So where do you actually SELL gold bullion?

dpoole

My sister revealed that she bought some gold bullion (coins I presume) before Y2K, in anticipation of the end of the 20,000-year human experiment in civilization.

Well, that didn't happen, as you know. And since gold's gone up some recently (in anticipation of the end of the 20,000-year human experiment in civilization...), she's contemplating selling and getting her greenbacks back.

I told her I have some gold, but for numismatic interest only. I don't know much about precious metals as an investment.

Where can I tell her to go sell her gold, and get the best deal?

mrdq

I sold 10 Krugerrands last year for a guy on Ebay and got a few bucks over spot at the time.

PutTogether

CNI one of the only places that pays over spot. Ebay will work too.

wayneherndon

Try Tulving. They buy at over spot on Gold Eagles. Great people to deal with too. They do a large volume so have narrow buy/sell spreads.

WH

matteproof

Hi dpoole. I agree with you about the 20,000 year human history (I actually think it's more like 14,000 years). The earth and everything within it is MUCH younger than most suppose (I suppose). matteproof

dollardude

<< My sister revealed that she bought some gold bullion (coins I presume) before Y2K, in anticipation of the end of the 20,000-year human experiment in civilization.

Well, that didn't happen, as you know. >>

Chalk it up to stupid tax. I've paid stupid tax myself, so don't be ashamed. We all sometimes panic and make mistakes. I'd sell the crap on eBay as soon as possible, and get your money out of it.

dpoole

Thanks for the advice! You guys are great.

I agree with you about the 20,000 year human history (I actually think it's more like 14,000 years).

I think some bishop in the 1800s figured out the world was created 4004 BC, October 23rd at 9:00 am. Or something like that.

DennisH

If they're K-Rands or other recognized national bullion coins, you should be able to do just fine on the Buy-Sell-Trade board!

-- Dennis

ddink

I did some figuring awhile back, going through the geneologies in the Bible, and I think I estimated the world was 7,000 years old. Of course, non-Christians would disagree.

Have her sell the bullion on eBay!

Baley

I think I estimated the world was 7,000 years old.

that was pretty sneaky of God, putting all those geological features and fossils in the ground to lead scientists to believe, apparently falsely, that the planet was billions of years old and to fool us into thinking that multicellular life evolved over 600 million years ago! And the concepts of astronomy and evolution, wow, what a con

edit: oh, the gold bullion: Sell on eBay

1jester

This thread is already getting interesting!! And to think the forum police haven't even chimed in yet.

Oh, sell the bullion either on ebay, or, for more convenience, to a local shop.

matteproof

Hi dpoole. You said; "I think some bishop in the 1800s figured out the world was created 4004 BC, October 23rd at 9:00 am. Or something like that." It sounds like you are thinking about Bishop Ussher. He proposed an earth history of 7000 years based upon his understanding of the Biblical calenders found in the book Genesis. Others have promoted the 20,000 number using similar readings of Genesis, though reaching different conclusions than Ussher. Bishop Ussher failed to factor in the genealogies of the various Kings found in the books of Chronicles and the books of Kings (among others).

Archaeologists have yet to prove human antiquity beyond "thousands" of years despite their many claims to the "millions" of years. Dr. Willard Libby, the inventor of the often used Carbon dating method, flatly stated that his method of dating was only accurate - at most - up to 17,000 years. It is therefore impossible to date any fossil beyond this age using the method.

After all of these years and hundreds of thousands of unearthed fossils, the so-called "missing link" (a fossil showing an animal in the "process" of becoming human) has never surfaced. Darwin insisted that plenty of them would surface. He was wrong - again!. matteproof

matteproof

Hi bailey. You said; that was pretty sneaky of God, putting all those geological features and fossils in the ground to lead scientists to believe, apparently falsely, that the planet was billions of years old and to fool us into thinking that multicellular life evolved over 600 million years ago! And the concepts of astronomy and evolution, wow, what a con..” I hear you. However, it was not GOD, but rather the evolutionists (or Neo-Darwinists) who have mis-interpreted the massive fossil record.

For example, The “Piltdown Man” was a fossil find that archeologists held up as a missing link. With great fanfare, famous and respected scientists of the day reported that the Piltdown Man fossil was “proof” of human antiquity. The science textbooks were written, and the children all learned in school about this famous fossil “proving” human lineage with apes. And then, on his death bed, one of the discoverers of the fossil confessed that he made the whole thing up (ironically with some assistance from a Jesuit priest).

People believed what they WANTED to believe. All of those “experts” who had studied and examined the fossil were duped (because they wanted to be duped). As for the fossil itself, the so-called “missing link” turned out to be a human skull of about 10,000 years age, which was artificially attached to the jawbone of an orangutan! The fossil was 10,000 years old - NOT millions of years old as the textbooks and experts had held for decades.

There have been many other fossil mishaps throughout the years. Piltdown Man was only one of them. Humanity is young. Our coins are older than we think! matteproof

JadeRareCoin

in anticipation of the end of the 20,000-year human experiment in civilization. Well, that didn't happen, as you know.

Wait a minute.......you mean that I can come out of my bomb shelter?? Yahooooooo!

Prometheus183

Interesting how some of these threads are manipulated into completely different contrasts from their original subject matter.

What was the question again?

Craig

atomic

I've had good experiences with SCPM. They list the buy/sell spread on their web site. For example, for 1oz Gold Eagles they're paying 2.00% over spot to buy and charging 5.50% over spot to sell. Their profit is 3.5% minus shipping costs. I find that's typical.

SCPM

Anyone who bought gold because of Y2K did so because of fear mongering. My cousin Jack bought a bunch for that reason. He was totally carried away with the whole end of the world thing, as many were who know nothing about computers. As computers are my business, I did everything I could to talk Jack out of it. But after the world didn't end he felt humiliated and betrayed -- his first instinct was to get rid of the stuff. I told him that while he bought gold for the wrong reason, he'd be compounding his error by selling it for the wrong reason. At about the same time he was thinking of selling his Y2K hoard, our uncle passed away. He and my father had purchased gold in the 1970s when gold was under $100. They did this in anticipation of a big inflation coming under conditions not unlike those we see today, but much more benign than those we see today. Unfortunately, they neglected to sell it in the early 1980s when gold hit $700+, which is $1200+ in current dollars. The perfect trade in 1980 would have been to sell gold and buy the S&P500. Now the opposite is true. I promised Jack that gold would go to at least $400/oz within two years. Instead, true to form, he sold his Y2K and inherited gold at the bottom of a 20+ year bear market in gold in the spring of 2001, when spot was $260.

The moral of the story: don't let your heart make your investment decisions. Use your head.

Atomic

BAJJERFAN

Well if she sells anything other than local she may have to pay for next day delivery which could offset the cost of selling local tho a local dealer may take this expense into account as well. Depends on what she has. When I sold mine I think the dealer had them for all of 10 minutes. She should try the free message boreds first IMO.

wayneherndon

Spectrum also buys and I see their GAE buy price is a couple of bucks higher than Tulving.

WH

Conder101

<< <i>Archaeologists have yet to prove human antiquity beyond "thousands" of years despite their many claims to the "millions" of years. >>


If you mean Homo Sapians then yes, they don't date back more than 0 to 100 thousand years. If you include all of the hominoid families then you can get back a few million. The fossils from Africa's Great Rift Valley found by Richard Leakey ("Lucy" and others) date back over two million years by other dating methods than radiocarbon dating.

matteproof

Hi Condor. Thank you for your thoughts. You said; The fossils from Africa's Great Rift Valley found by Richard Leakey ("Lucy" and others) date back over two million years by other dating methods than radiocarbon dating."

"Old Earth" dating figures cannot be computed from materials that are solely from the Earth. This makes old date assumptions and conclusions speculative by necessity. Carbon Dating CAN reasonably date Earth material provided that the material (i.e. fossils) contain the necessary carbon (which they do). It is not unknown for Radiometric Dating methods to leave one believing that a 7,000 year old object is billions of years old. This dating method relies heavily upon assumptions (for example, if the original assumption about the amount of radio active substance in the material is wrong, then the conclusion will be wrong).

The fossil “Lucy,” was discovered by anthropologist Donald Johannsen in Ethiopia about thirty years ago. Despite the ongoing claim (and controversy) surrounding her, Lucy has been shown to NOT be human or “in between” human (i.e. missing link). Rather, Lucy was likely an ancestor of the “Galada Baboon."

Though Johanssen and his colleagues never mentioned it, Lucy was shown to be a “knuckle walker” and positively not “human” according to independent, unbiased analysis of her remains. After extensively reviewing the remains of Lucy, the anthropologists Stern & Sussman flatly concluded that Lucy is NOT the “link” between ape and humans, but likely an ape! So the debate continues.

With regard to Richard Leakey, his discoveries and doctrines are now largely rejected by many anthropologists. Leakey mostly embraced the findings of South African anthropologist Richard Dart who preceded him. Dart discovered the so-called “Taung Child" a fossil of a “child’s skull” alleged by Dart to be a missing link between ape and man. Most dismissed Dart's find.

Condor, consider this: IF Lucy were a true missing link, would there be only ONE example of that link? A true missing link should yield a voluminous population of fossils (as Darwin expected) as such fossils would provide evidence of entire societies of apes becoming human in the intermediate form (not merely one example). If evolution occurred (and I believe it didn't) then it must have occurred worldwide, in droves, among every species. But where is the fossil proof of creatures in the process of "evolving?" It's not!

For example, consider that an animal evolving into a whale would be half sea-going and half land-bound and fitted for life neither ashore nor in the oceans. How could such a creature give birth to its young, or even eat, without drowning? Whales can do those things, but their land ancestors, or an “intermediate form” could not have and would have become extinct by trying.

When you reflect upon the long history of Darwinian anthropology, it seems that the only thing truly “evolving” is evolutionary theory itself. Can a truth that keeps changing be called truth at all? Thank you again for your thoughts Condor. matteproof

docday2003

<< <i>Hi Condor. Thank you for your thoughts. You said; The fossils from Africa's Great Rift Valley found by Richard Leakey ("Lucy" and others) date back over two million years by other dating methods than radiocarbon dating."

"Old Earth" dating figures cannot be computed from materials that are solely from the Earth. This makes old date assumptions and conclusions speculative by necessity. Carbon Dating CAN reasonably date Earth material provided that the material (i.e. fossils) contain the necessary carbon (which they do). It is not unknown for Radiometric Dating methods to leave one believing that a 7,000 year old object is billions of years old. This dating method relies heavily upon assumptions (for example, if the original assumption about the amount of radio active substance in the material is wrong, then the conclusion will be wrong).

The fossil “Lucy,” was discovered by anthropologist Donald Johannsen in Ethiopia about thirty years ago. Despite the ongoing claim (and controversy) surrounding her, Lucy has been shown to NOT be human or “in between” human (i.e. missing link). Rather, Lucy was likely an ancestor of the “Galada Baboon."

Though Johanssen and his colleagues never mentioned it, Lucy was shown to be a “knuckle walker” and positively not “human” according to independent, unbiased analysis of her remains. After extensively reviewing the remains of Lucy, the anthropologists Stern & Sussman flatly concluded that Lucy is NOT the “link” between ape and humans, but likely an ape! So the debate continues.

With regard to Richard Leakey, his discoveries and doctrines are now largely rejected by many anthropologists. Leakey mostly embraced the findings of South African anthropologist Richard Dart who preceded him. Dart discovered the so-called “Taung Child" a fossil of a “child’s skull” alleged by Dart to be a missing link between ape and man. Most dismissed Dart's find.

Condor, consider this: IF Lucy were a true missing link, would there be only ONE example of that link? A true missing link should yield a voluminous population of fossils (as Darwin expected) as such fossils would provide evidence of entire societies of apes becoming human in the intermediate form (not merely one example). If evolution occurred (and I believe it didn't) then it must have occurred worldwide, in droves, among every species. But where is the fossil proof of creatures in the process of "evolving?" It's not!

For example, consider that an animal evolving into a whale would be half sea-going and half land-bound and fitted for life neither ashore nor in the oceans. How could such a creature give birth to its young, or even eat, without drowning? Whales can do those things, but their land ancestors, or an “intermediate form” could not have and would have become extinct by trying.

When you reflect upon the long history of Darwinian anthropology, it seems that the only thing truly “evolving” is evolutionary theory itself. Can a truth that keeps changing be called truth at all? Thank you again for your thoughts Condor. matteproof >>