that gold/silver ratio thingy

chumley · February 2, 2011 2:25AM

can some explain what ratio of silver to gold is considered normal in terms that even a left hander can comprehend ? for every 100 oz of silver I should have xxx gold

gecko109 · February 2, 2011 2:32AM

Up until around 1933, the ratio was always 15-1 or close to it. Over the past decade it has fluctuated from about 45-1 to about 80-1 or so.

keepdachange · February 2, 2011 2:38AM

<< can some explain what ratio of silver to gold is considered normal in terms that even a left hander can comprehend ? for every 100 oz of silver I should have xxx gold >>

Put it this way, your gold to silver ratio will increase next week after you send me a prospector for the Steelers losing by more than 2.5. You will have less silver, I on the other hand will have more!

gsa1fan · February 2, 2011 2:46AM

Gold/Silver/Ratio is the amount of ounces of silver spot price to equal 1 oz of gold spot price.

Gold spot divided by silver spot = ratio.

SmallTownCoins · February 2, 2011 2:46AM

Not sure what your asking, but, back pre 1933
#20 Silver Dollars would get you a $20.00 Gold piece....

Today it would take about #55 Silver Dollars to get a $20.00 Gold piece...

Looks like Silver has some catching up to do.....

derryb · February 2, 2011 2:48AM

16:1, considered the average price silver to gold. With it off kilter one way or the other, then you should be hoarding in that direction.

Has nothing to do with your investment/stash ratio.

gecko109 · February 2, 2011 2:51AM

<< Not sure what your asking, but, back pre 1933
#20 Silver Dollars would get you a $20.00 Gold piece....

Today it would take about #55 Silver Dollars to get a $20.00 Gold piece...

Looks like Silver has some catching up to do..... >>

Although you are technically correct, the ratio was not 20-1. A silver dollar contains .77oz of silver, and a $20 gold contains .96oz of gold. So thats a ratio of 15.4 to .96 or as derry stated, 16-1.

gecko109 · February 2, 2011 2:51AM

<< 16:1, considered the average price silver to gold. With it off kilter one way or the other, then you should be hoarding in that direction.

Has nothing to do with your investment/stash ratio. >>

16-1 is "average"? Since when?

derryb · February 2, 2011 2:59AM

<< 16-1 is "average"? Since when? >>

Since 1344 A.D.
"The clear lesson from history is that we can expect silver to drop faster than gold during a recession, and silver will rise faster than gold during a bull market in the metals."

gecko109 · February 2, 2011 3:02AM

<< 

<< 16-1 is "average"? Since when? >>

Since 1344 A.D.
"The clear lesson from history is that we can expect silver to drop faster than gold during a recession, and silver will rise faster than gold during a bull market in the metals." >>

So for the past 30 years it has been 60-1, but you claim 16-1 is average?

derryb · February 2, 2011 3:07AM

<< 

<< 

<< 16-1 is "average"? Since when? >>

Since 1344 A.D.
"The clear lesson from history is that we can expect silver to drop faster than gold during a recession, and silver will rise faster than gold during a bull market in the metals." >>

So for the past 30 years it has been 60-1, but you claim 16-1 is average? >>

And for the past 10 years it would be a different average.

First sentence in linked article: "As can be seen from the chart above throughout history silver has sold for about 16 ounces for each ounce of gold." That makes the historical average 16:1. If you want a specific average for specific years then you have to look at just those years. In doing that for any combination of years you will get a different average.

Since OP didn't specify time period I provided the "historical"available. For shorter average view the linked chart (and read the article).

chumley · February 2, 2011 3:12AM

thanks for clearing that up for me

btw nice article on the ratio thingy.....from this I have determined I either have way too much silver or not enough gold...this in spite ofKeepdachanges futile effort to lower my silver count

gecko109 · February 2, 2011 3:13AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< 16-1 is "average"? Since when? >>

Since 1344 A.D.
"The clear lesson from history is that we can expect silver to drop faster than gold during a recession, and silver will rise faster than gold during a bull market in the metals." >>

So for the past 30 years it has been 60-1, but you claim 16-1 is average? >>

And for the past 10 years it would be a different average.

First sentence in linked article: "As can be seen from the chart above throughout history silver has sold for about 16 ounces for each ounce of gold."

Since OP didn't specify time period I provided the longest average available. For shorter average view the linked chart (and read the article). >>

To say the historic average of the gold-silver ratio is 16-1 since 1344 AD is like saying the average time to travel 60 miles since 1344 AD is 4 days, even though it takes about an hour to do that today. Who cares what the ratio of gold-silver was in 1344? The historic ratio of value for gold-salt might be 10-1, but in our lives its 100,000-1. Get the point?

gecko109 · February 2, 2011 3:14AM

<< thanks for clearing that up for me

btw nice article on the ratio thingy.....from this I have determined I either have way too much silver or not enough gold...this in spite ofKeepdachanges futile effort to lower my silver count >>

If you have been thinking of trading silver for gold, NOW is a good time to do that!

derryb · February 2, 2011 3:19AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< 16-1 is "average"? Since when? >>

Since 1344 A.D.
"The clear lesson from history is that we can expect silver to drop faster than gold during a recession, and silver will rise faster than gold during a bull market in the metals." >>

So for the past 30 years it has been 60-1, but you claim 16-1 is average? >>

And for the past 10 years it would be a different average.

First sentence in linked article: "As can be seen from the chart above throughout history silver has sold for about 16 ounces for each ounce of gold."

Since OP didn't specify time period I provided the longest average available. For shorter average view the linked chart (and read the article). >>

To say the historic average of the gold-silver ratio is 16-1 since 1344 AD is like saying the average time to travel 60 miles since 1344 AD is 4 days, even though it takes about an hour to do that today. Who cares what the ratio of gold-silver was in 1344? The historic ratio of value for gold-salt might be 10-1, but in our lives its 100,000-1. Get the point? >>

It's a fact that the historical average of silver to gold is 16:1 (for all available data). What the ratio (or time to travel from A to

is at the moment is irrelevent when answering a question about average. You want apples or you want oranges? You want today's numbers or you want an average? If you want a specific average then give a specific time period.

See if this helps

gecko109 · February 2, 2011 3:28AM

"It's a fact that the historical average of silver to gold is 16:1 (for all available data). What the ratio (or time to travel from A to

is at the moment is irrelevent when answering a question about average. You want apples or you want oranges. You want today's numbers or you want an average. If you want a specific average then specify the time period."

Where did the OP ever ask about historical average? He asked what is "normal". Since 16-1 has not been the norm for about 8 decades, your answer of 16-1 has no relevance.

If someone asked: "Whats the normal commute time to get from Chicago to Indianapolis?"......would you reply "12 days" because thats historically the average time it took from 1600 to 2011? Or would you answer: "About 3 1/2 hours", because that is the normal time it takes in the era where the question was asked?

derryb · February 2, 2011 3:38AM

<< If someone asked: "Whats the normal commute time to get from Chicago to Indianapolis >>

I'd ask if they were traveling by car, airplane or bicycle. As stated earlier parameters are required when discussing averages.

taxmad · February 2, 2011 3:49AM

When gold and silver were a medium of exchange, it has been 16 to 1. The thought was the ratio that the metals appeared in nature. However in the last 200 years since the British tried to demonetize silver in the 1800’s (because they had none) the ratio has increased dramatically. From (1808 – 2008), the ratio between gold and silver has been 33 ounces of silver equals one ounce of gold. More recently, say 1978 – 2008, the ratio has widened to on average, 60 ounces of silver buys one ounce of gold. At the extremes the ratio fell to 17:1 in 1980 as both metals peaked; and rose to 100:1 in 1991 during the depth of the recession.

During the 1976 – 1980 bull market in precious metals, the ratio fell from 40:1 to 17:1

During the 1990 – 1991 recession the ratio rose from 71:1 to 100:1

gecko109 · February 2, 2011 3:58AM

<< 

<< If someone asked: "Whats the normal commute time to get from Chicago to Indianapolis >>

I'd ask if they were traveling by car, airplane or bicycle. As stated earlier parameters are required when discussing averages. >>

I do not disagree with your premise. However, the OP never asked about "averages"....in fact he never even mentioned the word. He asked what IS normal, not what HAS been normal, but what IS normal. 16-1 is not normal, even you can admit to that much.

derryb · February 2, 2011 4:02AM

16:1 was normal for about 500 years. 16:1 is not normal for the last 30 years.

gsa1fan · February 2, 2011 4:09AM

Chumley they got me confused now

roadrunner · February 2, 2011 8:53AM

For the past 25 yrs the gold to silver ratio has traded in a channel from 45 to around 100.

During the first phase up of this PM's bull market it tended to live in the 45-60 range. For the past few years it has widened that range to 45-100 though in the past year it has broken into old territory and recaptured the 45-60 range once again.

roadrunner

derryb · February 2, 2011 11:32PM

Anyone have the silver:gold ratio for last Wednesday?

derryb · February 13, 2011 1:13PM

<< Where did the OP ever ask about historical average? He asked what is "normal". Since 16-1 has not been the norm for about 8 decades, your answer of 16-1 has no relevance. >>

"My long-term target for the ratio is 17. It is approximately the average level at which the two precious metals were exchanged for hundreds of years prior to the arrival of fiat currencies in 1971. It has been my view that a 17-to-1 ratio is attainable by 2013-2015, but given what seems to be shaping up, we probably won’t need to wait that long." -- James Turk

Relevant to those that know the market

that gold/silver ratio thingy

Comments