How much gold in the World.

[MickB]

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/world/gold/gold.html

After searching on the web for an idea of how much gold there is on the planet, I came across this site.

Quite useful for getitng my head around the figures. Also interesting is how much silver there is.

 

[sovereignsteve]

I'm surprised at the volume of all the gold ever mined. I've seen it on a few occasions stated as the volume of 3 london buses I think it was, or something equally insubstantial compared to that stated on this website. Or maybe I'm mistaken.

[MickB]

If all the gold ever mined was melted into a solid cube,
the cube with sides of 20.5m would fit in an Olympic Swimming Pool.

This is taken from the above site, the same statement that I've read elsewhere. When I read this I have in mind that an olympic swimming pool has a deep end & a shallow end, so I can never get the idea of a large cube sitting in one. I always wonder how many pools could be filled that only cover the same area as the water takes up.

[sovereignsteve]

5 hours ago, Silverwarrior said:

This chart shows over 3.5 million tons of gold and now only half a million tons of silver left including all unreported stockpiles of gold and silver.

Left where? What is an "available stockpile"?

[HighlandTiger]

If all the gold ever mined was melted into a solid cube,

the cube with sides of 20.5m would fit in an Olympic Swimming Pool.

This is taken from the above site, the same statement that I've read elsewhere. When I read this I have in mind that an olympic swimming pool has a deep end & a shallow end, so I can never get the idea of a large cube sitting in one. I always wonder how many pools could be filled that only cover the same area as the water takes up.

Not wanting to be pedantic BUT. ......Olympic swimming pools do not have a "shallow end". If they did then then half the swimmers in the relay teams in the 50m relays would be hitting their heads when diving in. These pools have the same depth all the way along.

[Danny-boy]

Not wanting to be pedantic [emoji6] BUT. ......Olympic swimming pools do not have a "shallow end". If they did then then half the swimmers in the relay teams in the 50m relays would be hitting their heads when diving in. These pools have the same depth all the way along.

You are wrong.

They have a minimum depth, but very rarely are they built at a constant depth.

[HighlandTiger]

Not wanting to be pedantic [emoji6] BUT. ......Olympic swimming pools do not have a "shallow end". If they did then then half the swimmers in the relay teams in the 50m relays would be hitting their heads when diving in. These pools have the same depth all the way along.

You are wrong.

They have a minimum depth, but very rarely are they built at a constant depth.

Lol ive found someone more pedantic than me.

Whilst FINA regulated pools can have a varying depth with a minimum of 1.35 m near the end. All pools used for Olympic and world championship competitions must have a minimum depth of 2m. Not something I would consider as being "shallow". Which was the point I was trying to make.

Also they do try to make the pools used in Olympics etc to have a uniform depth. The reasoning behind this is that waves increase as depth reduces and thus becomes what is classed as a "fast pool" , because swimmers can get a boost from the waves when approaching the ends.

[MickB]

29 minutes ago, HighlandTiger said:

 

You are wrong.

They have a minimum depth, but very rarely are they built at a constant depth.

 

 

 

Lol ive found someone more pedantic than me.

 

Whilst FINA regulated pools can have a varying depth with a minimum of 1.35 m near the end. All pools used for Olympic and world championship competitions must have a minimum depth of 2m. Not something I would consider as being "shallow". Which was the point I was trying to make.

 

2 metres is shallow to me as I can stand up at this depth and have my head above the water

[Danny-boy]

Not wanting to be pedantic [emoji6] BUT. ......Olympic swimming pools do not have a "shallow end". If they did then then half the swimmers in the relay teams in the 50m relays would be hitting their heads when diving in. These pools have the same depth all the way along.

You are wrong. They have a minimum depth, but very rarely are they built at a constant depth.

Lol ive found someone more pedantic than me.

Whilst FINA regulated pools can have a varying depth with a minimum of 1.35 m near the end. All pools used for Olympic and world championship competitions must have a minimum depth of 2m. Not something I would consider as being "shallow". Which was the point I was trying to make.

That may have been the point you were trying to make, but you specifically said that, "These pools have the same depth all the way along".

That is incorrect.

[HighlandTiger]

 

You are wrong.

They have a minimum depth, but very rarely are they built at a constant depth.

 

 

 

Lol ive found someone more pedantic than me.

 

Whilst FINA regulated pools can have a varying depth with a minimum of 1.35 m near the end. All pools used for Olympic and world championship competitions must have a minimum depth of 2m. Not something I would consider as being "shallow". Which was the point I was trying to make. [emoji6]

 

2 metres is shallow to me as I can stand up at this depth and have my head above the water[emoji3]

Bloody hell lurch. what's the weather like up there. (can't beat the old uns)

[MickB]

Alright, my head will be sticking out slightly but I can still stand on the bottom. My nephew is slightly taller at 6ft. 10 inches. 

My dad was a Grenadier guardsman so if he stood in the 'shallow' end in his busby, he would have been taller than anyone

[daz]

1 hour ago, MickB said:

Alright, my head will be sticking out slightly but I can still stand on the bottom. My nephew is slightly taller at 6ft. 10 inches. 

My dad was a Grenadier guardsman so if he stood in the 'shallow' end in his busby, he would have been taller than anyone

Guards wear bearskins not Busbys. @HighlandTiger I think this proves I'm the most pedantic in this thread!

[KDave]

Remember that an available stockpile is not the only factor influencing the price, otherwise silver would be however many times more valuable than gold when comparing there stock piles. Because silver is not comparatively more valuable than gold, you need to ask yourself why this is the case and will this continue. Just something to think about before you go all in on silver, rhodium, platinum or any other form of metal that has a vastly smaller above ground stock pile compared to gold.  

[MickB]

17 minutes ago, daz said:

Guards wear bearskins not Busbys. @HighlandTiger I think this proves I'm the most pedantic in this thread!

 

17 minutes ago, daz said:

Guards wear bearskins not Busbys. @HighlandTiger I think this proves I'm the most pedantic in this thread!

Well i thought I'd say busby as I didn't want anyone to think that my dad stands in swimming pools in his 'bare-skin'. 

[HawkHybrid]

there's 8M pandas, they still sell at a healthy premium above

spot. possible availability does not equal supply. gold is rare

considering it's versatility and ability to replace other metals

in application.

 

HH

[KDave]

The study is interesting but I may have come to a different conclusion than the author. Forgive me if I am missing something, but to me it appears that the size of the stockpile has nothing to do with the size of the commodity value? If it did, Uranium today would be worth more than gold, like it was back in the 50's no? 

 

[KDave]

Bingo. So when we look at the size of the stockpiles, being comparably rare above ground is not a good indicator of whether or not something is valuable. The size of the stockpile is in fact largely irrelevant in the light that the vast gold stockpile is very valuable, compared to the relatively tiny uranium/silver/platinum/enter your commodity here stockpile which is comparably negligible in value. Why is this, what does it tell you about silver/uranium/platinum and more importantly, what does it tell you about gold?  

[vand]

40 minutes ago, Silverwarrior said:

Silvers true value bar, with the recent admission by a central bank that silver is being manipulated, there is only one question left. What is the true value of silver? This ingot answers that question with silver true historical value as 10th ozT valued at 12hrs one days wage.

Also the gold silver ratio over 6000 years.

 

The 16:1 historic ratio was just a fix as it was determined that was the relative volumes that came out of the ground and were in existence. However, to put it plainly, silver and gold are different - they have different usages and as such are valued differently. Platinum is much rarer than gold and much more useful for industrial purposes also, but it doesn't command the same premium.

I am not say that silver is not underpriced or that the GSR may even reach 16 one glorious day, but people who keep pulling back to this historic number don't fully grasp the concept of markets and money. Back even before the Romans used 16:1, other civilisations has an even lower GSR. Yet over time gold has outperformed precisely because it has proven to be the ultimate store of wealth. While there will be wild gyrations over the short term, in the very long term (past our lifetimes) I would expect gold to move ever higher relative to silver.. and everything else.

[KDave]

4 hours ago, Silverwarrior said:

The reason why gold is valuable is because it's so high priced and the reason 
why it's so high priced is because people value it as high priced. Thats it, no 
other reason.

 

Why then do people still today value gold so highly and pay such a high price for it if it so common (relatively to other metals)? Why do they not value the other metals including silver as much? 

Not saying you are saying this but often when I ask these questions people jump straight to the manipulation argument, but its a cop out. "I can't figure out why the market does not support my view so it must be manipulated 24/7 365 days a year every hour every day". Cant buy that myself as 100% total control of the markets is not reflected in the evidence.

16:1 ratio for silver - we are talking about a time when silver was money. Silver is no longer money, it is an industrial commodity first with investor/speculative demand second. I hold silver for this purpose. But do national governments, central banks, private big money players in the world hold silver in the same regard as they do gold? How many hold vast amounts of gold as a part of their foreign exchange reserves and how many hold silver, platinum, palladium, other commodities? What does that tell you about gold? It tells me that gold is money. The investment case as I see it is different for each metal, but both are positive imo. 

[morezone]

Even if silver was 15:1 there is no way it would ever be used to store wealth for the likes of governments/central banks etc.  Not only would you require 15 times the storage capacity for the same fiat value, it would actually be 30 times since silver is around half the density of gold.  Not practical really so gold will always be regarded as a high value product and a store of wealth.

 

[HawkHybrid]

money as a store of wealth: how many of the 16:1 denarii of the

roman empire survived? how many roman gold coins survived?

the same reason we don't use food (perishables) as a store of value.

gold is corrosion resistant, unreactive and last the test of time. have

you noticed tarnish on silver? how about milk spotted gold maples?

gold is more valued because it has better properties than any other

metal making it much more useful.

if there were a supply of 8M pandas you would have thought they were

easily available and low premium coins(noahs ark have only 1M). fact

is that most of those panda coins are not available as supply ie they are

not for sale. same with above gold reserves. they are reserves and not

supply as most are not for immediate sale. (much is held as insurance)

 

HH

[KDave]

6 hours ago, Silverwarrior said:

A nice bar with a nice history lesson, but coming to the wrong conclusion imo. 'The Manipulation has temporarily devalued silver...' whoever minted that bar is either delusional or trying to turn people to their own advantage - ie convince them to buy silver on a spurious claim. I would say the second given that they are minting silver bars and looking to make a profit regardless of what the silver price does.

There is a far far better investment case for silver. Silver is a good investment, but not because it is manipulated. Do your own research and don't just believe what people tell you, including me, but especially someone with a vested interest in the message they are pumping.