Three Chinese counters rise 12 to 14 yuan, Lao Miao flat

A counter page from the brands themselves. Everything above comes from Chinese financial media reporting what the brand counters showed, not from the four companies' own published boards, and the brands revise those boards on their own schedule without announcing the time. A brand-published daily board, dated and timestamped, would settle the one open question in this article, which is not the levels but the hour: whether a revision after about 10:00 Beijing time explains why one daily series dates the same four numbers to the following session. If the brands' own pages show intraday revision, the dating used here is right and the other series is simply sampling once a day. If they show one price set per calendar day with no revision, then one of the two datings is wrong and it is not yet established which.

A Chinese brand gold counter quotes a finished-jewellery price per gram, and it is built from three layers. The first is the metal, referenced to the Shanghai Gold Exchange rather than to London, which means a Chinese counter can move on a day when the London screen does not and vice versa. The second is workmanship, the cost of turning a bar into a chain or a bangle, which varies by piece and is where a brand's manufacturing scale shows up. The third is brand margin, set centrally and revised when head office decides rather than when the metal moves. That third layer is why four counters in the same country on the same morning can sit twenty yuan apart on a product that is chemically identical, and why one of them can stay flat on a day the other three move. It is also why a counter price is a poor proxy for the gold price and a good proxy for what a Chinese consumer actually pays. The practical consequence for a trade reader is that the gap between the dearest and the cheapest counter, rather than the level of either, is the number that tells you about pricing power, and on 30 September that gap was 1.6% of the cheapest board, on Carat Capital's division of twenty yuan by 1,242.

Three doors were worked and all three are cited. Huxiu's 30 September item was fetched direct with a browser user agent, 200, 70,953 bytes, and gives the four levels and the four day-on-day moves in one sentence of its own body, dated 9月30日 in that body and not only in the wrapper. Grepped in that saved file before anything was written: 1262 five hits, 1259 five, 1257 four, 1242 four, 9月30日 thirteen, 上涨14元 five, 上涨13元 four, 上涨12元 four and 持平 eight. The 29 September side was re-fetched for this article rather than carried from yesterday's copy: Sina Finance's page carrying National Business Daily's report, 200, 32,318 bytes, timestamped 09.29 13:56 in its own byline and opening 9月29日消息, with 1242 five hits, 1245 seven and 1246 one, and zero hits for 1275. The 25 August base figures of 1,408, 1,410 and 1,407 are this paper's own board published on 27 August and were not re-fetched today. The third door is the 证券之星 daily series, read through its Google News RSS mirror, 200, 101,260 bytes, where the 9月29日 Lao Miao item carries 1275 with a pubDate of Tue, 29 Sep 2026 02:01:51 GMT and the 9月30日 item carries 1242 with a pubDate of Wed, 30 Sep 2026 02:01:37 GMT. That series dates the same numbers one session later than the other two, the divergence is disclosed in the article's own text as a divergence between outside sources, and no attempt is made here to declare one of them wrong. What can be said is narrower and is said instead: the two pages that state their date inside their own body agree with each other and with this paper's 29 September figures, and the series that disagrees samples once a day at about 10:00 Beijing time. All four percentages of the 25 August high, the 20-yuan spread, the 1.6% gap and the four implied 29 September levels are Carat Capital's arithmetic and are labelled where they appear. Archive check, read rather than counted: a case-insensitive search of the built site for Lao Miao, Chow Sang Sang and Lao Feng Xiang returns eighteen files and every article among them was opened. The nearest is 2026-09-30, which covers the 29 SEPTEMBER board and its fall from the 25 August high; this item covers the 30 SEPTEMBER board and a rise. Same brands, different session and the opposite direction, so the verdict is ADVANCED, not repeat. The 27 August piece covers a 25 AUGUST board and is cited here as the base rather than re-reported.

1. 9月30日多家品牌足金首饰价格上涨 (Several brands' pure-gold jewellery prices rise, 30 September), Huxiu 30 September 2026
2. 一夜大跌33元！金饰克价较1个月前已跌超160元 (Gold jewellery down 33 yuan overnight), Sina Finance / National Business Daily 29 September 2026
3. 证券之星 daily brand gold quotes, 9月29日 and 9月30日 items, via Google News RSS 30 September 2026