Very Perplexing Issue With An Apmex Gold Round

Welcome EE78!

I think your assumption is fine. It will be a little off (low), but it should get you close. Compared to a cylinder there will be differences in thickness based on the rim height and the diameter due to reeding (if it has it). Clearly there is something amiss calculating a density of 8 g/cc rather than 19.

I think the problem is with the thickness. APMEX states a thickness of 2.6 mm which seems highly unlikely considering their 1/2 oz gold round has a thickness of 1.7 mm. I'm betting that's a typo and should be about half of that. Can you measure it and see? Check your calculations using the dimensions given for the 1/10 and 1/2 oz APMEX gold rounds and you will see your assumption gets you much closer to the density of gold.

I contacted APMEX through a chat, and was informed the product manager said he had written down the thickness was 2.6 mm. After looking at examples such as the Philharmonic, which has a similar diameter and only a thickness of 1.2 mm, the product manager was going to have someone get one from the vault, remeasure, and update the website if (when) necessary. They said to check the website within 24 hours for an update.

This thread got me curious, so I checked the APMEX-posted dimensions of 1/4oz gold pieces and found -- AGE = 22mm x 1.83mm; CGM = 20mm x 1.7mm;
Philharmonic = 22mm x 1.2mm; Panda = 21.95mm x 1.53mm and APMEX Round = 21.87mm x 2.6mm. At this point, I wish I hadn't done the research.

If I was a fractional gold stacker, widely disparate and seemingly contradictory dimensions like those would be enough to make me stick with PAMP bars in assay cards.

"No problem EE78. Glad to have you here. I hope you'll stick around."

I will!

"Ha FF! I think reeding leads to the disparity between the Phil and the others. The APMEX round should be in line with the Phil based pm EE78's measurement. The panda and maple are close enough to each other considering the diameter difference. Remember, the eagles are 22 karat, so they'll be a little bigger to account for the added Ag and Cu."

Reeding is probably part of it, but my guess is that the lip (for lack of a better word) at the rim is probably quite pronounced on some rounds and less so on others (it's actually not very pronounced on the round referred to in the OP).

Depending on who maintains the company web site, not to mention their internal change request policies, it very well may take more than 24 hours to make even such a minor change. Not making excuses for APMEX here. This is just my experience in the corporate world.

If you're concerned about letting other potential buyers know the size problem, I'm pretty sure there's a ratings and reviews section of the product page. Just post your experience there with the correct size of the round.

I hate a failed test!

*** removed use of adult term from previous post that was corrected ***

"Your second statement is correct. (2) The item is not .9999 gold..
The round in the link you shown is not .9999 fine. .9999 is about 24-carat if I remember correctly. I have purchased the gold round my self the same exact one. and ran it though a acid test and found how it had failed down 22k solution,18k solution down to the 14K!!. Meaning it is only about half real true blue gold. Not only did I test, but I purchased another exact same round and sent my and the new purchase to my local gold shop (Texas Gold Lady)(in Sherman, Texas) and she conducted tests and came to same conclusion because of it failing her tests as well.

FRAUD.."


However no science like real evidence and that is interesting. REAL surpirsed APMEX of all places like kings of the PM world would be guilty of such, makes ya wonder lol....

Welcome WildTexan903. We already deduced the problem, the published thickness is incorrect. These rounds are 24 karat, as described.

Are you saying APMEX is peddling 14 karat gold as 24 karat with their name stamped on it? Did you buy the rounds from them directly?