Non-edible luxuries, that is:
Historically, have things like designer clothing, Rolex watches, jewelry etc. generally gained value or lost value during wars or famines or hurricane etc.?
You can’t eat them but I would guess things like gold would be valued as a hedge against hyperinflation. But what about more subjective luxuries like Ademars Piquet watches?
In a true crisis function will outweigh form.
Are you gonna go to the pawn shop when you’re rich, or when you’re broke?
I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m betting the economic phenomena is a bit more complex.
We’re going to have to identify the real meaning of “crisis” or “disaster.” And that’s going to depend on the person. The US currently has troops deployed around the world, and under attack, so the US is "at war, " but I’m not really worried about a Kurdish, Syrian, Afghan invasion of US soil, nor a Korean, Chinese or Russian missile attack. YMMV.
You have to figure in human greed. Way back in time, Louie de Palma on Taxi became a stockbroker, and tried to sell genetic engineering stock to someone …“Yeah, yeah, I get the ethical dilemma, you’re worried about a genetic disease killing half the world. Hey, if you’re in the half that survives, you wanna be rich, or what?” If you have disposable income, and if luxury goods are available at a discount, and if you can store them until normalcy returns, is that profiteering, or just good business sense?
You can spin human greed as altruism, if you want to, or spit upon it, as your personality dictates. Maybe someone has lost everything, except some luxury, they’ll trade it for a necessity, like a wedding ring to a dead spouse for some bread. Is the person trading their bread a bloodsucking opportunist, or a bleeding heart altruist?
But economic studies on the subject are bound to be more complex, while still bound by at least my caveats above. And more besides.