Memorabilia market prices vary by the quality and history of the piece; pieces with "richer" history fetch higher prices. BitCoin behaves more like a commodity. I expect derivative instruments based on BitCoin mining rates any day now.
The comparison is obviously to a single type of item. Say "Mauser HSc, excellent condition, provenience unknown". But there's no reason why individual bitcoins can't acquire additional value once history accrues to them. Let's say celebrity X publicly buys a bitcoin and spends it in a well-publicized event. People will probably bid extra to acquire this "famous" bitcoin afterwards.
Bitcoin doesn't work like that. There isn't some sort of serial number assigned, or anything.
Each bitcoin has an attached chain of transactions. If it's a matter of public record that a certain address belonged to say, Stephen Colbert, then you can definitely brag that you own Colbert's bitcoin. (That he donated to the Libertarian Party or something.)
While it may be possible to value BitCoins that way, that's not the driving force behind current price tracking, any more than a 1933 double eagle or 1804 silver dollar affects the price of gold or silver.
I'm not saying BitCoins are currently used this way. It was just a thought experiment to prove they can acquire extra value from association with particular people or events. Just like other collectibles.
I don't think this is the case. My understanding is that wallets have transactions attached.
There is actually quite a bit of discussion into 'coloured' bitcoins, which would basically work exactly like that.
I may be mistaken but I don't think Bitcoins (the units themselves) have an identity like that only wallets are entities. It's similar to how a celebrity would drink water and water would be worth more than the rest. Once the debit and credit occurs who is to say which coins are from what source...