these used a small amount of silver in the mix). 90%+ chance it's good, maybe you set it aside to test it with calipers and a scale. But...the next one you place in the bulls eye is completely outside of the brackets. You flip it over, maybe re-center the piece. Still outside of the brackets. Maybe you take the opportunity to recalibrate the machine. A few seconds later, you're back at it. Start at the beginning again. The first sovereign still reads good, the second is good, the third still looks pretty good, but this fourth one is still outside of the brackets. At this point, you know something is up. You can either reject the piece or set it aside and really work on it later.

So the machine didn't tell you exactly what these coins are made of. Instead, you asked it if it was 22k gold and it told you, to the best of its ability, yes or no. Then it's up to you to test to see if maybe it's .999 pure, or 90% pure, or something else entirely.

Mission16

@derryb @Weiss
Thank you. That is precisely what I needed to know.
I’m a great believer in reading the directions but it REALLY helps hearing first hand experience.
Now I can feel comfortable purchasing a unit.

PerryHall

Does PCGS and NGC use them?

ricko

I have considered buying one of these machines.... however, the use I would get does not really justify the investment. Still, I am thinking of it.... Darn...another contraption sitting on the shelf for use once a year... Cheers, RickO

1630Boston

This is interesting
https://youtu.be/LYQ4y99WIwY

Pokermandude

Fisch is simple and effective for determining the density of the coin. A good tungsten fake would fool it. However, it wouldn't be easy to use tungsten in a fake gold coin of 1 oz or smaller.

Still pretty expensive though for what it is. Their website shows $169 for the "Krugerrands and American eagles" Fisch, $169 for the "gold maple leafs" Fisch. If both are ordered together it's $259. Also keep in mind these are just for 1 ounce sizes.

A good ruler/caliper and scale would do just as good of a job to be honest.

coinspacks

I use the fisch devices and like them.

Their pricing has increased a lot.

I picked mine up over a decade ago...got the full set and sold off all the balances that I didn't use or want.

I have the gold krand and some silver ones as well as their ring device which filters out tungsten.

ricko

That is interesting... was not familiar with this item. I will visit their site... Cheers, RickO

1630Boston

This is one of a few videos on their site, this is for the pro model.
Very advanced.measures surface, and thru content.

https://youtu.be/o2ssrkUQK08

JohnnyCache

I've played around with a metal detector a little bit to see if it would be beneficial in establishing a baseline index for where specific coins ring up on the detector's meter within a controlled environment. (As opposed to a coin in the ground).

Interestingly enough, not only can you differentiate between various coins of unique metallic compositions and/or sizes, but you can even separate out readings between coins that are of virtually the same composition and are similarly sized. The detector indicates differing VDI readings for a 1/10 AGE vs a 1/10 K-rand, even though both are very close in size, composition and weight. Establishing that the meter can return consistent results for a specific coin.

After establishing a (known good) baseline reading for any particular coin, one could easily verify subsequent coins obtained to ensure the same reading as the known good baseline reading for that particular coin.

Just another way of checking if you happen to have a metal detector with a metered display around the house.

1630Boston

Interesting video, thanks for sharing

1630Boston

@JohnnyCache
I think the next step in you experiment should be to test your theory with some well made fakes, JMO

JohnnyCache

@1630Boston said:
@JohnnyCache
I think the next step in you experiment should be to test your theory with some well made fakes, JMO

I currently don't have any fakes but I'll look into getting some off ebay and perhaps do that.

I would fully expect the results to be completely different than a good coin.
The metal detector doesn't care how good the fake looks, if a coin has a tungsten core, or any other composition than true, the detector will react appropriately according the metal contained within. If it is different than an actual good coin, it has to read different.

I think the real limitation to this method of double checking would be with bars as opposed to government issued coins, especially poured bars or bars that are of odd size or thickness.

1630Boston

You may be on to something here.
I like you approach to finding a simple solution to an important problem
Keep us posted, thanks

topstuf

I use a special item for silver.

VikingDude

A lot of good information - thank you everyone.

astrorat

I just sent my PMV and wands back to Sigma Metalytics for the firmware update (and they will check out the unit and wands). Since I bought a used PMV, it seemed prudent.

derryb

@astrorat said:
I just sent my PMV and wands back to Sigma Metalytics for the firmware update (and they will check out the unit and wands). Since I bought a used PMV, it seemed prudent.

cost for the update?

astrorat

The charge for my model of the PMV is $50, which includes return shipping.

astrorat

I received my PMV back quickly from the update and they also replaced the power cable (which was a little loose). Richard Gordon was the person at the company I corresponded with and he was very helpful and answered question quickly and professionally.

The only odd thing was that when the unit was return, there was a small arc of dots across part of the screen. The line does not interfere with the LCD monitor and appears to be "on top" of the LCD display, but below the protective plastic cover of the display. in speaking with Richard, they don't open the case for the update, so neither one of us know what happened. He offered to replace the screen for only the cost of shipping if the line becomes a problem (see image below).

Nonetheless ... the unit is back and functioning perfectly.

ShadyDave

I've thought about buying one of the Sigma Metalytics PM verifiers or even an XRF tool. Bring it to a show and get a table a few times a year. Charge people to have you test their items for them and I bet you can make your investment back pretty quick...

CaptHenway

Found it.

blitzdude

I thought that Sigma unit was still easily fooled by silver / gold plated coins? Granted I haven't kept up on the subject in the past year or so, is that no longer the case?