Harold_V said:
Enough of your double talk. "If you are in a competitive area"? What the hell does that mean?
If you did not understand, all you had to do was ask.
Harold_V said:
You clearly stated what you did, which is in print for anyone to read and try to understand. You say don't do it.
I stated
Avoid karat gold if you are in a competitive area.
That is a conditional statement. If the condition does not apply, the statement does not apply. If my grammar or logic is incorrect, please point out why. "Avoid" does not mean do not do. According to my statement as written, it means do not
try to do
if this condition applies.
Harold_V said:
I resent you telling me that it doesn't work when I enjoyed success.
I didn't tell you it doesn't work. You inferred what was not implied. Which part of
I didn't say don't pursue the jewelry industry. I didn't say he can't compete. I don't know how you inferred that. That's how I made most of my money.
didn't you understand?
John stated
I have read GSP's posts on manufacturers waste, and am interested in pursuing this type of resource.
My statement to avoid karat gold jewelry was in relation to the parameters of his question.
A small refiner just starting out, is not going to know how to turn karat gold scrap into fine gold shot in 4 1/2 hours
Harold_V said:
Nor need he/she do so. That has nothing to do with the equation.
It has everything to do with it. If he has limited capital, he is best served to get his refined product to market as quickly as possible. He will wish to avoid a market move against him. If he can refine quickly, he will have enough time to acquire material, process it, sell it, and not run himself ragged to make a living. On the presumption that he cannot yet refine quickly, his purchasing decisions must factor in the cost of his time and labor and the volatility of the markets.
Harold_V said:
In a highly competitive market, he will most probably buy for cash on a stone test. He will not be the only small refiner doing that. He may have dozens of others doing the same thing.
Yes, I can see that in your little world, where you consider your experiences to be the standard by which all others should and will be judged, you see it that way.
You don't know a thing about my world. That is because I see no reason to brag about how big and mighty I became. Using 'The Refiner49er's' topic parameters and quotes as a guide, he presently
is in a little world. How does the fact that you refined "over a large geographical area" Help him? He is not at that stage, as far as I can see.
Harold_V said:
[I was never confronted with an issue of buying
That is all about you.
Now, about him...
What did he ask? He clearly stated
my research leads me to conclude the margin of cost vs yield is often unattractive
negotiating price on bulk quantities, and anything else that could be helpful.
it is imparitive to acquire material at the lowest possible cost.
I understood those to be "issues of buying".
Harold_V said:
[None were solicited----they came to me for the services I provided.
Did you even
read the post that started this discussion?
He stated
I am seeking advice on locating these sources, approaching and initiating contacts
How does the fact that you were established, had a reputation, and people knew of you, help him, in his state get to the point you were at? Why didn't you tell him what you did to get to that stage? That is what he was asking for.
Harold_V said:
I faced fierce competition, not only in my own town, where there were no fewer than three other options for the consumer of gold, but also from well known refining firms. Contrary to your claims, they couldn't compete with me.
Three Huh?
I had over Three
Hundred in the New York Metropolitan area.
The fact that they couldn't compete with you, as an established refiner, has absolutely nothing to do with the competition he, as a self stated newcomer will encounter,as he tries to get new customers, or win accounts over from other more experienced, better financed refiners.
Harold_V said:
It's not for me to say, but what you're discussing is in direct opposition to my experiences
Then wouldn't a more appropriate response from you have been, "John, These are the
specific techniques I was able to use, to successfully deal in karat gold scrap from jewelers against strong competition:" And then list; A), B) etc.? Rather than imperiously declaring in red letters
Harold_V said:
and then stating
Harold_V said:
If a small scale refiner can't compete with other refiners on jeweler's wastes...
...Someone please tell me how that is different from the first part of my statement:
Jewelers for bench and polishing sweeps.
In my part of the country, those are considered jewelers wastes.
You then went on to state
Harold_V said:
There is absolutely no reason why a person should not pursue the jewelry industry.
Where did I say anything about the industry? Generally, when one speaks of jewelers, they mean retail jewelers. Not the jewelry manufacturing industry, composed of casters, stampers, assemblers, production houses, etc. If that is the source of this confusion, I apologize. But you could have simply asked "What is your definition of jeweler?" rather than jump on my post.
Harold_V said:
Utter rubbish! I did none of those things and had a business that grew so large I was unable to keep pace, working seven days/week, and long hours. Do not judge all dogs as being brown in color simply because you once saw a brown dog .
And because you did not do it, he should not do it? Seems to me you are the one having the problem of going from the specific to the general (dog analogy). Nowhere have I ever said
only do anything. My suggestions are always alternatives and never exclusive or eliminate other ways.
Harold_V said:
Nothing wrong with exploring each and every opportunity, yet you continue to tell me that the exact thing I did, the thing that permitted me to retire at age 54, in relative comfort, should not be considered?.
Asked and answered.
Harold_V said:
Yes, I'm sure it did. I heard what you have said, and I understand your claim to have made
Now it's time for you to climb down from your high horse and understand that those of us that have worked in the refining arena have also had experiences, all of which are perfectly valid as examples. Yours, in no way, should serve as an exclusive example.
Show me anywhere I said that any method I used was exclusive and/or was the only way to do something.
Harold_V said:
That's what you you appear to insist on doing. Regardless of what anyone posts that may different from your experience, you want an argument, as if your way is right, all others are wrong. Put your damned attitude in neutral and stop arguing with those of us that have had different, but equally successful experiences to yours.
Show me where I have advised anyone not to do something. I have given alternative methods, usually based on reading the original post, to determine the state of development the questioner was at.
I have not been arguing. As each person's circumstances are different I give alternative methods if I believe there is another channel that could be explored. I try to give enough information in my post so that the questioner can decide which method will work best for him in his/her particular situation. If I do not know of another or better way when I read a post, I keep my mouth shut. How many posts of " I agree with this process" does a forum need?
If one states, as John did in the original topic post; "I have just started,... As I begin acquiring materials...I am new at this game," etc., I am going to give advice on how he can start in the business on $500. Were I instead to advise on how to set up a 40,000 sq. ft. refinery, that would be of no help to him. It would just be showing off.
Harold_V said:
No need. I am not confused, nor lost in your information.
I see nothing new, nothing that I don't understand,.
I wasn't answering your topic or your question, I was answering his. Because it is not new to you does not mean it is not new to him.
Harold_V said:
If you would like to become an accepted contributor to this forum, if your advice rings true, state your position without detailing that everything others have posted isn't appropriate. As an example, your comments about leaching the waste material I spoke of in a different thread. You obviously don't have a clue what I was processing, nor why, yet you insist that I would have been better off to leach.
Ok, lets touch on that different thread. Let's start by reading the post.
Harold_V said:
GeeDub said:
Harold_V said:
austexjwlry said:
Goldsilverpro
In Small Scale Refining of Jewelers Wastes by Ronald Loewen, they use a rotary cement mixer as a ball mill for grinding / reprocessing of slag.
I'd be very cautious about that idea. You may recover prills, but everything that has not agglomerated would likely be discarded.
Harold
Okay, you lost me on this one.
I used to ball mill the slag, screen the oversize out and then leach the powder.
Use the proper flux and collector and there's no need to leach the powder. Given adequate furnace time and a fluid slag, all of the values, at least for practical purposes, will have been collected. Harold
1)If he is using that tiny little book as a reference (I know the book) I presume he is not an expert.
2) I tell you point blank that I don't understand your post. I give you a reference to how I processed so you can hopefully see why I do not understand your post.
3) You respond by saying use the proper flux. If he is using that book as a reference,
he does not know the proper flux. You do not offer one. Fluxing is an art as well as a science. You have people on this forum who are jewelers, refiners, platers, miners with ore, etc. Each one of these will need a different "proper flux" for his materials. None the less,
in the post I agree with your basic premise.
4) We discuss collectors.
5) You pick a fight, and say you didn't consider it a waste of time. However, I never said it was a waste of time. I said "my time was better spent elsewhere... while I do other things". This is called multi-tasking. It is considered a more efficient use of time.
6) You state you didn't miss my point.
But you did.
I did not say do not do it, There was never a doubt of it being worthwhile, it was a statement of my belief that if you were able to do 2 things at once you would get more production. Perhaps it was my mistake by not stating "at the same time". I thought that was implied.
7) You go on about how I did not know anything about what you were processing.
Does it matter? No matter what you are processing, if you can do 2 things at once, thereby getting twice as much done, how is that bad?
All you had to say was "That process would not have worked on this particular material." that would have been a logical end of the discussion.
Harold_V said:
I achieved my goal by doing considerable research from published works from those with knowledge and credentials. I resent your second-guessing my decisions, as I resent the implication that you, somehow, know more about the point in question when you don't even know what it is.
I did not second guess anything. In the case of the above mentioned post, I supplied alternative methods that may or may not work better than yours, depending on the refiners situation. In his particular case, knowing his reference book, I did not think he would come upon the "proper flux" in his situation before he had accumulated lots of slag with metal.
Harold_V said:
Like I said, annoying and boorish. Harold
Not worth further response.
In summary; I answer questions posed at the level I perceive them to be at. If some one states he is a beginner, I will propose technology that fits his level. What I know that is pertinent to a larger more established refiner, is not germaine to his question and will not help him at that stage. So I don't get into it.
As a final note: If you can factually prove me wrong on anything I have posted...Please Do So! I am always open to new knowledge.
