廣東清遠近日出現一起引發消費者關注的黃金飾品爭議事件。一名李女士表示，她在購買並佩戴周生生（Chow Sang Sang）足金福袋掛墜僅一天後，便發現飾品表面出現明顯刮痕，且局部浮現異常的白色痕跡，與一般消費者對「足金」耐用性與外觀穩定度的認知存在落差。由於對產品品質產生疑慮，李女士並未第一時間回到專櫃，而是自行前往當地黃金回收店，透過光譜儀進行金屬成分檢測。

根據李女士提供的檢測結果，不同測試點位顯示的金含量差異相當明顯，最低數值甚至僅有64.37%，遠低於「足金」應有的成色標準。此外，檢測報告中亦顯示樣品內含有鐵、銀、鈀等其他金屬元素，這一結果隨即在網路上引發熱議，也讓事件迅速升溫。

對此，周生生方面隨後作出回應。品牌在官方說明中強調，其所販售的足金產品皆符合國家相關標準，金含量必須達到990‰ 以上，且產品本身均印有足金標記，生產與流通流程符合規範。在處理態度上，周生生最初並未同意退貨，但在媒體關注後，改口表示「基於對消費者的誠意」，願意提供退貨處理，同時也提出可陪同消費者前往國家認可的權威鑑定機構，例如國家珠寶玉石質量監督檢驗中心（NGTC），進行重新檢測。

在技術層面，周生生則對李女士自行取得的檢測結果提出質疑，指出非權威機構使用的光譜儀檢測，容易受到表面氧化、污染物或測試環境影響，數據可能無法準確反映整體金屬成分，因此不具備作為最終判定依據的效力。

隨著爭議擴大，監管部門也已介入。清遠市清城區市場監督管理局證實已就此事展開調解。相關人員表示，目前消費者進行的檢測屬於私人行為，法律效力有限，建議由消費者與商家協商，共同委託具備資質的第三方專業鑑定機構，進行正式鑑定，才能得出相對客觀且具有公信力的結論。

截至目前，李女士表示尚未就是否接受退貨方案作出最終決定，同時也未明確表態是否同意進行權威機構的複檢。外界普遍關注，後續雙方是否會選擇透過「熔鍊後再檢測」的方式，排除表面鍍層或污染因素對數據的影響；同時，也有聲音呼籲市場監管部門應評估是否對同批次產品啟動抽樣檢測，以釐清是否存在系統性品質問題。

整起事件不僅涉及單一消費糾紛，也再度引發大眾對「足金標準」、「檢測方式可信度」以及品牌售後處理態度的討論，後續發展仍有待官方鑑定結果與監管行動進一步明朗。

A Ms. Li from Qingyuan, Guangdong, reported that a Chow Sang Sang “pure gold” lucky bag pendant she purchased developed visible scratches and white marks after being worn for just one day. Concerned about the condition of the jewelry, she later took the pendant to a private gold recycling shop for testing using a spectrometer. According to the results she obtained, the gold content varied significantly across different testing points, with the lowest reading at only 64.37%, and the presence of other metallic elements such as iron, silver, and palladium was detected.

Following the disclosure, responses from various parties and subsequent developments drew public attention. Chow Sang Sang issued an official statement emphasizing that all of its “pure gold” products comply with national standards, meaning a gold content of no less than 990‰, and that the items carry the appropriate “pure gold” markings. In terms of handling the case, the company initially declined a return. However, after media involvement, it stated that “as a gesture of sincerity toward the customer,” it was willing to process a return and could accompany the consumer to a nationally recognized and authorized testing institution, such as NGTC, for a re-examination. From a technical standpoint, the brand argued that test results from non-authoritative institutions can easily be affected by environmental factors or surface impurities and therefore lack definitive evidentiary value.

On the regulatory side, the Qingcheng District Market Supervision Administration of Qingyuan City has stepped in to mediate the dispute. Officials explained that, since the current testing was conducted privately by the consumer, they recommend that both parties jointly commission a third-party professional appraisal institution to carry out a formal assessment, in order to reach an objective and credible conclusion.

As for the consumer’s current position, Ms. Li stated that she has not yet decided whether to accept the return arrangement, nor has she made a final decision on proceeding with an authoritative re-examination. Going forward, attention remains focused on whether both sides will agree to a melt-and-retest process to rule out the impact of surface contamination, and whether the market supervision authority will initiate random inspections of products from the same batch.