Is my math correct to say 100% appreciation in value over the course
of 30 years amounts to an actual increase of slightly over 3% per
year? This seems a very moderate rate.
As a specific example: I sold an 18kt hand crocheted necklace in July
of 1999 for $5500, one of my current necklaces which is almost
identical, will sell for $6750 one year later. I don’t see that this
has been affected by the price of precious metal, the costs of which
has not changed significantly. (in regards to pricing my body of
work, the gold cost for both of the necklaces were each figured at the
same rate and the difference in weight is minimal, less than $70
I estimate this increase conservatively at an appreciation of 22% in
value in a single year. I admit it may not increase to this same
extent in each and every year, but then again, it doesn’t have to. I
also doubt that any of the value of this necklace will dissipate even
if gold falls to half its current market price.
Just like your squash blossom necklaces, silver and coral may be what
they are comprised of, but the price of those commodities today,
isn’t what has determined the current value of these pieces in your
My point is academic, of course. The value of a finished piece of
fine art comprised of pigment on surface is not in any way effected by
the subsequent fluctuations in the price and cost of paints and
canvas and framing materials, or is it.?
Best regards, Michael