>>60888758
>By the time you accumulate 1oz of gold in goldbacks you will damn near spend twice as much as if you just bought bullion.
100% correct. You cannot think of it as "gold". It CONTAINS gold, but there is a hefty "seigniorage" fee.

Goldbacks are shitty for "stacking" for exactly the reasons you've outlined. Goldbacks are perfect for "spending" because that seigniorage fee is a permanent part of the value of the Goldback.

One Goldback is worth EXACTLY $7.02. It IS money so there is no BUY/SELL commission. Unlike a silver or gold Eagle or Maple where I go to the coin shop and I get clipped 5%-7% each way when I buy and sell the coin for fiat.

https://www.goldback.com/calculator/

The intended value of the Goldback (aside from collector esthetics) is in it's use as money. Back when Mercury dimes were originally in circulation, there was only a cent or two worth of silver in them. Your argument is that mercury dimes weren't worth 10 cents because there was only two cents worth of silver in them.

In fact, the Soviet Union COUNTERFEITED 1923 Mercury dimes using the EXACT alloy composition that the US Mint used. You weren't paying for the "silver" per se, you were paying for the silver packaged in a form that was readily identifiable, ideally suited for commerce.

Imagine having to weigh out 10 cents worth of silver dust. How convenient would it be to have a dime sized, fixed, standard quantity of silver in a package that was self evident and reliabile?

If you want to stack gold, buy bullioni or Eagles or Buffaloes. If you wanted to SPEND gold, in very small quantities, in a retail environment, what other realistic options do you have?

Obviously in today's environment, I will spend my increasingly worthless fiat, not gold or silver. (Gresham's Law: bad money tends to drive good money out of circulation)

Having a ready drop in replacement for a failing fiat is like having a fire extinguisher or a gun on your nightstand.