I'm a relatively old geezer. I remember as a little kid getting silver dimes and quarters in change. Not occasionally but totally silver coins. (The copper-nickel coins did not come into existence until 1965.) So let see . . . late 1963 - say I had $1000 to invest. Which would have done better - taking my $1000 to the bank and getting a pile of silver coins, or buying that cumulative 100% equity bundle? (Never mind the fact that in 1963, that was impossible to do with a small amount; no ETFs no no-load mutual funds.)
A new dime, quarter, or half dollar had .723 ounces of silver per dollar then. Allowing for wear, I would use .715 oz per dollar. That works out to a $1.40 per oz. Current price of $47 oz divided by $1.40 = 33.5 times the original investment.
I look at your chart. It says cumulative. Does that mean with dividends reinvested? I will assume yes, pending more information.
The price of that basket of stocks, based upon my attempt to read the chart at late 1963, would be $900. $33033 divided by $900 = 36.70 times.
Now 36.70 is greater than 33.5, but as John Wayne said in Rio Bravo, "I'd hate to have to live on the difference".
I point all this out to remind you that the dollar has been shrinking in purchasing power for many decades. Much of that stock return is illusion, it's just effect of inflation. If you don't like metals, look at the price of hamburgers over the same period, or other stable technology products. (No matter how cheap and fast computers get, a hamburger is still going to be a hamburger.)
