[drcy]

A collector doesn't have to apply a premium to provenance if he doesn't want to, and provenance in and of itself doesn't prove authenticity.

But the history that a a Salvador Dali painting belonged to Albert Field, the world renowned Dali expert who know Dali personally will impress most potential buyers as it should. And that a game belonged came from the collection of a respected old time collector is not entirely irrelevant.

Besides, old items are historical artifacts, their history should be of interest to the collect. I would seriously wonder about a collector of historical artifacts who had no even passing interest in where they come from or who (famous or not) owned them. Why wouldn't it be of interest and premium in value that a hair brush belonged to Greta Garbo. But if you have no interest in an old brush or movie star provenance, that is fine. Autograph collecting comes across as rather stupid to me when I think about it. Thousands of dollars for an ink squiggle an old piece of paper. But to each his own and who am I to judge. And, besides, there are autographs I'd think it would be neat to own.

Next time a non-collector says "I don't understand baseball card collectors? How can they financially value and pay money for a piece of cardboard?," point out that a $100 bill is a piece of paper.