"Men who buy expensive watches are stupid"

[kmpowell]

Apparently...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/109764...


EDITED at 16:24 to add... I see the Telegraph have in the last few hours changed the title of the article from "Men who buy expensive watches are stupid" to "Why I've never understood the appeal of a posh watch".

Naughty naughty

Edited by kmpowell on Monday 21st July 16:25

[CardShark]

"High end watches are a kind of Veblen good"

Indeed, along with a million and one other different goods. Lets just ban all things that could be deemed to be a luxury, eh?

[don logan]

I would suggest that if and when Mr Proud visits an Indian restaurant, he would most likely order the "meat curry", what "meat" it is made from would not be important, so long as it stops him from feeling hungry!

[Hoofy]

Slightly different to what I expected. Not the usual Rolex v Casio argument.

Sounds like he's actually bhing about watches covered in diamonds and stuff rather than, say, high end horology eg gyrotourbillons. http://youtu.be/lmxLAZZ2fhM

[HD Adam]

Yes, I think some of you are missing the point.

The author states that a Seamaster (or equivalent) is a perfectly good example of an expensive watch but anything over that is like the Emperors new clothes.

I have to say that I agree with him. If a certain watch is your grail, then so be it but even if I won the lottery, I wouldn't go out and get a looney Franck Mueller or Richard Mille because I would consider that a waste of money over my Speedmaster that I am quite happy with.

[CardShark]

I don't think that any of us have missed the point, and if the purpose of owning a watch is so that one has the ability to know the time whenever one wants then why the heck is the line drawn at a Seamaster when it comes to what's overkill and a wanton display of financial wealth? The author says himself that quartz is more accurate than an auto, and seeing as most Seamasters are autos...

I don't see the point of owning a mansion bigger than some hotels and yachts don't, err, float my boat but if that's what people want to spend their money on that's their choice. To say that people are stupid for spending what they want on what they want is his opinion and fair enough, however it is just a little insulting and, in my opinion, not entirely accurate.

Edited by CardShark on Monday 21st July 12:01

[James_N]

Hoofy said:

Slightly different to what I expected.

Same here. I agreed with quite a lot of it. The guy writing the Article doesn't seem an arse, he has bought a Seamaster before!

"]As I’ve said, I’m not averse to expensive watches. The Seamaster is an expensive watch. It’s the watch my dad wore (he bought his second hand) when I was a child and was a cherished possession of his. It will outlast him. I love this idea – a beautiful, well-made thing being passed down from father to son. But I do not love the idea of a watch that costs more than a teacher or a nurse earns in a year. This feels like a modern take on the last days of Versailles with an added twist of rich chav."

[Fotic]

James_N said:

Hoofy said:

Slightly different to what I expected.

Same here. I agreed with quite a lot of it. The guy writing the Article doesn't seem an arse, he has bought a Seamaster before!

"]As I’ve said, I’m not averse to expensive watches. The Seamaster is an expensive watch. It’s the watch my dad wore (he bought his second hand) when I was a child and was a cherished possession of his. It will outlast him. I love this idea – a beautiful, well-made thing being passed down from father to son. But I do not love the idea of a watch that costs more than a teacher or a nurse earns in a year. This feels like a modern take on the last days of Versailles with an added twist of rich chav."

I largely agree with the article too. Shame about the photo they used for it though...I'd imagine if you'd seen the pic and the headline you'd make an assumption out of what the article is saying.

[Hoofy]

Mm. I kinda agree and disagree. It's a waste of money, sure. But then as someone says, anything more than £10 on a device to tell the time is a waste (besides we have mobile phones so...).

However, if I earned eleventybillions a year, I'm going to buy something stupidly expensive and go rock climbing with it. I might even use it as a tennis ball to see how it bounces.

Let's face it, the author says it's fine to blow £1k on a watch. Some people don't earn that in a year. What a disgusting chav poser he is.

[anonymous-user]

Hello Kev

[R6VED]

I went to a Rolex evening on Friday and tried on a number of watches:

New white gold Pepsi GMT £25,200 a Cellini at over £10k and a platinum Daytona at £56,700

I wear a much less recognisable and less flash 39mm Explorer as my daily and whilst I can see the appeal of very expensive watches, I think I would struggle to justify spending those sort of amounts. Ok I know my watch was expensive, but it was chosen from the range partly due to it not obviously looking like a Rolex unlike a Sub, GMT etc.

It's all relative though, if I won £100million on the Euro I could quite easily drop 6 figures on watches - but a lot of them would be gifts.

[Hoofy]

digimeistter said:

Hello Kev

Explain?

[westberks]

The only surprise was that it was in the telegraph and not the guardian, although for them it might have been a serious piece! The guy is just spouting a load of ste to fill a few editorial inches on a quiet day. Could have written the same article and substitute watches for cars/shoes/house/suits/golf club fees (why go to Wentworth when you can use the council pitch and putt, how excessive!)

Of course its ridiculous, but most of us aren't doing any harm and somebody has to keep the under privileged swiss horological workers in gainful employment; let's think of them for a minute.

The irony is that he owns a watch that costs that much, meaning he is already 1490 over his own stated justified budget, but that is OK, cos fifteen hundred is acceptable? Don't think so.


...... And my wife thinks I'm stupid for loads of reasons, not just my watches, I tend to agree!

[Cotty]

Hoofy said:

Mm. I kinda agree and disagree. It's a waste of money, sure. But then as someone says, anything more than £10 on a device to tell the time is a waste (besides we have mobile phones so...).

Regardless of what people spend their money on, someone will invariably say its a waste of money. If someone gets pleasure and enjoyment in owning an expensive watch then the money has not been wasted.

[jimmy156]

Spending a lot of money on a watch is an interesting phenomenon i think. I have become quite interested in watches, but don't wear expensive watches. Largely because i can't afford it.

Here are some examples that make spending a lot of money on a watch confusing.

here is my £50 automatic seiko

IMG_9264 by jimmyb156, on Flickr

Here is another automatic seiko, this one costs £5000


and another...

Here is a £400 Tissot automatic



and a £25,000 seiko automatic



None of these are jewell encrusted, none are fakes or homages, but the price differences are huge!

ETA: I realise the workings of these watches are different, but as the article in the OP mentions, the cheapest of the cheap quartz watches will keep better time.

Edited by jimmy156 on Monday 21st July 14:05

[Fotic]

Hoofy said:

digimeistter said:

Hello Kev

Explain?

They used to be friends on an Audi TT forum.

[Dr Jekyll]

westberks said:

The only surprise was that it was in the telegraph and not the guardian, although for them it might have been a serious piece! The guy is just spouting a load of ste to fill a few editorial inches on a quiet day. Could have written the same article and substitute watches for cars/shoes/house/suits/golf club fees (why go to Wentworth when you can use the council pitch and putt, how excessive!)

But he made the specific point that cars are different because there is a tangible difference between driving an F Type Jaguar and driving a cheaper car, and this also applies to using houses and golf clubs and to a lesser extent shoes and suits. Whether it's sufficient to justify the price difference is obviously another matter.

[RDMcG]

Well…why not get upset about people who collect rare stamps, for example?. Women with diamond necklaces? There world is full of unnecessary articles that people want to buy, and why not?.

I have one good watch and some regular watches, so not a collector,but it that's your passion, good luck to you.

[Murcielago_Boy]

One mans "expensive" is another mans toilet roll.

[kmpowell]

I see the Telegraph have in the last few hours changed the title of the article from "Men who buy expensive watches are stupid" to "Why I've never understood the appeal of a posh watch".

Naughty naughty