Distracted driver destroys family's treasured 1931 Ford Model A

[IlluminatiRex]

hi, historian here.

lol, letters tend to be a great source for historians, so actually they hold a lot of value. even the most mundane and boring letters can show something about social history. The medals can be used to help corroborate oral history and records as well.

[Grenadiac]

I cannot believe you can't parse the idea that a thing's value goes beyond its dollar value, but as long as you can't fathom that, this conversation can go on for another week and not make any progress.

[IllMorphine]

Yes you are right about this going on forever. Well it would be a solution to their car being totaled though. I do understand that it has value and that it definitely has more or less sentimental, historic or monetary value depending on who you ask. I will leave it at that. Thank you to those who took the time to broaden my knowledge on the topic. It has been very informative.

[Newb]

Ah, so on one hand it gains value from it being rare, but on the other it also gains value from it being a remnant of old times, even in a hypothetical in which identical cars would somehow exist in large supply? I can understand the former perfectly well, but unless I'm misunderstanding you here - why do remnants of the past have inherent value (one seemingly regardless of use, be it personal or enrichment of collective knowledge or otherwise) which copies lack?

Unless of course you mean that historical things get their value from our relating them to memories and events of some importance, both personal and symbolic things, but is this value not subjective - wholly dependent on connections made by the observer, perhaps even sentimental value (for is it not sentiment when one holds dear an object to remind oneself of other times)?

From where then comes this talk of inherent historical value of all fragments of the past? That absolutely all history should, if possible and viable, be preserved? (this question is not entirely directed at you, by the way) Where is the line drawn on what object is of value for preservation, and which is not? Other than sentiment, personal value, historical connection and rust, what does an old car possess that a copy would not?

Am I just being dense and reading badly when I presume some people here suggest all that is dwindling in supply and connected to a certain time period automatically has some kind of objective value which a faithful copy would lack? If not, am I wrong with seeing an equivalence here between such a statement and the logic of a hoarder - the only difference being the line of things being absolutely worth preserving being drawn elsewhere?

tl;dr I'm not saying history shouldn't be preserved, I'm just confused as to what chain of reasoning results in the conclusion that all objects with history and which aren't common anymore, a category to which all objects will necessarily belong after long enough, deserve to be kept if one has the power to do so - no matter the instrumental, sentimental and educational value of the object. If this post sounds condescending and oblivious, I say in advance that it really isn't my intention and I have no ill will in asking what I do - I'm genuinely trying to understanding a line of reasoning that I do not hold.

As for your last sentence, I can now see that I gave some posters in this thread too charitable an interpretation, people really did express that (know at least that I do not agree with them).