Maybe it is because of being young, but I'm with lizzy. I can understand the value of an antique book if say... it's one of the only copies of that book still available. I can also understand adding value based on the fact that it was hand-bound, real leather, etc. But I don't really get all that sentimental about objects.
I have my weak points of course, but those tend to be with things that I can specifically relate to, like- for example- an old favorite toy. I'd be able to look at or hold that toy and remember all the fun times I had with it, might be able to identify how it got bent up and scraped and marred, and it is fun taking a trip down memory lane. Those items have more value to me than something to which I can ascribe no memories.
I understand that historical artifacts are valued based on this same concept, but I don't see how it's important to an individual if the memories don't specifically apply to them. If it was your great-great grandfather's copy and you have stories about when he first read it or pages that he marked that were of interest to him... sure. But an original copy that holds no value to you specifically other than that it is original? *shrug*
Maybe I'll be back here in another 20 years sharing with lizzy how much more important and sentimental these things have become and laughing at how we didn't understand when we were younger.