It’s silver covered with gold. But you can only see the gold; who cares what’s underneath it? Is it just an example of conspicuous consumption?
The gold is really thin - so if it wears off in spots, and the underneath was something else, it would be more noticeable. Of course, the underneath could be something else shiny, like brass or something. But that would be tacky. One must have standards.
It’s much cheaper than gold, so if you want to buy a trendy piece of jewelry in a gold tone, you don’t blow the bank.
I’ve yet to have a piece of vermeil show the silver underneath.
I think the point was to have a piece of silver that wouldn’t tarnish rather than to have a piece of “gold.”
I believe vermeil is stronger than gold–at last, I’ve never had a vermeil necklace chain break, whereas a couple of gold chains have, which meant I lost them an their pendants.
Ah, thanks, everyone. Ignorance fought.
Gold bonded to silver also seems much more durable than gold bonded to brass or other non-precious metals. And if the gold starts wearing off a piece of gold-over-silver jewelry it probably won’t turn your skin green like some “mystery metals” would.
Unfortunately because the prices of both gold and silver are still so high, the latest ploy by the low and mid-range jewelry makers especially the ones supplying the home shopping channels is bonding gold to brass or, worse yet, to resin. Not only is the piece much less durable, but from a practical point of view it no longer has any cash value as scrap. At least with gold over silver the silver itself still has some value.