Anteater

Well I think that's how the premium on goldbacks works.

Hey, @BackyardBullion do you need any more content for Royal Mint videos?

I think that's the first time I've seen that opinion stated. I've never tried selling gold abroad, but from watching stacking-related content from other countries it seems to me that ounces/fractions of an ounce are much more popular outside of the UK and perhaps a couple of commonwealth countries.

So was it diverted as "dangerous" an then lost/stolen, or was it never actually diverted? If it was logged as diverted, is there any evidence from later in the chain to show it really was? It does all sound a little fishy with other reports of items being deemed "dangerous" and for destruction, then miraculously delivered when that was queried. One wonders if bad actors with jobs within Royal Mail could be abusing internal procedures re dangerous goods to mask their "appropriations".

That isn't really cost averaging. Cost averaging would be investing a certain amount of cash per month (possibly inflation-adjusted). Of course, doing that with physical gold coins is difficult unless you're buying a load of them per time period. The way you're doing it you invest more the higher prices are. In theory, if the market is efficient, then buying when premiums are low (which they certainly are, particularly around here!) is best even if prices are high at the time. But I'm not sure the gold market is really that efficient, and I don't think that's how most "retail" investors in physical gold behave.

Just for reference, civil defence sirens were tested occasionally prior to their decommissioning in the early 90s. I remember hearing tests a couple of times. I've also seen news reporting when site-specific sirens were tested in more recent years (eg at Devonport.)

I believe that hidden reserves are not permitted here:

It's literally a joke. You still end up with gold either way, so which currency you used and whether it's an ATH in that currency are irrelevant. If there is any "discount" in the Ruble price, it'll likely be there for reasons that you can't easily overcome in order to gain an advantage from it (else the arbitrage traders would already have made it go away).

I'm not the seller but the gold Brit didn't get the hologram until 2021 so I think you're safe

Probably my fault - someone asked about this company (by its new name) somewhere so I linked to this thread...

Looks like they're the same guys duscussed here following a rename:

1807

Your strategy of cornering the market finally paid off!

Oh, you smooth talker.

Online voting is a security nightmare. It's a much harder problem than online banking, taxes, etc. If you're thinking of it in the same vein as those things then you don't understand the problem. (That's not intended to give offense - even many cyber/infosec people don't.)

If you check their website they call themselves "The Oxford Mint" and have a "history" page that talks about the (unrelated, historic) Oxford Mint while also referring to it as "The Oxford Mint". On the assay cards shown on the first post of this thread they have "The Oxford Mint" as their name at the top of the card with their mark, and then at the bottom it begins "The Oxford Mint was founded in 871AD". I don't know whether you'd consider those "claims", but they seem uncomfortably conflated, particularly in the case of the assay card where they call both their company and the previous mint by the same name. They don't explicitly say that there is continuity between the organisations but surely one can imagine that an average reader might think so given the lack of clear indication on the card that there are different organisations mentioned.

"What do you think?" is a very broad question and IMO people's responses here absolutely fall within its scope. Furthermore, you must be aware that people are interested in, and do ascribe value to, heritage - even for bullion pieces. So you didn't actually want to know what people thought? Even if you had more tightly constrained your question/post, the fact is that trying to impose your own rules on a discussion thread on someone else's forum will tend to leave a bad taste in the mouth of many other commenters. There's a difference between remaining on topic and trying to control the narrative.

Well they have to protect those of their staff who happen to be werewolves.

I love that default text from website templates is now such an easy way of detecting general dodginess. So many of them don't even take the time to remove the stuff they're not replacing with their own content.

Oxford Mint Ltd incorporated in 2021 and has only ever had one director, a Rajesh Kaji: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13113850/officers I'm going to go out on a limb and say that putting "In its 21st century reincarnation ..." on their "The Mint Today" page doesn't entirely excuse claiming a history going back to 871 AD on their "History" page. So very much like the modern EIC - they also talk about the unrelated historic EIC on their website...

I wasn't comparing the UK to anyone else - I just don't think it's a fair representation to say that we got money from the EU budget as a net contributor.

The UK was a net contributor to the EU budget. You can make arguments about how the EU chose to spend the money we got back within the UK vs how UK governments would have spent it, but I don't think you can reasonably say that the UK "had" money from the EU when it was only part of what we contributed returned.

You'll never guess what happens to the ship... Edit: Should have refreshed page before posting, Paul got there first...

Down to £1751 again. Wonga was right.

We're rich!