Err, some of those are tied to stock exchange crashes, others to extended warfare periods etc. And all are tied with ever-expanding industrial production, which is another independent parameter.

I don't see your point here.

Hypothesis: Gold economies are more stable than fiat currency economies.

Expected observation: Gold economies have fewer economic crises and panics than fiat currency economies.

Actual observation: They don't.

Any recession is caused by "expanding production", the whole point of a recession is that it's a correction that happens after a boom cycle.

When did the actual observation that gold economies are not more stable happen?

The list provided only shows that they also have crises -- it doesn't show how those crises measure (respective to fiat currency economies) in magnitude, frequency and consequences.

Well, go on and make your point then. They seemed pretty frequent, consequential, and high-magnitude to me, certainly comparable to the 20th and 21st centuries (and even the Great Depression began under the gold standard).