# Daddy's first button



## upcyclist (Mar 11, 2016)

It ain't huge, that's for sure--a test run of karat scrap that yielded 1.98g of what looks (to my untrained eyes) to be fairly decent. What do y'all think of the pipe/purity? 



 



Apparently my notes on content (a 14K rose gold sprue and a small YG pin, part of the inquart material was a gold-plated sterling ring) are not in my notebook, so I'll have to dig that up. I'm not expecting great yield on this one--working first on safety, process basics, etc.


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Mar 11, 2016)

You have some contaminants in it but overall not a bad piece for your first try. Good job.


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Mar 11, 2016)

Barren Realms 007 said:


> You have some contaminants in it but overall not a bad piece for your first try. Good job.



How the heck can you tell there are contaminants just on the pictures provided alone? Seriously, I would like to know. I see no discoloration except by light refraction and shadow, I see a bit of a pipe and on just barely a gram which is a great sign. And the gold color looks to me like it is one color accounting for shadow, etc.

Looks, just looking at pictures that could I guess be misrepresenting color, to be a very nice job indeed. You have a pipe that looks collapsed and in my estimation, on a small bead of gold, that is a good sign.

Scott


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Mar 11, 2016)

NobleMetalWorks said:


> Barren Realms 007 said:
> 
> 
> > You have some contaminants in it but overall not a bad piece for your first try. Good job.
> ...


1.98 grams. 

The surface is slightly "hazy", i.e., not perfectly smooth and mirror like. It's definitely very clean, but with just a _bit_ of contamination. This would probably be one of those cases where GSP could sprinkle on a prill or two of nitrate or chlorate and a bit of borax and perfect the surface.

I'm not trying to speak for Barren, but that's what I see.

Dave


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Mar 11, 2016)

NobleMetalWorks said:


> Barren Realms 007 said:
> 
> 
> > You have some contaminants in it but overall not a bad piece for your first try. Good job.
> ...



Well hey you know it is my right to have a view on the subject. If you don't like it that is your right. 8)


----------



## ettran (Mar 11, 2016)

looks just right to me.


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Mar 11, 2016)

Barren Realms 007 said:


> NobleMetalWorks said:
> 
> 
> > Barren Realms 007 said:
> ...



It seems you didn't read my question or thought I was stating something very different. I asked how you can tell there are contaminants because you stated it as if fact. I am very curious in fact considering you were involved in a refining test that yourself, myself and 2 others were as well, where you created a button and sent it to the customer that was comprised in a sizable percentage, copper.

You have a right to your views, your opinions and whatever else you might think. I didn't say anything pointed at your view, I just simply asked how the hek you can tell that.

Frugal did answer, and explained why he is of the opinion there are contaminants, and by the way thank you Frugal I can respect your opinion because the pictures does show a certain amount of cloudiness that I attributed to the shadow, angle and camera. 

The right you have so far as I can see, in regards to the question I asked of you directly is your choice to answer or not. But please, lets not try to turn this into some kind of drama it was never intended to be, or twist the question I asked and pretend I asked something I did not by answering in the way you have.

Scott

Scott


----------



## 4metals (Mar 11, 2016)

The button looks pretty good to me. Is it perfect, probably not, but keep in mind that it is exponentially harder to make a very high purity gold when you are refining less than 2 grams of fine gold than when you are refining a few ounces. 

When you do the little things like filter the refined gold and melt it it only takes a few milligrams, that's 4 digits to the right of the decimal point. (as in not a lot!) That can come from the filter paper or the borax you glazed the melting dish with, the potential sources are endless. But when you melt a few ounces, the same level of impurity introduced is spread out over a larger quantity of gold. (your gold dilutes the contamination) 

Bottom line is Good work!


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Mar 11, 2016)

NobleMetalWorks said:


> Barren Realms 007 said:
> 
> 
> > NobleMetalWorks said:
> ...



That is my oponion of the button looking at the hash marks of the bottom of the button and the reflection in the top of the button. I did not say it was a bad button I said he did a good job on it. That button can have a purity of .97, .98 or .99 and still have a pipe in it, even you should know that.

You can keep on with the story of the button that I supposedly sent to someone that was comprised mostly of copper. But that is something that I did not and would not do as I have stated before but you still want to bring it up in posts. What someone does with a button after I send it to them I have no control over. But yet it is a point you seem content on harping on. So it seems that you are the one that is trying to start the drama here in the forum.


----------



## NobleMetalWorks (Mar 12, 2016)

Barren Realms 007 said:


> NobleMetalWorks said:
> 
> 
> > Barren Realms 007 said:
> ...



I don't lie, and would certainly not in regards to someone's business. We are very different people Barren, what I don't think is acceptable you might, and vice-versa. If you would like me to send you a private message with pictures of the button you sent, and the total weight after it was refined a second time let me know. I won't post here as I don't think it's relevant to the post, nor good for business as you very well might be very good at refining now. I am not seeking to defame you, only to explain why I was so curious about how you might tell purity in pictures of a small gold button, when the button I am referring to was close to the same size. I wanted to remind you of that incident because it is relevant to your judging someone's work. So far as if it happened or not, I believe the posts still exist on this forum and you might consider that before commenting on it.

I think any other responses, in regards to things that are not relevant to this post should probably be communicated via private messages.

Scott


----------



## nickvc (Mar 12, 2016)

It looks good to me for a first attempt, it's certainly better than my first button which I still have which is around 98-98%, well done and as 4metals pointed out its easier with bigger amounts in many aspects of refining.


----------



## 4metals (Mar 12, 2016)

It seems there is some old drama going on here concerning some impure buttons which has no useful purpose on the forum and especially this thread. 

So let's drop it and commend Upcyclist for a job well done.


----------



## solar_plasma (Mar 12, 2016)

Sorry, but with full zoom the only thing that seems to be hazy is the lens itself. That entire picture is cloudy. This button looks very, very much like my smaller button after I remelted and played around with them, which might have contaminated them, but they tested 99,64 at some local shop's xrf.

I think he can be pretty sure it's 99+ judging the upper side.

I haven't found out yet, what the fern like patterns that are covering the bottom do tell. Those I did not have on my buttons.

One day, we should gather pictures of different buttons in one thread and concentrate all in the forum given informations, that can help getting better in judging buttons and in having an idea which contaminants might be involved. There are a lot of contrary informations spread over the forum, I think.


----------



## glorycloud (Mar 12, 2016)

Thank you 4Metals! 8)


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 12, 2016)

solar_plasma said:


> Sorry, but with full zoom the only thing that seems to be hazy is the lens itself. That entire picture is cloudy. This button looks very, very much like my smaller button after I remelted and played around with them, which might have contaminated them, but they tested 99,64 at some local shop's xrf.




You'd better polish your screen mate because that pic zooms in and is still crystal clear and pin sharp 8) 8) 

Jon


----------



## acpeacemaker (Mar 12, 2016)

It looks like there is a distinct torn up line. If that was even an overshadow. I would think it would be a little more consistent in pattern even if straight, no matter what the surface of the button may be. Also, it looks like a small bit of black on the right side, I'm guessing borax. Upcyclist, congrats on your new found shiny!  Text me when you can if you still got my number.


----------



## solar_plasma (Mar 13, 2016)

spaceships said:


> solar_plasma said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but with full zoom the only thing that seems to be hazy is the lens itself. That entire picture is cloudy. This button looks very, very much like my smaller button after I remelted and played around with them, which might have contaminated them, but they tested 99,64 at some local shop's xrf.
> ...



No, it's the other way around, Jon, you need a bad screen to see how bad the picture is, compared to other pictures of buttons! :lol: You are right, when I lay it onto my big screen, it is not that hazy (still it is). Also on that high contrast screen I do not see any hazy surface on that button, it looks more like a lot of scratches. Those must have been from after the melt. They must be from having the button in a pocket or by wiping it with a piece of cloth.


----------



## jason_recliner (Mar 13, 2016)

The scrutiny is intense! How shiny is it? Is there any contamination? How many nines are there?
If you have to change monitor to see the flaws, they're pretty small flaws.

Remember, this is a first button. I only hope mine will be nearly this good. Congratulations on your new shiny, Upcyclist.


----------



## UncleBenBen (Mar 14, 2016)

Nice job Upcyclist! 

Can't wait to see the next one!


----------



## upcyclist (Mar 14, 2016)

Thanks everyone, for the praise, the constructive criticism, and of course for all the teaching along the way.

The color's a bit off in hand, I had to melt it a couple times, and it may have picked up some more crap along the way. My MAPP torch at home couldn't seem to hack 2g of gold, but then again I was outside and it was a little windy & chilly (40-50deg F IIRC), so I took it into the Guild shop and used an Acetylene/air torch. 

Yes, it's been banging around in my pocket, in a small plastic case, loose. Not the best way to transport gold, but hey, I'm excited over my first shiny and wanted to show it off 

I did use Harold's post-drop wash procedures, but only refined it once. I wanted to see how it came out the first time, and will probably only re-refine this one if I think I'll actually sell it. It's my first button, so I doubt it. From here on out I'll be taking more notes of weights along the way, both to build up "what to expect" for yields from different types of scrap & sweeps as well as to start tracking my performance.

Random side story: I brought in what I call "ferric-ish chloride-ish" (it's my waste acid, after the copper has been dropped with iron) for a guild-mate, since I had offered some free to anyone needing ferric chloride for etching copper & brass. He handed me a small pill bottle full of 2-3 ozt of silver bench sweeps as payment. It's not much, but certainly worth more than the waste acid I gave him, so it kinda brightened my day.


----------



## solar_plasma (Mar 14, 2016)

> Not the best way to transport gold, but hey, I'm excited over my first shiny and wanted to show it off



Hey, what do you think, why I knew this look? I took mine anywhere I went, just like a little boy with his newest toy. :lol:


----------



## goldenchild (Mar 15, 2016)

The pipe tells the whole story for me. I've had buttons and bars with the "hazy" look as well. But that haziness looks to be of a purple hue. That means it could be colloidal gold trapped in the borax. This could mean that the button is in fact extremely pure. The buttons and bars I've had XRF'd that have this haze have come out .9998. If you boil it in sulfuric acid I bet that discoloration would come right off. We could get a much better idea of what we might be dealing with from pictures of what you melted the gold inside of.


----------



## upcyclist (Mar 15, 2016)

goldenchild said:


> The pipe tells the whole story for me. I've had buttons and bars with the "hazy" look as well. But that haziness looks to be of a purple hue. That means it could be colloidal gold trapped in the borax. This could mean that the button is in fact extremely pure. The buttons and bars I've had XRF'd that have this haze have come out .9998. If you boil it in sulfuric acid I bet that discoloration would come right off. We could get a much better idea of what we might be dealing with from pictures of what you melted the gold inside of.


I may do that--thanks for the tip.

The crucible was a new hand-crucible, prepped by fluxing boric acid & borax. It's still very white (flux is still clear), but I do see a few spots of gold stuck in the flux. I tried rolling my bead around during the melt, but couldn't get them to stick. Perhaps I didn't leave it over the gold "spots" long enough for warm the flux and let the heavier gold to push through it. At least I know where part of my losses ended up 

I also have a mental note to search through the forum and see what it was that lowers the viscosity of the flux.


----------



## UncleBenBen (Mar 15, 2016)

upcyclist said:


> I also have a mental note to search through the forum and see what it was that lowers the viscosity of the flux.



A pinch of soda ash did the trick for me. The graphite rod I ordered to stir with came broken in 3 pieces.  So after I got the dish hot and my 2nd little button remelted, I sprinkled in the soda ash and used the melted button to stir as I played it around in the dish. It took a bit to get it mixed but once it did I was able to pick up the stuck beads pretty easily.


----------



## upcyclist (Mar 15, 2016)

UncleBenBen said:


> upcyclist said:
> 
> 
> > I also have a mental note to search through the forum and see what it was that lowers the viscosity of the flux.
> ...


Thanks, that was it! I need to get some, since I haven't done any incineration/ashing yet.


----------



## goldenchild (Mar 17, 2016)

upcyclist said:


> The crucible was a new hand-crucible, prepped by fluxing boric acid & borax. It's still very white (flux is still clear), but I do see a few spots of gold stuck in the flux. I tried rolling my bead around during the melt, but couldn't get them to stick. Perhaps I didn't leave it over the gold "spots" long enough for warm the flux and let the heavier gold to push through it. At least I know where part of my losses ended up
> 
> I also have a mental note to search through the forum and see what it was that lowers the viscosity of the flux.




No color or a purple/violet hue left in your dish are very good signs. Green or blue or other various colors are sure signs of contamination. I may have took this for granted when telling you but when I said to boil the button in H2SO4 I meant in a diluted solution and not concentrated. A 10% solution should do the trick. As far as your "flux", boric acid and borax are the same thing. I don't know what would lower the viscosity of it though. It would be simpler just to use less or melt at a higher temp. Using less being easiest.


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Mar 17, 2016)

goldenchild said:


> As far as your "flux", boric acid and borax are the same thing.


Not so. Borax is sodium borate, Na2B4O7·10H2O (in the case of the decahydrate). Boric acid is hydrogen borate, H3BO3.

Dave


----------



## upcyclist (Mar 17, 2016)

FrugalRefiner said:


> goldenchild said:
> 
> 
> > As far as your "flux", boric acid and borax are the same thing.
> ...


Which is why you'll see recommendations to initially prep your crucible with a 50/50 mix of the two (but either one alone works okay). I can't remember if that was Dave or 4metals or someone else who wrote that.

I didn't add much extra flux at all for the melt, but getting the crucible hotter helped get rid of some of the excess flux from the initial conditioning--that and I actually remelted the flux from the first MAPP run, because I saw gold flakes in the beads. The flux was crystal clear, and the only non-white thing in the crucible is the errant gold (looks like a few brown streaks from a distance, clearly flakes under a 10x loupe).


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 18, 2016)

I may be missing something here but I've melted a fair amount of gold buttons and smaller bars and never used anything more than Borax. I certainly haven't used graphite stirring rods either. Is there a danger of over complicating the issue here?

I appreciate that this is an art form on its own, and wouldn't even attempt to detract from the fantastic advice about it however at these quantities it appears to be overkill.


----------



## upcyclist (Mar 21, 2016)

spaceships said:


> I may be missing something here but I've melted a fair amount of gold buttons and smaller bars and never used anything more than Borax. I certainly haven't used graphite stirring rods either. Is there a danger of over complicating the issue here?
> 
> I appreciate that this is an art form on its own, and wouldn't even attempt to detract from the fantastic advice about it however at these quantities it appears to be overkill.


That is a good point. Just like anything else, you can recover and refine with some very basic tools. If you're running into certain problems, and/or you're doing large quantities, it behooves you to consider adding in more specific tools and techniques. Your particular source produces enough impurities that won't go away with the simple addition of borax? Try poking it with a graphite rod. Want to improve the purity of your final product? Try not only refining it twice, but using a different precipitant the second time around. You're recovering a crap-ton of fingers and using tin snips is killing your hands? Try a paper cutter or electric shear. Hate how long it takes to filter your stuff? Get a Büchner funnel & vacuum setup. 

The danger of over-complication happens when one can't separate the "must" steps and tools from "would improve" factors. People like you, Spaceships, certainly have the experience to know that what you already have in place works for you. You don't have to worry about graphite stirring rods or soda ash in your melts on a day-to-day basis. So for you, this info just gets stored away for potential use later, and to add them in now could be unnecessary. For someone else, it might be the perfect info at the perfect time.


----------



## Harold_V (Mar 21, 2016)

NobleMetalWorks said:


> Barren Realms 007 said:
> 
> 
> > You have some contaminants in it but overall not a bad piece for your first try. Good job.
> ...


I tend to agree with the assessment, and for more than one reason. 
First, the surface isn't bright and shiny, which is a sign of minor oxidation. You can see a difference in color between the top and bottom, and I am of the opinion that it is not just because of lighting. Could be wrong. 

The other indicator, at least to my satisfaction, is the mottled surface on the bottom. It's usually never really smooth, as it picks up a pattern from the dish, but this looks a great deal like the bottoms of the buttons I used to create when I was only single refining. 

The last thing I'd make mention of, is the pipe, while there, isn't deep and very distinct. That, of course, could be the result of how the button cooled. 

All in all, it is my opinion that for a first attempt, the quality is very acceptable. A job well done, in fact. 

Harold


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 22, 2016)

upcyclist said:


> spaceships said:
> 
> 
> > I may be missing something here but I've melted a fair amount of gold buttons and smaller bars and never used anything more than Borax. I certainly haven't used graphite stirring rods either. Is there a danger of over complicating the issue here?
> ...



You raise good points cyclist. I've highlighted the one that really stands out. To me, that is the inherent double edged sword of the wealth of resource that we have here. It is extremely easy to look at a particular issue one is having with a refine, see 5 differing methods by which that issue could be fixed and then pick the most complicated. For an experienced refiner the most complicated is likely to be within the experience and equipment range of the reader but for the newbie refiner it's very likely to be beyond both their skill and experience. In many cases the end result is an even more complicated mess than the one they began with. Why? Because a whole host of new variables have been introduced into the equation.

Sometimes the simplest path is in fact the best, especially when it reinforces and utilises the core principles of refining. 

The ideal solution would be for some brain box to design a flow chart with all the relevant yes/no/goto boxes and the relevant steps for each, but then that would be both huge, and counterproductive to people having to truly learn their art. Gifted knowledge is never as good as that which is learned from experience.


----------



## nickvc (Mar 22, 2016)

I believe there are two ways to look at gold refining and recovery.
You have the guys doing it for a hobby who want to produce the best possible product regardless of time or cost within reason, we have professionals who need high grade product for various uses and products and then you have people like me who care not what the gold assays at as I'm only after the monetary value and further refining is wasted time and money, I admit I have access to fast, cheap and reliable assays, but the extra steps to achieve high purity just can't pay.
So the question is who is right?
Easy answer, both, it all depends on your requirements and situation.
I fully understand members aiming for 999+ from their own materials so hard won and to be treasured.
I understand that in some places assays are expensive so the extra steps ensure fair prices when selling.
Again if your making alloys high purity is needed but if a little silver or copper is left it hardly matters to most jewellery alloys, we even used coins to make alloys and in huge amounts at times, we never had problems with the alloys, but obviously certain products need little to no trace elements so as the added value out ways the costs it's worth the effort to produce that high purity.
The main point is to produce a product that meets your criteria and needs, I believe Upcyclist is producing jewellery so if his little button is 995 it's good to work with, so long as all bad elements such as lead are removed he will have no problems making up a 10-14-18 k alloy to work with, simply make allowance for the base metals or silver left in the button.
Again well done, I'd be happy with that as a first try or even a third and as I stated its good to make into a nice piece of jewellery 8)


----------



## kurtak (Mar 22, 2016)

nickvc said:


> I believe there are two ways to look at gold refining and recovery.
> You have the guys doing it for a hobby who want to produce the best possible product regardless of time or cost within reason, we have professionals who need high grade product for various uses and products and then you have people like me who care not what the gold assays at as I'm only after the monetary value and further refining is wasted time and money, I admit I have access to fast, cheap and reliable assays, but the extra steps to achieve high purity just can't pay.
> So the question is who is right?
> Easy answer, both, it all depends on your requirements and situation.
> ...



*VERY* well said Nick :!: :!: :!: 

Kurt


----------



## upcyclist (Mar 22, 2016)

nickvc said:


> The main point is to produce a product that meets your criteria and needs, I believe Upcyclist is producing jewellery so if his little button is 995 it's good to work with, so long as all bad elements such as lead are removed he will have no problems making up a 10-14-18 k alloy to work with, simply make allowance for the base metals or silver left in the button.


Exactly!

And yes, I think I may have picked up some extra contaminants with remelting a few times, and it's definitely got room for improvement with a second refine, so Harold's (Howard's? lol) comments are right in line with that. It all depends on if I decide it's something I'll keep as a marker of my first run, something I'll sell, or something I'll use for casting (it's mostly a recovery of a 14K rose gold sprue). 



nickvc said:


> Again well done, I'd be happy with that as a first try or even a third and as I stated its good to make into a nice piece of jewellery 8)


Thank you (and everyone else) for the feedback!


----------



## nickvc (Mar 22, 2016)

If you decide to keep it leave it just as it is, it will make you smile in the future just because it's your first, you can always make your next batch 9999 if you want 8)


----------



## BROKE (Apr 21, 2016)

"Yes, it's been banging around in my pocket, in a small plastic case, loose. Not the best way to transport gold, but hey, I'm excited over my first shiny and wanted to show it off"



Lol 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th... heck I still till this day carry them in my pocket lol. 

Good job. Looks good.


----------

