@maizeman
You comment is US centric, believe it or not there are capital markets outside the US. However, If you want to look at it as pent up demand/value increase that all exploded at once, that seems fair enough. I think it's a bit more complex than that.
I would dispute that I was indeed US centric. From 1945 to the end of the gold standard (where ever you'd place that line in the late 1960s early 1970s), a substantial majority of world's economy was in countries* which were maintaining a dollar pegged exchange rate, and from that tied to the same $35/oz gold pricing provided by the US federal government.
Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, China, Colombia, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Honduras, Iceland. India, Iraq, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa, the UK, Yugoslavia the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay, Iran, Chile, Mexico, & Peru from the start in 1945.
Costa, Brazil, Uruguay, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Denmark, Venezuela joined the dollar peg club in 1946.
Turkey, Italy, SyriaLebanon, Australia in 1947.
Japan and (West) Germany didn't come in until 1952 until they regained sovereignty.
Which non-US capital markets would you prefer to look at for gold between 1935 and 1971?
Edit to add: I think I actually can understand why someone would want to own (some) gold. I don't have any desire to do so myself but I don't try to pick fights with people who want some to steady out their portfolio. My criticisms are directly solely at those who try to portray gold as something that provides a positive return on investment, or a magical wonder substance that has value solely because it is rare and rare things are by definition worth a lot. While both ideas have shown up in this thread, I don't recall you @Classical_Liberal advocating for either. Is that correct?