Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
In fact, the two gentlemen whom I addressed have both answered me well, in their own fashion, and I now believe I understand how they were thinking when they declared that the post # 6 dagger was "better" than all the others.
Their "better" meant according to their own personal preferences.
It was not an analytical, reasoned, objective opinion, it was an emotional, subjective opinion based their own personal preferences.
|
According to your own judgmental opinion only!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
I only set out to understand how two experienced collectors thought, and those two gentlemen have given me more or less what I wanted.
|
I gave less because I knew where we were going... nowhere...
I also think that this post is going to an end unless we come back to the anglo-indian knives...
Its the main problem of this forum, some members are placing themselves above the others. I hope that my post wont be censured there no reason to do it!
By the way, an old rusty Viking sword will always be more valuable than a very nice Indian sword.
Why? Because it's all about quantity and rarety, its the rules of the market.
More its difficult to find, more the price will be high.
So yes old is better because more expensive, more valuable, all the dealers on the forum know that well. Beauty is opinion. Better is not, its a value of something compared to something else.
Now of course you can discuss the value or the criteria of this "better", but I won't, I'm not interested in this debate. It's the reason why my posts are normaly short.