One of the “mysteries” of our modern (i.e. fraudulent) precious metals markets is explaining the face-value of our gold and silver minted coins, meaning relating their nominal price to their actual value. The face-value on U.S./Canadian silver 1-oz coins is $5, and the face-value for our 1-oz gold coins is $50. For those investors (including this analyst) who began using precious metals as a vehicle for wealth-protection at a relatively late date; the face-value of these coins seems totally arbitrary.
However, given the endemic nature of both the price-manipulation and brainwashing employed by the crime syndicate which rules over us (the One Bank), the choice of prices for any asset class is rarely (if ever) arbitrary. An “explanation” for the nominal face-values of these coins has materialized, albeit in a particularly circuitous manner.
We start this analysis by first looking not at the nominal face-value of our gold coins, but rather our silver coins. The reason for this is because as detailed by precious metals historian Charles Savoie (in his chronology “The Silver Stealers”), it is the banksters themselves who consider silver to be the more important of these two monetary metals.
While gold is (intentionally) the focus of greater attention in the corrupted “markets” of today, this is mostly because gold is still officially a “monetary asset” (i.e. money) – despite the cynical propaganda of the banksters which claims otherwise. Silver, on the other hand, has been effectively “demonetized” in our societies, perhaps the single most-effective strategy by the One Bank in facilitating its systemic theft of wealth.
What does it mean to “demonetize” silver? It means we stopped using it as our (real) “money”, and began using the banksters’ fake-money, i.e. our fraudulent (and now worthless) paper currencies. What have readers been told, again and again? By getting us to hold our wealth in their paper – rather than silver, the peoples’ money – this is what allows the One Bank to steal that wealth (via so-called “inflation”).
It should therefore be of no surprise to informed readers that in looking for an explanation of the nominal face-values of these legal tender coins that we look to silver, not gold, as our starting point. It was in listening to a review by precious metals analyst “Brother John” that we see/hear (at roughly the 13-minute mark) how at least one of these nominal face values is by no means arbitrary. After producing a long-term chart for the (nominal) price of silver; he made this observation while analyzing that chart:
I’m going to use the $5 [oz] price. The reason I’m going to use that $5 price is you can see it is a stable price from about mid-1970’s/early 1970’s all the way through to the early 2000’s .[emphasis mine]
That chart has not been reproduced here, because while a chart analyst such as Brother John may see a “stable price” here; the gyrations in the price of silver over that 30-year span (particularly the anomalous spike in 1980) show little obvious signs of stability to the less-experienced eye. Indeed, had a $5 price for silver seemed obvious as “a stable price” over this period, there would have been little mystery concerning the nominal face value of these coins – since for our silver coins that face-value is $5.
But connecting the face-value of our legal tender silver coins (Silver Maples and Silver Eagles) to that (somewhat) stable $5 price is only the beginning of our explanation. Given that this banking crime syndicate can (and does) manipulate prices to any number it desires; why instruct our governments to choose $5? Why not $2, or $10?
Our full explanation comes via noting closely the time-interval previously identified by Brother John for this “stable price”: beginning in the early 1970’s. What significant (monetary) event took place in the early 1970’s? It was at that time that Richard Nixon and Paul Volcker assassinated the gold standard (it was actually Volcker who claims personal “credit”).
It was at that time that our monetary system permanently eradicated its own stability, through permanently severing the gold “backing” for our paper currencies, thus depriving all this paper of its value. Suddenly, the reason for the $5 nominal face-value on our silver legal tender coins becomes crystal clear.
Any regular reader or knowledgeable precious metals investor has heard on countless occasion that gold and silver have historically always served as “the canary in the coal mine” for our monetary system, in general, and the rate of depreciation of our currencies, in particular. Simply, rising gold/silver prices are an indicator that our currencies are losing their value. Rapidly rising gold/silver prices are an alarm siren that these currencies are rapidly losing value.
This is the primary basis for (in the case of silver in particular) 100+ years of relentless price-manipulation, meaning price-suppression. How do you prevent the “canary in the coal mine” from alerting us to (monetary) danger? You “whack” the canary, Mafia-style.
By endeavouring to permanently freeze precious metals prices (through market manipulation); the One Bank has endeavoured to create the illusion that its fraudulent paper currencies are not being rapidly/extremely debauched – through utterly insane and criminal levels of money-printing. Further understanding comes from noting when these legal tender coins came into existence, and thus when the nominal face-values for these coins was first devised.
In both Canada and the U.S.; (1-oz) legal tender minted silver coins came into existence in the mid-1980’s, and that was also the time the U.S. began minting its 1-oz gold coins. Canada’s 1-oz Gold Maples came into existence at the end of the 1970’s, but this anomaly was a response to the boycott of South Africa’s (then-apartheid) regime – which (at that time) was producing the only legal tender gold coins in the world.
What is the significance of the start-up date for minting our silver coins? It was shortly after the One Bank had managed to push gold and silver prices all the way from their 1980 peak (when the “canary” was shrieking the loudest) down to the ultra-extreme troughs we saw from the early 1980’s all the way through to today.
The rationality of the seemingly “arbitrary” $5 face-value on our silver coins is now apparent. It is one part of the strategy by the One Bank for pretending that its (worthless) paper currencies have not lost any value since the assassination of the gold standard. Indeed, it now becomes apparent that it was the fanaticism of these psychopaths with keeping the “market price” for silver equal to the phony face-value on our legal tender coins which has been the banksters’ own undoing.
The One Bank (and our governments) squandered their inventories/stockpiles of silver defending this ridiculous illusion, even though it would have been immediately obvious that such a strategy could not possibly be viable over the long term, as we have now seen, in hindsight.
The banksters’ silver inventories are gone. Their precious $5/oz “market price” for silver is now (in market terms) ancient history, to the point that for most of us the $5 nominal face-value for our coins makes no sense, whatsoever. All that remains of this Grand Strategy is the nominal face-value for these silver coins.
While the face-value of our silver coins sheds insights into the banksters’ bullion racket because that face-value is not an arbitrary number; what about the face-value for our gold coins? In Part II; we’ll look at the nominal face-value for gold coins, its significance (if any), and how looking at the two face-values togetherleads to an interesting line of reasoning.
Read more about Legal Tender Coins Shed Clues On Bullion Racket, Part I