This story is unavailable.

35 years, rather than 50.

And the “study” was done by a dealer in handbags, so it’s a little suspect.

And that 14.2% annual return (over 35 years) means that the assertion is that the *typical* bag from the first run *actually sells* for over 100 times it’s initial sale price.

That initial sale price was apparently about $2,000. So, we’re talking about $200k+ for a 35 year old bag.

Might a mint-condition, unused, ‘plain’ leather Birkin from 1981 fetch $200k or more? Sure, it might, but that bag is (1) a total collector’s item, *apart from* the norm and would have required 35 years of careful storage, (2) not representative of the ‘typical’ Birkin purchase in 1981 (while the S&P 500 has returned the 11.66% whether you held your shares with Goldman or your cousin Sal), and (3) *wholly* incomparable to the diamond-studded number that sold for $300k, or any of the others that have gone for $200k plus.

Basically, that “study” is self-promotional hooey.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.