[CR](CR) Re: Collectibility vs. Intrinsic Value

(Example: History:Ted Ernst)

Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 20:31:27 -0500
From: "Daniel Dahlquist" <daniel.dahlquist@gmail.com>
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: [CR](CR) Re: Collectibility vs. Intrinsic Value

To build on what Kevin and Nick and others have contributed on the subject of rising and falling prices: Some twenty-five years ago I was browsing through a booth at an antique show in the midwest when a beautiful walnut Eastlake dresser, complete with marble top and beveled mirror came into view. The price tag was $450.00. Sitting next to the dresser, in the same booth, was a small plastic Hopalong Cassidy "Television Set" that was nothing more than a box with a film strip inside it, featuring Hopalong, of course. It had the original cardboard box with it, and it too was priced at $450.00. I must have laughed out loud at the juxtaposition, because the dealer turned to me and said, "Don't laugh. The Hopalong set will sell before the dresser does.

By the time I had made one full circle of the antique show, you guessed it, the Hopalong Cassidy Television set had been sold. Now call me old-fashioned, but to my mind the Eastlake dresser, while a fond memory for some, also has intrinsic value; the Hopalong Cassidy TV set's appeal is based almost entirely on nostalgia. The dresser will more or less hold its own. When those who remember Hoppy pass away, I suspect his memorabilia will fall in value. Now to get on topic: I am nostalgic for the bicycles of my youth, but I don't actively seek Schwinn middleweights. I enjoy everything from the Victorian era through the 1980's, and I search for the finely crafted machines that most everyone on this list appreciates. To my mind they are intrinsically valuable. If they appreciate in value, and I suspect they will, fine; but I don't lose any sleep over the tastes of the young ones coming up behind.

Daniel Dahlquist
Galena, Illinois