# Wedding Band



## Claudie (Apr 18, 2011)

$1,500.00 an Oz. Who woulda thunk it. Years ago, when I got married, I couldn't afford to buy gold rings, so I spent $10 at the Mall and got a beautiful set of white gold plated brass ones. She thought they were beautiful and that's what really matters. I know some of you are probably thinking that if I couldn't afford rings, I shouldn't be getting married but twenty some odd years later, we are still together. Like George Jones used to say, "Only love can make a golden wedding ring". My point is, that was years ago when gold was maybe $250 an Oz., the young people today wanting to get married are dealing with an even worse economy, higher gold prices, and no end in sight. Will they opt for plated brass or just not get married? By the way, later in our marriage I did get her a better set of rings. We still slide the original ones on every now and again just for fun, but hers turns her finger green, mine doesn't fit any more. :|


----------



## element47 (Apr 18, 2011)

There are of course no shortages of opinions on what the "natural" price of Au/Ag "should" be. Our perceptions are somewhat distorted by the fact that for a long time, gold (and especially silver) in the late-19th century was being dragged out of the ground (in CA and NV) in unprecedented quantities. Following that, the market prices of same were profoundly controlled by government until 1971. Until 1933, one could walk into a bank and exchange 20 silver dollars (worth, well, twenty dollars) for a gold double eagle (worth $20!) just like making change for paper money today. 

My understanding is that the average COP (cost of production) of an ounce of gold is in the $900 range, all-in, with enviro-remediation costs figured in. Certain miners of course have much lower costs. I was always impressed with Goldcorp, as a stock, who has a mine that produces in the sub-$100 range, one in the $13x range, and another in the $32x range. 

I think it would be very easy for gas to hit $5. Even higher, really, should some sort of pan-Arab upset occur. We are so utterly hosed for having never solved this issue domestically over the past 30 years. It infuriates me. Gas does not need to double to utterly devastate the US economy. $5-6 will do it. Especially if coupled with similar rises in food. I'm also not happy about what I envision of prevailing conditions if and when all this takes place. Apart from my intrinsic like of silver as an object of visual obsession, I'm just trying to take some protective moves. When silver was $6-7 and gold sub-$300, those prices simply did not reflect the cost of production. It had nothing to do with any PM fetish: No a different than slice of baloney for 1 cent. You cannot raise the cow, slaughter the cow, slice up the meat and package it in a salable form for a penny a slice. No way can you produce silver for $6-7 an ounce in terms of mining it, purifying it, melting it, ingotizing it, and shipping it to someone who has to make 2-3% for selling it. Cannot be done. 

Apologies if I have led this thread into the infinity of the great beyond.


----------



## Drewbie (Apr 18, 2011)

Any woman who is going to base their decision on getting married on whether or not the ring is "good enough" is the kind of woman you don't want to get married to.

The "we'll buy rings later on when we can afford them" type of girl is the one to go for.

Here endeth today's lesson.


----------



## qst42know (Apr 18, 2011)

> No a different than slice of baloney for 1 cent. You cannot raise the cow, slaughter the cow, slice up the meat and package it in a salable form for a penny a slice.



Who told you bologna was meat? :lol:


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Apr 18, 2011)

qst42know said:


> > No a different than slice of baloney for 1 cent. You cannot raise the cow, slaughter the cow, slice up the meat and package it in a salable form for a penny a slice.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you bologna was meat? :lol:



Oh it is you just don't want to know what kind of meat. The best bologna is rag bologna. 8)


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 18, 2011)

Barren Realms 007 said:


> The best bologna is rag bologna.


And the best kind of woman,is the one that doesn't care whether you can ever afford a ring,as long as you are together.


----------



## Barren Realms 007 (Apr 18, 2011)

mic said:


> Barren Realms 007 said:
> 
> 
> > The best bologna is rag bologna.
> ...



We are both in agreement on that. 8)


----------



## Harold_V (Apr 19, 2011)

element47 said:


> When silver was $6-7 and gold sub-$300, those prices simply did not reflect the cost of production. It had nothing to do with any PM fetish: No a different than slice of baloney for 1 cent. You cannot raise the cow, slaughter the cow, slice up the meat and package it in a salable form for a penny a slice. No way can you produce silver for $6-7 an ounce in terms of mining it, purifying it, melting it, ingotizing it, and shipping it to someone who has to make 2-3% for selling it. Cannot be done.



Sure it can! Gold was produced in profusion when its official valuation was only $20.67/ounce. Same with silver, and it was only $1.29/ounce. 

Key to success is the value of the dollar. In today's value, yeah, you're right---it likely can't be done---although the mine in Carlin, Nevada has produced from ore that was as low as .10 ounce/ton, and when gold was under $300/ounce.

We are not suffering from the high price of gold and silver---we are suffering from the reduced value of the dollar. It simply isn't a dollar any longer. More like a dime, if that. 
If it helps any, I can remember when diesel fuel was 18¢/gallon. That won't pay the state tax on it now. Snickers candy bar, Wrigley's chewing gum---3¢ each. Hostess Twinkies---longer than they are now---just 7¢ for two. Hostess cupcakes, two for 7¢. Fudgesicle, popsicle, Creamsicle, Milknickel, each 5¢. Box of breakfast cereal less than 35¢.

Harold


----------



## Oz (Apr 19, 2011)

Harold_V said:


> We are not suffering from the high price of gold and silver---we are suffering from the reduced value of the dollar.
> It simply isn't a dollar any longer.


I could not agree more.

Here is a calculation I just ran on the Federal Reserve’s own web site, go ahead and play all. Bear in mind this calculator is based on the CPI (consumer price index) that is fudged by our government to not include food, fuel, or housing, just the 3 things everyone must have (they haven’t figured out how to charge us for air yet). I picked 1913 since that is when the Federal Reserve was created, with the mandate to protect the value of our money. Notice that since they started protecting the value of our money, even they admit to a 95.52% loss in value/purchasing power.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/


----------



## element47 (Apr 19, 2011)

Harold and Oz, what you say is true, but what I was trying to point out is that those snapshots of item prices Harold mentioned were taken at certain points in time, or, before the Fed was established, during periods of comparatively stable currency values. I'm primarily talking about say 1880-1910 and 1945-1965. (Very inexact dates) 

When gold was $20.67 it was first and foremost not subject to nor did it reflect market forces; its value was government-controlled. $20.67 was in the area of a week's wage during much of that era. Over the week or so that gold snapped to $35 an ounce in 1933, that was by government diktat. And...very few people got automatic $35/21 = 66% raises at the time...if they worked at all. Now I am not necessarily saying that market forces are ideal things in all cases but I do say they are in MOST cases. Many people think that a gold standard or gold backed currency would be ideal for the USD. They tend to forget that currency values underwent WILD swings (20-30% or more) in the latter half of the 19th century; there were panics (1873, 1907) and recessions and crashes while the dollar was HARD backed by gold. Indeed, I believe the case can be made that if the dollar were hard-backed by gold, it could easily be subject to ruinous swings in value instituted by massive holders of gold. But this all drifts into a large morass of discussion that I didn't especially wish to wander into. 

What (and all) I am saying is only this: Any time you buy (or the market buys or prices) something, you are expressing a preference for one form of value over another. In 2000-2001 commodities were at multi-generational lows. In 2000-2001 dollars the amount of work necessary to drag an ounce of gold out of the ground, purify, assay, and ingotize or coin it were valued far, far above $270-300 an ounce. Same with silver @ $5-6. Sure, somewhere there were mines that yielded those metals at those prices but they were rare exceptions. Ag and Au were available for sale for rather less than their average cost of production. A barrel of oil was $9-$11-$13 back then, and yes, the Saudis can extract oil for that amount or less, but very, very few other producers can. Thus, many of them shut down (market forces) until oil prices rose in the market (mkt forces) allowed many more producers could make out pumping oil. There was a period of time 2005-2008 during which petroleum refiners were highly valued because so few (none, actually, in the US) were being built. (Look at a chart for VLO common stock, for example) We still need all that refined product; but now, petro refineries are regarded as rotten, dirty businesses that cannot be kept up to date because the enviro restrictions on expanding or building them are so onerous. 

Myself, I was quite convinced of Ag and Au selling for less than their production costs at the time 2000-2001; I wish I had loaded up on gold, but I sure piled up silver. I was far less convinced that there was any particular upside to them. Certainly not compared to internet stocks! Now, in 2011, I think they are getting rather ahead of their "intrinsic" values. They too, are undergoing what I call "frenzy" (not necessarily "bubble") behavior because people see the deliberate destruction of currencies everywhere around the world. It's quite the perfect storm, especially for silver. Although I assume we are all fans of PMs, there should be no illusion that commodity markets, ALWAYS are subject to violent, vicious corrections. There are of course more investors in Ag/Au than ever before, and there are several other factors "pumping" the market price. Market forces will ultimately assert. I myself believe silver and gold will go quite a bit higher, but believe it or not, I do NOT like the behavior of silver here. Oh, it's great for all that I already own, but it's very hard (for me) to buy physical silver here.


----------



## element47 (Apr 19, 2011)

That's an interesting calculator, Oz! I notice it doesn't go back before 1913. I was kind of interested in what a basket of stuff bought with 1895 dollars would be worth today. 

Interestingly, if you plug "1964" and "$1000" into that calculator, it says those goods would cost $7110. 

Yeah, I guess that's why $1000 of silver dimes are worth $31,350, LOL.


----------



## goldsilverpro (Apr 19, 2011)

There's a bunch of inflation calculators on the internet. Here's one that starts in 1800

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/


----------



## Claudie (Jul 13, 2011)

sophia13 said:


> Wedding ring for the bride and groom are important pre-wedding rituals. Today, the market is flooded with beautiful wedding bands that are available in metal and classical incredible. The rings are made of gold, platinum, titanium and silver. The rings are the latest design in the choice of people. wedding band is fashionable men are turning their thoughts towards this type of ring to buy. And as it is rare that a man will an engagement ring on their wedding ring is often the only jewelry they wear. So they need to think about it.
> 
> 
> wedding band engraving




Yeah, we scrap a lot more of them these days than we use to. I would never want to engrave one with a name as that changes too fast now-a-days.


----------



## jimdoc (Jul 13, 2011)

Claudie,

That was spam, and now the link is in your post.

Jim


----------



## Oz (Jul 13, 2011)

I removed the hyperlinks but left the words. 

Sophia13, spam is not permitted here, if you continue you will be banned.


----------



## Claudie (Jul 13, 2011)

I vote that we should remove the last few posts in this thread, back to her wedding band post. :|


----------



## TabithaW (Jul 20, 2011)

When I got married about six years ago, I spent more money on the diamond part of the ring than on the gold. I didn't want a gold ring and went with titanium although it has a gold inlay. I don't think yellow gold is as popular as it was years ago in wedding bands. Most people seem to be getting white gold or platinum. With mens rings, it seems that titanium is a popular choice.


----------



## Claudie (Jul 21, 2011)

BillyTheKid said:


> Claudie said:
> 
> 
> > $1,500.00 an Oz. Who woulda thunk it. Years ago, when I got married, I couldn't afford to buy gold rings, so I spent $10 at the Mall and got a beautiful set of white gold plated brass ones. She thought they were beautiful and that's what really matters. I know some of you are probably thinking that if I couldn't afford rings, I shouldn't be getting married but twenty some odd years later, we are still together. Like George Jones used to say, "Only love can make a golden wedding ring". My point is, that was years ago when gold was maybe $250 an Oz., the young people today wanting to get married are dealing with an even worse economy, higher gold prices, and no end in sight. Will they opt for plated brass or just not get married? By the way, later in our marriage I did get her a better set of rings. We still slide the original ones on every now and again just for fun, but hers turns her finger green, mine doesn't fit any more. :|
> ...



Being married isn't that expensive, it's the divorce that costs the most.... :|


----------

