silenceissilver

This is important information for all forum members who live in the EU:

The EU wants to create a centralised, EU-wide data base of the assets of its inhabitants, including property, works of art, crypto currencies - and gold. Not sure about silver.

Well, there is no other reason to do that than trying to steal it from you, eventually (after the hyperinflation).

That's why it's a good idea to buy it in person, rather than ordering it online - if you bought online and don't declare it, you might get trouble at some point. Of course, it's impossible to prove you haven't lost it in a tragic boat accident. However, given the state of law is ever more openly spit on by the politicians, you might still face trouble. However, gold is still one of only a very few possibilities to avoid getting your wealth taken away by the Neo-Bolsheviks. If you have property you rent out or shares, they can just take it - and they will in the not too distant future.

https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:358265-2021:TEXT:DE:HTML&tabId=1

38 minutes ago, badar said:

It will never be reinstated. However, assuming they did. Countries would need to buy massive amounts of gold.
 

Also the gold price would need to be adjusted by the governments to reflect the amounts of cash and money in circulation. (Just like the US did after confiscation; instant $10 profit on confiscated gold)
 

It’s not practical considering how complex our economies are now. 
 

BoE’s take on Fiat “One advantage of a system that uses fiat money is that the amount of money in circulation can be responsive to changing economic conditions. This can support the smooth functioning of the economy. By contrast, the total amount of money circulating in the economy during the Gold Standard was ultimately limited by the amount of gold that could be mined.”

Source: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/what-is-money

Governments can't adjust prices. They can only supress the true price  which leads to a black market.

That's also how the termination of the gold standard happened - they printed more money than the gold standard would allow - thus the official price of gold was too low, thus some people speculated on the too low gold price - it would rise, according to these speculators - and then this was provided as reason for the termination of the gold standard. So the government did A which caused B which the government used to justify C. That's how it always goes, with everything.

The abolishment of the gold standard was one of the worst things between 1945 and 2020 - maybe THE worst thing at all. It enabled the funding of many wars and a myriad of harmful government programs. 

32 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Why would it need to be linked to anything? Everything would be linked to gold.

My thoughts exactly. Wanted to ask the same question. Paper is linked to gold, not the other way round.

5 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

As a number of members have already pointed out, most circulation gold coins were alloyed to make them more durable.

Two slightly different systems evolved, namely 900 and 916 fine gold (90.0% and 91.66%). There is not much difference between these.

When the EU and UK recognised "Investment Gold" as VAT exempt as from 1st January 2000, they decided that, to qualify as "Investment Gold", coins had to be at least 90% fine gold, which acknowledged the precedent and tradition which had evolved. Gold bullion bars, however, in order to qualify as "Investment Gold", had to be at least 99.5% gold, which also recognised the existing international standards for good delivery bars which had evolved over a long period of time. Most "small" gold bars, usually one kilo downwards are actually produced in 99.99% gold, a.k.a. "four nines",  In 1979, the Royal Canadian Mint were the first to introduce fine gold (maple leaf) bullion coins, initially in 99.9% (three nines), then later in 99.99, and ultimately also 99.999% (five nines).

It is good that we now all have a choice, traditional gold coins or newer fine gold coins. To the pure investor, it should not matter much, just buy whatever has the lowest premium (within reason). If you are buying as a collector, or for aesthetic reasons, then buy the colour, type, size, and alloy of coins you like best, but be aware that you might be paying slightly higher premiums to be able to exercise your choice.

Also, when it comes to sell, bear in mind that not everybody will share your preferences, so paying a higher premium will probably give you a lower financial return, but this is offset by the pleasure of owning what pleases you more.

One more historical point though is that if we go back to ancient times or antiquity, most gold coins did not circulate freely, but were used as stores of value and a means of exchange, so they were mainly kept in treasuries, and not often seen by the general population. They did not need to be mechaniclly durable. These earlier gold coins were usually made using the purest gold which was commonly obtainable using the refining methods readily available. The very earliest "gold" coins, from ancient Lydia, were made from electrum, a naturally occurring alloy of gold and silver (no refining or alloying necessary). Later gold coins were often produced in 23ct or 23.5ct gold alloy, again almost certaianly because this was a convenient alloy to use without resorting to extra cost and effort involved in further refining.

So, in older times, gold coins were traditionally made with nearly-fine gold.

Choose your preferred tradition! 🙂

The Royal Mint has clearly chosen its own tradtition. Back in about 2000, some nameless person at the Royal Mint appears to have decided or misunderstood that British gold coins were traditionally made using a red gold alloy, sometimes called pink gold or rose gold. This is achieved by adding only copper to the pure gold, instead of a mixture of copper and silver. This was of course incorrect nonsense, but the RM, in its infinite wisdom (?), has continued to follow its own newly created tradition. This is why modern sovereigns are a revolting red, instead of yummy yellow, and look like copper discs instead of real gold coins. I have never discovered anything in any of the many "Coinage Acts" or other Royal Mint historical document which specifies that no silver should be used in its gold coins.

Almost every collector, stacker, or member of TSF knows that "older" sovereigns look better than modern sovereigns. Most probably also know that it's because there is some silver content. I have tested hundreds, possibly thousands, of sovereigns, halves, doubles and quintuples, and noted that most pre QEII sovereigns contain about 3 parts per thousand of silver. This is enough to make them look desirable. It is my sincere hope that some day, someone at the RM will open their eyes and ears, and come to realise that adding some silver woulf imrove their product, and do so at an almost negligible cost. They could commission some consumer research to resolve any uncertainty. The change may never happen as doing so might mean admitting they were wrong for the past twenty or more years, and that I, along with most collectors, dealers, and ordinary people were right.

 

If they changed it back to gold colour it could become crucial for smaller collections to have at least one rose sovereign, in the future. Changing it back to gold colour, would make them more special. That's how you would have to try and convince the Royal Mint - as great as it was to have them (cough) as great it is to get rid of them - just like with guests in your house, after a few days.

5 hours ago, sixgun said:

Yes i realised you were pulling my leg but i wanted to use the opportunity to reinforce how these small gold coins especially if they aren't too shiny or are copper coloured could be a life saver in an emergency situation. You have £5000 in pennies in your pocket which a mugger would ignore in preference to a plastic £5 note. Enough gold to save you in a Mad Max situation is very portable and can be inconspicuous. Always something to bear in mind even if the situation never arose, God willing.

I'm wondering how many full and half sovereigns you could get into a normal jar and if they would bother at airports, specially if you blended a few real pennies in.

...

It's nice to have a few 24K gold coins so you know how the look but 90% and 22K is much more preferable if you want to keep it interesting and get loads of different coins from the last 2 centuries, many of which you get a rather low premiums.

22 minutes ago, badar said:

It is 24k plated according to another listing.

https://www.goldgenie.com/product/24k-gold-mens-racing-bike/
 

Unless it’s 8 kilos of gold plate the bike is worthless; except you can ride it whenever you feel like getting mugged  

 

Probably you'd be 100% safe because everyone would assume it's just gold-colour. Maybe the best way to store your gold - hiding it in plain sight. ... Not going to try it out myself though, but I'd certainly welcome reviews about this specific topic.

8 minutes ago, Alex944 said:

Wonder if you could get that insured 😂

Not if you had a £20 bicycle lock like me.

Imagine marrying a woman but spotting out a more attractive woman between the wedding wow and the bridal night. I think the families of some brides would kill you on the spot, certainly most would beat you the c**p out of you. Pacta sunt servanda. This is not specific to the precious metal market or the silver forum. If I was the seller, I'd give you negative feedback and warn every potential seller of you - and insist you pay. 

Personally I'm into coins not bars, not going into why again but what size you should go for depends on your (prospect) total gold stack. If it's going to be 10g and that's it and you are not going to buy on a regular basis from now on, I would go for option 2 unless you are too much put off by the higher costs, because I wouldn't like to have all my gold in just one piece which takes away the flexibility of selling only a part, at once. You could argue, this doesn't matter that much if it's only 10g anyway and it certainly also depends on what other assets you hold. For example if you have loads of silver, the argument made, plays  less a role. 

I think it's a useless gimmick, mostly. If you break it down, the premium is out the window. I would only make sense, if you could pay with it. That's also what it is for, in a SHTF scenario.  Let's assume  it happens, for such small values, silver would be more appropriate and more easily accepted, in my opinion. 

20 hours ago, SilverDrum said:

They sure do look cool in one of the element wallets, just i can't see what the use is myself. I tried offering the chiropractor gold instead of fiat recently, and got a laugh instead of a deal 😅

 

I have offered a Sovereign to my dentist once, when I had a freshly bought Sovereign in my pocket but forgotten to take cash for the dentist, with me. He also declined and just said, just pay at your next visit.

Here is another international grade comparison with more detail and more countries:

https://www.chards.co.uk/blog/coin-grading-uk-cgs-pcgs-ngc-uk-and-us/79

Go down to:

Comparing Grades: UK vs. CGS vs. Sheldon

and expand it.

However, as others have said, you'll find British coins graded according to NGC and PCGS, in the UK as well (possibly even mostly so?)

3 hours ago, SilverStorm said:

Yes, you are correct.  The gold-analytix also caught my eye, but only after I had bought the Pro Mini.

I have the Pro Mini, love it.  The only caveat I have with the Pro Mini: the main sensor bar can only measure a maximum sample thickness of 10 mm.  Any thicker, you need to use the wands.  Anyone interested in buying the Pro Mini, please see the attached specifications and know what you may or may not need.   For me, I just picked up the complete set so I'm prepared to test anything that comes my way.  

PMV Pro Mini - Specifications.pdf 722.77 kB · 2 downloads

1cm covers all coins up to 2 ounces that I'm aware of.

I have wands too but they don't replace the external bridge for big bars, if you want to measure all the way through. Wands only measure the surface or just below but not considerably.

6 hours ago, MCG0803 said:

Thanks silenceissilver,

 

I've run the SG tests and have the micro engraved marks. All other checks are good so I'm not too concerned. I ran them through the Sigma and they seem pretty spot on. Just the thickness thing which was odd because the Perth Mint state 3.1mm

If the SG test and the Sigma and the micro A are all as and where they should be, I wouldn't even worry about measuring the thickness because, as said, I find the results generally inconclusive because coins are not perfectly flat and depending on where exactly you happen to measure it, the result might seem as if it was totally off (for the thickness but even for the diameter it's not that much better). I have therefore given up on even doing it. If you wanted yet another test, I'd go for the magnet test but to be honest I don't see how you could trick SG and Sigma at the same time, even theoretically. Possibly with a very advanced alloy no one has ever heard of, straight from a military laboratory but even then - it's very unlikely such an alloy could even theoretically exist.

1 hour ago, sovereignsteve said:

Are you aware of any differences/pro and cons between this and the Sigma?

I have got the Sigma pro:

Here you see the pro mini which is mobile (didn't exist yet 2 years ago, unfortunately):

https://www.sigmametalytics.com/mini

And here is the competitor Gold Screen Box (they have further gold testing devices such as density scales as you can see in the first link but only their gold screen box is the counterpart to the Sigma)

https://www.gold-analytix.com/test-devices

And here the original Sigma:

https://www.sigmametalytics.com/original

If you look at all of them, you will see only the pro and the pro mini have a sensor above the pad which means it can measure all the way through the coin, whereas the original Sigma and the gold screen box can only measure so deep (can't remember the exact depth but in any case not through the whole coin).

At the pro and the pro mini (and possibly at the original Sigma, I don't know) you can also put in the weight and then it will display the estimated size (for regular forms - round or rectangle) although personally I have never bothered to do this, instead I compare it to coins I already have.

If I bought it now I'd probably go for the pro mini as it's mobile and measures through the whole coin but I have no big pieces even of silver (2oz max). If you want to test bigger coins or bars you'll need the pro with the external bridge for big pieces (which I don't have).

As you can see the pro has two sensors for different sizes, so I'd double check the pro mini can test everything from a 10 Corona or 1/10oz to a 2oz coin.

On 23/07/2021 at 16:43, Fadeingstar said:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://zetberg.com

 

You can also simply change the language settings by clicking on the flag at the top right.

https://www.sigma-verifiers.com/en/

I have bought mine from the US, about two years ago. At least back then there was no considerable difference in the price with import charges and shipping, compared to the Slovenian provider I also had a look at, at the time. But it was sitting at customs for ages - quite a few weeks but that's a lottery and could also be considerably shorter.

The import charges weren't a dealer breaker for me. You have to pay it before you can pick it up. It even happened to me that I ordered something from Germany post Brexit and so they didn't charge German VAT but they forgot to charge it in the UK as well, so I didn't pay it in any country. (Before Brexit I'd have paid German VAT and no import fees). I wouldn't count on that though and certainly even less so form the US. 

Although I'm very happy with my Sigma Pro and certainly recommend it, there are also competitors which you might also want to have a look at:

https://www.gold-analytix.com/

I have plenty of them but not at hand right now and I have found measuring thicknesses of coins inconclusive anyway. I find specific gravity tests much more meaningful. The easiest way to check if they are genuine is the tiny engraved A within one of the As in Australian Kangaroo. You'll need a magnifying glass to see it properly. Can't remember which one but maybe the very first one and it's at the top, inside of the big A.

I think in 2015 we had a short, slight deflation in the real economy, according to official figures. In any case there was nothing outstanding economically, in 2016 but politically. The Brexit vote and Trump getting elected both of which events posed uncertainty on geo politics and uncertain times means more demand for gold. So, it was political, not economical.

I have stopped buying silver a while ago but that would also be the case if silver still had the same spot price it had when I bought most of it (11-12£) and if you could still import it at cheaper tax rates, from Europe. For me it's a personal diversification issue and price development just falls in handy for me but if I had no or little silver now, I would still buy it, also at the current prices and I will again in the future, regardless of what the price development might be. It will of course influence how much I will be able to buy.

Certainly not selling what I have.

6 hours ago, SlowFrog said:

I'm intrigued by it too - from the research I've done, it seems like there's only a few relatively inexpensive ways to test for tungsten filled gold coins - ultrasound or ping

This is another cheap way of testing if it's tungsten. It's a pretty tedious task though - the price for being inexpensive.

1 hour ago, MonkeysUncle said:

Which is why I always advise anyone to keep a quantity of cash (physical, savings account or better still both) to cope with emergencies. As a young man the amount I had stashed was small as I could only afford to save a small amount.

I would recommend keeping the equivalent of at least six months wages, better still a years wages, so you have a cushion to fall back on.

Only once you have a safety net think about buying shares, metal, crypto or whatever.

Just my two cents!

I think your advice is generally totally right thus at most given points in time but not right now, at a looming hyperinflation. Yes, even now you should start with a little bit of cash but not half a year of spending, if you are just about to start saving. We still don't know if the looming hyperinflation will indeed materialise in the next few months or even years and theoretically it might never do - even a severe a long lasting deflation is still possible at this point. But the risk of a hyperinflation is much higher now than at most points in time. If you buy half sovereigns now the worst thing that can happen (apart from theft or losing it) is that you might have to sell it at a small loss. Your cash however could evaporate over night. Nevertheless -  as said - start with a bit of cash but the emphasis should currently not be identical to what it was when you were 23 (assuming you are middle aged or old).

22 hours ago, Pete said:

If the latter then my wisdom and age would advise you to stay well away and get yourself mortgage free, pension pot established and all your ducks in order so if you suddenly lost your income or interest rates rise you are not forced on to the street. The "youngsters" today are in a bubble and if it bursts .....

Most of our pension pots are mostly filled with toxic garbage though that will certainly not make it through to the pension of a now young man. There are not many things one can invest into in the time of the everything bubble and PMs belong to the few exceptions, so you might as well buy PMs for your pension. As most here, I agree, it makes most sense to start with (half or full) sovereigns for a newbie to PMs in the UK, not just because I started like this myself but because gold is considerably less volatile than silver and the difference between buying and selling is also much smaller (at at given spot price), easier to store, no issues with milk spots. I definitely do recommend silver, also now but for newbies - start with (half) sovereigns unless what you can afford per month is so little that even half a sovereign would take you half a year or so which of course is not at all uncommon, in your early twenties. 

I would buy half a sovereign a month but that's only due to my impatience.

Thank you @DBCooper and @Roy !

Thanks a lot for your detailed answer. No, it's not a tourist but someone who moved there, just about when the fakedemic started. I have actually not asked what kind of gold it is but it seems to me it's mostly jewellery and possibly a bit of bullion. As for buying gold (another person, also someone who moved there), bullion would be preferred (jewellery only if available at spot price). They don't speak the national languages there, just English (as it is an official language there as well). 

The guy who wants to sell tried and contacted a bank but they didn't reply. He also wanted to give Lazada oder shoppee a shot (some Ebay like platforms, it seems) but apparently they don't allow gold to be sold there. The only possibility for selling seems to be Ebay).

It's unbelievable, Manila doesn't have a proper bullion store or at least some reputable jewellers who also trade some bullion at reasonable prices.

@Roy

I think it was you who said he lives in the Philippines? Any recommendations? Asking on behalf of someone who is not on the forum