What The Hell, A New Gold Thread.........

sabretoothtigger

This sounds like good advice for anyone who has swapped gold into the paradigm safe as houses:

However, trading in commodities comes with serious financial health warnings. “It is one of the highest-risk investments you can undertake – more so than shares or property. Frankly, in the risk stakes it’s a 10 out of 10,” warns Mr McDermott. “Take the oil market, for instance. If you had bought oil in the middle of last year, you’d now be sitting on losses of close to 80 per cent. A lot of institutions piled into oil at that time and are now counting the cost.”

Theres that 'traditional' 5% rule on gold but theres always a good reason to break the rules when its all looking so sweet, again that just reminds me of houses again

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/invest-save/investors-offered-a-way-out-of-the-gloom-1628634.html

drum_3

Hi

Thought it unwise to start ANOTHER gold thread

..... so just a quick question.

Seen two 1/10 kruggerands that both hover between 3.41 and 3.42 grams on .01 digital scales.

Is that an acceptable discrepancy against the official 3.93 grams?

Thanks

tradetime

Frankly, in the risk stakes it’s a 10 out of 10,” warns Mr McDermott. “Take the oil market, for instance. If you had bought oil in the middle of last year, you’d now be sitting on losses of close to 80 per cent. A lot of institutions piled into oil at that time and are now counting the cost.”

Whilst I haven't read the article yet, and thus would not take issue generally with what the author appears to be saying, I think that quote is a little unfair, yes if you bought oil at the top of a near parabolic rally you'd be down big time, but that would have been a bad decision by any metric, fairer to say if you bought it in mid '07
Now compare that with buying banks from the same time period, or homebuilders, or retail, all general stocks, no specific shining stars.
But generally I'd have to agree commodities are not without significant risk compared to normal stocks, so don't wish to undermine that view.

nrsql

Could be counterfeit.
Could also be that the scales are misreading.
What happens if you put the two coins on together? That will highlight any zero discrepancy.

drum_3

nrsql wrote: »

Could be counterfeit.
Could also be that the scales are misreading.
What happens if you put the two coins on together? That will highlight any zero discrepancy.

Really? Interesting.So you're saying no overweight tolerance allowed at all? Even 2/100 of a gram?

Scales are new and pre-calibrated but are very cheap!

Sorry, don't quite get your last bit. I'll try but assuming it will be 6.82

BTW sorry for taking the thread OT. Move my question if you wish.

nrsql

>> So you're saying no overweight tolerance allowed at all? Even 2/100 of a gram?

You have 3.41 against 3.93 which is .52 grammes not .02, its over 13% out.
Think these are manufactured at .01 over the expected weight. Yours are underweight not overweight.
You will lose some through wear and tear - what condition are these in?

>> I'll try but assuming it will be 6.82.
If it is then it means the zero is probably correct. If it turns out to be 7.34 then it means that your scales are reading weights correctly but the zero is out..

drum_3

nrsql wrote: »

>> So you're saying no overweight tolerance allowed at all? Even 2/100 of a gram?

You have 3.41 against 3.93 which is .52 grammes not .02, its over 13% out.
Think these are manufactured at .01 over the expected weight. Yours are underweight not overweight.
You will lose some through wear and tear - what condition are these in?

>> I'll try but assuming it will be 6.82.
If it is then it means the zero is probably correct. If it turns out to be 7.34 then it means that your scales are reading weights correctly but the zero is out..

LOL - I think we've really confused each other now nrsql. I have toothache and the antibiotics are clearly fuzzing my mind

My post had a typo. The weight quoted by Wikipedia is 3.393 NOT 3.93.

So my 2/100's overweight does apply. Does that make sense? Is any overweight tolerance allowed if the diamater and thickness are ok?

They don't appear oversize although don't have an accurate rule.and are in good nick for their age.

shaun_from_Africa

If anyone is considering buying a small set of scales for checking coins, I would highly recommend these.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/DIGITAL-SCALE-50GRAM-00-1GRAM-10-TIMES-MORE-ACCURATE_W0QQitemZ350168956318QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_BOI_Electrical_Test_Measurement_Equipment_ET?hash=item350168956318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1121%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318

Only £9 and accurate to .01 gram.
I purchased a set last month, and as I have access to calibrated weights at work, I checked them using 5, 20 and 50 grams, and they were spot on each time.

nrsql

drum wrote: »

LOL - I think we've really confused each other now nrsql. I have toothache and the antibiotics are clearly fuzzing my mind

My post had a typo. The weight quoted by Wikipedia is 3.393 NOT 3.93.

So my 2/100's overweight does apply. Does that make sense? Is any overweight tolerance allowed if the diamater and thickness are ok?

They don't appear oversize although don't have an accurate rule.and are in good nick for their age.

I did check your value but misread it as well.
It should be about .01 over the stated weight so 3.4031 which makes your 3.41 - 3.42 pretty close and more than likely due to the scales. Weighing them both together might highlight that

Stavros_3

Don't panic Mr Mainwaring, Asheron will be along shortly, prostituting that Gold will be $2,000 an ounce this year, and you MUST be on the train to get the best price now.