What are the differences between gold/siver “coin” vs. “round”?
"Coins are legal tender. They're authorized by governments and have a face value. Rounds are simply coined pieces of metal minted by private manufacturers. They do not have any face value and are not legal tender. Rounds are used to own metal, they have no value other than the value of the metal in them. Any premium you pay over the price of the metal is the mint's profit. Coins are also used as bulions (i.e.: to own metal and create profits for the government), but many times coins have limited issue and become valuable because of the rarity, specific issues with a specific coin (mistakes, impurities, exclusive designs), etc. So they also may have some numismatic value (depends on the specific coin). Coins also have the assurance of quality of the authorizing government (and fakes are dealt with by the law as forgery of coins is illegal and is a crime), rounds however do not enjoy such protection, and any one can mint them (only copyright/trademark protections apply, where the enforcement is by the owner and not the government). Re the advantages - coins (if you pick the right ones...) appreciate much more than the metal. However, this is mostly in hindsight, and most of the ""bulion"" coins do not appreciate significantly beyond the price of the metal unless there's something else significant about them (first year of issue, high quality certification, etc). Rounds on the other hand are cheaper (1 oz round will be significantly cheaper than 1 oz coin), and monitor more closely the price of the metal. It is unlikely for rounds to significantly deviate from the spot price (although this does happen occasionally, for specific designs or if a mint goes out of business)." littleadv gave a great answer, but neglected to mention one thing.  Modern minted coins usually only contain a (high) percentage of a precious metal.  For example pre-1965 quarters are 90% silver and 10% other, to maintain strength and durability. Rounds of silver bullion are usually .9999%, or fine, silver, which is considerably softer.
"Extrinsic value is not a factor with respect to gold.  Intrinsic value by definition is the natural value of a commodity set by the market -- extrinsic value is externally set. The ""extrinsic"" value of gold in the United States is $50/oz. If the market value of gold fell below $50/oz, a US American Eagle coin would be worth $50 in the US. If you take away the attributes that make a commodity valuable, the value drops. Substitutes of equal or better quality for most industrial or other uses of gold exist, so if if the popularity of gold declines, or if the hoarders of gold have to liquidate, it's value will diminish. I have no idea what that value would be, but it would set by the market demand for gold jewelry and other valuable industrial uses." "I think you're talking about two types of machines, at least in the United States. The term change  machine usually refers to a machine that accepts large denominations of currency and returns an equal amount of currency in smaller bills or coins. Typically these machines are used to provide coins in exchange for paper currency, in which case they are also often known as bill changers. Exactly what bills or coins these machines return depends on the machine. Read the instructions on the machine to get the details (they're usually right on the machine). For example my apartment building has a machine that converts small bills like ones and fives to quarters, since the laundry machines only took quarters. The other type of machine are coin-cashing machines, like the Coinstar machines you might see at a grocery store. Many banks used to have these machines as well although in my area they're few and far between now. These machines perform the opposite function of the traditional change machine and convert smaller denominations (mostly coins) into bill form. For example if you dump all your accumulated pennies into the machine, it will probably give you bills and larger coins like quarters, dimes, nickels in exchange, after subtracting a small fee. I've heard that now, some of these machines may give you a gift card of some kind instead of bills, although they'll still subtract a fee from your original amount, usually. Once again just read the instructions and they should tell you. When my bank had one of these machines, they didn't charge a fee as long as you were a customer at the bank. I'm sure that varies from place to place and bank to bank though. Wikipedia's article has this to say (see the article for references): In some sections of the U.S., regional banks have begun offering free coin-counting services in the amount of a gift card. Refunds are often given in cash rather than in the form of a gift card. In some cases, it is not even necessary for the customer to have an account at the bank; the free service is offered as a way to attract new business from individuals who are not current account holders. TD Bank's ""Penny Arcade"" coin counters were free and available to both customers and non-customers in many branches, but as of November 2010, the bank charges a 6% fee for non-customers to use the machine." The gold standard didn't work because of the following process:  * Start with 10oz of Gold. * Deposit in Bank A * Bank lends out 9 oz of Gold Certificates * Gold certificates deposited in Bank B * Bank B lends out 8oz of Gold Certificates * etc.  Now at the end of all this we have a lot of gold certificates.  This is called the [Money Multiplier](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_multiplier) effect.  What if someone wants to take their gold certificates and buy a boat made in Europe?  Well.  If they spend 5 gold certificates on that boat then the certificates land in the European bank who requests gold to be shipped from America to pay for it.    Suddenly America's bank reserves collapse and there is a very sharp credit contraction as all the banks stop lending because they are out of reserves that back their gold certificates.  If the person had actual coins he was using to buy the boat, only his consumption would be reduced and it wouldn't cause damage throughout the whole financial system.  So basically wherever you have fractional reserve banking, gold backed monetary systems will fail.  Anywhere you criticize fractional reserve banking your theory will be basically ignored because criticizing banking gets you nowhere in economics career-wise.  Praising derivatives and all sorts of hair-brained financial innovations will win you awards and prizes and guest appearances on CNBC though. Stephen's answer is the 100% correct one made with the common Economics assumption, that people are rational. A company that never has paid dividends, is still worth something to people because of its potential to start paying dividends later and it is often better to grow now and payoff later. However, the actual answer is much more disapointing, because people are not rational and the stock market is no longer about investing in companies or earning dividends. Most of the value of a stock is for the same reason that gold, stamps, coins and bitcoins, and Australian houses are worth anything, that is, because enough people say it is worth something*. Even stocks that pay dividends, very few people buy it for dividends. They buy it because they believe someone else will be willing to buy it for slightly more, shortly after. Different traders have different timeframes, ranging from seconds to months. *Houses and stock are of course partially valuable due to the fundamentals, but the major reason they are purchased is just to resell at a profit. From Wikipedia: Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance   investment is putting money into something with the expectation of   gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for   the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an   expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with   an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of   principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling. The second part of the question can be addressed by analyzing the change in gold price vs inflation year by year over the long term. As Chuck mentioned, there are periods in which it didn't exceed inflation. More important, over any sufficiently long length of time the US stock market will outperform. Those who bought at the '87 peak aren't doing too bad, yet those who bought in the last gold bubble haven't kept up with inflation. $850 put into gold at the '80 top would inflate today to $2220 per the inflation calculator. You can find with a bit of charting some periods where gold outpaced inflation, and some where it missed. Back to the definition of investment. I think gold fits speculation far better than it does investment. I've heard the word used in ways I'd disagree with, spend what you will on the shoes, but no, they aren't an investment, I tell my wife. The treadmill purchase may improve my health, and people may use the word colloquially, but it's not an investment. The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it.  To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back.  Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption.  Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%.  Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time.  If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed.  There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted.  Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.)  Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa)   If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years.  If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even.  I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation.  Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972  or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980)  Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high?  Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer. "Gold has very useful physical properties for some engineering applications.  Even tiny amounts of gold can substantially improve products, so it can be worthwhile to pay high prices per ounce for gold.  For example: Gold can be ""beaten"" or electroplated to produce very thin shiny coatings.  Entire roofs (of famous buildings) have been covered with ""gold leaf"", at a cost that was small compared to the supporting structure. A very thin layer of electroplated gold provides better protection against corrosion than a much thicker layer of electroplated nickel.  Even if gold costs thousands of times more per ounce than nickel, it is cheaper to use gold as an anti-corrosion layer than nickel (for use in military-grade naval electronics). A thin layer of electroplated gold greatly increases the electrical current-carrying capacity of a thin copper wire." Gold's value starts with the fact that its supply is steady and by nature it's durable. In other words, the amount of gold traded each year (The Supply and Demand) is small relative to the existing total stock. This acting as a bit of a throttle on its value, as does the high cost of mining. Mines will have yields that control whether it's profitable to run them. A mine may have a $600/oz production cost, in which case it's clear they should run full speed now with gold at $1200, but if it were below $650 or so, it may not be worth it. It also has a history that goes back millennia, it's valued because it always was. John Maynard Keynes referred to gold as an archaic relic and I tend to agree. You are right, the topic is controversial. For short periods, gold will provide a decent hedge, but no better than other financial instruments. We are now in an odd time, where the stock market is generally flat to where it was 10 years ago, and both cash or most commodities were a better choice.  Look at sufficiently long periods of time, and gold fails. In my history, I graduated college in 1984, and in the summer of 82 played in the commodities market. Gold peaked at $850 or so. Now it's $1200. 50% over 30 years is hardly a storehouse of value now, is it? Yet, I recall Aug 25, 1987 when the Dow peaked at 2750. No, I didn't call the top. But I did talk to a friend advising that I ignore the short term, at 25 with little invested, I only concerned myself with long term plans. The Dow crashed from there, but even today just over 18,000 the return has averaged 7.07% plus dividends. A lengthy tangent, but important to understand. A gold fan will be able to produce his own observation, citing that some percent of one's holding in gold, adjusted to maintain a balanced allocation would create more positive returns than I claim. For a large enough portfolio that's otherwise well diversified, this may be true, just not something I choose to invest in. Last - if you wish to buy gold, avoid the hard metal. GLD trades as 1/10 oz of gold and has a tiny commission as it trades like a stock. The buy/sell on a 1oz gold piece will cost you 4-6%. That's no way to invest. Update - 29 years after that lunch in 1987, the Dow was at 18448, a return of 6.78% CAGR plus dividends. Another 6 years since this question was asked and Gold hasn't moved, $1175, and 6 years' worth of fees, 2.4% if you buy the GLD ETF. From the '82 high of $850 to now (34 years), the return has a CAGR of .96%/yr or .56% after fees. To be fair, I picked a relative high, that $850. But I did the same choosing the pre-crash 2750 high on the Dow.