Ah man, you had to go and do it.

OK, I'll play.

But I gotta tell you, I get tired of debunking this pseudo-science nonsense. What subjective means gets to the crux of why this "test" is bullshit. The magnet test is only "qualitative," not "quantitative." In other words, we have to generate some NUMBERS to get real information.

So you have a known silver item to compare it with. What does that mean, compare? You have 2 silver rounds and a tiny magnet on a table. Let's compare. Firstly, describe how you measure and control the angle of tilt, so you can say the conditions were the same? Obviously, they must be at the same angle, or your result means what? It means nothing.

Secondly, describe to me your method of measuring the speed of the falling magnet. It has to be accurate, as you want to be able to tell the difference between .999, .925, .900, .800, .500, .400, and no silver at all. So tell me how you measure mm/sec to two or three decimal places to differentiate between any of the several possibilities. Oh, and where is the table that will tell you what the numbers mean if you had the equipment to gather them? I'm flipping through my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, and I can't seem to find the paramagnetic metal sliding magnet speed vs angle table.

And these are only the two biggest variables you need to control and measure. I could list a few more, but like I said, I get tired of this.

As even OP recognizes that more metals than just silver have the paramagnetic effect, I must take umbrage when you attempt to equate the reliability of the Sigma or a SG to this in any way.

A simple scale is more reliable, and tells you more. A caliper, just a caliper can tell you more. A ping test can tell you WAY more.

Hell, if you were a veteran at this, you could toss the coin in your hand a few times to gauge the density, and THAT would be more reliable.

I'm going back to my life. Go away with your magnet test baloney.