swanky

These are the pre-1920 premiums I bid with (GC = good condition): GC crowns = 50%, GC half-crowns = 10%, everything else = 5%. Just enough to win occasional auction. But this was a 12+ months ago.

You should be buying the 50% stuff at ~90% melt value, because no way you get 100% bulk selling to a jeweller etc when they need to melt down to refine. Pre-1920 trades for a premium, but that premium is fairly consistent so just accept it. I prefer this over pre-1947, needs less space.

But the £ hasn't devalued much. What has happened is $ has appreciated against almost everything else. That's why £/gold hasn't moved much, and would be same if $ hadn't appreciated.

I count gold being higher in the following month more often than it's lower after a upper BB hit. Daily candles are too short-term for a slow mover like gold, switch to weekly.

What happened to his prediction for new gold ATH in 2021? ... Seems like he focuses on gold, that's fine for long-term forecasts (5+ years) but not for short-term.

He's literally an author and comedian, just the kind of person I go to for financial information 🤣

I collect both and can add some information. Except I don't collect near-mint-condition .925, premium too high, so potential for bias. .925 is more worn than .500, makes sense as silver is softer The first .500 alloy, 1920-22 with the 10% nickel, also wears a lot - less than .925 but more than the successive .500 alloys The next alloy, 1922-27 with 50% copper, fares slightly better Anything from 1927 holds up really well

In my experience average premiums are: Crowns - 90% Half-crowns - 50% Smaller denominations - 25%

If the market price is consistently above your valuation then you need to reassess your valuation. I buy pre-1920 on ebay frequently, at a premium I am confident of getting when I sell.

Old (circulated) British coinage is the best way to stack silver in UK imo. Buy used = no VAT, and cost of minting covered by BoE many decades ago. That just leaves postage, and sometimes s a premium but you get that back when selling. Plus you get to handle it without worrying about smudges or milk spots.

Nah. That’s like saying Nigerian gold scams badly knock gold investor sentiment.

@Bixleyis referring to £ gold price ($ price did not move 3%), to which BoE is very much relevant and significant. It's worth cross-correlating price chart with time of announcements. The FOMC digestion was done before BoE spoke - $ price sharply dropped 1% immediately after FOMC briefing, then clawed it's way back to pre-FOMC price by the time BoE began speaking. Immediately on BoE's rate announcement a, £ price sharply jumped 1.7-1.8%, that's clearly triggered by BoE.

£ gold price will still be green. Half of this move is sterling falling on unexpectedly dovish BoE announcement - $ gold price is flat over a week.

I like this example: Back in 1900 in London, England, 10 shillings would buy weekly groceries for one member of a wealthy household (this is documented in diary records). That's was half of £1 sterling then, same as half a gold sovereign today. Today that gold is worth £150 ($110), definitely enough for a luxurious weekly shop. So at least gold has maintained purchasing power. But in those 10 shillings is 1.68oz of silver, at today's market price that would get just £28 ($21), barely enough for a minimal weekly shop. If silver was widely adopted as everyday money like in 1900, the nominal value in £ or $ should be 5x.

No because the units are wrong. Read my last post in full, which was mostly about units. This guide should help (jump down to 'Multiplication and Division') - http://www.gmatfree.com/module-999/math-with-units This works, thought it might help to show why with the units: g/$-old x $-old/$-new = g/$-new

Forgot about this thread, need to follow-up because this point is critical: You just repeated yourself. And made maths worse, did you mean divide? I will assume that. I will try another way - the maths is fundamentally broken, it's not a matter of dislike. Let's analyse the left-hand side: 24g ÷ $0.04 = ? That means the right value must have the unit of g/$ - grams-per-$ - but you just put $ which is wrong. To get a $ value on right side, and starting with 24g on the left, then the divisor has to have unit g/$ - grams-per-$. Then maths works out - g ÷ g/$ = $.

Why has no one questioned the maths? What is going on here? Why would you do this? What if I did this: 24g ÷ $1 = $24 What does that mean? 24g of silver should have cost $24 in 1900?

No VAT on used old British coinage.

He has always presented well-reasoned arguments, always open to rethinking and learning, and never have I seen him 'ad hominem' others.

I've sent a coin as a simple letter no problem (Royal Mail). Seems mental to me to send a single coin in bulky packaging. I used a corrugated cardboard insert to fill out envelope, as thick as coin, and cut a rough hole for coin. For protection you can wrap coin in plastic film or baggie and tape to card.

My 2019's are also spotless.

"X happens as Y happens" - always ignore these headlines, they are trying to make you draw the link. If there's any issue with Delta, it isn't that it appears to be infecting vaccinated people but that new strains are becoming more virulent not less. Infecting vaccinated is explained by delayed antibody response - it takes a few days for memory cells to ramp up, so infections aren't prevented but illness is for most people.

The density difference is enough for a weight test to differentiate.

I don't see the issue with this. Seller is being honest, and maybe some people just like the look of Victorian currency and don't want to pay for the silver. It's when seller doesn't disclose that causes problems, although the fake crowns I caught were quickly refunded no questions asked.

Only fakes I've come across masquerading as genuine are crowns, lots out there.