Specialty Metals Smelters & Refiners

Review: I sent approximately 12 pounds of Gold Filled Vintage Watch bands for gold recovery. I received a check (one month later) for $125 and change. I have consistently sold to other buyers over the past year or more for at least TEN TIMES that amount. I was initially told by Mr. [redacted] that the discrepancy could be due to my previous buyers "speculating" on the price of gold increasing. I do not know of ANYONE who would speculate over 10 times market value. I was then told that he would have the on December 12th that he would have the lot reviewed. I have emailed him at least 4 times since then and have yet to receive a response with the results of the review.Desired Settlement: I would like communication from Mr. [redacted] as well as fair compensation for the lot of Gold Scrap. $500 would suffice, even though it is still half of what I could have sold for elsewhere.

Business

Response:

Since we purchased this lot based on sorting the material, we have the lot intact as received from Mr.[redacted]. We do not agree with his evaluation of the value and propose we return the entire shipment to him as soon as the original check is received. We have attached a picture to show the material.

Review: Sent Specialty Metals microfilm to recover silver and the amount of silver recovered was inconsistent with what their assay numbers suggest should be recovered. Specialty Metals changed the terms from 85% to 80% payable after completing job. Sent film sample for assay, came back showing .185%-.255% silver content. Net weight of film processed was 23,748 lbs. x .185% = 43.933 lbs. silver x 16 = 702.928 oz. -15% to reflect the loss due to a 85% silver recovery rate is 597.488 oz. -15% for clear film /leader between reels on rolls of film =507.864 oz. So 507.864oz. Should be the minimum using the low .185% assay number. Their recovery number was 356.227 Oz. using the low number it comes up 151.637 Oz.short or 30% less than what the numbers would indicate.Desired Settlement: Arbitration, Binding arbitration. Want the number of Oz. recoverd to at least be in line with the low silver assay number of .185% and payable silver to 85% as stated in original terms.

Business

Response:

[redacted] sent us a sample of some microfiche film to test back in January 2012. We did an analysis on it to detect whether there was silver present or not, and to make sure the film would be worth processing. The sample results that we provided to [redacted] indicated the silver content present in the small sample we tested only, not the overall content of the 23,748 pounds we received. Unfortunately, an assay on one small sample of a random piece of film does not give a good indicator of the content of the overall lot. Anyone that would have processed the film lot would have come up with the same results. Regarding the payable silver, we have adjusted the lot back to the 85% payable.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Review: Incident is about Specialty Metals smelting/ refining my Gold Filled Scrap items.

1. On 10/18/15 sent email to SM requesting an estimate based on my sending them

a specific amount of GF items, that had specific stated gold content, at a specific Spot Gold price. I noted in my email that I had a degree in [redacted], and was a retired [redacted]. Also, dealing with GF items could be a problem if one is not careful. I, personally, used a jewelers loop to ascertain that each and every piece that I sent was marked with the correct GF designation, and then washed batches at a time in Hot water to remove all of the dirt and grime.

2. I spoke to Mr. Geoffrey G[redacted]. and on Oct. 21/2015 he sent me an email with

the expected return based on the information above. It was $26/ troy ounce or it's math. equivalent of $1.30/ dwt.(pennyweight). [info. only: There are 20 dwt. in one troy ounce, and troy ounces are used to weigh precious metals.] I realized that his figures were estimates and could be off by a reasonable % either way. Mr. gold also

noted that the above dollar amounts were before his deducting a $100.00 processing

fee, and then paying me 95% of that amount.

3. I told Mr. G[redacted] that I had considerable amount to send, and we agreed to my sending approx. 1000 dwt., or 50 tr. ozs. Per the [redacted], I mailed a package on 10/23, and it was received at SM @ 11:15 A.M. on Fri. 10/25/15. Mr. G[redacted] sent me a confirming email that he had received the package and that the exact weighment was

48.6 Tr. Ozs or 972 dwt. This exactly matched my figures. I asked Mr. G[redacted] to look

at the items that I sent to let me know what he thought of their condition.

4. Their stated policy is that payment will be received within 10 business days. As of today, Tues. 10/13/2015, I have neither heard from Mr. G[redacted] nor have I received my check. This afternoon I called Mr. G[redacted], and he advised that the check was mailed last

week. This was good news However, he further said that he did not look at the shipment on arrival, as I requested. I made this request because this preliminary business transaction was between him and me, with Mr G[redacted] acting as my contact agent at Specialty Metals. Mr. G[redacted] politely said that he had not seen the shipment, but would check wit the lab to see what they had to say. He also said that he would

call me by this weekend, four days from today. Since I ran a public company and had a jewelry store, I learned the importance of knowing exactly who said what to whom. This he said, she said, they said, who said, I don't know, I misspoke, what does it matter, etc. is the kind of nonsense that comes from life time politicians like [redacted].

4. What initiated my filing this complaint is that Mr. G[redacted] said that the check was in the amount of approx. $759.00 My shipment of 972 dwt. of marked GF items calculates to: 972 dwt. X $1.30/ dwt. = $1263.60

Then: $1262.60 X .95 = $ 1199.47

And : $1199.47 less $100.00 Processing fee equals $1099.47 ( Max. expected return)

5. Even though most of the GF watch bands from which the GF caps came were new, in my own calculations I allowed for an additional loss of 10% to 15% of the gold tops to be reasonable,

A 10% additional loss equals the $1099.47 minus $110.00 = $989.00

A 15% additional loss equals the $1099.47 minus $165.00 = $934.00

The $759.00 that Mr. Gold mentioned as the amount of the check is a loss of

31% or $340.00 to me. This is unreasonable and not acceptable.

Thank you, [redacted]Desired Settlement: I realize that Specialty Metals has to make a profit to stay in business. However,

in this instance, I did everything that I knew to do to attempt to establish a relationship

with a refiner. Included were prior conversations, setting aside any bands that appeared

to have some wear, etc. Since the items are melted, and, therefore, the evidence is changed into another form, I wanted to set up a relationship of trust. I sincerely hope

that Mr. g[redacted] finds where the error occurred in their process.

I would an amount of $934.00 to $1099.00

Sincerely, [redacted]

Business

Response:

[redacted], I apologize up front for any possible errors we may have made regarding your lot. I have spoken to Mr. G[redacted], and he has explained the situation to me. We are currently in the process of reviewing your lot from start to finish, and will have more information by this coming Friday, 10/16. Either Mr. G[redacted] or myself will call you to discuss the results of our review then. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused. Please be assured we are doing everything in our power to correct the situation.Thank you.Dan F[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Sincerely,

Review: I sent Specialty Metals LLC [redacted] plus some loose catalyst to be refined for their precious metals contents. After waiting over two months for results I am shocked at what they tell me. First off is the amount of whole converters they say they processed is 565 not 628 as I counted. They tell me this is because some were not full but, I graded and looked at each one as I packaged them and if one was not full it was counted as that so I actually sent well more then 628 if I include the partials. In other word if two were half full they counted as one. Second was the results across the board were low. I graded this lot as if I were to sell it to one of my local buyers I have sold to for years. I would have made at least $10,000.00 more had I sold it locally to a middle party. This makes no sense to me. I got a lot of run around answers from them on this but none could explain the low number.Desired Settlement: I would like to know were the rest of my converters ended up. I would like to know why the results came out so low. I would like to know if this was even the lot I sent them or if I was paid for the wrong lot. I am out over $10,000.00 with no real explanation.

Business

Response:

Complaint ID#: [redacted]

Company Name: Specialty Metals Smelters & Refiners, LLC

Company Contact Name: [redacted]

Company Contact Phone: [redacted]

Company Contact Email: [redacted]

Consumer's Name: [redacted]

Revdex.com Staff Member (if you know): [redacted]

Complaint Information: We are sorry to hear that you are not happy with the return on your most recent lot. As a company that has been in business for over 33 years, we strive to give every customer accurate and honest results from the material they turn in. Regarding the can count: We count multiple converters off the same vehicle (usually smaller converters in the same exhaust system) as a single converter. Combined, they contain approximately the same amount of catalyst as a regular sized converter. We also will combine partial converters and count it as a single can. If you look at the amount of catalyst removed from the converters, we came up with 1395.72 pounds, which gave us an average of 2.47 pounds of catalyst per converter (based on our count of 565 converters). Even if you divide 1395.72 pounds by his can count of 628, you still have 2.22 pounds of catalyst per converter, which is well within the average converter content of 2.15-2.3 pounds. So, even though the can count was different, the catalyst yield overall was within the average range. Regarding the results: Processing the converters for the precious metal content is a gamble. Because each converter is different (manufactured at a different time, run on a different vehicle for varying amounts of time, etc.), the content of precious metals is always different. Just because a local core buyer or middle-man is willing to pay you a set price for a converter, doesn't mean that's what the actual yield is going to be. Since we pay based on the actual content and not a type, results are going to vary.

Sent on: 7/11/2014 11:28:10 AM

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: I understand that each converter contains different amounts of precious metals. That still don't justify why the results came in this low. And no one at Specialty Metals gave me a good answer either. I know there are some risks in this, but to show a thirty plus percent loss over selling to a local middle man instead of a profit makes no sense to me. I have been selling to the local guy for years and if they took a loss like that they wouldn't be in business long. Common sense tells me something went wrong with their processing of my lot or something at Specialty Metals and I want answers. I may never get what I feel I should have, but I want others to know that this can happen. Had I seen a complaint like this I would have never sent any converters off to Specialty Metals.

Sincerely,

Business

Response:

This was [redacted] second shipment with us. When we spoke about setting up his second shipment, he mentioned he did a little better processing the first load of catalyst compared to what he would have sold them directly to a middle-man for. Unfortunately, processing a load of catalyst can yield lower results that what a middle-man offers. If this lot was sent to another refining company, the results would have been the same. We have reviewed [redacted] lot from start to finish and everything was processed in its entirety and correctly.