Talk:Treskilling Yellow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Philately
This article is within the scope of the Philately WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of philately and stamp collecting. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or check out the Philately Portal.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] 2004 edits

The TSY is certainly very valuable, cost-for-weight, but at US$71 billion/kg it is not "the most valuable thing in the world per weight or volume". Antimatter presently costs roughly $25 billion per gram, making it about 350 times more valuable per unit weight.

Several of the heaviest known elements have only been created in quantities of a few dozen, some of them only as a single atom. With each of these atoms weighing about 5 x 10^-25 kg, their cost-per-unit-weight is far higher than even that of antimatter.

See, e.g., http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Uuq/hist.html

--Calair 03:15, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PS Sorry for the multi-edits, browser snarfed on me.

Anti-matter costs $62.5 trillion per gramHumpelfluch

[edit] Most valuable stamp in the world?

I am not sure this is necessarily correct. It may well be the British Guiana 1c magenta which was last sold in 1980 for more than this stamp was sold in 1984.--Alex 14:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

David Feldman (philatelist) auctioned it for 2.5 million Swiss Francs in 1996 again, after selling it in 1984 for CHF977,500, and that seems like a lot more than US$935,000 in 1980. Try a few of these commentaries that all place the Treskilling Yellow as the most valuable; [1], [2], [3], [4], and linns that does not even mention the British Guiana 1c magenta. Thanks for the question. Cheers ww2censor 17:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In the News

http://money.aol.com/special/rarest-items-in-the-world

Wikipedia was cited in the AOL article. I think there's some kind of template involved when this happens, so I figure I'd let the editors on this page know. DurinsBane87 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)