Ebay: bought locket as gold 2 yrs ago, just found out it's not, WWYD?

cyberbob

Legally it has to have a hallmark to be sold as gold (so you can report his listings) otherwise he can only sell it as gold coloured metal. If you get it tested as he says he has you can get it hallmarked to prove it

If it's the listing I have just found the seller is a TRS and a lot of people are falling for it

soba

cyberbob wrote: »

If it's the listing I have just found the seller is a TRS and a lot of people are falling for it

What's a TRS?

Pembroke

cyberbob wrote: »

Legally it has to have a hallmark to be sold as gold (so you can report his listings) otherwise he can only sell it as gold coloured metal. If you get it tested as he says he has you can get it hallmarked to prove it

If it's the listing I have just found the seller is a TRS and a lot of people are falling for it

Not strictly true, This is what the Birmingham Assay office website says

"Before 1975, many precious metal articles (e.g. rings, whatever their weight, other than wedding rings) were exempted from hallmarking. Platinum was not hallmarked at all. Any article covered by these exemptions, if (a) of minimum fineness* (b) proved to have been manufactured before 1975, may still be described and sold as precious metal.

However, even articles which should have been hallmarked when they were made, but bear no hallmark, are now treated as exempt if they were manufactured before a specific date. Since 1999, the date has been 1920, but the amended legislation alters this date to 1950. Therefore, any pre-1950 item may now be described and sold as precious metal, if the seller can prove that it is of minimum fineness and was manufactured before 1950."

So this item falls into that category, however they do say elsewhere on the site that testing must be done independently, so the sellers own ' Check Tested' isn't actually allowed.

Soba TRS = Top Rated Seller

OP - Trading standards may be able to help you if not then you could email your local assay office and see if they think any offence has been committed.

NotSoNiftyAtBeingThrifty

Just spoken to a friend who knows about these things, and he reckons that at 26% it may not be strictly true that it is merely "plated", since 9 ct gold only has a gold content of 37.5% in any case. He thinks the jeweller meant the total pure gold content was 26% - still too low to sell as a 9ct item though.

I think the seller is perhaps being a bit disingenous in his descriptions of other lockets being "marked" as "9ct front and back" when this in effect means that they are "marked" as NOT being hallmarked at 9ct.

I can't be the only person to have bought a locket in good faith thinking it was resellable as 9ct - I won't be able to resell this in the manner it was described without lying, which I obviously won't do.

I'm going to contact the seller and ask that it is made clearer in his listings that these antique "9ct front and back" lockets (even those marked 9ct front and back) are not equivalent to a hallmarked 9ct or solid 9 ct locket, and that if he doesn't I will report him to Ebay and trading standards.

Do you reckon that is a reasonable course of action? It's the fact that he is still describing things the same way, I bet someone else is going to get stung too (or already has been).

1984ReturnsForReal_2

What kind of business told you 26%?

Small place or national company?

Seems to me you have a duty to yourself to make sure you do not take for granted what they are telling you is the truth until you have other evidence. Keeping in mind they have a business dependent on buying gold cheaper than what they can get it for or sell it for elsewhere.

NotSoNiftyAtBeingThrifty

It was a firm I have sold to before, I trust their opinion. They did take a chain and a gold charm from me but they did not want to buy the locket as it wasn't of sufficient quality. They weren't just trying to get it on the cheap. They actually turned me down. Good enough for me!