adamantio999

The store manager phoned me back this afternoon after he reviewed the CCTV and spoke to the staff member who served me. The manager is going to swap the pocketed sovereign for a fresh one and is having the one I'm taking back appraised to ensure it's genuine. Also he's given me a £30 credit for good will.
All being well I'll pop in tomorrow and get my fresh not-stuffed-next-to-a-sweaty-pair-of-bollocks sovereign. That should put an end to the matter as far as I'm concerned.
What happened to the would be one sovereign richer staff member? Nothing. The manager said he accepted the staff members version of events where oversights, mistakes, it'll never happen agains and other such acts of forgetfulness are perfect foils against pocketing customers gold and trying to leg it. And ... I get all of the joy of that staff member serving me again in the future. 
I thought Costco sucked before this, now it sucks even more. 
 
 
 

I spoke to the Store manager at Costco earlier this morning. He’s reviewing CCTV and speaking to the staff member. The store manager offered to pay for the pocketed sovereign’s appraisal to ensure it’s not been switched for a fake.  Hopefully more news later. 
 
no idea what happened to the fonts lol
 

The sooner that individual is not working for Costco the better. 
As harsh as it may sound I don't think the individual in question is a honest worker. 
He tried to fob a customer off as well as his employer. Again the sooner he is out the back door the better 
 

I bought a sovereign from Costco this afternoon. All went well until I noticed the staff member serving me putting the sovereign I was paying for into his jeans pocket while I was filling in the purchase form. I gave him the benefit of the doubt as I hadn't finished paying for it at that point and thought perhaps he was just being overly cautious. I completed the paperwork, paid for the sovereign and then he handed me the receipt and my membership card back, said thanks and started to walk off. I gave him a few seconds to see if he'd remember that he still had the sovereign I'd just paid in his pocket. Nothing. No response. So I shouted after him 'Sovereign!' And he instantly went straight into his pocket and fished it out and handed it over. There's was no apology, just a smile and he went on his way.
I'm wondering if it's worth making a complaint to Costco management about this or just put it down to c**p customer service.
Opinions appreciated. 

There are many patterns in history repeating or rhyming themselves. One I saw very often is a goverment (democracy, dictatorship, empire or monarchy) of a powerful civilisation deciding to spend more than it could afford or collect in taxes, and deciding to "export" its financial problems by expanding its territory and subjugating other civilisations.
The example of the Nazy Germany was lampent. Its economic miracle pre WW2 was no miracle. It was currency creation and desire for "lebensraum" (living space), which pushed Hitler to invade Europe, in order to export paper reichsmarchs and steal resources and wealth (gold from their central banks) of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, France, Greece, Soviet Union and so on.
We have seen may others alike.
A few weeks ago I've had a long chat with a dear friend of mine, about a topic which is, as italians, very familiar to us: the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.
From the punic wars onwards (two centuries before christ), almost every conquest of the Roman Republic was launched with the purpose of looting new territories, in order to seize their land and guarantee a flush of slaves and wealth (in the form of gold, silver, jewelry) from the defeated populations. Think about Julius Caesar. He started the Gallic wars in 58 BC as a Proconsul on the verge of bankrupcy, and 8 years later, after having hannilated the Gauls on the battlefield and looting their land (modern day France), he was one of the wealthiest man in Rome.
Then, a few years before Christ, two civil wars turned the republic into an empire. It was wide, rich, militarily powerful. And greedy.
The emperors always wanted to spend more than what he could collect in taxes. They had bureacracy to maintain, projects to build like acqueducts, arenas and roads all over the empire (never seen anithing alike later in the middle ages). And vaste armies to pay.
But there were plenty of territories to conquer. Britannia, Lusitania (portugal), Middle east, North africa, Balcans. And therefore there were plenty of slaves to bring to the empire and to put to work for free. And plenty of Gold and Silver to take from the conquered population. The endless conquests of the Empire worked very well for two centuries, as long as there were territories to occupy, in order to satisty its unquenchable thirst for "over-spending".

Then around the 200 AD, the Empire reached its geographical limits. Atlantic ocean in the west. Rhine and Danube in the north. Sahara desert in the south. Parthian empire as main enemy in the east. It couldn't expand any further and it was overstretching.
No more lands, slaves, gold, silver. No more fuel for its engine. It will become known as the "crisis of third century". Because the only solution to keep overspending, was to create inflation. They relentlessly started to debase their currency, lowering its purity, melting gold and silver with worthless metals. The picture down below gives a pretty good idea.

At some point inflation was out of control. In one year, while the state doubled the salary of the soldiers, the price of grain tripled.
They tried to control and lock prices. Did not work. The free market was out of control.
They divided the empire in two with two emperors, Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire (later known as Byzantine), in order to make the management of that giant easier. It helped the eastern much more than it did for the western. 
After that for a century or so (from 285 to 376 AD), the empires seemed to flourish again, thanks a long series of population migrations (whom the romans called barbarians) from asia and north-eastern europe. Immigration was successfully controlled, and helped both the empires to bring in new blood, new workforce, new soldiers. They settled in, learned latin or greek, became Romans. They compensated for the foreign territories Rome had no longer the strenght to conquer.
But at some point the barbarians crossing the Danube into the empire were too many. A series of accidents sparked a war and the Goths wiped out the Eastern Roman Army ad Adrianople in 378. The East managed to remein safe after the disaster, but the Goths, just a generation after, invaded the italian peninsula, sieged and sacked Rome in 410. It was the first time in 800 years that the ethernal city was violated by a foreign power, and its days were numbered. The Western Roman Empire collapsed under the never ending barbarian invasions, and ceased to exist in 476.
The Eastern Roman Empire though, had a better geography, richer lands.
And started coining once again an hard currency made of gold and silver from the 4th century. To distinguish it from the always inflated Western denarius, they called is "SOLIDUS" (which in latin means "hard", standing for hard money).
The eastern roman empire survived another 1000 years, until 1453.
Later in the middle ages, the latin language started giving birth to the italian (my mother language).
That "SOLIDUS" started being called just "SOLDO".
And still today, SOLDO is the italian word for "money".
 

This is very good advice from @Roy
One sentence that stood out to me from your advice was this.
Ideally, sell on here to achieve the best prices. Your heirs won't get ripped off here, the forum members wouldn't allow it.
That is what being part of a ‘community’ albeit online is all about. If and this is, hopefully not for a long time, one of us passes and a spouse or significant other is looking to sell a collection, I have faith that this forum will do right by them.

Good question @Nik
'By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail' - Ben Franklin, maybe.
There is no perfect solution, it's what works best for you and your situation. But:
Become a premium member, it will reap great rewards.
Prepare a spreadsheet itemising what you have and how much you paid for it. This will aid in mitigating any losses.
Ideally, sell on here to achieve the best prices. Your heirs won't get ripped off here, the forum members wouldn't allow it.
This is what I've done and all the info is in an envelope in my desk, which includes
The forum website and log in instructions. I've added a few user names of those I trust the most.
This will be best and most profitable method but not the easiest, so I've added the contact details of HGM, Sharps Pixley, Atkinsons and Chards. My wife may just want to liquidate in one go, so the option is there. She should achieve 'around spot' and quick payment. If CGT will a problem for you, consider/discuss it before it bites you in the arse.
I used to keep all my spreadsheets on Dropbox but after a chat with @HillWalkerDundee, I keep it on a memory card now, which is easy for my wife to find. I use 'wife' but you can choose who you like 😎

20 Pesos. 15g @ £48.62/g = £729.3 plus premium. 

 

50 Pesos. 37.5g @ £48.62 = £1,823.25 plus premium. 

20 Pesos,worth £0.92p with 10% inflation. 

50 Pesos, worth £2.92 with 10% inflation 
Keep stacking chaps 👍

There are many patterns in history repeating or rhyming themselves. One I saw very often is a goverment (democracy, dictatorship, empire or monarchy) of a powerful civilisation deciding to spend more than it could afford or collect in taxes, and deciding to "export" its financial problems by expanding its territory and subjugating other civilisations.
The example of the Nazy Germany was lampent. Its economic miracle pre WW2 was no miracle. It was currency creation and desire for "lebensraum" (living space), which pushed Hitler to invade Europe, in order to export paper reichsmarchs and steal resources and wealth (gold from their central banks) of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, France, Greece, Soviet Union and so on.
We have seen may others alike.
A few weeks ago I've had a long chat with a dear friend of mine, about a topic which is, as italians, very familiar to us: the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.
From the punic wars onwards (two centuries before christ), almost every conquest of the Roman Republic was launched with the purpose of looting new territories, in order to seize their land and guarantee a flush of slaves and wealth (in the form of gold, silver, jewelry) from the defeated populations. Think about Julius Caesar. He started the Gallic wars in 58 BC as a Proconsul on the verge of bankrupcy, and 8 years later, after having hannilated the Gauls on the battlefield and looting their land (modern day France), he was one of the wealthiest man in Rome.
Then, a few years before Christ, two civil wars turned the republic into an empire. It was wide, rich, militarily powerful. And greedy.
The emperors always wanted to spend more than what he could collect in taxes. They had bureacracy to maintain, projects to build like acqueducts, arenas and roads all over the empire (never seen anithing alike later in the middle ages). And vaste armies to pay.
But there were plenty of territories to conquer. Britannia, Lusitania (portugal), Middle east, North africa, Balcans. And therefore there were plenty of slaves to bring to the empire and to put to work for free. And plenty of Gold and Silver to take from the conquered population. The endless conquests of the Empire worked very well for two centuries, as long as there were territories to occupy, in order to satisty its unquenchable thirst for "over-spending".

Then around the 200 AD, the Empire reached its geographical limits. Atlantic ocean in the west. Rhine and Danube in the north. Sahara desert in the south. Parthian empire as main enemy in the east. It couldn't expand any further and it was overstretching.
No more lands, slaves, gold, silver. No more fuel for its engine. It will become known as the "crisis of third century". Because the only solution to keep overspending, was to create inflation. They relentlessly started to debase their currency, lowering its purity, melting gold and silver with worthless metals. The picture down below gives a pretty good idea.

At some point inflation was out of control. In one year, while the state doubled the salary of the soldiers, the price of grain tripled.
They tried to control and lock prices. Did not work. The free market was out of control.
They divided the empire in two with two emperors, Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire (later known as Byzantine), in order to make the management of that giant easier. It helped the eastern much more than it did for the western. 
After that for a century or so (from 285 to 376 AD), the empires seemed to flourish again, thanks a long series of population migrations (whom the romans called barbarians) from asia and north-eastern europe. Immigration was successfully controlled, and helped both the empires to bring in new blood, new workforce, new soldiers. They settled in, learned latin or greek, became Romans. They compensated for the foreign territories Rome had no longer the strenght to conquer.
But at some point the barbarians crossing the Danube into the empire were too many. A series of accidents sparked a war and the Goths wiped out the Eastern Roman Army ad Adrianople in 378. The East managed to remein safe after the disaster, but the Goths, just a generation after, invaded the italian peninsula, sieged and sacked Rome in 410. It was the first time in 800 years that the ethernal city was violated by a foreign power, and its days were numbered. The Western Roman Empire collapsed under the never ending barbarian invasions, and ceased to exist in 476.
The Eastern Roman Empire though, had a better geography, richer lands.
And started coining once again an hard currency made of gold and silver from the 4th century. To distinguish it from the always inflated Western denarius, they called is "SOLIDUS" (which in latin means "hard", standing for hard money).
The eastern roman empire survived another 1000 years, until 1453.
Later in the middle ages, the latin language started giving birth to the italian (my mother language).
That "SOLIDUS" started being called just "SOLDO".
And still today, SOLDO is the italian word for "money".
 

There are many patterns in history repeating or rhyming themselves. One I saw very often is a goverment (democracy, dictatorship, empire or monarchy) of a powerful civilisation deciding to spend more than it could afford or collect in taxes, and deciding to "export" its financial problems by expanding its territory and subjugating other civilisations.
The example of the Nazy Germany was lampent. Its economic miracle pre WW2 was no miracle. It was currency creation and desire for "lebensraum" (living space), which pushed Hitler to invade Europe, in order to export paper reichsmarchs and steal resources and wealth (gold from their central banks) of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, France, Greece, Soviet Union and so on.
We have seen may others alike.
A few weeks ago I've had a long chat with a dear friend of mine, about a topic which is, as italians, very familiar to us: the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.
From the punic wars onwards (two centuries before christ), almost every conquest of the Roman Republic was launched with the purpose of looting new territories, in order to seize their land and guarantee a flush of slaves and wealth (in the form of gold, silver, jewelry) from the defeated populations. Think about Julius Caesar. He started the Gallic wars in 58 BC as a Proconsul on the verge of bankrupcy, and 8 years later, after having hannilated the Gauls on the battlefield and looting their land (modern day France), he was one of the wealthiest man in Rome.
Then, a few years before Christ, two civil wars turned the republic into an empire. It was wide, rich, militarily powerful. And greedy.
The emperors always wanted to spend more than what he could collect in taxes. They had bureacracy to maintain, projects to build like acqueducts, arenas and roads all over the empire (never seen anithing alike later in the middle ages). And vaste armies to pay.
But there were plenty of territories to conquer. Britannia, Lusitania (portugal), Middle east, North africa, Balcans. And therefore there were plenty of slaves to bring to the empire and to put to work for free. And plenty of Gold and Silver to take from the conquered population. The endless conquests of the Empire worked very well for two centuries, as long as there were territories to occupy, in order to satisty its unquenchable thirst for "over-spending".

Then around the 200 AD, the Empire reached its geographical limits. Atlantic ocean in the west. Rhine and Danube in the north. Sahara desert in the south. Parthian empire as main enemy in the east. It couldn't expand any further and it was overstretching.
No more lands, slaves, gold, silver. No more fuel for its engine. It will become known as the "crisis of third century". Because the only solution to keep overspending, was to create inflation. They relentlessly started to debase their currency, lowering its purity, melting gold and silver with worthless metals. The picture down below gives a pretty good idea.

At some point inflation was out of control. In one year, while the state doubled the salary of the soldiers, the price of grain tripled.
They tried to control and lock prices. Did not work. The free market was out of control.
They divided the empire in two with two emperors, Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire (later known as Byzantine), in order to make the management of that giant easier. It helped the eastern much more than it did for the western. 
After that for a century or so (from 285 to 376 AD), the empires seemed to flourish again, thanks a long series of population migrations (whom the romans called barbarians) from asia and north-eastern europe. Immigration was successfully controlled, and helped both the empires to bring in new blood, new workforce, new soldiers. They settled in, learned latin or greek, became Romans. They compensated for the foreign territories Rome had no longer the strenght to conquer.
But at some point the barbarians crossing the Danube into the empire were too many. A series of accidents sparked a war and the Goths wiped out the Eastern Roman Army ad Adrianople in 378. The East managed to remein safe after the disaster, but the Goths, just a generation after, invaded the italian peninsula, sieged and sacked Rome in 410. It was the first time in 800 years that the ethernal city was violated by a foreign power, and its days were numbered. The Western Roman Empire collapsed under the never ending barbarian invasions, and ceased to exist in 476.
The Eastern Roman Empire though, had a better geography, richer lands.
And started coining once again an hard currency made of gold and silver from the 4th century. To distinguish it from the always inflated Western denarius, they called is "SOLIDUS" (which in latin means "hard", standing for hard money).
The eastern roman empire survived another 1000 years, until 1453.
Later in the middle ages, the latin language started giving birth to the italian (my mother language).
That "SOLIDUS" started being called just "SOLDO".
And still today, SOLDO is the italian word for "money".
 

There are many patterns in history repeating or rhyming themselves. One I saw very often is a goverment (democracy, dictatorship, empire or monarchy) of a powerful civilisation deciding to spend more than it could afford or collect in taxes, and deciding to "export" its financial problems by expanding its territory and subjugating other civilisations.
The example of the Nazy Germany was lampent. Its economic miracle pre WW2 was no miracle. It was currency creation and desire for "lebensraum" (living space), which pushed Hitler to invade Europe, in order to export paper reichsmarchs and steal resources and wealth (gold from their central banks) of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, France, Greece, Soviet Union and so on.
We have seen may others alike.
A few weeks ago I've had a long chat with a dear friend of mine, about a topic which is, as italians, very familiar to us: the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.
From the punic wars onwards (two centuries before christ), almost every conquest of the Roman Republic was launched with the purpose of looting new territories, in order to seize their land and guarantee a flush of slaves and wealth (in the form of gold, silver, jewelry) from the defeated populations. Think about Julius Caesar. He started the Gallic wars in 58 BC as a Proconsul on the verge of bankrupcy, and 8 years later, after having hannilated the Gauls on the battlefield and looting their land (modern day France), he was one of the wealthiest man in Rome.
Then, a few years before Christ, two civil wars turned the republic into an empire. It was wide, rich, militarily powerful. And greedy.
The emperors always wanted to spend more than what he could collect in taxes. They had bureacracy to maintain, projects to build like acqueducts, arenas and roads all over the empire (never seen anithing alike later in the middle ages). And vaste armies to pay.
But there were plenty of territories to conquer. Britannia, Lusitania (portugal), Middle east, North africa, Balcans. And therefore there were plenty of slaves to bring to the empire and to put to work for free. And plenty of Gold and Silver to take from the conquered population. The endless conquests of the Empire worked very well for two centuries, as long as there were territories to occupy, in order to satisty its unquenchable thirst for "over-spending".

Then around the 200 AD, the Empire reached its geographical limits. Atlantic ocean in the west. Rhine and Danube in the north. Sahara desert in the south. Parthian empire as main enemy in the east. It couldn't expand any further and it was overstretching.
No more lands, slaves, gold, silver. No more fuel for its engine. It will become known as the "crisis of third century". Because the only solution to keep overspending, was to create inflation. They relentlessly started to debase their currency, lowering its purity, melting gold and silver with worthless metals. The picture down below gives a pretty good idea.

At some point inflation was out of control. In one year, while the state doubled the salary of the soldiers, the price of grain tripled.
They tried to control and lock prices. Did not work. The free market was out of control.
They divided the empire in two with two emperors, Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire (later known as Byzantine), in order to make the management of that giant easier. It helped the eastern much more than it did for the western. 
After that for a century or so (from 285 to 376 AD), the empires seemed to flourish again, thanks a long series of population migrations (whom the romans called barbarians) from asia and north-eastern europe. Immigration was successfully controlled, and helped both the empires to bring in new blood, new workforce, new soldiers. They settled in, learned latin or greek, became Romans. They compensated for the foreign territories Rome had no longer the strenght to conquer.
But at some point the barbarians crossing the Danube into the empire were too many. A series of accidents sparked a war and the Goths wiped out the Eastern Roman Army ad Adrianople in 378. The East managed to remein safe after the disaster, but the Goths, just a generation after, invaded the italian peninsula, sieged and sacked Rome in 410. It was the first time in 800 years that the ethernal city was violated by a foreign power, and its days were numbered. The Western Roman Empire collapsed under the never ending barbarian invasions, and ceased to exist in 476.
The Eastern Roman Empire though, had a better geography, richer lands.
And started coining once again an hard currency made of gold and silver from the 4th century. To distinguish it from the always inflated Western denarius, they called is "SOLIDUS" (which in latin means "hard", standing for hard money).
The eastern roman empire survived another 1000 years, until 1453.
Later in the middle ages, the latin language started giving birth to the italian (my mother language).
That "SOLIDUS" started being called just "SOLDO".
And still today, SOLDO is the italian word for "money".
 

Not keeping anything for the quarter ounces. I only keep the invoices for the full ounces, which I'm not planning to sell anytime soon, especially since they are liying at the bottom of the sea.

@Bratnia - most people are bullish (e.g. Ray Dalio) on China but I am not. China has peaked according to several meaningful criteria, the most important of which being demographics. The Chinese population is officially 1.4 billion but unofficially it could be significantly less than that
There is the legacy of one-child policies and imbalanced male/female demographics. Contrary to popular belief, men cannot get pregnant. Check out China's population pyramid:
Population of China 2023 - PopulationPyramid.net
And compare this with Germany:
Population of China 2023 - PopulationPyramid.net
And Japan:
Population of China 2023 - PopulationPyramid.net
China has too few young workers to support their ageing population. China is projected to have the most aged population of any nation by 2030, with 400 million aged > 60. China's population is projected to decrease to 766 million by 2100. The population curve has peaked and is trending downwards in similar fashion to Germany. If China really has "lost" millions of people, China could actually be in a similar situation to Japan (well into the demographic decline phase) and nobody outside of the CCP knows the true figures.
There is a credible research paper on the current GDP of China, with the paper claiming GDP is overestimated by between 40-60%.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/720458
This interpretation was not taken from official data or paper trails of any kind, rather, satellite imagery was used to investigate land usage and night-time-lights (NTL). There is robust data from more open economies than China on the NTL and GDP relationship, with NTL correlating strongly with GDP. The CCP might be able to lie to international investors and their domestic audience, but satellites and photon detectors are less interested in propaganda.
So that's my typically concise way of saying China can't rely on internal capitalism for several reasons including demographics and the global nature of Chinese big business.
Chart: Which Countries Are Net Exporters & Importers? | Statista
China is essentially two countries - the East Coast and South Coast are roughly equivalent to South Korea in terms of development and GDP per capita. The other regions, however, are more akin to African nations like Tunisia, Egypt or Algeria in GDP per capita. If everybody is educated and relatively wealthy, fine, you can rely on internal capitalism to a certain extent. If you are in the development phase though then FDI and exports are pretty much essential:
 

Yes. I worry about the same issue, Ive got terminal lung cancer so in time my 'collection' will be passed on, so its 'sellability' is a critical factor, I suspect many a coin collection that has been carefully and lovingly put together over many years has been passed on to a new generation only to be broken up and sold off cheaply either through ignorance, carelessness or even dodgy dealers taking advantage of the sellers lack of knowledge, my only answer to this is to keep the collection as simple as possible (not easy) and leave copious notes with the collection for my son to decipher in years to come, best wishes to all

If you look at things in terms of biscuits it's easier to get people to eat one than to eat a whole packet. Same with gold. You stick a full ounce up for sale and it immediately excludes a large section of the silver population whereas a sovereign or a happily affordable 1/10th Brit will be hoovered up before you can refresh your page to see if your ad has been loaded successfully. 
I sold a sov on here in a minute a few weeks ago. It was a bit cheap but if it had been a 1oz Brit I'd probably have ended up reducing the price slightly to garner some interest or put it up for auction for a £1 start and fretted all weekend 'till I broke even. 
Of course people do buy gold ounces all the time but why reduce your sales audience by melding several affordable assets, sovereigns for example, into a one ounce beast few can afford to buy on whim. 
There's also less risk dealing in quarter ounces if something goes wrong.
Nope. A one ounce bullion is four times the stress without four times the fun. Give me a sov or wee beasty any day.
All this assumes you want to sell one day, which I assume you do, or they'd be no point buying, unless you had a gold fetish, which is perfectly understandable and a recognised condition on theses boards lol.

Shares are down, golds up. Im not all in on anything and I know with Gold around an ATH it’s the current favourite but realistically diversification is the key. My shares have took a hit, my gold is offsetting that hit and doing it’s job and the portfolio stays balanced, we are in a time where just not losing your shirt is a start. When the rubble clears that’s when there can be a fortune to be made but we are a way off that yet.
At the moment i think we have the perfect storm for gold to go up further and other asset classes to fall further. Doesn’t mean one should liquidate one for the other, just hold tight and keep moving in the right direction. Taking profits is never a bad thing either though especially when something is the highest price in history, all depends on where that money goes.
The price of gold never has and never will go up in a straight line and daily or even weekly predictions are pointless (yet entertaining at least). I don’t think it’s over yet, and as many say in a year, 2 years, 5 years time will £20 above or below the current spot price really matter?
Prediction for the week? It will definitely go up or down, that I’m positive about!

Please don't get me wrong. I'm all in with metals. My only concern is I've overheard several random conversations now at the supermarket. Petrol station forecourt, builders merchants even whilst I was fishing, a couple came by walking the dog, all talking gold. What's the saying. "When the shoeshine boy starts giving you stock tips, run".

Please below £1600 pleaseeeeee pretty please! Payday in a few days. 🤣
 

I've just come across this interesting link that I think is worth sharing:
http://www.goldchartsrus.com/chartstemp/FreeGoldSilverSSCPI.php
Yeah it's in dallars but we can mentally adjust for the ailing pound, especially since the end of WWII.
Charts are logarithmic as well 😄
It shows Gold and Silver prices since 1700 using either US 'official' stats or Shadow-stats (just click at the top either  US Government CPI-U Statistics or Shadow Government Statistics - SGS-Alt CPI )
Anyone familiar with inflation adjustments will be aware of how understated they are from 1980 onwards. Shadow stats fix this.
It's interesting how cheap silver is in historical terms
Yeah, mining methods have evolved, gold standard is non-existent, new tech is increasing demand, but still it is food for thought IMO

The Pound dates back to the 700's, when it was a Saxon pound weight of silver value. For lugging around larger value amounts it was easier to carry gold (less weight for the same value).
Prior to September 21st 1931 and Sovereign gold one pound coins were the same as one Pound note paper currency, both were cash, and fixed/exchangeable. Savers wouldn't keep cash (gold coins) at home, they deposited them for safety and interest (more gold). Inflation broadly averaged 0% (finite gold) so interest was like a real (after inflation) rate of return. Bond total returns compared to stock total returns, but stocks were more volatile so most simply held bonds.
In 1931 the UK ended convertibility, so gold sovereigns you might have deposited for interest, had to be drawn as Pound note paper currency.  The early stages of fiat currency, that has subsequently seen predominately inflation. If the state/central bank print/spend a new note that devalues all other notes in circulation, is a form of micro-taxation, benefits the printer/spender at the cost of devaluing all other notes in circulation. Combined inflation and actual taxation ended bonds (and hence gold) generally paying a real rate of return to instead broadly average 0% real. In view of gold and bonds generally yielding 0% real, investors turned to stocks. 100% stocks however is risky, especially for retirees, so many opt to blend stocks and bonds, but could do comparatively well with stocks and gold. Tends to make bad case outcomes less bad (better/safer).
All fiat currencies decline sooner or later, just a matter of how much time that takes. A US dollar from a century ago has devalued more than 95%. A -3% annualised devaluation rate (or otherwise known as inflation). Gold like any item that is in demand tends to maintain its price in real (after inflation) terms. Someone is inclined to buy such items from you for similar reasons to why you bought it in the first place, for security/diversity/whatever reasons. US stocks in 1946 paid 4% dividends, as did they in 1986. Investors might have bought stocks at those times for that same 4% dividend yield reason. Over those years however the price of stocks increased 11-fold, as did the price of gold.

Some good info there! I'd never heard of the ora before.
Interesting to note the stability in the earlier days. A nobleman living on about £200pa over a few centuries and only going up to £500 or do in the mid-1400s, which coincides with the silver bullion shortage of the mid fifteenth century. There was a lot of debasement in that era (by weight in England and by fineness on the continent).
As we all know: poor money leads to higher prices.

Sorry to say this but that’s an awful defeatist attitude.
Even in China under the strict regime of the Chinese government the rollout of their digital Yuen CBDC has stalled because people refuse to use it. So far everywhere a CBDC has been rolled out people are refusing to use it and it’s working. Even in communist China! So have a bit more faith in yourself and your fellow man. All you have to do is continue paying for things using any existing method other than the CBDC. That’s not so hard is it?

Tell me about it!
BOA suck, I got so frustrated with them, I cut up my credit card and sent it back 😒 

 

I personally use Wise and Revolut - both I think these days require facial ID which I hated giving - this will likely be used to give to HMRC if asked for. It was the same with the Exchanges, all suddenly started wanting proof of ID so they can link all your transaction accounts - something which CBDC's will solve for them and it can easily come with loads of caveats - like expiry limits to stop you saving, stop you spending outside of your Covid region etc along with full transparency of your purchases to levy upcoming carbon tax.
We all need to use cash where possible and boycott businesses that are cashless.

There is a recent push by the H.M.R.C. and the bank to look in to cash transfers and withdrawals. There's nothing in the kitty and they want yours. This came from an acquaintance that works in the NatWest. Expect increased in-depth investigations. It's not just gold.
Customers to banks are a necessity. They don't want you. but they need your cash. Once it's deposited it's theirs. You only have a claim on it. So they are trying to keep their fund from you making a call on it.
Its done to discourage the loss of the funds. You might think it's too much to be bothered with and decide not to spend it. But if you do insist. Lets find out as much info about you and the seller as we can to pass on the info to the H.M.R.C.
The only crypto they interested in you owning is the one they along with the government fetch out. I recently read that once the digital pound comes out you will only be able to purchase a maximum of £20,000 of the stuff. Gold is for nation states. How dare you want this barbaric worthless relic. No, let the government look after that for you.
They are all up to it. Best to have multiple banks. They will all do it but not at the same time.
As stated above. Not just Halifax.
You can add me to that list. Although crossing fingers and knocking on wood. They've got used to me lately.