Argentium or sterling?

Leonid,

It’s very rare for me to criticize others’ views. You’re absolutely
wrong about this alloy’s limitations. There are silversmiths around
the world working with Argentium without having problems. Providing
you know the working characteristics of this material, there’s
literally nothing you can’t create. Stop bashing a product you’re
obviously having issues with and look at the actual results in this
gallery: http://www.ganoksin.com/gnkurl/1tb

That’s my two cents.

Jeff Herman
hermansilver

Argentium may be ok for simple projects. One or two stage
soldering. That is all. It is alloy developed for casting and not
fabrication. So if all you is finishing casting with a little
soldering, it will be fine. Anything more complex and gremlins come
out. 

I have worked with Argentium Silver for 12 years. I have only cast a
couple of things. I disagree with this opinion.

Cynthia Eid

It is alloy developed for casting and not fabrication. 

Well that’s not what the patent says Leonid.

Regards Charles A.

Well that's not what the patent says Leonid. 

One of the requirements of becoming good at anything, is to develop
understanding of the subject to enable one to cut through marketing
lingo. No manufacture is going to limit his product to a particular
application. They always go for the widest audience possible. Legal
language in patent application is also used in the widest sense
possible, because if one takes patent only for casting application,
it opens himself up for infringement in other areas.

In my mind, Argentium is useless as a fabrication medium. It offers
nothing but trouble. Resistance to tarnishing is a dreamed up
advantage. It is marketing pure and simple. Standard sterling has
been around for thousands of years. It is proven alloy. Argentium is
a flash in a pan. In another 20 years nobody would want to touch it.

Leonid Surpin

One other thing Leonid: In case you hadn’t known, Peter Johns - the
developer of Argentium - is an award-winning, London-trained
silversmith. He doesn’t come from a marketing or sales background. So
before you make another erroneous statement about the alloy, be
assured that you’re alienating a large number of silversmiths whose
egos are in check.

Jeff Herman

In my mind, Argentium is useless as a fabrication medium. It
offers nothing but trouble. Resistance to tarnishing is a dreamed
up advantage. It is marketing pure and simple. Standard sterling
has been around for thousands of years. It is proven alloy.
Argentium is a flash in a pan. In another 20 years nobody would
want to touch it. 

Once again, Leonid, an unqualified statement.

Jeff Herman

One of the requirements of becoming good at anything, is to
develop understanding of the subject to enable one to cut through
marketing lingo. 

A patent isn’t marketing, it’s a document outlining functionality,
and or recipe. Well this is how it is in Australia, and I’d assume
that this is how it is elsewhere.

The patent for Argentium, covers that is was designed to be more
than just a casting alloy, and it covers it quite well. If Argentium
doesn’t perform as anything but a casting alloy, is irrelevant to the
patent which stated what it can do.

I recommend that you read the patent before you state that Argentium
was designed only as a casting alloy.

We have seen responses that Argentium is in fact good for hand
fabrication, as people have demonstrated to you by not only giving
personal anecdotes, but providing images of finished works. I can
understand you not believing personal anecdotes, but images of
finished works should hold some weight.

In your mind, Argentium is useless as a fabrication medium. This is
because you’ve had limited or no success using it. This just means
you have no skill in using the alloy, others obviously have.

I have my limitations too, it’s nothing to worry about, it’s just
one of those things. Either the skill will develop or not, but I will
give it a chance, and even if I can’t use a particular alloy or
technique, I’m not going to say that it’s useless because I can do
it.

Regards Charles A.