@lermish said:
Though it doesnt make sense to us, I wasnt sure if these foreign adversaries prefer their gold in bar form, or >perhaps gold eagles or buffalos. It doesnt seem out of the realm of possibility for refiners to start melting down >junky pre33 if theres no longer a numismatic premium, but i have little knowledge of the inner workings of the >international gold market.
Not as critical today, but Pre-1933, citizens of other countries wanted our gold coins, especially Double Eagles.
Here's a NY Times article from 1931 talking about how the usual preference for gold bars was augmented with a request for coins/Double Eagles.
This opinion is an informed guess but I don't have any data to back me up and could be totally wrong. That being >said... I don't think any country wants to deal with bags of coins even a little bit. I believe the vast majority is in ingot >form and is shuffled between different storage areas in the same vaults. I also believe on the global scale, the vast >majority of gold movement is on paper.
Bars took off after WWI when we were still on a Gold Exchange Standard. Before that, coins were a good chunk or the majority of the gold settlement trade, more when you went back further in time.
@BillJones said:
what was wrong with K-Rands? I could find only one dealer at the Winter FUN show who would buy them.
I think the fact it it only 0.9167 gold and not a domestic coin probably is why the premium that other coins have has long since faded for the K-Rand. My LCS says he sells only a fraction of the K-Rands that he sold 20 or 30 years ago...and usually Proofs to collectors.
Once upon a time, the Kruggerand was the only modern gold coin regularly produced in volume that was widely available. So many choices today.
@davewesen said:
What percentage of the 90% silver coinage got melted during the Hunt brothers spike?
Actually, not that much though there was damage to collectibles.
A NY Times story I have posted on a thread here noted that the spike to $50 was so sharp and so quick that it didn't last long enough to melt many of the coins, including MSDs and other numismatics. Lots of coins were yanked back from refiners and wholsalers. We're talking about a 80% drop in silver in a few weeks, 50% in a few days.
@BillJones said:
what was wrong with K-Rands? I could find only one dealer at the Winter FUN show who would buy them.
I think the fact it it only 0.9167 gold and not a domestic coin probably is why the premium that other coins have has long since faded for the K-Rand. My LCS says he sells only a fraction of the K-Rands that he sold 20 or 30 years ago...and usually Proofs to collectors.
Once upon a time, the Kruggerand was the only modern gold coin regularly produced in volume that was widely available. So many choices today.
My inference is that the 1984 sanctions (if I have the year correct) changed the perception.
@WCC said:
My inference is that the 1984 sanctions (if I have the year correct) changed the perception.
That didn't help, for sure.
I also think that after a hot decade in the 1970's you had 2 decades following with not much interest in gold or gold coins. Financial assets took off.
@blitzdude said: I was offered 98% Spot/Melt (one in the same by the way)
Here is a screenshot of melt for a St Gaudens
Here is a screenshot of gold spot at this moment
How are these "one and the same" when the melt value is $120 less than the gold spot value.
They are one and the same because they aren't one ounce of gold. Spot price is $/ ounce not $s. Expressed in units of $/ounce, as it should be, it is the same number.
If I say that I'm paying "spot for pre-33 gold", I'm not saying that I'm paying $4080 for every coin - all the coins? I'm paying $4080 per ounce for every coin.
That would be fun.
"I've got 13 AGEs to sell, what are you paying? "
"I'll pay double spot"
"I'll take it!"
"Here's your $8160!"
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
They are one and the same because they aren't one ounce of gold. Spot price is $/ ounce not $s. Expressed in units of $/ounce, as it should be, it is the same number.
I understand that spot is biased on an ounce of gold. Math still doesn't work.
@jmlanzaf said:
They are one and the same because they aren't one ounce of gold. Spot price is $/ ounce not $s. Expressed in units of $/ounce, as it should be, it is the same number.
I understand that spot is biased on an ounce of gold. Math still doesn't work.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
And here is what you get from the site you linked. What was posted above is that spot and melt are the same, they are not as the site you linked shows just as what I posted showed. Melt is a percentage of spot they are not equal.
And here is what you get from the site you linked. What was posted above is that spot and melt are the same, they are not as the site you linked shows just as what I posted showed. Melt is a percentage of spot they are not equal.
They are exactly the same number in $ per ounce. Again, you are looking at the $ value, not the $ per ounce value.
If I pay spot for a $5 AGE, how much is that? $408 or $4080?
By your logic, no one ever pays "spot" for anything but 1 oz bars. Comex trades 100 ounce bars not 1 ounce bars, yet "spot" is quoted in $ per ounce.
You're taking a minor semantic difference and sowing confusion.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
And the only thing that I see stopping the melting of otherwise common gold coins including DEs -- and maybe turning them into semi-rarities in 10 or 15 years -- is that many of the graded & ceritified coins have built-in protection as the actual grade of the coin plus the ability to protect it and handle it from the holder should insure their survival.
For a dealer, I guess knowing that you can always melt a semi-numsimatic coin and not have to "eat" too much of a premium is somewhat comforting if you get caught with too much inventory and need to raise cash.
I wonder if now dealers will hold more MS-64's and MS-65's if gold holds $4,000 going forward, just as they used to hold a decent supply of MS-63 commons and AU raw coins as bullion substitutes.
@GoldFinger1969 said: The answer to the OP is a most definite YES.
And the only thing that I see stopping the melting of otherwise common gold coins including DEs -- and maybe turning them into semi-rarities in 10 or 15 years -- is that many of the graded & ceritified coins have built-in protection as the actual grade of the coin plus the ability to protect it and handle it from the holder should insure their survival.
For a dealer, I guess knowing that you can always melt a semi-numsimatic coin and not have to "eat" too much of a premium is somewhat comforting if you get caught with too much inventory and need to raise cash.
I wonder if now dealers will hold more MS-64's and MS-65's if gold holds $4,000 going forward, just as they used to hold a decent supply of MS-63 commons and AU raw coins as bullion substitutes.
I don't think I'd ever hold pre-33 as a bullion substitute at these levels. If 0.999 is the same price as 0.917, there's no point in holding the 0.917 other than the hope that a premium returns. But it's just as likely that the 0.999 ends up with a higher price than the 0.917 because it doesn't need to be refined.
At some number, the premium on 64s and 65s will also evaporate. It's already pretty much meaningless. If I've got a $4000 coin, is $4200 really significant? It's only meaningful at long as I can flip it instantly. Holding inventory for a 5% gain is too risky. The move in gold can be higher than the premium you are trying to reap.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
I don't think I'd ever hold pre-33 as a bullion substitute at these levels. If 0.999 is the same price as 0.917, there's >no point in holding the 0.917 other than the hope that a premium returns. But it's just as likely that the 0.999 ends >up with a higher price than the 0.917 because it doesn't need to be refined.
Is the pre-1933 (Saint, Liberty, Eagle, or small denomination gold coin) slabbed or not ? Most MODERN bullion coins that aren't proofs or high-grades are NOT slabbed. While I agree that if it's bullion the grade doesn't matter, some people like being able to handle the coin in a holder and also protecting it and storing it is easier.
So that's a reason that pre-1933 gold might be attractive to someone and we've had people on this and other forums ask: a Saint-Gaudens in low-60's grade or a modern AGE or Buffalo ? Obviously, the gold fineness is higher but most of the time the moderns aren't graded/slabbed whereas the Saint usually is.
At some number, the premium on 64s and 65s will also evaporate. It's already pretty much meaningless. If I've got >a $4000 coin, is $4200 really significant? It's only meaningful at long as I can flip it instantly. Holding inventory for a >5% gain is too risky. The move in gold can be higher than the premium you are trying to reap.
I agree.
But holding 65's now with $200 at risk on a $4,000 investment is alot better than holding 65's 3 years ago with $400 at risk on a $2,000 investment !
@GoldFinger1969 said: The answer to the OP is a most definite YES.
And the only thing that I see stopping the melting of otherwise common gold coins including DEs -- and maybe turning them into semi-rarities in 10 or 15 years --
Which specific coins do you have in mind?
For Saints, many of the counts are so high, it would take a lot of melting to turn "common" into "semi-rarities". And when I say a lot, like really a lot. I'm not referring to dates with 6-figure counts, but those a lot lower too.
@Coins3675 said:
If it were up to me I would never melt any 90% silver coins or pre-1933 gold coins.
But "you" also don't want to pay a premium to own them. Everyone loves to post how they picked up the coin for melt. Why is anyone going to hold a coin waiting for you to pay what the refinery is paying immediately?
If collectors start paying a premium, no coins will be melted. If they don't, they are essentially voting (with their wallets) in favor of melting.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
I don't think I'd ever hold pre-33 as a bullion substitute at these levels. If 0.999 is the same price as 0.917, there's >no point in holding the 0.917 other than the hope that a premium returns. But it's just as likely that the 0.999 ends >up with a higher price than the 0.917 because it doesn't need to be refined.
Is the pre-1933 (Saint, Liberty, Eagle, or small denomination gold coin) slabbed or not ? Most MODERN bullion coins that aren't proofs or high-grades are NOT slabbed. While I agree that if it's bullion the grade doesn't matter, some people like being able to handle the coin in a holder and also protecting it and storing it is easier.
So that's a reason that pre-1933 gold might be attractive to someone and we've had people on this and other forums ask: a Saint-Gaudens in low-60's grade or a modern AGE or Buffalo ? Obviously, the gold fineness is higher but most of the time the moderns aren't graded/slabbed whereas the Saint usually is.
At some number, the premium on 64s and 65s will also evaporate. It's already pretty much meaningless. If I've got >a $4000 coin, is $4200 really significant? It's only meaningful at long as I can flip it instantly. Holding inventory for a >5% gain is too risky. The move in gold can be higher than the premium you are trying to reap.
I agree.
But holding 65's now with $200 at risk on a $4,000 investment is alot better than holding 65's 3 years ago with $400 at risk on a $2,000 investment !
There's probably more slabbed Eagles than pre-33.
I also don't think many bullion buyers care. And they will care even less as fake slabs continue to proliferate. All the dealers i know sell more raw eagles and make leafs than slabbed pre-33 by a LARGE margin.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@Coins3675 said:
If it were up to me I would never melt any 90% silver coins or pre-1933 gold coins.
But "you" also don't want to pay a premium to own them. Everyone loves to post how they picked up the coin for melt. Why is anyone going to hold a coin waiting for you to pay what the refinery is paying immediately?
If collectors start paying a premium, no coins will be melted. If they don't, they are essentially voting (with their wallets) in favor of melting.
Your point is the primary one I have been making. Especially at these prices, there are too many coins for the marginal buyer. It's one thing to buy or hang onto "junk silver" or the huge number of post-1933 US circulation silver denomination gems, but another for gold coinage.
The proportion of the collector base who both buy coins at these prices (depending upon the denomination) is a minority to very low, as in really low.
I infer this thread is mostly about generic LH DE and Saints which now cost $4,000+. I question whether more than a few % of the collector base buys coins of this value for their collection, and all of them aren't buying gold coinage. It's just too expensive.
Non-collector stackers/speculators and collectors buying it for financial reasons don't have enough of an incentive to pay virtually any premium, if any at all, at current prices for common or the most common coins.
@Coins3675 said:
If it were up to me I would never melt any 90% silver coins or pre-1933 gold coins.
But "you" also don't want to pay a premium to own them. Everyone loves to post how they picked up the coin for melt. Why is anyone going to hold a coin waiting for you to pay what the refinery is paying immediately?
If collectors start paying a premium, no coins will be melted. If they don't, they are essentially voting (with their wallets) in favor of melting.
Your point is the primary one I have been making. Especially at these prices, there are too many coins for the marginal buyer. It's one thing to buy or hang onto "junk silver" or the huge number of post-1933 US circulation silver denomination gems, but another for gold coinage.
The proportion of the collector base who both buy coins at these prices (depending upon the denomination) is a minority to very low, as in really low.
I infer this thread is mostly about generic LH DE and Saints which now cost $4,000+. I question whether more than a few % of the collector base buys coins of this value for their collection, and all of them aren't buying gold coinage. It's just too expensive.
Non-collector stackers/speculators and collectors buying it for financial reasons don't have enough of an incentive to pay virtually any premium, if any at all, at current prices for common or the most common coins.
Definitely true of gold. Most collections out there aren't worth $4000 total much less contain a single $4000 coin.
But it's also become true of low-grade, common date silver. An AG Barber Half has few buyers at $17 much less $8+ for a G/VG 1950s Washington quarter.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Comments
Not as critical today, but Pre-1933, citizens of other countries wanted our gold coins, especially Double Eagles.
Here's a NY Times article from 1931 talking about how the usual preference for gold bars was augmented with a request for coins/Double Eagles.
Bars took off after WWI when we were still on a Gold Exchange Standard. Before that, coins were a good chunk or the majority of the gold settlement trade, more when you went back further in time.
I think the fact it it only 0.9167 gold and not a domestic coin probably is why the premium that other coins have has long since faded for the K-Rand. My LCS says he sells only a fraction of the K-Rands that he sold 20 or 30 years ago...and usually Proofs to collectors.
Once upon a time, the Kruggerand was the only modern gold coin regularly produced in volume that was widely available. So many choices today.
Actually, not that much though there was damage to collectibles.
A NY Times story I have posted on a thread here noted that the spike to $50 was so sharp and so quick that it didn't last long enough to melt many of the coins, including MSDs and other numismatics. Lots of coins were yanked back from refiners and wholsalers. We're talking about a 80% drop in silver in a few weeks, 50% in a few days.
My inference is that the 1984 sanctions (if I have the year correct) changed the perception.
That didn't help, for sure.
I also think that after a hot decade in the 1970's you had 2 decades following with not much interest in gold or gold coins. Financial assets took off.
Here is a screenshot of melt for a St Gaudens
Here is a screenshot of gold spot at this moment
How are these "one and the same" when the melt value is $120 less than the gold spot value.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
They are one and the same because they aren't one ounce of gold. Spot price is $/ ounce not $s. Expressed in units of $/ounce, as it should be, it is the same number.
If I say that I'm paying "spot for pre-33 gold", I'm not saying that I'm paying $4080 for every coin - all the coins? I'm paying $4080 per ounce for every coin.
That would be fun.
"I've got 13 AGEs to sell, what are you paying? "
"I'll pay double spot"
"I'll take it!"
"Here's your $8160!"
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I understand that spot is biased on an ounce of gold. Math still doesn't work.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Pre33 is 90% not 97%
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Here
https://stacksbowers.com/melt-value-calculator/gold/
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
$20 pre 33 gold has .9675 of gold
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
That's the gold weight not the fineness
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
St. G. melt @ $3962.57 = gold spot @ $4097.
And here is what you get from the site you linked. What was posted above is that spot and melt are the same, they are not as the site you linked shows just as what I posted showed. Melt is a percentage of spot they are not equal.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
We're adjusting for the fact that a Double Eagle is 0.9675 troy ounces, right ?
They are exactly the same number in $ per ounce. Again, you are looking at the $ value, not the $ per ounce value.
If I pay spot for a $5 AGE, how much is that? $408 or $4080?
By your logic, no one ever pays "spot" for anything but 1 oz bars. Comex trades 100 ounce bars not 1 ounce bars, yet "spot" is quoted in $ per ounce.
You're taking a minor semantic difference and sowing confusion.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The answer to the OP is a most definite YES.
And the only thing that I see stopping the melting of otherwise common gold coins including DEs -- and maybe turning them into semi-rarities in 10 or 15 years -- is that many of the graded & ceritified coins have built-in protection as the actual grade of the coin plus the ability to protect it and handle it from the holder should insure their survival.
For a dealer, I guess knowing that you can always melt a semi-numsimatic coin and not have to "eat" too much of a premium is somewhat comforting if you get caught with too much inventory and need to raise cash.
I wonder if now dealers will hold more MS-64's and MS-65's if gold holds $4,000 going forward, just as they used to hold a decent supply of MS-63 commons and AU raw coins as bullion substitutes.
I don't think I'd ever hold pre-33 as a bullion substitute at these levels. If 0.999 is the same price as 0.917, there's no point in holding the 0.917 other than the hope that a premium returns. But it's just as likely that the 0.999 ends up with a higher price than the 0.917 because it doesn't need to be refined.
At some number, the premium on 64s and 65s will also evaporate. It's already pretty much meaningless. If I've got a $4000 coin, is $4200 really significant? It's only meaningful at long as I can flip it instantly. Holding inventory for a 5% gain is too risky. The move in gold can be higher than the premium you are trying to reap.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The $20 St Gaudens might be 90% gold but its weight is > troy oz. So in reality, it is 96.75% troy oz of .999 gold.
Is the pre-1933 (Saint, Liberty, Eagle, or small denomination gold coin) slabbed or not ? Most MODERN bullion coins that aren't proofs or high-grades are NOT slabbed. While I agree that if it's bullion the grade doesn't matter, some people like being able to handle the coin in a holder and also protecting it and storing it is easier.
So that's a reason that pre-1933 gold might be attractive to someone and we've had people on this and other forums ask: a Saint-Gaudens in low-60's grade or a modern AGE or Buffalo ? Obviously, the gold fineness is higher but most of the time the moderns aren't graded/slabbed whereas the Saint usually is.
I agree.
But holding 65's now with $200 at risk on a $4,000 investment is alot better than holding 65's 3 years ago with $400 at risk on a $2,000 investment !
If it were up to me I would never melt any 90% silver coins or pre-1933 gold coins.
Which specific coins do you have in mind?
For Saints, many of the counts are so high, it would take a lot of melting to turn "common" into "semi-rarities". And when I say a lot, like really a lot. I'm not referring to dates with 6-figure counts, but those a lot lower too.
But "you" also don't want to pay a premium to own them. Everyone loves to post how they picked up the coin for melt. Why is anyone going to hold a coin waiting for you to pay what the refinery is paying immediately?
If collectors start paying a premium, no coins will be melted. If they don't, they are essentially voting (with their wallets) in favor of melting.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
There's probably more slabbed Eagles than pre-33.
I also don't think many bullion buyers care. And they will care even less as fake slabs continue to proliferate. All the dealers i know sell more raw eagles and make leafs than slabbed pre-33 by a LARGE margin.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Your point is the primary one I have been making. Especially at these prices, there are too many coins for the marginal buyer. It's one thing to buy or hang onto "junk silver" or the huge number of post-1933 US circulation silver denomination gems, but another for gold coinage.
The proportion of the collector base who both buy coins at these prices (depending upon the denomination) is a minority to very low, as in really low.
I infer this thread is mostly about generic LH DE and Saints which now cost $4,000+. I question whether more than a few % of the collector base buys coins of this value for their collection, and all of them aren't buying gold coinage. It's just too expensive.
Non-collector stackers/speculators and collectors buying it for financial reasons don't have enough of an incentive to pay virtually any premium, if any at all, at current prices for common or the most common coins.
Definitely true of gold. Most collections out there aren't worth $4000 total much less contain a single $4000 coin.
But it's also become true of low-grade, common date silver. An AG Barber Half has few buyers at $17 much less $8+ for a G/VG 1950s Washington quarter.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.