# How much gold is on dinnerware? Conclusion!?



## dallasgoldbug (Feb 27, 2008)

Ive noticed several posts discussing the possible yield from plated dinnerware. The only answer I could gather from the messages was that the plated material was very thin, and would yield about $.30 per square inch of gold.

That sounded reasonable for the majority of pieces found at stores, but occasionally I would come across ones that the gold looked like it was painted on like an oil painting. 

I decided to put the theory to the test and document my findings. hopefully establishing a more accurate benchmark. 

Here are photos of the pieces I bought. 

1 9" Beer stein = $.50
2 large plated $2.00 each = $4.00
1 Large Bowl $2.00
Cup misc crap = $1.00

Total = $7.50

Normally I would have bought more, but due to the thickness of one of the plates (I MEAN 1/16" THICK with gold lumps), I was positive I had enough to base a final conclusion.

So I soaked the white porcelain pieces in water (so they wouldn't soak up the acid). Then mixed 200ml of HCL with a splash of bleach together in the large bowl. 

I started dipping and rotating piece by piece in the solution, while attempting to minimize any unnecessary glass/ceramic from entering the mix. Just in case some strange glaze or unknown chemical in the decal/paint could contaminate my brew.

Just as the others posted, the gold almost instantly disappears. This vanishing act made me question if it was really gold to begin with.

I then noticed something more puzzling. The gold on some pieces would disappear before they came in contact with the acid. OK...? The fumes...sure, but where did it go? No visible trace was evident at all. No residue anywhere. In addition the acid became as clear as water.

The fumes were about the only thing consistent with a normal reaction. 
At this point I almost tossed the entire thing and crack open a beer. I decided since I was just about finished I might as well complete the task.

Once all the pieces were processed, I diluted the acid 3 times with distilled H2O and attempted to persipitate out with SMB.

The SMB hit the liquid and had no effect on it. No color change, no precipitate, nothing at all.

I decided to let it sit for a few days, just to see if anything would drop.

After 2 days of no nothing, the liquid began to slowly change. A golden colored cloud started emerging. It took a full day for it to completely appear.

The liquid then began to separate into two layers. The top was clear and the cloud slowly moved, eventually settling at the bottom.

That brings me up to current. I decided to stop at this point, post the photos, and get some input on how to finish it up.

I guess next step is to siphon off the liquid. Should I then wash it? Or just stannic test it.


----------



## dallasgoldbug (Feb 27, 2008)

Photos of the results


----------



## Harold_V (Feb 27, 2008)

dallasgoldbug said:


> I guess next step is to siphon off the liquid. Should I then wash it? Or just stannic test it.


You have things somewhat screwed up. You should have tested the solution BEFORE attempting to precipitate the gold. You do that because that's how you determine if you have any in solution. To test afterwards serves only to determine if you have it all down. DO NOT TEST the gold that has precipitated. The test solution, stannous chloride, is a contaminant, not to be introduced to pure gold. It tells you nothing, and serves only to contaminate the precipitated gold. 

If you want to test, take drop of the assumed barren solution from the vessel that contains the (assumed) precipitated gold, and test it in a spot plate, or alternately, on a piece of paper. I preferred the spot plate, but others have their own preferences. There's no right or wrong. 

Remember---stannous chloride is the measuring stick you use to determine when a solution contains values. It has nothing to do with testing gold that is in the elemental state. 

Harold


----------



## dallasgoldbug (Feb 27, 2008)

Thanks for the input. Definitely should have tested before.


----------



## Harold_V (Feb 28, 2008)

I should have addressed your other question, the one about washing. 

Yep---I think what you have is gold----so boil it in water and HCl (tap water is fine assuming it's not contaminated with a lot of iron). With so little gold present, and it being well dispersed, it should wash quickly. Boil if for a few minutes, then rinse with tap water. There's so little present that I wouldn't worry too much about further washing. I assume you'd like to make a little button to handle. Force dry it after rinsing, right in the same beaker, then on to the melting dish. It will be interesting to see the yield, although I expect it won't be much. Be careful when pouring off the solutions. It's likely the gold will get suspended to some degree. If you see anything suspended, give it time to settle, and pour to a second container in case you lose some. 

Nice job, by the way!

Harold


----------



## Harold_V (Jul 29, 2011)

jackjames said:


> What chemicals are basically use for cleaning it ?


??
Are you asking about washing (cleaning) precipitated gold?

Harold


----------



## g_axelsson (Jan 12, 2014)

jackjames said:


> What chemicals are basically use for cleaning it ?


Do I need to reply to an old thread for a moderator to see it, or it is enough just to report it?

Göran


----------



## Harold_V (Jan 14, 2014)

The last post was by a moderator (me). It was directed towards the OP, who has not returned to the board. 
For what ever reason, his post was deleted and he is no longer shown as a registered reader. 

Harold


----------



## moose7802 (Jan 14, 2014)

Harold I believe he is talking about the broken links that the pictures are attached to in the OP's post. Just my guess I'm not speaking for him 

Tyler


----------



## Harold_V (Jan 14, 2014)

Thanks, Tyler. I hadn't considered that angle. 
I'm not up to speed on the correction of broken links---it might not hurt to flag this one again if that's convenient for you. 

Harold


----------



## jimdoc (Jan 14, 2014)

It was spam in "jackjames" post.
It appears to be gone now, so I guess Butcher got it.

Jim


----------



## g_axelsson (Jan 14, 2014)

jimdoc said:


> It was spam in "jackjames" post.
> It appears to be gone now, so I guess Butcher got it.
> 
> Jim


Exactly, the post I had reported a week ago is gone now.
There is a link to plastic dinnerware plates in his profile so only way to remove it was to delete the post.

But it still doesn't answer my original question, does reported spam show up on top for a moderator or is it hidden deep among the older threads? Do I need to make the thread current so it will be noticed?
It was only when I added a response to the thread it got taken down.

I'm aware of the load on you, our moderators, I just want to make life easier for you.

8) 

Göran


----------



## Harold_V (Jan 17, 2014)

g_axelsson said:


> But it still doesn't answer my original question, does reported spam show up on top for a moderator or is it hidden deep among the older threads? Do I need to make the thread current so it will be noticed?


Moderators see a flag, and the flag may or may not be at the top. If anyone has posted on other threads in a given forum, it moves the previous post down one line. The last thread to receive a post is always at the top, just as you see them. (That excludes stickies and other special notices, or course) 

If you report any condition, don't worry about a moderator seeing the message. We see them. After acting on the report, it is generally closed, so others don't have to spend time unnecessarily. Once closed, the flag is gone. Readers do not see the flag, just like they don't see the moderator's forum. 

Harold


----------

