Semantics behind purchasing expensive watches...

[Pesty]

I sort of see your point regarding the car but there are always other choices Nissan GTR for example Im sure does whatever a lambo does. Of course any can can get you from a-b which is the main point after all the speed limit is 70

The point being that whilst some people do buy these things to 'show off'( not that there is anything wrong with that) a lot of people do not.


I personally get a little emabaressed when people are asking about the price of stuff, I can barely justify to myself the amount I have spent.

Also when people ask me what car I drive unless they are car enthusiasts I only metion the peugeot.

[ShadownINja]

I don't buy the car analogy. Completely different. Does a JLC gain 5 minutes a day?

[douglasr]

ShadownINja said:

douglasr said:

My Omega will last many years and unlike cheaper watches can be sent back and refurbished (for a price), rather than replaced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHgu4en2pgw

He He, I liked that...

Omega will try to repair, rather than throw the movement in the bin and put in a new one as they modify 2824-2 (and other) movements. Sometimes I think its a bit sad that I know that tho.

Edited by douglasr on Tuesday 17th August 16:25

[blueg33]

douglasr said:

My Omega will last many years and unlike cheaper watches can be sent back and refurbished (for a price), rather than replaced.

Not quite logical, if thats your reason for having an Omega, as each and every service costs more than other watches. So you can service regularly, or have a new watch.

I wonder if what you really mean is that like me, you like the look and feel of the Omega, like the image a bit, and unlike many cheap watches it will have a retained value. The servicing helps retain that value, and thats why you service rather than replace a cheapo watch every few years.

[Tiggsy]

blueg33 said:

douglasr said:

My Omega will last many years and unlike cheaper watches can be sent back and refurbished (for a price), rather than replaced.

Not quite logical, if thats your reason for having an Omega, as each and every service costs more than other watches. So you can service regularly, or have a new watch.

I wonder if what you really mean is that like me, you like the look and feel of the Omega, like the image a bit, and unlike many cheap watches it will have a retained value. The servicing helps retain that value, and thats why you service rather than replace a cheapo watch every few years.

Its all nonsense IMO. You cant buy a £2k Omega instead of 20 £100 watches then say the Omega will last longer....if they die after 5 years you have 100 years of cheap watches there! And the reality is that any £100 watch will last as long as an Omega without servicing.

And the retained value doesn't apply if you dont buy a £2k watch in the first place!

There is no more "sensible" justification for an expensive watch as there is an expensive set of cuff links, pen, etc.

The genuine response to someone saying "I dont know why you spent £2k on a watch, mine can tell the time just as well and it cost £10" is....."yes, but yours cant cost £2k"

[ShadownINja]

Or simply, "I like the look of it."

[Pesty]

ShadownINja said:

Or simply, "I like the look of it."

exactly

I wish they were all cheaper beecause there are so many I want but just can't afford them. Price has nothing to do with their desirabilty for me.

[goldblum]

Surely you don't mean "semantics"?

[RDMcG]

I think there as many reasons as there are buyers. its just as legitimate to buy a watch to show off as for its inherent value. There are also serious watch enthusiasts who collect, and are genuinely interested and knowledegeable about complications and so on.

I have a gold JLC Reverso Duetto with a plain black strap which was not cheap, but it utterly unnoticeable except for the very occasional watch person.It always surprises me if it is noticed. On the other hand, if I were a serious watch person I might buy something very different.

[bogie]

I prefer not to wear something so mainstream and brash, as I dont want to appear "flash" or "status obsessed" (whatever sterotype you wish to use) ...the big gold Rolex is not my thing

I like the engineering of watches, always mechanical, and steel for practicality, I wont pay for precious metals or jewels as that would be akin to buying jewelry as a display of wealth, which im not into

My fave watch is a 40 year old Zenith el primero chrono ...its probably worth about £2.5K, re-issue new models are about £6K ...few people other than fellow enthusiasts would even look twice at it, thats fine by me, as I like it for what it is

[blueg33]

Tiggsy said:

blueg33 said:

douglasr said:

My Omega will last many years and unlike cheaper watches can be sent back and refurbished (for a price), rather than replaced.

Not quite logical, if thats your reason for having an Omega, as each and every service costs more than other watches. So you can service regularly, or have a new watch.

I wonder if what you really mean is that like me, you like the look and feel of the Omega, like the image a bit, and unlike many cheap watches it will have a retained value. The servicing helps retain that value, and thats why you service rather than replace a cheapo watch every few years.

Its all nonsense IMO. You cant buy a £2k Omega instead of 20 £100 watches then say the Omega will last longer....if they die after 5 years you have 100 years of cheap watches there! And the reality is that any £100 watch will last as long as an Omega without servicing.

And the retained value doesn't apply if you dont buy a £2k watch in the first place!

There is no more "sensible" justification for an expensive watch as there is an expensive set of cuff links, pen, etc.

The genuine response to someone saying "I dont know why you spent £2k on a watch, mine can tell the time just as well and it cost £10" is....."yes, but yours cant cost £2k"

You thought that through better than me and you are quite right.

[Eggman]

goldblum said:

Surely you don't mean "semantics"?

He probably didn't, but 'semiotics' would have been pearls before swine.

[Tiggsy]

bogie said:

I like the engineering of watches, always mechanical, and steel for practicality, I wont pay for precious metals or jewels as that would be akin to buying jewelry as a display of wealth, which im not into

An expensive watch has FAR more in common with expensive jewellery than it does a normal watch.

[CinqAbarth]

Don't get it at all.

I buy a watch once every few years.

My current watch is the 2nd most expensive I've ever bought - a Swatch Big Mountain Pro.

Bought because I liked the look of it in the shop window.

My previous watch cost me 30 quid and is still going strong.

Before that, I'd spent a massive £100 on a watch to wear for my wedding - which is now 11 years ago.

They all tell the time and cheap watches can look just as appealing to me as expensive watches.

Expensive watches are a bit 'loadsamoney' to me.

[douglasr]

blueg33 said:

Tiggsy said:

blueg33 said:

douglasr said:

My Omega will last many years and unlike cheaper watches can be sent back and refurbished (for a price), rather than replaced.

Not quite logical, if thats your reason for having an Omega, as each and every service costs more than other watches. So you can service regularly, or have a new watch.

I wonder if what you really mean is that like me, you like the look and feel of the Omega, like the image a bit, and unlike many cheap watches it will have a retained value. The servicing helps retain that value, and thats why you service rather than replace a cheapo watch every few years.

Its all nonsense IMO. You cant buy a £2k Omega instead of 20 £100 watches then say the Omega will last longer....if they die after 5 years you have 100 years of cheap watches there! And the reality is that any £100 watch will last as long as an Omega without servicing.

And the retained value doesn't apply if you dont buy a £2k watch in the first place!

There is no more "sensible" justification for an expensive watch as there is an expensive set of cuff links, pen, etc.

The genuine response to someone saying "I dont know why you spent £2k on a watch, mine can tell the time just as well and it cost £10" is....."yes, but yours cant cost £2k"

You thought that through better than me and you are quite right.

We are on a car forum discussing expensive watches when each of us has probably possessed, currently possesses or wants to possess an expensive depreciating asset of the 4 wheel / 2 wheel variety.
This makes no sense; I'm off for my tea...

[ShadownINja]

goldblum said:

Surely you don't mean "semantics"?

If it is to do with horological pornography... perhaps he meant "semen ticks"...

[Gazzab]

CinqAbarth said:

Don't get it at all.

I buy a watch once every few years.

My current watch is the 2nd most expensive I've ever bought - a Swatch Big Mountain Pro.

Bought because I liked the look of it in the shop window.

My previous watch cost me 30 quid and is still going strong.

Before that, I'd spent a massive £100 on a watch to wear for my wedding - which is now 11 years ago.

They all tell the time and cheap watches can look just as appealing to me as expensive watches.

Expensive watches are a bit 'loadsamoney' to me.

I agree. All these idiots with nice watches, nice cars, big houses, great holidays, big salaries etc - all tossrs. They should jack it in , but a 15 year old fiat and get a job flippin' burgers! ;-)

[CinqAbarth]

Gazzab said:

I agree. All these idiots with nice watches, nice cars, big houses, great holidays, big salaries etc - all tossrs. They should jack it in , but a 15 year old fiat and get a job flippin' burgers! ;-)

Never make an assumption based on someone's posting name, or the car in their profile pic.....

[bogie]

Tiggsy said:

bogie said:

I like the engineering of watches, always mechanical, and steel for practicality, I wont pay for precious metals or jewels as that would be akin to buying jewelry as a display of wealth, which im not into

An expensive watch has FAR more in common with expensive jewellery than it does a normal watch.

define "normal" though ..thats the problem

if its mean average price between cheapest on the market and most expensive, somewhere around £25K would be "normal", less than £25K would be low end, and over £50K high end

normal to one person is £20, normal to another maybe £200, normal to yet another £2000,or £20000

how do you define it? how much should you spend on something you like?

Edited by bogie on Tuesday 17th August 21:20

[Tiggsy]

bogie said:

Tiggsy said:

bogie said:

I like the engineering of watches, always mechanical, and steel for practicality, I wont pay for precious metals or jewels as that would be akin to buying jewelry as a display of wealth, which im not into

An expensive watch has FAR more in common with expensive jewellery than it does a normal watch.

define "normal" though ..thats the problem

if its mean average price between cheapest on the market and most expensive, somewhere around £25K would be "normal", less than £25K would be low end, and over £50K high end

normal to one person is £20, normal to another maybe £200, normal to yet another £2000,or £20000

how do you define it? how much should you spend on something you like?

Edited by bogie on Tuesday 17th August 21:20

Bill Gates and a tramp both know that £50 is ample for a good watch.