Reluctant partners: Aesthetic and market value, 1708–1871

Intrinsic value has a nice ring to it. It picks up on “essential” properties supposedly existing in an object, and implies greater stability than external evaluations, which can be attached, modified, even withdrawn altogether, on whim. The precious metals have intrinsic value, based on undeniable properties-sheen and feel, durability, malleability, resistance to corrosion, and so on-plus accepted standards for measuring weight and purity in the metal itself. When coins were made of precious metals, weight and purity were all that mattered, but intrinsic value dominated even when gold, or silver, was fashioned into objects of use and beauty. Typically there was a second value attached for the fashioning. But it was understood that, in time of crisis, fashioning would be discounted to zero, beautiful objects being melted down for their metal content.1 Yet when a fashioned object had been smashed or melted down to its metallic core, this still had to be valued. Measures of purity and weight are just that, they affect but do not in themselves establish an external exchange value for metal of specified standards. An exchange value is derived from the metals markets, or established by government edict.

Duke Scholars

Author Neil de Marchi Economics