CollectForFun

15 hours ago, HerefordBullyun said:

treasury bonds blood bath - Credit Suisse - goodnight

Aren't those yields? If yields go down, price goes up, which is good for a bank holding those bonds...

Edit: in addition, as per the statement in the below linked zerohedge article, Credit Suisse claims to have their investment in bonds "fully hedged for moves in interest rates" which is supposed to mean they are not losing (nor gaining) if bond prices go down (or up).

4 hours ago, Yoni said:

Hey there, thanks for that, i called them and as we all can imagine they gave me the price/ Ib for each type of wire. At this point my only way to know my guaranteed profit is to get the exact weight of those wires before paying for it.
thanks for your time tho. 

Without knowing the weight of the bags, noone will be able to tell you if you can sell it with profit. Based on what I quickly found, the purchase price e.g. for Romex wire is ca. C$2.50/lb? So let's do a simple calculation and assume all 70 bags contain Romex wire, so 1000/70 gives C$14.30 minimum value per bag to break even, which means a bag must be over 14.30/2.50=5.7lb to give you that amount. Does it seem plausible? You may try experimenting filling a bag with wire like you see on the photo and weight it.

If you got a different quote, just run your own calculations and perhaps consider also transportation costs as all the bags will likely be quite heavy and big.

In other words, you have no idea what you are doing?

I wouldn't mind sharing some advice on this with you but I have no idea either. Why don't you contact your local buyers and ask them directly? E.g. this one https://www.talmetal.ca/recycling-services-toronto/scrap-wire-vaughan or any other you find on the internet...

I think you are comparing two slightly different items: air-tite and screw type capsules. Does RM offer also the screw type ones for sale on their website?

In any case, here they apparently have RM screw type ones for much less than what you found above, but of course still more than the price of generic air-tites:

https://britanniacoincompany.com/buy-coins/accessories/royal-mint-screw-type-gold-sovereign-capsule/ £4.95

10 hours ago, honestinjun said:

So if you as an individual have at least a couple of ounces of gold, you'll be well positioned to compete with world governments when everything collapses. 

This caught my attention - how exactly do you imagine yourself, owning a couple of ounces of gold, competing with worlds governments?

It seems some of you guys didn't read the article I linked upthread so quoting the main message from it for you:

Quote

The Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE) on Wednesday backed Perth Mint in denying that the Australian processor had sold it "doped" gold bars 

So SGE said there was no such problem. Of course, they may just be saying that to the public and work with the PM on solving the problem behind the closed doors anyway, but the whole story just does not make sense and I would be inclined to believe there's no problem with the bars - neither regarding .9999 gold content, nor the composition of the remaining .0001.

Morning edit: found these additional details on the matter:

Quote

The doping, also known as alloying, sought to maximise value the mint by reducing the purity of bullion from 99.996 per cent to 99.992 per cent 

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/western-australia/premier-breaks-silence-claims-he-had-no-knowledge-of-gold-doping-at-perth-mint/news-story/5353a909bad9fde795d7dd830517c2ed

So in fact, anybody purchasing .9999 gold from the Perth Mint gets .00002 to .00006 gold for free! 🙂

2 hours ago, Paul said:

China want .999

If my aging memory is right Perth mint was always.995 

99.99 = .9999

Adding the same link also here: https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/Shanghai-Gold-Exchange-denies-report-on-doped-gold-bars-from-Australia--43187466/

Well, I must say I don't really understand what the article is about. It does state that gold was above minimum required 99.99 purity. So the problem is with the composition of the remaining 0.01? And that it was silver instead of, like, what? And by the way, I looked up SGE requirements and did not find anything on the remaining 0.01, only that it must be 99.99 gold.

Besides, there's this: https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/Shanghai-Gold-Exchange-denies-report-on-doped-gold-bars-from-Australia--43187466/

Hi, according to this source, your item is most likely silver plated from around year 1934.

8 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

That is a good question, and interesting, but there is a very quick, simple, and even better answer:

https://taxfreegold.co.uk/whatisinvestmentgold.html

What is Investment Gold?

For the purpose of the new VAT exemption, "Investment Gold" is defined as:

(a)
Gold of a purity not less than 995 thousandths that is in the form of a bar, or a wafer, of a weight accepted by the bullion markets;

(b)
A gold coin minted after 1800 that-
is of a purity of not less than 900 thousandths,
is, or has been, legal tender in its country of origin, and
is of a description of coin that is normally sold at a price that does not exceed 180% of the open market value of the gold contained in the coin; or

(c)
A gold coin of a description specified in Notice 701/21A Investment gold coins.

😎

Aren't those rules for VAT exemption, rather than CGT exemption?

1 hour ago, Investack said:

 According to https://allengelhard.com/the-collections/ag-12-kilo-kilo/ , there were less than 100 made.   Anyone familiar with this bar and the years it was produced?

Never mind, just noticed there are several variants and yours is with a dot in 1.KG, so <100 is correct.

8 hours ago, VeracityM said:

oh, one last thing - is it Thaler or Taler?

"Thaler" is the original spelling in German, which, following the spelling reform in 1901, was simplified to "Taler".

So nowadays the correct spelling is Taler, but because most of these coins were minted during the period in which their name was spelled Thaler, they are still frequently referred to as such.

Well definitely not what we all expected. I at least guessed right it would be MS as there did not seem to be any wear on the details but that amount of bag marks, scratches and hairlines should arguably demote the coin to the lowest levels of MS grade. 63 seems a bit too generous, but on the other hand, the way NGC takes those photos they in general exaggerate all the faults on the coin which means in hand and without magnification the coin probably looks much better.

Assuming it did not get the Details grade, how about MS60?

6 hours ago, Junior said:

Do you even need to have a nominal value on a coin to have a functioning currency? Why not simply have a coin's purity and weight? Then the value of the currency can be decided by the free markets and possibly be more stable as in the Roman times (before they debased their silver and gold coinage with copper).

I would love to get your opinion  

Honestly, I have no idea what would happen if nominal value would again be replaced by weight and purity. For quite long periods of time in the past, coins did not have any denomination stated on them. You had like a large coin, a small coin, and sometimes something in between. As you can imagine, it was probably not very easy and practical to use them for everyday transactions. So adding nominal value on coins can perhaps be seen as an improvement to ability to use them as a means of exchange, which might have helped the economic development.

In the past, monetary systems might have been more stable also because there was not so much to buy with your money. But I really don't know, sorry.

2 hours ago, Junior said:

As seen through these comparisons, removing silver from Canadian coins did not benefit the Canadian citizens.

Are you sure that your 2022 Canadian worker isn't better off than a 1967 one? In terms of general living conditions, purchasing power (other than expressed in silver), public services available... If you agree, couldn't one claim this improvement was made possible by actually removing silver from Canadian coins..?

You see, it's very tempting to connect A and B and claim one influenced the other, but that's just an oversimplified view. Your analysis only proves that purchasing power expressed in silver decreased between 1967 and 2022 without any argument supporting that this decrease was caused by removing silver from Canadian coins.

In fact, it is really not sustainable to have a coin with higher melt value than nominal, so with increasing silver price, it was perfectly understandable to abolish silver coins. If once copper dramatically increases in price and copper coins will be removed from circulation and replaced by e.g. porcelain coins, will you also write in 40 years that this had not benefitted Canadian citizens?

I'm about to be sent an item from the UK to Europe and the seller (not from TSF) gave me a shipping quote which seemed quite high. I inquired about it and they told me they must use DHL because the Royal Mail International services were suspended following a cyberattack.

I admit I had no idea about that but found this information from which it seems that international services should now be reinstated, at least for business customers http://www.royalmail.com/international-incident-bulletin.

I am however not sure if it's really a good idea to go for the Royal Mail option in this situation so wonder if anyone from you likewise had this issue of not being able to send internationally in the past few weeks and if you already tried doing so after the suspension was lifted? Thanks!

Is it? In EUR we are still 5% below the all time high and if I see correctly on the chart above, in GBP you are also 3-4% below?

1 hour ago, 27carrots said:

A is in different place.

Good catch, I was not going as far as comparing the coins in detail, but you are right about that, position is different. But based on some other images such as the one linked above it seems to be a travelling A ☺️

Mint mark "A" is not a problem as it is a well documented mint mark for this coin, although also I was unable to find any information on which mint it denotes. My guess is that it could have been temporarily used for Medellin, or that it's the mint mark of the Paris Mint, which is known to produce other South American coins around that time.

Photos of a very well preserved specimen for comparison purposes e.g. here https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1139397.

1 hour ago, ArgentSmith said:

In an online auction surely the words and photos form the description as buyer only gets to properly check the coin once in hand? The listing still states total silver weight of 7oz, the buyer got 4oz 

That would be the common expectation. But, the viewing of the lots was possible and you can be sure the T&Cs (and this applies to all auction houses, not just TCC) are not entirely in the bidder's favour:

17.6. WHERE A BUYER HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW A LOT OR GOODS, THEY WAIVE THEIR RIGHT TO RAISE ANY OBJECTION IN RELATION TO SUCH LOT OR GOODS WHERE SUCH A VIEWING WOULD HAVE REASONABLY HIGHLIGHTED THE ISSUE IN QUESTION.

9.3. THE AUCTIONEER DOES NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY GRADE MENTIONING OR OTHER ATTRIBUTION, AUTHORSHIP OR ESTIMATED PRICE OF ANY LOT, ANY REPRESENTATION OR SETTLEMENT BY THE AUCTIONEER IN ANY CATALOGUE, BROCHURE, OR ADVERTISEMENT. EVERY PERSON INTERESTED SHOULD EXERCISE AND RELY ON THEIR OWN JUDGEMENT AS TO SUCH MATTERS AND NEITHER THE AUCTIONEER NOR ITS EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF SUCH OPINION OR INFORMATION.

Sorry for the caps, that's how they have it in their terms.

@Silverman2U try writing directly to the CEO Andreas Afeldt andreas@thecoincabinet.com if other communication channels didn't work.

On one hand, you are totally right that they misdescribed the Three Graces coin as 25 pounds 5oz Commonwealth Mint. On the other hand, it was clear from the photo it was the 5 pounds version. The matter is further complicated by the fact that it was a lot of 2 coins. I am afraid that strictly according to their T&C they are not responsible for not describing the coin correctly as you had the opportunity to check the actual coin although of course they should feel some level of responsibility against their customers for doing such a mistake.

Was it this lot?

https://auctions.thecoincabinet.com/lots/view/4-6N6TOZ/2019-2020-lot-of-2-great-engraver-una-the-lion-three-graces-silver-5-pounds-25-pounds-pcgs-pr69-dcam-asw70001-oz

And the coin ended up being this one?

https://www.pcgs.com/cert/41803520

1 hour ago, KarlAggo said:

if I buy let's say a piece of wood from Travis Perkins and pay £10 + vat a total of £12 if I choose that I no longer require it and choose to sell it on, it would be second hand and therefore cheaper say £8 total, I certainly couldn't charge any hidden vat and surcharges

With the difference that second-hand silver bullion is usually considered almost as good as brand new. So if there are buyers who are willing to buy second-hand silver at say £25-26, compared to £27 from the dealers, why shouldn't the sellers offer their silver at that price? So the second-hand price has little to do with VAT, premiums or surcharges. It's all about the price level at which you as a seller expect to find a buyer, which would usually be slightly below the price of the dealers, or, if demand is really high, it may even be the same price as from the dealer.

Hope it makes more sense now, if not, this forum is the best place to ask!