World Colonial

Buying gold coins was the only option between 1933-1974, legally, other than jewelry.

From the double top near $2070? No, I would not consider that "noticeably lower". It's not low enough where I want to buy it. If the comparison is to any other commodity, nothing in the comparison changed. There is no need to inflation adjust it. I see your point when attempting to measure relative value for anything else, but no one would have bought gold back then at this theoretical price since it was much higher than the cost of buying Saints or $20 Liberty.

Likewise for me with your position.

The price would increase based upon people's collective abstract belief. No one could possibly have a way of knowing whether no gold would ever be mined again.

It doesn't factor into hardly anyone's decision on how much to pay. It can't because 99%+ have no clue how much the marginal cost is. They have no reason to care either. Exactly, they believe. That's my point. It doesn't matter whether it does or does not. You're using exactly the same reasoning practically everyone else does, trying to explain prices using the supposed "fundamentals". None of it matters to the price for the reason I gave you. The "fundamentals" don't have an independent existence where "they" go around buying or selling anything. People buy because they expect prices to go up, at least relative to something else, regardless of the supposed "reason". Conversely, people may have many reasons for selling, but expecting the price to increase is never one. This all goes back to the conversation we didn't have earlier, on the Efficient Market Hypothesis. EMH is complete bunk (more academic claptrap), not just in pricing gold but everything else. Since there is no such thing as absolute value, no amount or volume of data or information explains or "justifies" higher or lower prices. All monetary and financial values are psychologically determined. It's an abstract concept independent from the physical world. That's what accounts for manias and crashes too. The consensus acts like the pricing behavior of certain assets like NFT, crypto, beanie babies, whatever...is irrational (and now many don't even believe that) while "mainstream" assets are (more or less) priced according to the "fundamentals according to EMH. That's nonsense. Look, I'm not arguing against buying gold, or anything else. But there is no need to rationalize whatever decision anyone makes because that's what most people do. I agree that 99%+ claim to buy for the reasons you included, and that's what ultimately matters. Most of the time, the majority is wrong, especially at major turning points. The so-called "fundamentals" are always most supportive at or near price peaks, which is why most people who use it usually eventually lose money.

We can't help it.

I don't agree with your conclusion.

I know it was fixed from 1933-1971 but the reason I wouldn't use this period while I will use it for relative valuation for the earlier period is because the economy wasn't distorted prior to 1933. Gold's price has nothing to do with its supposed utility in industry. This is the same argument used for silver by the permanent silver bulls. I have no idea how much gold is used in a suit or car but to the extent it is, I'd attribute it to economic waste due to the credit mania. It's no different than accounts I have read of people literally eating gold. It's another data point indicating extreme mania psychology. Nope, don't agree with this either. This is also the same argument silver bulls have made, for years. Someone also recently used this argument (on another website) for US housing. The cost to produce something doesn't determine the price, at least for anything that isn't an actual essential which gold isn't. It may be true for food crops like wheat, corn, rice, etc. which are staples actually needed for survival but not for anything else. The price of gold is psychologically determined, like the monetary value any other (financial) asset. All "reasons" are post-fact rationalizations. Inflation doesn't buy anything, people do, and they do it because they are bullish (on whatever it is) regardless of the supposed reason. It's this kind of cause-effect reasoning that leads those who believe in manipulation to claim that gold (and silver) is manipulated lower. Since inflation supposedly has to lead to (much) higher metal prices and we have the worst inflation since 1981, therefore prices are supposedly manipulated or else one or both would be much higher. Wrong, people have agency (they aren't robots) and can act (and do) contrary to how any of us think they "should".

That's exactly my claim, except that I don't believe it's the least overvalued either. Other commodities are still less overvalued, but it's never been practical for most people to own it directly. Probably true,but wanting is not the same as doing it. You used this argument in a recent post, but I never responded. It's an argument for the Efficient Market Hypothesis. Tha's all I need to say about that, for now.

I've only owned physical gold once. I don't own any now. I'm looking to own it again but only at noticeably lower prices. Once I own it, I'll probably keep a low percentage of my assets in it "for good" (as insurance) but nothing close to most or all of it. The only reason I even pay attention to the price history prior to 1971 is to use as evidence to contradict those who claim the price should be much higher now or for most of the period since 1980 due to "manipulation". For this purpose, I consider the entire price history relevant. Those who argue the gold price is "manipulated" lower and think it should be much higher ignore relative value entirely. It's nonsense because the primary purpose for owning one form of money (gold) isn't to acquire other forms of money (whatever it is), but goods and services. I'm aware that gold (or silver) is used as a store value but it's still to buy something else (eventually). So, when I hear that gold should or would be worth $5,000, $10,000 or whatever without "manipulation", that's nonsense. The closest anyone could buy everything else with so little gold was only in 1979/1980 when gold (and silver) was in a mania which by definition is temporary, even if "temporary" is of undefined duration. Relative prices change, all the time. It makes no sense to expect to buy-and-hold anything "forever" and expect to perpetually improve their financial position.

Yes. I do think 1933 and prior is relevant in measuring gold's relative valuation but it's more theoretical than anything else.

Yes, I know. Look back to 1971 or even earlier. Gold has increased a lot more. Somewhat because it's not always apples-apples but not hard to get a rough idea. Compare the number of gold ounces it takes to buy the same thing over time. I realize that the "same thing" is not always exactly equivalent to its prior counterpart (like cars or housing) but it's an approximation. You can buy a lot more car now with gold than you could much or all of the past. A new version of my car (Nissan Versa) is maybe 10 ounces, though thanks to government distorting the supply chains, it might be more now. That's less than it took to buy a Model-T in 1926, according to a prior online search. (Yes, i know it varies by car model.) It takes somewhat more than 200 ounces to buy the median priced US home now. Not sure that's really much more than it's been for most of the time since 1980 but it's not low either. Of course, US housing is also now in its biggest bubble ever where it wasn't before, except prior to GFC. I'd say this relative ratio is somewhat useful as a confirming indicator. It's not a timing tool. So, for example, gold was inflated at the peak in 2011. It also increased 3X from the October 2008 low and was also historically expensive versus other things. This didn't mean it couldn't go up more (like in 1979), but if someone is going to improve their financial position using it, you have to try to buy and sell it intermittently as it gets more and less expensive. Holding anything "forever" will eventually cost you. 1980 was mania peak and 2011 was a bubble peak. I'd never use that as a starting point to measure "reasonable" valuation, just like I'd never use any other mania or bubble peak for any other asset, regardless of the asset. (And yes, I do mean any asset.)

I'd ignore the price between 1933 and about 1970 for the reason you gave. Some might ignore prior to 1933 because of the gold exchange standard but I think it's a relatively accurate indicator of "normal" relative prices, before government took over "management" of the economy and credit started inflating to the moon. Nothing is absolutely overvalued or undervalued. Something can only be relatively overvalued or undervalued versus something else or versus its past price. I consider other commodities the best comparison. There are caveats though that one like silver is no longer an equivalent monetary metal but it's still relatively "cheap".

I'd have to compare it to other commodities and goods people buy, liked houses and cars. The problem is getting access to the historical data. It's cumbersome. The last time I saw a chart of relative valuation versus other commodities, it was "significantly" overvalued but that's dated now. It was very overvalued when commodities crashed into the 2020 low. The relative overvaluation should be noticeably less since gold has underperformed against it recently. I understand why gold has sold for this psychological premium, but it's still historically expensive.

Gold is relatively historically overpriced, versus most physical goods and maybe many services. It's entirely a psychological premium, due to the perpetual debasement of your beloved fiat currency and mismanagement of the financial system.

The premiums over spot price for the half eagle to my knowledge is not low, unless maybe it's for a low grade Coronet common date, VF or XF. I'm not aware the Indian Head eagle has a low premium at all. It's not a series I follow but I don't recall the premiums over spot being low when I have checked.

My opinion too.

Maybe I missed it, but I understand the OP wants to buy raw coins. For such common coins, I'd never do that. There isn't a single Morgan dollar that is even close to hard to buy, unless it's a specific Sheldon grade (overwhelmingly top pop), VAM, or on occasion PL. NGC has graded 337 XF-40 and 457 XF-45 1903-S with many more in PCGS holders. If someone wants to buy one of these two grades, should be available in multiple, all the time. If the buyer wants it raw, crack it out of the holder. Sorry, you get what you pay for, most of the time.

I didn't say either were exemplary leaders. I especially think Hugo Chavez was awful. I don't know whether most Venezuelans agree with US policy toward their country or not. Somehow, I don't believe those you spoke to, being more affluent and presumably not even living there anymore, are representative of opinion in that country. Whatever way you want to look at it, the sanctions failed to achieve the USG's publicly stated objective (driving both of them out) and made the lives of most Venezuelans worse. The sanctions were and to the extent still in place are a failure. Well, can't say I agree with Maduro's stated agenda (assuming it's accurate) but don't see it as any business of the US either. Oil is the primary reason I believe the US cares what happens in Venezuela. Yes, socialism is a disaster. Most South Americans love some form of it, overwhelmingly populists from everything I have seen and read. Seems to be ingrained in their culture. Regardless, it's still no business of the USG or any American.

More BS The government of another country is none of my business or any American. Notice how the US has no problem with Saudia Arabia or other countries like it? There is BS talk but nothing more. Neither does China, except with Taiwan which they claim as their territory for historical reasons. Look, I'm not trying to bash the US. I live here. But I'm not going along with the pretense (which is a complete farce) that US foreign policy is virtuous because it isn't. It's calculated self-interest, exactly as I would expect from any country. The US government doesn't actually give a about "democracy". That's another farce. Look at what they do as opposed to what they say. US has no problem dealing with dictatorships, when it's convenient. If you look at the globe and where the US "get's along" or does not, there is a clear pattern, one which you are ignoring. The US comes into conflict with countries that conflict with US interests, the ones deemed most important whatever that is.

You mean like in Venezuela? That's been a huge "success", crushing living standards or driving the population into poverty. I've also read reports the US is trying to get Venezuelan oil to market. So apparently, supporting "democracy" was vital then but can be ditched now, as I haven't heard that Maduro is out.

BS The US has and had no business in any of those countries. All four of those countries are thousands of miles away from the US mainland and are/were in no position to attack US territory. If you tell me otherwise (e.g., terrorism), it's US foreign policy that's the primary if not entire motive behind any attacks. Terrorists don't typically go around attacking random countries that don't meddle in their internal affairs. It happens but it's not from the sources I imply in your post. Whatever the Russian lies, you're assuming the US didn't lie either. I don't exactly know what to believe in this conflict, but I definitely don't believe everything the lying western media or lying US State Department claim. The primary reason Americans hold the cavalier attitude you just expressed (which is the norm, not the exception) is due to geography and history. It's the belief that the US can interfere in or militarily attack other countries with impunity without any "blowback". It's a feature of US foreign policy, not a bug because that's how Imperial powers act. Current US policy became a regular habit starting in the mid-90s. Given that the US claims to have a "strategic interest" over literally every single square inch on the planet, I'll let you infer where this is headed. That's my concern.

I do not. No good guys here (sorry) and this includes the US. Yes, that's what it is now, from the western viewpoint but not Russia's. If you are them, it's close to total economic war. I'm not convinced it won't become a "hot" one later, as I consider US foreign policy insane.

I think this is relatively easy to infer. It's most often going to be the grades where there is a big price variance between two grades which is "meaningful". This is the starting point.

A lot of apparent rarity or scarcity is just the low price. It's hard or harder to buy but not necessarily or actually so because owners have limited incentive to sell it, some or many don't even know they have it, and dealers can't be bothered to market it, such as by listing it on their websites. Most coins are a lot more common than is (apparently) evident from the supply for sale. The experience of most collectors is not necessarily representative of the supply, unless the coin is known to be common. Usually, it isn't.