On one hand,one has professional stock bubble top-tickers(of the variety that would benefit fromsome error-checking)-cum-amateur precious metal pundits claiming that the gold bubble is unmistakable. On the other, there are those who have made hundreds of millions of dollars for their investors actually investing in precious metals, such as in this case Sprott's John Embry, who states that there is no bubble in either gold or silver. "Jim Rogers, who is one of the world's leading authorities on commodities, dealt with the bubble issue recently by recounting an interesting anecdote. While addressing a group of high-end money managers, he inquired as to how many of them held gold or silver in their accounts, and remarkably, 75% replied they had never owned either precious metal. When gold is trading at several multiples of the current price at some point in the future, you can be assured that every single person at a similar gathering would be long and then discussion of a bubble might be legitimate. In my considered, opinion we are many years and thousands of dollars away in price from that debate." Whom does one believe? That's obviously rhetorical. Amusingly, Embry takes a stab at the Financial Times, which he dubs a conduit for the establishment: "The FT has been speaking much less disparagingly about gold recently. The paper consistently denigrated gold and its change in tone might be instructive." Of course, a variety of second-rate media outlets are more than happy to step in and fill the "goldbug" bashing void in the FT's absence.