----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Bill Williams doubts there is any direct evidence that "a particular utility [is]
perceived by the user" of a product or good that has ostentation or collection value.  I'm
not sure I understand the difficulty with my suggestion.
 
Whether a diamond, a Faberge egg, a $100 bill used to light a cigar or a collectible that
only an individual would want, isn't it self-evident that having paid a price to acquire
it there is utility?  The utility may be to show off,  to have pure enjoyment, to make an
investment with a specific monetary return or some combination.  As I understand
investment value, it is distinguished from market value because the investor's objectives
may vary from market's.  Utility may even be in non-use.... say the philanthropist who
buys a development site to place a conservation easement on it, or the environmentalist
who trades national debt instruments for rain forest to be turned into parkland as has
been done in South America.
 
Is your concern with the demonstration of utility itself or with the "particular" nature
of the utility?
 
Scott Cullen 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]