Talk:Welsh gold

Untitled

justto let evryone knw that thee is 0.00000000000001 (reccuring) of welsh gold in welsh gold jewellrey, so when yare buying welsh gold you are buying it at a higher price for that 0.0000000000001 of welsh gold, you would be better off buying it in "normal gold" as yo would save yourself probably 50% of the high end welsh gold price. It is a massive ripp off and also a well guarded secret i am announcing to he world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.15.123 (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

absolutely correct. there is NO reliable scientific way of proving any gold was mined in wales, due to it all being totally fungible. that's the reason gold was ever used as money in the first place. AuntyDelusion (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

And just to let YOU know, while it may be true that some so-called "Welsh gold" jewellery contains a miniscule amount of real Welsh gold, there is also some that contains a genuine and precisely-stated amount. How do I know this? Because I have been working with Welsh gold since 1985 - some directly from the Gwynfynydd Mine and some from goldpanner friends. I originally worked in pure unmixed Welsh gold, but now create my own alloys with 5% Welsh gold, since the mine closed and panning has been banned in the Snowdonia National Park.. Please get your facts straight before making wild allegations like that. Crefftwr (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The first line says that Welsh gold is some of the most "exclusive" gold in the world. What does this mean?Plazak 13:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not very well phrased! I think it means that production is very small and that gold with a certified Welsh mine provenance can command a premium, for national pride reasons and because of the royal family connections.--mervyn 13:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

you could of atleast put a picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.51.173 (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Patronage Section

Following discussion about the perceived relevance of a sporting reference within the article, the Royalty subsection has been renamed Patronage and an appropriately-cited reference added.--John Gibbard (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed trivia and commercial links, as per Wiki policies. Peterlewis (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to labour the point but once again you've removed the Calzaghe reference, this is perfectly reasonable content and I really don't see why this editor has such an issue with it. I am not a boxing fan nor a particular supporter of Welsh gold so have no particular agenda in this regard. The information clearly supports the given patronage section. This is sadly turning into an edit war, in this regard and to avoid re-instating once more, what would make this content more acceptable to you, please outline your objections and we can propose a mutual solution --John Gibbard (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to include all suggestions made about Welsh gold by sportsmen or anyone else? If Wikipedia changed policies and included all suggestions, it would be overwhelmed. Now if Calzaghe had actually made a new boxing belt from Welsh gold that should be included. Peterlewis (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. I agree that acknowledging every reference would be mundane and have edited examples elswhere where popular culture references are tossed-in ad nauseum. but in this instance the sporting reference was a) timely (it occurred at the point the the supply of gold became publicly acknowledged as 'extinct') and b) non-royal. Up to this point the high-profile patronage was all (as my original edits last year will show) regal. To be honest we're unlikely to be deluged in this article with celebrity welsh gold references! It is ultimately a niche product in a small population, the only likely other reference would be Zeta-Jones ('Band of Welsh gold for Douglas') I'd imagine. So, how about we re-instate the content with the explicit reference to the end of economically-viable extraction?--John Gibbard (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As you know I have already added some info from Dolaucothi, and more can be added about the gold mines in mid- to north-Wales, Clogau and Gwynfynedd especially. I would like to see that part extended rather than ephemera from the newspapers. If you feel strongly about the boxing gold , then go ahead, although I think it very marginal for an encyclopedia. Peterlewis (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, I'll word something with sufficient encyclopaedic gravitas and shall leave the rest of the (more worthy) metallurgical content up to your informed eyes.--John Gibbard (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Occurance

This section needs a rewrite. Comparing a high grade pocket of Welsh gold with the present South African average is comparing apples and pears. Some areas of the South African reefs have been fabulously rich (I've seen one and it looked like Aladdin's cave when it was washed down). The Geduld No 1 borehole (1946) assayed 63 ounces/ton. As for occurance, the best values came from the vein in the Clogau shales and it was very, very patchy. The main chunk of gold for the Royal wedding rings came from the Clogau mine in the Thirties (info from an ancient local, now probably no longer with us). I'll have a go at this when I can find some reliable references. Egoli (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Distinguishability

Other than its physical provenance, is there any actual or perceptible difference in appearance (color, etc.), purity, composition, malleability? Even if there is no difference, since the non-expert reader would likely expect some distinguishing characteristics, it might be advisable to so inform us. Jackronner (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2013‎ (UTC)

The article makes it clear it looks the same as gold from other sources. Gold has only one isotope, so once included in any jewellery or other product it will indistinguishable from other sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense; this is true if it is 100% pure, but of course it never is 100% pure, unless processed to be so at fantastic expense. Quite a lot can be told about the origin of gold from analysis of its impurities, although most gold in circulation has been re-used and re-mixed too many times for this. Johnbod (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There are three objections to this. First as the article states (although without source) Welsh gold is often mixed with other gold. I would think given the non-production of Welsh gold for 14 years this must be increasingly true, so now little if anything is made from pure Welsh gold. Further gold is rarely used unprocessed in jewellery because it is too soft - other metals are introduced with their own impurities. Finally the most common claim is that Welsh gold can be detected by 'isotopic analysis' [1] but that is clearly nonsense given gold's lack of stable isotopes. Isotope analysis is a powerful technique: carbon dating relies on it. But it's simply not possible with gold.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It is the isotopes of the impurities you are analysing. I'm not really interested in your "objections" given the large body of scientific/academic material published on this, though whether Welsh gold features I have no idea - Irish prehistoric gold has a recognisable signature apparently, but then they used very pure gold. Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources (on Welsh gold obviously)? Anything I've found is either puffery from someone with an interest or stuff like the BBC throwing out 'isotropic analysis' which makes no sense with the obvious interpretation (that you're analysing gold as it has only one isotope).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Your objections were general and theoretical; as I said I know nothing about the analysis of Welsh gold. Chapter 1 of Taylor, Joan J. 1980, Bronze Age Goldwork of the British Isles, 1980, Cambridge University Press, google books covers the science, but most of it is not on the google preview. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Welsh gold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222052724/http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/mineralogy/database/?mineral=94 to http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/mineralogy/database/?mineral=94

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

"leave chemistry for 'gold' article"

Why on EARTH would you omit all chemical details to an article about the 79th chemical element simply because it HAPPENED to be mined in wales? Absurd.

50% OF THE TITLE IS ABOUT A CHEMICAL ELEMENT. GOLD. There is NO SUCH CHEMICAL ELEMENT as "welsh gold". Should this NOT be made clear in the article? The entire concept of gold is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. The entire nation of wales is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. You want to remove the only objective scientific parts of the article? Whole thing ought to be renamed to 'GOLD MINING IN WALES.'. In contrast, there is an article for 'Gold mining in scotland'. A much more appropriate name than 'scottish gold'. AuntyDelusion (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)