Gold buying: an industry that has to prove itself first
The customer cannot check the assay, so they check you instead. 68 percent of consumers will only use a business at four stars or better, 74 percent look for reviews from the last three months, and they compare across an average of six sources before handing anything over. Everything else in this trade rests on that.
Why this trade starts from behind
The customer brings something valuable, watches it weighed, and is told a number they cannot check. That is an unusual position, and it is why the trade attracts suspicion that individual businesses did nothing to earn.
Trust therefore has to come from outside the transaction. Consumers consult an average of six sources, and the thresholds are the published ones: 68 percent will only use a business at four stars or better, 31 percent require 4.5.
Recency does the rest. 74 percent look for reviews from the last three months, and in a trade where suspicion is the default, a profile whose last review is from last year reads as a business that stopped being recommended rather than one that stopped asking.
None of that can be argued away on your own page. It is checked elsewhere, before anybody sets out.
What can actually be verified in advance
Three things, and all three are yours to publish. The rate, with the date and time it applies to and the purity it refers to, since 333, 585 and 750 are three different numbers. The identity block, which for a business handling valuables is checked more carefully than in any other trade. And the reviews, at a rate that keeps the three month window filled.
The identity part is worth counting. Name, address, telephone and hours across six sources is 24 values, and in this trade a disagreement between two of them is read as evasiveness rather than as carelessness.
Then the legal minimum, which doubles as a trust signal: the imprint categories under section 5 DDG, and total prices including tax where you sell rather than buy.
| Item | Checkable before arriving | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| The assay | No | Trust has to come from elsewhere |
| The published rate | Yes, with date and purity | Comparison without travelling |
| Identity data across sources | Yes | Disagreement reads as evasiveness |
| Recent reviews | Yes | 74 percent look at the last three months |
| Imprint completeness | Yes | A minimum that doubles as a signal |
What not to do
Do not advertise a rate without its date. The first customer offered less will say so publicly, and in this trade that review outweighs ten good ones.
And do not buy reviews. Beyond the disclosure duty, the arithmetic fails: lifting 3.9 to 4.5 across 40 reviews needs 48 five star reviews, and a cluster arriving at once is the pattern platforms screen for and customers notice.
Questions and answers
Why is trust harder in this trade?
Does publishing a rate help?
How many reviews do I need?
What ruins it fastest?
Sources
- BrightLocal, Local Consumer Review Survey 2026 Rating thresholds, recency and the six source average
- Section 5 Digitale-Dienste-Gesetz (DDG) The imprint categories that establish who is behind the business
