We Buy Broken Gold
laphamsquarterly.org
laphamsquarterly.org
/s
"Look honey, you could stand on tradition and insist on an overly ostentatious ring... or I can get you a Lexus. Up to you!"
"Oh that ring's lovely, did you see my wedding gift? It's parked just outside."
If this kind of gift is made to be symbolic of your relationship, then a car (or any other heavily depreciating asset) isn't the best symbol.
One of my friends got an olive tree for her 25th wedding anniversary. I thought that was a great gift.
And diamonds are a heavily depreciating asset. A car loses about 10% of its value the second you sign the purchase contract. With a diamond ring, it's more like 60%.
Let those who can afford it buy it, I'm sure it gives pleasure to many people. It's also a status symbol - just like cars, luxury watches, handbags etc.
I understand I got ripped off at the point of sale (that's just how it works), but as per this article, I could very easily get ripped off selling it back.
Unfortunately I really have no idea how to get rid of it and get a reasonable value for it - or what that value is.
The markup on diamonds has dropped dramatically since the internet started making them a commodity. What used to be a 4x to 5x markup is now 2x. If you think 2x is high, look at Starbucks. The design, the art, the emotion has zero value.
If you decide to sell look at price listings at a site like Pricescope to see what new, unset, diamonds are selling for at bottom retail. If you can get 40% of that you are doing great because the seller is already buying at 50% to 60% of that price so anything more than 40% means it would be easier to just buy from his normal supplier rather than deal with an off the street buy.
Diamonds and jewelry are NOT investments. They are luxury items. Very very few things maintain their value once you walk out of the store with them. Cars, boats, airplanes and so on. Luxury items. To think you can sell it back for anywhere near what you paid is unrealistic to begin with. And one last thing. If anyone that tells you a diamond is an investment, run.
... are not one of them. Unless you're buying a Lamborghini, the minute you drive it out of the saloon you've already lost 30% to 50% of its price.
It is appropriately titled, "Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?"
1. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...
On the other hand I've been told "diamonds are forever" is an inside joke that means you better keep it forever because you'll never get back what you paid for it... is that true?
And I didn't really have a good answer. It just seemed like the thing to do at the time. We were both involved in picking out the rings, too; it's not like I went out and bought them for her without her input.
Thankfully I didn't spend a completely insane amount of money on the rings (not compared to what I was earning -- less than a couple weeks' wages -- which is still too much, really but not the crazy amount some people spend). But neither of us were really ready to step that far away from what was "expected" of us, I guess.
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/GH620-Italina-brand-Classic-d...
I actually ordered one to see what it's like: The band looks exactly the same (I'm guessing it's just plated or a alloy though) and the fake diamond looks more shiny and isn't as heavy as it should be.
I guess the raw materials just don't cost that much. :)
So, a top branded (Swarowsky) quality for a 1 ct equivalent CZ will run for $2, unbranded (AAAAA) for $1 and that's when you buy them by the unit.
Good quality (AAA) one bought wholesale will not go over 0.30$. That's still for good quality, if you cut down on quality price can drop much further (try ebay-ing). Note that AAA quality is what I buy for my coloured stones and they are IMO magnificent.
The material of the ring is silver plate, so that is basically worth nothing. Even if it was solid silver you would not have 1$ worth there, so $0.10 is probably generous.
2$ is probably 500% margin -at least- on the raw material (wow!) - I would not be surprised they didn't make 100% with manufacturing and shipping included. Impressive times to be alive.
reference:
* where I buy my CZ, not the cheapest: http://www.diamondcz.co.uk/
* http://www.kitco.com/charts/livesilver.html
* some experience making jewellery
* the reason it is a hobby and not a job: jewellery price on Camden Market
(edit: formatting)
"I'd rather have nothing than a fake".
It doesn't matter how much information I provide her about the scam, it just upsets her. It's so very frustrating, and it's not entirely her fault. The idea is just so firmly implanted by the world.
Now I'm betting on time, from time to time just constantly reminding her of whole rings scheme and why we shouldn't be bothered with that and should stick with a simple/traditional wedding rings.
Edit: a word
But there are alternatives:
This guy made a wirelessly powered led illuminated ring: http://www.kokes.net/projectlonghaul/projectlonghaul.htm
This guy forged a ring out of meteorite metal: http://io9.com/5907849/this-guy-hand-forged-his-own-wedding-...
Those are both, I would say, much larger investments than $2000 to $5000 dollars in money.
Tradition is sexist then, don't be sexist
You refuse to compromise; you refuse to budge; you refuse to accommodate her wish. You make her be for this gift, and you still deny her.
You even made her cry, and you post here almost proud of bringing someone to tears because you refuse to see things from her point of view?
I'm happy, not proud. I'm happy, because I'm not alone who's thinking this way. Believe it or not, there isn't a lot of people that agrees with me.
You can still get an awesome engagement ring for, let's say, $500, with no diamond, just a nice blue aquamarine or some other wonderful gemstone. Something that goes well with her eyes.
Lay it on thick. Put in a lot of effort to have it custom made. Involve her in the customizing and decision making.
But stick to your guns on the diamond. It's simply not cool.
Or find one on Craigslist but please don't buy one from a jewelry store if you can help it.
God bless!
This is where you are mistaken, to her it's not just a ring, or a scam. It's her as a little girl dreaming and looking at the engagement rings of other women, imagining the day she'll be able to 'show off' one of her own. Sad to say, but in our culture, this stuff means a lot.
Just swallow your principles and buy the ring. It's a few thousand dollars amortised over the length of the marrage. Over seven years it's like $40 a month which for a lot of HN is pocket change.
She can point to a bunch of stuff that you buy which has inflated price that you rationalise away as useful spending -- coffee from a coffee shop is a scam yet people don't think twice about it.
Edit: a word
To be honest, so is not being willing to buy a diamond for your partner that wants it, but that's the point, find another person who agrees with your expectations of them.
I couldn't imagine being happy in a relationship without learning to compromise. Only the most important things should be considered "core principles", questions of religion, child-rearing, maybe hot-button political issues, and other moral litmus tests.
Whether or not she gets the ring she wants is a silly gender identity fixation, pretty harmless in comparison. If its a core principal, then so is whether or not he's allowed play video games, or buy a motorcycle, and so on. (Btw, I'm not engaged, married, nor ever bought a ring.)
I agree, compromise is incredibly important and it's all about finding someone whose core principles are the same as yours. For me, the thought of having a partner who would argue and resent me over me not buying an expensive diamond ring would suggest a clash in core principles. But I completely appreciate that that's my own view of it.
I may change my mind to make her happy. She may change her mind because our financial situation has changed (mortgage). We may decide not to get married at all.
I don't consider this a core principle. Our views on the important stuff are very much aligned for the most part.
Coffee from a coffee shop isn't a scam because I'm paying for the accessibility, not the item itself.
Larger high grade colorless man-made diamonds aren't priced all that differently than wholesale natural diamonds and have the significant downside of having almost no resale value. Even if buyers pay 60% of wholesale for stones, it is still better than nothing.
Putting aside "fake" or not, unless you're buying colored diamonds, I don't see much point in buying lab made stones right now even if you're only concern is how pretty it is.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...
Quote from the middle of the article: Since "young men buy over 90% of all engagement rings" it would be crucial to inculcate in them the idea that diamonds were a gift of love: the larger and finer the diamond, the greater the expression of love. Similarly, young women had to be encouraged to view diamonds as an integral part of any romantic courtship.
EDIT: and this was already linked downthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9223903
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bzMrxVwl74
It's about African conflict diamonds, but also covers the DeBeers monopoly.
Cultural expectations can be a strong force, even if they were manufactured.
That makes "cultural expectations" just another euphemism for peer pressure.
Another reason not to support the diamond business is how blood diamonds are mined.
The history of diamonds is quite interesting actually: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...
tl;dr don't buy jewelry as an investment, unless you own a jewelry store
300% is not unusual for a product when you consider everything between the raw material and the finished piece in a shop. For example, even for handmade piece, the jeweller will not start from raw gold, but from sheet or wire. The markup on those, out of the refinery is already 20 to 50% and he has not even started yet.
Jewellery has as much use as any other decorative item, buy them as such. You like the craft involved in making it, go to an artist a see him working days on your commissioned( * ) piece for an insane amount of money. You don't care about the craft, just like the look - go for the cheapest possible that look good ( base metal plated, synthetic stones, machine made, ... ) Avoid anything in between IMO, to much of the value there comes from decades of marketing campaigns. If you like them anyway, go to auction ( not ebay, too expensive ) or second hand.
( * ) note that picking a stone and choosing a mount is not a commissioned piece - the jeweler will probably spend less than 1 hour working on your ring, half of that polishing it. It means going to an artist and picking a custom one of a kind design, with the majority of the work done by hand. i.e. Same difference between buying a limited print of a famous painting or go to a painter to have your family painted. Despite being the same price, only one is making an actual artist live.
A more practical problem with alternative materials is that they can't be resized (some jewelers will resize Ti a little, but it's challenging). The alternative materials are cheap enough that you can buy a replacement that's the right size, but if you're sentimental (and a wedding band seems like something one might be sentimental about) it's a problem.
There's nothing wrong with alternative materials, it's just that sometimes the drawbacks are overlooked while being dazzled by the advantages.
Cutting Stainless, Titanium rings: http://www.loupe-magnifier.com/electric-ring-cutter.htm
Cracking Tungsten rings : http://www.loupe-magnifier.com/tungsten_finger_ring_removal_...
UCSF Fresno PDF on "Emergency Hard Metal Ring Removal" http://www.loupe-magnifier.com/snowdenposter2010.pdf
So while the diamond thing was created through advertising, it persists because it has a real function. Maybe it could be replaced by something else, but that would probably be something just as useless to demonstrate commitment.
Still, if you can get by without the investment, good for you.
I see this comment every time engagement rings come up on Hacker News. Yes, it's a strong signal. But we're a bit smarter than that, and we can select mates who are smarter than that too. Perhaps this kind of peacocking will die out. Perhaps nature will select for mates who are level-headed enough to look at salary figures rather than shiny rocks. There are going to be a lot of people who realize that a down payment on a house or money in the bank will make their relationship more successful than a shiny rock will. I'm willing to bet on those people living and reproducing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory
If you change your spouse, your savings account remains the same. The ring you paid for is gone.
I like to think humans are pretty good at developing alternative strategies.
Besides, if you get divorced, you don't get your down payment back anyway.
Or maybe if you can find a way to mimic the effect, but make it useful, you have your hands on a very valuable startup idea.
I guess it would be something like helping friends move, which is considered a good signal for true friendship. I don't know (not an expert on this), maybe if you find a way to "help your spouse move" for the equivalent worth of 3 months of your salary, you are good.
Why don't you get your down payment back if you get divorced?
The whole marriage thing is also extremely expensive. I suspect for similar reasons - so that people think twice before throwing it away. In that case they also have angry friends and relatives who invested into expensive travel and presents and probably wouldn't be too happy if it was all for nothing.
But then I've also been with the same person for 19 years who also things the ring this is a scam.
That's really what it comes down to. But clearly there are many people who are quite happy making the compromise.
And how did it help the peacocks to feed itself or outrun a panther? You will say "but the ultimate goal was to transfer his genes and he did". Yeah OK, so the ring is a lie and probably first bad financial decision in a future long strike of bad ones that help dudes to get laid and then get trapped in the rat race pay check to pay check.
Putting money into a down payment for a house doesn't signal commitment or financial strength. You would have had to pay for housing anyway. Throwing away x times your monthly salary shows commitment and financial strength.
(Note my complete lack mention of any gender whatsoever, or any other characteristics. Regardless of what the population statistics may be based on any traits a person may have, what matters is whether this person standing in front of you can live within their means, and anyone has the capacity to pass or fail this test.)
You rarely or never see beautiful women dating beggars and homeless people. You often see beautiful women dating the rich.
Draw your own conclusions, but I observe and I see that financial strength is often required for attracting a partner.
Required but not sufficient.
Really, watch it. Both hilarious and sad. And yeah, "wasting" is a real thing (but as far as I know only for drinks).
Also it's harder to show off reliably.
The ring is in many ways pretty good: It's always on your body, in direct view of your peers and it had absolutely no utility to the buyer except as a gift for the receiver.
So she should pick the charity. I'm sure it's easy to find ones which the husband would not have donated to on their own.
Classification societies already by the way have established ways to do development aid verification.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary...
On the other hand, just withdrawing the amount in cash and setting it on fire might cause less harm to the world than a blood diamond. What a bachelorette party... :)
I think that's quite sexist, frankly.
Of stupidity. Or not caring about the efforts of the person who earned that money.
Most of us are way above the peacocks, intellectually.
Lol - not really. Lots of signalling going on among humans. I mentioned the high heels, but I think most womanly things are like that: long hair and long fingernails show not having to work (manually), so high status.
Even drinking and smoking could be part of the game (showing off that you are healthy enough to cope with a little poison). Many, many things - signalling theory is essential to understanding our society.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...
Thanks goodness my wife isn't into "shiny things".
Also, the beauty of a ring doesn't solely exist in the diamond, the setting is a thing of beauty - the piece of jewelery itself.
More importantly, CZ is far less though than diamonds so they don't keep their shape under abuse nearly as well. There cheap enough you could swap out the stone every year, but just keeping the same CZ in a ring does not work over a lifetime.
If a friend of mine was showing off her engagement ring and it was refracting a little rainbow on her finger in the sun (like this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/CZ_brilli...) I obviously wouldn't say anything, but come on. Getting a CZ engagement ring is going to lead to an awkward situation at some point.
Not true, cz has a visual 'fire'. Plus, most women can tell at a glance.
If you paid $10,000 for something but could generally resell it for something like that value it wouldn't be a scam. But if you buy a $10,000 ring from a vendor and try to find a way to sell it for anything like that much, you will find you can not, and not only the usual "I can't recover the vendor guarantee and reputation premium" that you'll find if you try to sell things on Craigslist or something, but you'll find that you can't even come close.
It might be tempting to get into philosophical discussions about "what is value, really?", but that would be the wrong direction to go here. I'm happy to take value as a highly subjective judgment, because that is indeed what it is. My point here is brutally practical, and, well, exactly what I said, and no more... the problem here is literally that you will find that what you've bought can't be resold for anything like what you bought it for, and where that truth comes from doesn't much matter when you're trying to resell.
The art world is radically different. It is assumed that you are a smart consumer who is expected to defend themselves. And I'd also point out that if you spend a million dollars on something that turns out to be a really high quality forgery worth about $5K on the open market, we still call that a scam.
The diamond I have was purchased at wholesale price and custom made into a setting - it wasn't some off the shelf piece from Tiffany's. I think that where you purchase the jewelery from can also make a significant difference to its resale value.
A: Nowhere near as much, and B: That's what I was referring to with the "vendor guarantee"... the reason why your car loses its value when you drive it off the lot is obviously not that the car changes meaningfully, but that in the somewhat scammy world of used cars you will not be able to establish to anyone that your car really is brand new anymore, so you take a hit based on the fact that you do not have a reputation that says "I am $CAR Dealership XYZ and I stake my name on the fact this really is a brand new $CAR straight from the factory".
(Incidentally, to some extent, note that when people suggest that the solution is to always buy used, they often aren't taking that into account properly in their zeal to make their point. You're paying less precisely because the odds of you being scammed just went up. If you are, for instance, someone very likely to be able to detect scams, by all means, go collect your "knowledge premium" from the market and buy used. But if you are not such a person, think twice. I don't mean "never do it"... I just mean, think twice. I have family that was taken for a ride by buying used when they "couldn't afford" new... well, it turns out they couldn't afford "scammy used" either....)
Yes, that is one solution to the conundrum, buy at actual market value. In the longterm that's an unstable solution... if rings lose their signaling value entirely (see other comments), then the eventual stable solution is not to buy them at all. However, in the meantime, what the eventual stable solution 50 years from now will be isn't actionable today, so by all means buy something that impresses your friends and pocket the difference. My wife and I went a different route and bought a nice ring with two Tanzenite stones in it for, IIRC, on the order of $250 1999-dollars, and I still think it looks pretty nice. Tanzenite is a bit soft but we've had no problems, and I think it's beautiful but the jewelry community seems to think it isn't worth much. We were happy to come to arrangements with them on that matter. This is another way to hack the process, since people aren't consciously thinking all the way through this it can suffice to present a token similar to a "diamond ring" but that did not require the useless investment.
What does this have to do with an "open market price"? Most anything bought at retail price will not have the same resale value, that's just how resale markets work. They buy at wholesale and sell at retail. Pieces of jewelry and whatnot are not commodity bundles you can trade on a liquid market.
Retail art pieces aren't any different.. High dollar art trades at auctions (again, lots of liquidity), that's why they're easier to resell. But if you sink five grand into a piece from some gallery, good luck reselling it.
Maybe because the demand for rings is not for their commodity value, but for their signaling value? So buying a ring from Tiffany's is worth a lot more than buying one off craiglist? And they aren't scarce so jewelers don't need to snatch them up off the "open market", but they need to make high margins to cover the overhead of their fancy stores.
Are you looking for a cause to the "absurdly large" degree? Or just pointing it out as some mysterious conspiracy?
But there is a conspiracy to exploit people desperate enough to have to liquidate their jewelry. It's detailed in the article linked to by the OP. That conspiracy is what causes jewelry to have a resale value of maybe 20%. Compare this to 6-month old MacBooks Air (worth ~80% of their retail price) or a car you drive off the dealer's lot (worth ~80% of what you paid).
A piece of jewelry's wholesale value is determined by adding up the market value of its constituent components and then adding a workmanship premium. In an ideal world, consumers could buy and sell jewelry in the same way.
> Still, if you can get by without the investment, good for you.
I think you might be a little confused about the definition of 'investment'.
Peacock tails seem pretty stupid, too - but they have a purpose.
Accusations of astroturfing aren't allowed on HN. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9180466 and the links there for why.
If you believe you see evidence of astroturfing on HN, please email it to us instead: hn@ycombinator.com.
So I just stated that I wanted any future theoretical ring to have real significance, not just a purchase. I preferred there to be some history behind it. This opened a door to rework a family heirloom (with a great story) into an engagement ring. It happened to be a diamond, but this process was so much better than diamond shopping that I'm pretty sure if it had been a sapphire it would have done the trick.
It also had the advantage of a shallower cut that made it look larger than a normal cut on a stone of that carat weight, which also reduced the total cost.
I do like your idea, though. It's a bit late to be useful for me, though. ;)
We aren't short of money so the purchase of the ring wasn't a big deal - we would easily spend twice the amount of the ring's value on travel every year.
The ring is diamond and platinum and it's very strong - I've smashed it against all sorts of things, gone canyoning, scuba diving, you name it, and the platinum is barely scratched.
We plan to keep this ring in the family and pass it down through the generations. The sentimentality and 'family heirloom' qualities are also really appealing to us.
I'd much prefer this ring than a rolex, or a gold Apple iPhone for that matter!
While you're thinking, think about how it was mined and trafficked, and try to estimate the amount of blood it took to get it on your ring... It's maybe none, but you'll never know for sure...
A Rolex at least is made by skilled and respected craftsmen, rough diamonds are often the product of war and slavery...
You didn't buy the ring as an investment, I mean what are you going to do, take the ring back and sell it when the market is more favourable? Any profit you make will be quickly swallowed up by the divorce.
+ I'm trying to find the citation but I think the average value in the US for households in the lowest wealth quintile is > 25% of their assets.
There are many reasons why one might not want to hold cash or traditional investments. Especially if you are subject to wage garnishments, judgments, etc. As someone who has been pretty much as poor as you can be, I can say with confidence that those in the lowest wealth quintile don't have what most would consider to be a "portfolio", they are just getting by... its not a good plan to have a bunch of gold to pawn, but at least it is something that is highly liquid if necessary, as long as you can do math yourself to avoid being scammed.
Also, all investments go in cycles... if you bought and held gold instead of tech stocks in 1999-2000 you're killing it right now... if you bought gold in 2011 not so much. Poor people aren't poor because of their investment choices - they're poor because they live beyond their means and don't save.
The people who run these systems have free reign to squeeze the poor because the poor have virtually no political power. (When was the last time you saw a politician throw a 50c/plate dinner?)
Assigning any part of poverty to poor people's inability to assess gold seems bafflingly detached from reality.
A $500 ring that is repeatedly used to secure pawn loans to cover short-term cashflow deficits is a lot like a savings account which seizes 80% of value on deposit and charges a $15~25 convenience fee on withdraws.
bafflingly detached from reality
You'll find alternative financial services, including voluminous material on jewelry as a store of value and collateral for pawn loans, well-represented in the academic literature. Would you like citations?
You also are committing a fallacy of "if X is true, then I must hold an immoral position Y, so X cannot be true". But logically either Y does not follow from X, or Y is not really immoral. (X = "poor people make bad decisions", Y = "the poor deserve their poverty") This logical fallacy has got you rationalizing everything that poor people do.
A fourth possibility is that patio11 and idlewords have priors which are not absolutely continuous w.r.t. each other. I.e., idlewords' prior for patio11's hypothesis is 0, and no amount of evidence will change his mind even if he is a completely rational. (It is by this mechanism that a rational Bayesian can also be religious. )
There are also utility deposits, auto insurance, etc. But, there are a tremendous amount of free resources available to poor people, from food stamps and food kitchens to clothing. It could be easier for someone with nothing to scrape together a few thousand bucks than someone in the middle class. If your food is subsidized, your income tax rate is low, and your lifestyle costs are low, e.g. not having to insure a home or expensive car, then you should be able to save quickly.
So, I'd assert that: Impulsive people, those severely uneducated in their economic alternatives, or those with little marketable skills stay poor because they continue to make bad decisions.
Both of these assumptions are likely untrue. Poverty makes the cost of many things higher. Banking is non-trivially more expensive. Public transport often ends up more than the cost of a car, and that's assuming you can afford a season ticket. Those in poverty often cannot. Rental is over a lifetime normally more expensive than buying - and if you're in poverty, you can often expect rental to include large deposits which you often won't get back.
For the impulsive thing, see http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001209.... Essentially if you're poor, there's a good chance that your marginal utility curve is upward, rather than downward sloping. Which rewards impulsive behavior in a way that is not the case for those who meet the normal standard of living in their society.
Precious metals are like an insurance policy in that you hope they never pay off.
How else do you become wealthy and buy $3000 suits?
"“Now we multiply that by fourteen for fourteen karat and divide it by twenty-four for twenty-four karat, which is what it would be if it were 100 percent gold,” you explain to the seller. “That gives us the price for your fourteen-karat gold. Multiply that by fifteen, for fifteen grams. Now, fourteen karat is 56 percent gold and 44 percent base metal, which burns off at the smelter, so we multiply that by 0.56.
…
The real key to this scam is that you’ve deducted for the impurity of fourteen karat not once but twice: first, when you calculated the per-gram price and again when you “deduct for the base metal."
[1] http://atomicdelights.com/blog/a-glimpse-at-how-the-apple-wa...
I would like to see some standards in weighing the metals, and maybe minimum amounts required per gram of metal?(tied to market values)
The fine for breaking the law would be just enough so the average shop would think twice about ripping off the public.
No, I wouldn't expect the FBI to run regular stings, but if shop owners knew they might have a federal agent on the other side of the counter they just might not be such horrid individuals?
I rember being swindled over some silver when I was younger, and really desperate. I still think about it whenever I pass a pawn shop, or gold buyer.
(actually, I think some states/counties already have some laws regarding weights & measures, but precious metal buyers never get caught? I know some larger recyclers are inspected, but these little places open 24 hrs/day get way with absolute thievery? Maybe they think every sale is stolen? Or, they just don't care?)
14k Gold = (14/24) = $59.15 in gold. -25% for the store and the refiner and you are at $44.36 to buy that 14k gold band.
I just looked up that same ring on a wholesaler website and retail is $245.49 plus shipping to get it to the store.
That's how a ring you paid up to $250 for is "worth" $45 when you try to sell it for scrap. No one tried to screw anyone, it's just math.
No, it's 31.10g per ounce. The price of gold is always quoted as troy ounces[1]. You used the figure for the avoirdupois ounce which is used for anything that isn't a precious metal[2].
Though it doesn't really affect the argument you're making since 28.35g and 31.10g are pretty close, but how do you not know about troy ounces as a "former jeweler" (as it says in your profile)?
That's like a doctor saying body temperature is 105F or 40C.
It's that kind of stuff that makes people think that jewelers and gold buyers are crooked. Some customers--perhaps only a minority--do know the difference, and they will become suspicious and tell others.
Whenever a professional of any kind (car mechanic, doctor, tax preparer, vet) tells me something that is contrary to a known basic fact, then alarm bells go off in my head. I start thinking that this guy is either incompetent or trying to cheat or trick me in some way, and I will tell friends to watch out. Fortunately it doesn't happen all the time. I generally trust doctors for example.
In one of your other comments, you said, There are a staggering number of honest jewelers and gold buyers out there. But stories about obviously crooked people are what makes everyone say "see, these guys are ALL crooks".
Maybe the jewelers and gold buyers--like used car salesmen--have gotten the reputation they deserve.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2013/12/05/bitcoin...
[2] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-12-05/china-s-pb...