I find optics fascinating, particularly binoculars and telescopes, and am somewhat involved in the local astronomy scene.
I think optics are a unique asset, (and curious if others can think of comparables?) in the sense that they span the gap between art and engineering, don't deteriorate like a car through normal use, their quality is wholly qualitative with a tail that can extend forever.
To that end, what are people's thoughts on paying face-punch worthy sums for optics which are the best in their class, of limited production, always in demand on the secondary market, and of certain brands which although decades old have not only held, but increased in value?
I feel their is a world of difference between paying $30k for an amateur telescope, and $30k for a car. As the telescope is largely passive and will retain value/usefulness forever, and a car just sucks money via gas, insurance, and most massively depreciation - since next years model being shinier and newer is automatically lusted after. Not because it's particularly more useful, but because people want the ego points or whatever.
As I said, not sure if there is a comparable that ticks all the boxes. Art maybe, but in and of its self art isn't useful. Sports cards? Same thing. Any typical best in class consumer good today depreciates obscenely and is valued as scrap in 10 years. Old cars like a 97 Toyota are useful, will probably hold their value paid today forever (provided you look after it), but are hardly best in class. Prime real estate maybe? Holds value, best in class, but once gov'ts and cities see what it's worth, hands gets held out and the carrying costs via taxes (and transaction costs) make it increasingly less so. Rare books? Again, thanks to ebooks their functionality has been greatly diminished. I read one of the biggest haters of Napster wasn't the record companies, rather it was the people who invested thousands of dollars into rare recordings. Wanting to hear an obscure recording from a limited run release with a dozen copies in the country became as easy as copy and paste vs calling up a hundred record shops to track it down. Jewelry? Another form of art but with rare materials.
These sorts of purchases would naturally put a dent in the 'stache, but to that end I almost wouldn't see it as spending $30k, as *exchanging* 30k, which could be exchanged back at any time and the true real cost would be 4% of $30k/yr ($1200?! yikes!), I guess that's way less worse than a 30k car which has the same $1200 opportunity cost, plus the $30k principle that gets pissed away.
Anyways, thoughts? Or am I just trying to justify being a spendypants.