Talk:Argentium sterling silver

Notability

I'm not convinced that this subject is yet notable enough for its own article, especially since most of the references seem on the promotional side. Are there any references which prove that this material has attained any kind of third-party fame, per the guidelines at WP:CORP? If not, this article should possibly be deleted or merged into something else. --Elonka 20:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Important to silverworking

I understand your concerns and it in particular I see why this item's significance may not be immediately obvious. Within the community of silver workers, jewelry makers and manufacturers Argentium sterling silver is a hot topic because it does not tarnish like regular silver (as well as a variety of other technical adavantages over standard sterling silver). Major manufactures are producing Argentium goods and as such the general public will soon be looking for information on it too.

For instance Orchid (http://www.ganoksin.com/orchid/archive/index.htm) is an international mailing list of over 5000 jewelry workers and Argentium is much discussed there including dozens of detailed technical discussions totalling hundreds of individual contributions from around the world. Articles on Argentium have been published in JEWELRY ARTS AND LAPIDARY JOURNAL (http://www.lapidaryjournal.com/) on at least three separate occasions. Technical papers on Argentium have been presented at most of the major metalworking symposiums in the US.

While Argentium is a trademarked product it is having a serious impact on the silverworkers community because it dramatically changes the way in which sterling silver is and can be worked. For these reasons I think the Wikipedia notability requirements are adequately met. I will add the citations mentioned above to the wiki article ASAP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trevor f (talk • contribs) 04:43, September 29, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, those will be very helpful.  :) --Elonka 18:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

First batch of References added. Sorry for the delay. Trevor F 02:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Useful and Needed

Granted I'm a new member.

But as a user I have used Wiki for a long time...

This Argentium entry should be allowed to stand because it is a separate subject matter of Tarnish resistant Sterling Silver.

In fact the reason I am now a user is because I was researching Sterling Silver, and Noticed something about NEW tarnish resistant alloys. The Argentium Sterling Silver was exactly what I was looking for. and I think it should be more prominently featured on the main Sterling Silver Page. Which is what I will attempt to do when I finish this post.

This subject matter in not trivial Please support it. LevAgency 16:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Patents

Any relevant patents for this alloy?

Recently we've had two listed. Both relate to silver alloys with germanium for firescale resistance:

• US Patent 6,168,071

• US Patent 6,726,877, appears to be the patent on this composition

user:195.212.199.56 has recently pointed out that US 6726877  "Silver alloy compositions" isn't the correct patent for Argentium. For one thing, it discusses silver alloys from 80% to 99%, Argentium is 92.5%, i.e. Sterling.

I'm puzzled though why that one was removed, when US 6168071  "Method for joining materials together by a diffusion process using silver/germanium alloys..." is even less relevant.

I can see some scope for keeping both patent refs, suitably annotated, as they're both related to silver/germanium for the purpose of resisting scaling effects. Neither would I disagree with a purist editor who saw both as too far removed. Seems strange to keep one of them though? Ideally of course, we need the relevant one!

Also, my apologies to user:195.212.199.56 for distrusting their edit at first. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias in favour of the product

The article mentions note of the drawbacks of using this material in favour of 'standard sterling silver'. i know people have had trouble with cracking under heat. having said this, the tarnish proof silver is a massively important development in precious metallurgy. i would just like a more balanced article. Eutectics, 12/07/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eutectics (talk • contribs) 10:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia article resembling an advertisement more than anything else

The chart is from the "Argentium" company (which indicates nohting at all and is a simple commercial empirical chart meant for giving "an idea" to the customer ) , the tests are said to have been successfull but no explanation nor peer reviewed ref is given to compare that alloy with dozens of other non-tarnishing silver alloys, because all the info in this article is coming from the ...Argentium company. This has to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

REPLY : The Argentium silver article has in-line citations as required by Wikipedia. The citations reference the information in the article to peer reviewed papers presented at International conferences.Pnjohns42 (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

REPLY: I agree with the above user. A lot of the article is informative, but the latter part is written more as to sell Argentium rather than to explain it. The absolute lack of any and all criticism or exploration of the downsides of using Argentium (most notably price) are not mentioned at all.

I wouldn't be so opposed to the advertisement sections if there was an additional addition of the downsides of using Argentium over Sterling Silver. I would do so myself, but to explore the downsides you would need personal experience, and I have not yet cast Argentium. Metalsand (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a more fundamental question here. The stuff was developed by a man called Peter Johns. Is User:Pnjohns42 this man? Presumably so, in which case the article is a massive conflict of interest problem and could probably be deleted on those grounds. 46.208.121.168 (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Argentium silver alloys

The article's lead refers only to 960 Argentium. In fact two alloys are produced, one at 935/1000 which comfortably exceeds Sterling standard and one at 960/1000 which exceeds the Britannia standard. Plantsurfer (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Legislation requires that for a silver alloy to meet the sterling standard it must have a minimum of 925 parts per thousand of silver. The legislation does not give an upper limit to the standard, nor does it specify what the rest of the alloy must be. For technical reasons it is very common for sterling alloys to have a silver content that exceed the 925 standard. --Pnjohns42 (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Valuable Subject, Wrong Author

While I appreciate this article and Mr John's invention and personal contribution to the subject, he is simply the wrong author for this entry. The reason I am on the talk page is that I could just feel the promotion and self congratulations seething through the text. This text is in serious need of balance and a different tone completely. This is not up to the very high standard of Wikipedia. There is apparently some downsides to using Argentium, it cost about $4 per ounce more than sterling, it requires more care in use, it appears to be as temperamental as white gold, it slumps under heat, its harder to work. Some are worried about other forms of tarnish and stain. Since it does tarnish, a comparison of the rate of tarnish with sterling silver should be mentioned. Apparently, North American smiths must activate the metal using heat, because the product is not produced properly in North America. It uses the same mills as Sterling and is not oxygen activated? Essentially it just needs an annealing process, so no big deal in the end; but that should be mentioned, its pretty important.

Some mentioned storing in special bags, how is it effected by the presence of other metals or atmospheric effects? Here is an interesting quote:

"This property loves oxygen unlike copper, it will create stain. On the other hand, germanium bond forms a protective wall so that sulfide doesn’t have contact with the copper in the alloy and the chemical reaction that will allow the product to experience discolours will be prevented." Reference: http://www.touchmetal.com/argentium-silver-jewelry-an-overview/

So it has unique staining problems?

A balanced article would be very helpful for people to make a decision on its use. At this point, I can't trust this article, or find any reliable sources for its use, so I will not use the product. I think this is the opposite of what Mr Johns wants.

Reference here: https://www.etsy.com/forums_thread.php?thread_id=5968185&page=2 https://orchid.ganoksin.com/t/argentium-experimentation/26874/6

There was an article here, someone may find it on the Wayback machine? http://www.cynthiaeid.com/ms-05-07.html

If Mr Johns is to continue as a contributor (I am assuming from the login, he's the author) then he should present the information from a proper disintrested scientific perspective and someone else should edit the page, not Mr. Johns.

Thank you for reading this, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuevobat (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is valuable, and as it stands now, I don't find it unbalanced in any way. I found it by searching for: stainless silver alloy. Stainless silver of this degree of purity is a big deal; the fact that silver of comparable purity normally tarnishes badly is a big drawback to its use. I'd never heard of argentium, the company that makes it, or the inventor before doing the search. I'd like to see an additional piece of information: the expiry date of the patent. Longitude2 (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)