@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.
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.