lets not forget, In the last SHTF senario... WW2, families and nations were able to escape the carnage & plunder by cutting 'fine art' out of it's frame, rolling it up (sometimes hiding/sewing them into the linings of their clothes, some surviving torpedo sinkings in tact, etc) and restarting their lives again using the art as either collateral or outright sale. There's only so much gold/silver you should hold. Carry too much, and it'll just weigh you down.
I'd take you and your posts seriously if you stopped calling bars of gold and silver "Blobs". You're just wasting bandwidth in my opinion.
Ok let me rephrase; In short there are reasons someone might ONLY choose gold/Silver. I don't get why you can't see that.
Well, I am quite new to all this, but I can't think of any reason why one would buy gold exclusively. Surely a mixture of the two is a better bet? I am not doubting you are right, btw, just can't think of the reason. What is the reason? lol. You have my brain spinning now!!!
Liquidity Compact and easy to store. Requires no upkeep. Easy to transport without risk of damaging it. Can be accumulated easily and in small amounts. Don't need a lot of knowledge to make sure you are not buying something worthless. Looks sexy how are those to start with? Hope you are learning.
Thanks I'm trying too. (Learn, that is!) I feel like I have to learn a whole new language too! Breaking out! (Was it in prison?) Channel? Trend-line, rebound, down-trend double-bottom? lol!!!
I recently stumbled onto an article about intergenerational wealth (it is old from 2012). http://www.proactiveinvestors.com/c...-corp/1377/intergenerational-wealth-1377.htmlIt suggests that the very old dynastic wealth (Europe mostly?) divide their assets into thirds of PMs, fine art and land. Since, as of yet, I do not possess intergenerational wealth I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information but if it is true having an argument over which is better gold or art (or land) is like arguing who would win in a fight Batman or Spiderman? As for obtaining art; the average person can obtain some good and interesting stuff for a couple thousand dollars. Maybe not a Picasso or Rembrandt but there have been many talented artists over the centuries. Late 19th Century Dutch paintings are still within grasp, are often very pleasing and have some up side potential. Another option is fine local bronze artists. When they cast a large bronze for a city they will often do a run of smaller copies in limited numbers that can be very affordable and often appreciate nicely. The smaller casts are often highly sought after by city locals. Just a few thoughts. Cheers, Chris
Precisely! The goons in this forum who love to live in fantasy land and always conflate the words of anyone who challenges their nonsense like to pretend that the only works of art that has value is basically a well known oil painting from Rembrandt valued in the tens of millions of dollars or more....conveniently forgetting that works of art not only includes oil paintings of far lesser (though substantial) value, but also illustrations and other printed art, various antiques and memorabilia that would be consider works of art, pottery, glass works, sculpture, large numbers of jewelry, watches, and clocks which get their high value not from any precious metals contained therein but from the craftsmanship and other materials used. and numerous other types of works of art.
