Mr. Hong, who helps manage a relative's gold buyback shop, purchased a Hermes gold bracelet on January 6th, believing it to be 18K gold. Subsequent testing revealed the piece was predominantly 9K gold, prompting him to seek a price adjustment from the seller.

Located near Wanda Plaza in Shaoxing's Keqiao district, Mr. Hong's modestly-sized gold buyback shop displays an array of items including gold and silver bars, alongside premium cigarettes and liquor.

On January 6th, a long-time neighbor visited the shop intending to sell a Hermes gold bracelet to fund the purchase of new gold jewelry.

Mr. Hong explained that due to their nearly two-year acquaintance, he treated the transaction informally, as between friends. After a basic verification confirming the item was gold, he immediately transferred payment. The buyback price was calculated based on a market rate of 999 yuan, multiplied by 0.74 to account for the 75% gold content of 18K gold, with a 1% commission deducted. He stated he intended a profit of 10 yuan per gram on the 53.4-gram bracelet, totaling 534 yuan.

Without a spectrometer in his shop, Mr. Hong accepted the bracelet as 18K gold and transferred 38,982 yuan to the seller. He later conducted a professional test.

A video provided by Mr. Hong shows the appraiser stating the gold is "only 10K." He clarified the clasp is 18K gold, but the bracelet body is 9K. The estimated value is around 20,000 yuan, as the exact weight of the 18K clasp is unknown until separation. Contacting the seller for negotiation proved futile, as she maintained the transaction was final.

Mr. Hong elaborated that gold jewelry is categorized by purity, such as 9K, 18K, and 24K. The bracelet's body, likely 9K gold with 37.5% purity—half that of 18K—is unusual, as 10K pieces are rare. The bracelet's interior shows brand and origin stamps but no material specification, and no identical model was found on Hermes' official website, suggesting it may be an older style.

Mr. Hong previously sought mediation through the local police station. He recounted that the seller refused to engage, insisting the sale was complete. Acknowledging his own oversight, he appealed for fairness, expressing concern over the significant financial loss as an employee.

A reporter's call to the seller went unanswered. Mr. Hong noted that attempts by police using both personal and station phones, and by a lawyer, were also ignored. A text message sent by the reporter received no response.

Mr. Hong has now engaged a lawyer and plans to pursue legal action. He cites "major misunderstanding" as the basis, having trusted the seller as a friend and made full payment without thorough verification. He seeks a partial reimbursement for the difference in value, given the item's actual purity.