If they'd appear, they will have been smarter than allowing a simple test with a known fake to discover the tester as a tampered copycat. That's why I brought up the usb stick story as an example case. Aside of this, it's not -that- easy to copy dedicated technical measuring / detecting devices. For ex, in the case of the usb sticks with fake capacity, they purchase older / outdated or quality test failed memory/controller chips on the market, to then reprogram the controller part/chip, then put them into some known brands housing. This precious metal verifier is likely a harder case, due to components / chips much less readily available, and maybe no China produced ones anyway. Remember, this isnt about this device, it's about their fake coins, they don't make money from the device, they make money from fake coins. So it will be much harder to make cheaper versions of this device than for usb sticks - important- that are convincing enough to make people continue relying on it. The particular usb stick case works in a degree, being that people buy such a stick somewhere, try to write some data on it, read it back, and yes, that works, so they think then ok I have a working / reliable usb stick. They may even give positive ebay feedback. And even later on, once they exceeded the real lower capacity, the chip doesn't report that to the OS so no error message. It silently wipes least accessed files and the copying appears to have worked. It's only when a user finally wants to put data back that is not anymore present, that they discover that something is wrong. A potential disaster since this is exactly how (incremental) backing up is done. The case of this device poses harder issues for fakers. Unlike usb sticks, they don't get their income from selling the bogus versions of this device. Unlike an usb stick, it's rather equipment than data storage as analogy to wealh storage for pm's. Unlike coins, people don't keep buying equipment. They use it till it's broken or technologically phased away. So IF they would produce a fake verifier, they have to make it working in a sufficient degree to make people rely on it at least for a while long enough to get some coins sold.
all i see is usb stick. if you were smoking what i was your reply would of simply been.. yeah aye....
Well, that's why you should buy a good quality ULTRASONIC THICKNESS METER GAUGE ..... UTM's measure the amount of time it takes sound to traverse from the transducer through the material to the back end of a part, and then measures the time which the reflection takes to get back to the transducer. With UTM's you can tweak/adjust settings(sound velocities m/s) on your metals/glass/ceramic/rubber, etc.... http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-theory/thickness-gage/ http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/appli...ry-ultrasonics/introduction-thickness-gaging/ http://www.olympus-ims.com/en/ndt-tutorials/thickness-gage/benefits/
Of course you can adjust the sound velocities to expect, without it would only be able to measure the thickness of one kind of homogeneous material and purity. For the same reason that the pmv has a range of coins programmed (however based on parameters that affect electrical conductivity). But, why would sellers on ali baba be able to sell fake versions of these precious metal verifiers, and not be able to sell fake ultrasonic thickness meters? I see XRF analyzers on ali baba. http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Niton-XL3p-XRF-Analyzer_50008034302.html "NOTE : IF YOU BUY 3, YOU GET 1 FREE" So, where exactly do you see an advantage of ultrasonic ones regarding this faking issue?
Pirocco, I'm pretty sure he realises that Alibaba could sell fake thickness gauges, however if you buy your own and ensure that it's calibrated you can do your own testing of bars for a quite reasonable price. Same goes for a PMV. Get your own, make sure it works correctly and go from there. There's no reason that the Alibaba fiends couldn't make a fake XRF too.
Ultrasonic devices can be faked too. Same case. As you say here yourself. The chance on a fake PMV is not solved by buying ultrasonic principled devices. So that recommendation "Well, that's why you should buy..." isn't a solution for this. And by the way, remember this: http://forums.silverstackers.com/post.php?tid=58039&qid=741563 Comes from some1 with some experience I think.
Yes, as long as you have a good product, calibrate it properly, there is no problems with ultrasonic devices... they work extremely well with bars..... only downturn as specified are coins.... ultrasonic devices will not work well on thickness less than 6mm.... UTM's are used by many on the PM industry....(for bars).....
Pirocco, no where did I suggest that you use an Ultrasonic thickness gauge to test coins-I'm quite aware of the limitations. It's also limited in it's application with very thin bars - users should realise this before jumping in and realise that none of these solutions are a cover all to detect fakes, but a combination of them is a very good method of detecting them. As someone who works regularly with non-destructive testing equipment, I think my credentials in this field are reasonable and I agree with everything GP said, however XRF has its limitations which are documented and it has been fooled by fakes in the past - fake Krugs have shown up correctly on an XRF. Sometimes a simple visual inspection is the best tool for the job of detecting a fake. The chance on a fake PMV is solved if you buy one from the original manufacturer - don't buy a Chinese copy and ensure that you calibrate it correctly against known real and fake items. Same goes with buying an Ultrasonic or XRF if you want to be sure of its integrity and accuracy. There are decent Ultrasonics available for under $500, some under $200, they're at a pricepoint where it isn't entirely worth the effort of making a fake device and once again, if a concerned stacker buys one, ensures it is calibrated correctly using known items and known fake items you should have no problems when it's used for the applications that it's suited for. If I was making fake items, I'd be looking at counterfeiting a $15-$20k XRF rather than a PMV or ultrasonic thickness gauge - much better profit potential. In short, don't rely on someone dodgy testing the coin/bar/metal if you can't trust them. Use your own gear that you know is correct. There's always drilling if you're really unsure.
The subjects case, and the case I continued, is coins. Fake rounds (buffalo's). And the nonfake (but tested) 1 ounce bars, also thin. And the counterfeit subject is 'making' money by selling fake coins, not by selling fake testing devices. Because a fake testing device doesn't fool people long enough to keep them buying fake coins. Throwing this all together makes a confusing discussion, it's useless to disagree with what isn't said / wasn't the subject. The topics case is one where ultrasonic thickness meters are surpassed by other methods alike that PMV. And that a PMV itself could be faked, is no reason (so no 'that's why) to switch to ultrasonic methods. That's sticking to the point, and if the point changes (thats okay), it should be said, instead of making it like a reaction / disagreement.
It would be good to know whether Otis knew those items were fake when he sold them or not. I think it's more likely he did know because I would imagine most people would at least say sorry to the buyer even if they couldn't afford to give buyer their money back. Keeping quiet is sometimes a telling answer.
And how many of those have since been resold to other members? Does anyone have a full list of what he was selling during his time here?
Checked my history looks like I purchased a couple of bars from him. They look the real deal - havn't had them tested though.
Otis is getting a lot of publicity for free. He might as well be logged in with a different username. The buyer should know his real identity.
Reminds me of the "Candy Man" killer in the US...alot of hospitals allow free x rays of candy during the Halloween period... Cheers, HAPPY STACKING
Agree. There are a few members that got banned, have been back trading here. It is a very simple process. The best person to ask is pelican.
