7 ms·

You might think this is "superfluous matter" but it is literally physical wealth in your hand, on top of being historically significant (in some cases). It is s

You might think this is "superfluous matter" but it is literally physical wealth in your hand, on top of being historically significant (in some cases). It is still probably only owned and used by the top 1%. The bottom line is, you should sell silver if you feel like the sale price is worth it, or you personally hate it. Not because you dream of solar panels and what not, that hardly use much of it at all. As with most manufactured goods, it is better to sell silverware to continue to be used as silverware, than to scrap it.

pfdietz 1y ago
You'd do better to sell the silver and invest in things that actually produce wealth.
- wakawaka28 1y ago
  Perhaps. Or you could lose money. That is the difference between having wealth and investing.
_dain_ 1y ago
If you want to keep silver as wealth, buy actual silver coins and bars. Not dinnerware. The top 1% own ETF shares, and the top 0.001% own industries.
- wakawaka28 1y ago
  Sterling silver is more pure than most constitutional silver coins (which is exactly why they are not more pure; the mint does not want the coins melted constantly). If you want to own a bunch of silver for investment and also enjoy having it, there's nothing wrong with having some of it in dinnerware.
pjc50 1y ago
> literally physical wealth in your hand In almost all cases of "heirlooms", the area of land taken up by the object is worth more than the object. Other than gold, very little stuff has enough value density.
- wakawaka28 1y ago
  That is the wrong way to think about it. Many places have buildings where the structure costs less than the land it's on. You won't get rid of your car because of the land under it. The space required for a box of silverware is similar to a small pack of toilet paper. Shall we throw that out too?
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    In many such places people buy houses explicitly to tear them down and build something better. We'd be seeing even more of that if zoning didn't restrict it.
    - wakawaka28 1y ago
      "Better" is a subjective judgement. Maybe zoning has drawbacks but letting people do what they want with their property is important. If you have something better to do with it, go persuade them and pay them to let you enact a different plan.

pfdietz 1y ago

You'd do better to sell the silver and invest in things that actually produce wealth.

wakawaka28 1y ago
Perhaps. Or you could lose money. That is the difference between having wealth and investing.

_dain_ 1y ago

If you want to keep silver as wealth, buy actual silver coins and bars. Not dinnerware. The top 1% own ETF shares, and the top 0.001% own industries.

wakawaka28 1y ago
Sterling silver is more pure than most constitutional silver coins (which is exactly why they are not more pure; the mint does not want the coins melted constantly). If you want to own a bunch of silver for investment and also enjoy having it, there's nothing wrong with having some of it in dinnerware.

pjc50 1y ago

> literally physical wealth in your hand In almost all cases of "heirlooms", the area of land taken up by the object is worth more than the object. Other than gold, very little stuff has enough value density.

wakawaka28 1y ago
That is the wrong way to think about it. Many places have buildings where the structure costs less than the land it's on. You won't get rid of your car because of the land under it. The space required for a box of silverware is similar to a small pack of toilet paper. Shall we throw that out too?
- pfdietz 1y ago
  In many such places people buy houses explicitly to tear them down and build something better. We'd be seeing even more of that if zoning didn't restrict it.
  - wakawaka28 1y ago
    "Better" is a subjective judgement. Maybe zoning has drawbacks but letting people do what they want with their property is important. If you have something better to do with it, go persuade them and pay them to let you enact a different plan.