Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="ewomack, post: 8100083, member: 15588"]Legos may have have experienced a more sustained and robust market than Beanie Babies, but I don't think anyone should consider them as a "mature market" comparable to the long-term stability of gold. The stories of sports cards, Beanie Babies and even the Tulipmania from 17th century Holland suggest (but don't necessarily predict) that such markets crash not long after people start buying them as "investments." Collectibles tend to go crazy and implode. Plus, the examples that the article gives have specific generational ties to "Star Wars." Most pop culture items don't have the staying power of a solid established investment like gold. Is someone 100 years from now going to care about a "Death Star" Lego set? Maybe, but it seems unlikely. Legos do seem like a good short-term item to buy and sell while the market still has some life to it. But I think anyone "investing" in Lego sets in the long term will likely come out disappointed. Also, Lego sets, stamps and Beanie Babies never had a "melt value" to fall back on. Even if numismatic value plummets, gold will likely (but of course not guaranteed) to remain a commodity with inherent value. I think it's highly unlikely that Lego sets will get added to the NYSE or other commodity markets. So comparing them to gold seems misguided at this point.[/QUOTE]