I'm not clear what it is that you are disagreeing with. The distinction that I stated is factually true, and important. Now, if you want to argue that fine watches and paintings, etc., have far less intrinsic value than their market values, and that therefore belief or perception plays a role in increasing their values, I don't disagree. But a Rembrandt is worth vastly more than the work of a lesser artist, and a Patek Philippe far more than a Timex for many reasons, some of which relate directly to quality. Also, the best *things* which cannot be reproduced have increased greatly in value over a very long periods of time, underscoring that they are far better stores of value than currencies, which are invariably degraded by those who issue them.
Click to expand...