CollectForFun

You should be able to find one for a realestic price

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).

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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

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

Legal tender has a strict definition. It means if you have a court awarded debt against you, if someone tries to settle and they're paying in legal tender you cannot refuse it. That 1971 act clearly indicates that gold coins shall not be legal tender if their weight has become less than .... 7.93787g such that it could be refused as part payment of a court awarded debt settlement.
But as a single coin it could still be exempt from CGT under the chattel exemption 
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg76573  
A chattel is movable personal property that can be borrowed against using a chattel mortgage i.e. in this case depositing gold as a security to secure a chattel mortgage. 
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg78305
It struck me that on that basis however, then surely American Eagles, Canadian Maples that are not legal tender could be individually sold (for less than £6K) and not be liable to CGT - but then I saw
and sovereigns are £1 sterling currency as is a Britannia £100 sterling currency

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

Well, we have found something super cool!
2023 Silver Britannias with The Queen on them....
Some of them might have a 90 degree rotation of The Queen!
Super cool.
Confirmed by The Royal Mint, we sent coins off to them to check and verify!
Have a listen of my video!
 

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.

Thanks for the guesses! For what it's worth, I thought it looked like an AU55. There was quite a range but it seems we all thought it'd be less than its actual grading:
MS63
https://coins.ha.com/itm/chile/chile-republic-gold-20-pesos-1926-so-ms63-ngc-/a/232204-64469.s?type=DA-DMC-NumistaWorldCoins-WorldCoins-232204-01202022
 

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

Milled Edges on Gold Sovereigns - Wide Variations
Yesterday, as usual, I had a few incoming batches of gold sovereigns to check.
This particular batch caught my eye, so we took photos:

I could have invited guesses for what dates and mintmarks each coin was, but the odds against a correct guess would probably be in excess of a billion to one, so we made life easy.
I would recommend anyone with even a modest quantity of mixed sovereigns to look at their edges in a stack or roll like this. 
With older bullion sovereigns in bulk, I hold a "roll" in my left hand, so that I can flick them to my right hand while checking both sides quickly. I also do similar when hand counting coins in general. Taking a quick look at the edges before you start can yield some interesting results, and this is something which many people don't do.
Sometimes, like on this occasion, there are more differences than expected
I could comment individually on each coin, or on the more obvious differences, but...
... Instead, I will throw it open for comments!
😎
 

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?

yes it's true, there's a warning about it on their website. If you want to check DHL   https://www.parcel2go.com/

Yes, weird.
NGC, specifically says: "1920A Placement of A below coat of arms varies".

I am a customer of the Coin Cabinet. I have experiences of buying and consigning since the very early days. My experiences have generally always been excellent and whilst there have been issues in the past but they were always quickly resolved and the team there are really committed and excellent. As a positive example, I sold my full collection of QEII PR70 half sovereigns via them three years ago and the process was perfect from start to finish. Likewise when I sold some basic silver in MS70 - I received the same standards of care. As a negative example, I bought a coin that was advertised as an overdate and PCGS returned it to me as a wear isse and Coin Cabinet took it back from me and quickly refunded and then relisted the coin as it was now known to be a standard date. I think that Andreas is trustworthy and his small team are reliable too. This is of course just my own experience.
In terms of next steps, I would suggest that you telephone in and ask to speak with Louis. He is responsible for the auctions at the moment whilst Claire is away. He should be the best person to speak with.
As for the references above to the Terms and Conditions, whilst there are clear, I would always approach with caution and hope for discretion. You never know and I am sure that they want to resolve this situation. There is no reason for them not to!

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.

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.

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.

👇 At the time wifey my personal contrarian indicator wanted to know why Im "spending" money on that c**p?