MediumTex wrote:
The thing to remember about safes is that a person will normally happily open a safe when confronted by a bad guy.
Thus, the strength of the safe is irrelevant in many cases.
Always think about security with as much creativity as possible.
You know I'm actually a registered safeman and have drilled open a couple dozen safes. It's a hobby I picked up in college when I worked for a locksmith. You are right about someone forcing owners to open safes. That's why timelocks were invented! Safes should be strong of course (the TL-15 safes is the minimum for secure storage IMO). But they should also be discreetly placed and not easily within view through your windows/garage. In-floor safes are good options for homeowners as they can be put in the foundation of a home and covered up with something. They also have a reasonable amount of fire-resistance as they are surround by concrete usually in the basement. The downside is that you don't want to put any papers in them because in the event of a fire they will get flooded with water from the fire department putting it out.
Any safe less than about 1000 lbs. should also be bolted down to the floor securely. I know of several incidents where the entire safe was stolen so the crooks could work on it in private back at their shop. In fact, I know of one 1100 lb. that was stolen with the warehouse's forklift and pallet jacks that were there. There was s smaller 200lb safe next to it that was not stolen because it was bolted down and they couldn't get it up!
MediumTex wrote:
I don't know, but I would guess at least 300-400.
Once I have that many coins in my home fire safe box I'll be ready to retire!!!!
Of course I'll then have to stay home and sit on that same home fire safe box all day all night with my AK47 ready to fire...
"Well, if you're gonna sin you might as well be original" -- Mike "The Cool-Person"
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
brajalle wrote:
My gold is inside my house, I do not own a safe, but I doubt anyone could find it, short of a complete tear-down of the house, and even then who knows...
The only thing that would (slightly) worry me is if the place were to burn down. Would you be able to find your possibly melted gold then?
I suppose fire danger is always a risk, however I store it in a location and manner unlikely to be impacted enough by fire to cause melting & loss.
While I'm not willing to divulge my current hiding spot, my first two locations involved either a chimney or piping. Besides, my homeowners insurance has enough room to cover the coins for another 5 years or so, at which point I'll need to consider options.
FYI Gold melts at around 1950F, you can easily plan for that (or even something much lower) assuming you don't count on a house burning for a very long time. Most safes, btw, are rated for 1000-1100 degrees for 1hour. Gold is pretty, pardon the pun, safe in most house fires assuming a modicum of placement/prep.
Desert wrote:...so I'm gradually converting those holdings in my IRA to physical holdings.
The thing I don't like about gold outside of IRAs is the tax in case you need to sell. But I guess as long as you have enough in an IRA to cover rebalancing, you're OK.
"Well, if you're gonna sin you might as well be original" -- Mike "The Cool-Person"
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
Desert wrote:
A very good way to store gold is in a UL listed, TL-15 or TL-30 safe that's bolted to a concrete floor. A 1,000 lb safe bolted to the floor is not easy to gain entry to.
The problem with this approach is in thinking the safe is all that is needed to keep it safe. I can pretty much guarantee you that if someone is holding a gun to your wife's head and says "open the safe", you're going to open it. Therefore, I'd much rather keep coins hidden in the toe of an old pair of shoes in a closet, or at the bottom of a package of old frozen leftovers in the freezer, or any other inconspicuous place.
A safe bolted to the floor pretty much screams out: Valuables in here!
"I came here for financial advice, but I've ended up with a bunch of shave soaps and apparently am about to start eating sardines. Not that I'm complaining, of course." -ZedThou
Storm wrote:
A safe bolted to the floor pretty much screams out: Valuables in here!
I have always thought that the most foolproof use of a strong safe would be as a persuasive decoy.
It depends, of course, on what you are trying to protect against.
To your point, I've seen recommendations that you have a safe in the house--filled with a few coins, some cash and maybe some jewelry. Just enough to make someone think they've got it all. The majority of your valuables go in inconspicuous places. All of that said, these types of occurrences are rare. People who hold a gun to your head in your house usually know you as an acquaintance or even a family member. If they know you well, they usually know how much you have even if they don't know where it all is. Something to keep in mind if you decide to store valuables nearby. Consider discretion as one of your most valuable assets.
Clive wrote:So readily to hand when the 2012 solar flares hit and knocks out the worlds electrical supply (and sanitation etc. systems that are electrical/electronic driven/controlled) for a few years.
Apparently back in 1859 when the last major solar ejection hit compasses span around wildly and the relatively new telegraphy system became totally useless. I've also heard that the major storms generally hit once every hundred years or so and as such we're well overdue.
Would be interesting - to say the least - as to what effect the loss of electricity/electronics for a couple of years or more might have on the current digital world. I guess that even transport (cars etc.) would be a no-go.
The whole "solar flares knocking out electronic devices" scenario is interesting (and frightening). One of the more interesting aspects of it is the fact that modern technological infrastructure does not lend itself to incremental regresssion in complexity. What I mean by that is that if my computer goes down I can't necessarily just bust out my manual typewriter and continue working--all of the documents I would need to access may also be stored electronically.
As a general matter, I think that rapid improvements in technology can create a certain "brittleness" to systems that is not apparent until a large system failure occurs following an unanticipated shock (pardon the pun) from something like a solar storm.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Clive wrote:So readily to hand when the 2012 solar flares hit and knocks out the worlds electrical supply (and sanitation etc. systems that are electrical/electronic driven/controlled) for a few years.
Apparently back in 1859 when the last major solar ejection hit compasses span around wildly and the relatively new telegraphy system became totally useless. I've also heard that the major storms generally hit once every hundred years or so and as such we're well overdue.
Would be interesting - to say the least - as to what effect the loss of electricity/electronics for a couple of years or more might have on the current digital world. I guess that even transport (cars etc.) would be a no-go.
The whole "solar flares knocking out electronic devices" scenario is interesting (and frightening). One of the more interesting aspects of it is the fact that modern technological infrastructure does not lend itself to incremental regresssion in complexity. What I mean by that is that if my computer goes down I can't necessarily just bust out my manual typewriter and continue working--all of the documents I would need to access may also be stored electronically.
As a general matter, I think that rapid improvements in technology can create a certain "brittleness" to systems that is not apparent until a large system failure occurs following an unanticipated shock (pardon the pun) from something like a solar storm.
Hence, my signature line.
"Machines are gonna fail...and the system's gonna fail"
MediumTex wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:26 am
I think that whatever approach one takes to storage, it makes sense to have diversity among storage methods and multiple layers of security around each method of storage. This isn't as hard to do as it may sound.
A person who owns a little PRPFX, GLD, coins in a safe deposit box, coins in a coffee can in a storage locker, and several large gold fillings in his mouth is basically following this approach.
Another gem from MediumTex all in just two short paragraphs!
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Clive wrote:So readily to hand when the 2012 solar flares hit and knocks out the worlds electrical supply (and sanitation etc. systems that are electrical/electronic driven/controlled) for a few years.
Apparently back in 1859 when the last major solar ejection hit compasses span around wildly and the relatively new telegraphy system became totally useless. I've also heard that the major storms generally hit once every hundred years or so and as such we're well overdue.
Would be interesting - to say the least - as to what effect the loss of electricity/electronics for a couple of years or more might have on the current digital world. I guess that even transport (cars etc.) would be a no-go.
The whole "solar flares knocking out electronic devices" scenario is interesting (and frightening). One of the more interesting aspects of it is the fact that modern technological infrastructure does not lend itself to incremental regresssion in complexity. What I mean by that is that if my computer goes down I can't necessarily just bust out my manual typewriter and continue working--all of the documents I would need to access may also be stored electronically.
As a general matter, I think that rapid improvements in technology can create a certain "brittleness" to systems that is not apparent until a large system failure occurs following an unanticipated shock (pardon the pun) from something like a solar storm.
