"Men who buy expensive watches are stupid"

[Ian974]

Why does someone else have to appreciate something for it to be "aspirational"?
If someone owns a nice house, nice car, and has a nice watch worn occasionally, why does the watch suddenly become stupid when the house and car are "aspirational"?
Surely it just means you're working to buy something YOU want?
If you're spending money on impressing people, then that seems stupid IMO, whatever you're spending it on.

[audidoody]

el stovey said:

Sounds unlikely, what interest rate have you used?

Going by my 2002 GMT II bought in 2003 for £1,900 and for which I could now get £3,500 from a reputable used Rolex dealer - about 8 per cent a year.

So I'm another stupid buyer of expensive watches (although £1,900 for a watch is piss-all)

[Pommygranite]

audidoody said:

el stovey said:

Sounds unlikely, what interest rate have you used?

Going by my 2002 GMT II bought in 2003 for £1,900 and for which I could now get £3,500 from a reputable used Rolex dealer - about 8 per cent a year.

So I'm another stupid buyer of expensive watches (although £1,900 for a watch is piss-all)

Oh and don't forget to deduct the tax from any cash interest received if the money was deposited instead of used for a watch which further increases the notional return on a Rolex.

[NRS]

H22observer said:

Pommygranite said:

H22observer said:

I think it really touched a nerve with some people in here. Nobody likes being told that they're stupid or gullible.

The problem with you is you have idea what you're talking about.

You wish to inform us we're stupid but you complain in many threads about being mid 30's with a dead end job, renting your house and clearly have no concept of wealth - not exactly a position of influence is it.

You do realise how incredibly stuck up you sound, don't you?

The problem with you H22 is that you cast your accusations about everyone being a Yuppie on everyone. You don't seem to care that some people will be yuppies, yet others will not be, but just have different interests than you. For example some of the people in the whiskey thread will spend a lot on whisky and yet live in a very small house etc. It just depends what their priority is. Watches aren't really a proper way of showing off since most people will have no clue if it's £100 or £1 000 000 that was spent on it. You could also say your house you would like is unneceesary and just a waste of money - why would you need so many rooms, one in a nice area etc? Surely a £100 000 house (£10 casion) would be just as useful as a £200 0000 in a nice area quite near Lodnon [£20 000 watch]?

[LucreLout]

I've spent more on whiskey than I have on watches. I've spent more on cars than I have on whiskey. And I've spent more on my house than all of the above.

I could go buy an Aston and a Rolex for cash, and still buy a good bottle for when I get home. So what? What I spend my cash on is irrelevant to anyone outside my family. The reason I don't buy those things is I'm saving for a bigger and better house. And yes, I'm fat, middle aged, and think I'm James Bond, but so what? It's not hurting anyone.

I've got a Tag, with which I'm perfectly happy, and certainly don't begrudge those with collections of Rolex their choice. I'm hoping to buy some later in life. I like a nice watch.

The author, and some posters seem to think anyone with different spending priorities than they hold must be stupid or rich. Apparently live and let live is anathema to them.

[audidoody]

Yep. It's especially rich (no pun intended) when the author makes his living selling very expensive photographs to (apparently) 'stupid' people.

[Dr Jekyll]

NRS said:

You could also say your house you would like is unneceesary and just a waste of money - why would you need so many rooms, one in a nice area etc? Surely a £100 000 house (£10 casion) would be just as useful as a £200 0000 in a nice area quite near Lodnon [£20 000 watch]?

The point is that there is an objective difference between £100,000 house and a £200,000 one. Even if it's just a question of location.

Whereas there is no practical difference between a £10 Casio and a £20,000 Rolex.

[bigkeeko]

Dr Jekyll said:

there is no practical difference between a £10 Casio and a £20,000 Rolex.

That`s why special forces divers wear £10 watches

[H22observer]

NRS said:

H22observer said:

Pommygranite said:

H22observer said:

I think it really touched a nerve with some people in here. Nobody likes being told that they're stupid or gullible.

The problem with you is you have idea what you're talking about.

You wish to inform us we're stupid but you complain in many threads about being mid 30's with a dead end job, renting your house and clearly have no concept of wealth - not exactly a position of influence is it.

You do realise how incredibly stuck up you sound, don't you?

You could also say your house you would like is unneceesary and just a waste of money - why would you need so many rooms, one in a nice area etc? Surely a £100 000 house (£10 casion) would be just as useful as a £200 0000 in a nice area quite near Lodnon [£20 000 watch]?

You could, but you would be completely wrong. Watches and Houses are not comparable.

If you had a house that had more rooms (+ a garage) than required, then you have the option of having children, allowing a friend or family member to move in, converting a spare room into a study, converting the garage into a gym, the option of taking in a tenant and helping pay the bills in later life if your situation changes.

It's about flexibility, practicality, piece of mind, quality of life and comfort.

Wanting to live in a reasonably nice area doesn't need any explanation.

Wanting to own a £20000 watch might though.

[LucreLout]

Converting the garage into a gym??!! Heresy!!

Burn him!

[audidoody]

Dr Jekyll said:

The point is that there is an objective difference between £100,000 house and a £200,000 one. Even if it's just a question of location.

Whereas there is no practical difference between a £10 Casio and a £20,000 Rolex.

And when you're on the M25 during working hours there is no practical difference between a £10,000 Dacia and a £1 million Veyron.

Etc etc

[Dr Jekyll]

audidoody said:

Dr Jekyll said:

The point is that there is an objective difference between £100,000 house and a £200,000 one. Even if it's just a question of location.

Whereas there is no practical difference between a £10 Casio and a £20,000 Rolex.

And when you're on the M25 during working hours there is no practical difference between a £10,000 Dacia and a £1 million Veyron.

Etc etc

But in certain circumstances there is a difference. An expensive watch does not, cannot, tell the time any better than a cheap watch.

[bigkeeko]

Dr Jekyll said:

An expensive watch does not, cannot, tell the time any better than a cheap watch.

A lot of watches are more than timepieces. Some are precision instruments in the case of explorers/military/pilots/divers. For some people timing is everything and crucial. Granted, the law of diminishing returns comes into play at the prices you have mentioned but you cannot compare the efficiency of a Chinese plastic watch at a few quid with something at a few hundred.

For the record I partially agree with the original writer in the posted link despite owning a few quality watches.

Edited by bigkeeko on Wednesday 30th July 21:14

[NRS]

H22observer said:

You could, but you would be completely wrong. Watches and Houses are not comparable.

If you had a house that had more rooms (+ a garage) than required, then you have the option of having children, allowing a friend or family member to move in, converting a spare room into a study, converting the garage into a gym, the option of taking in a tenant and helping pay the bills in later life if your situation changes.

It's about flexibility, practicality, piece of mind, quality of life and comfort.

Wanting to live in a reasonably nice area doesn't need any explanation.

Wanting to own a £20000 watch might though.

That's because they're your priorities. There's people on PH who have prioritised having a Ferrari over a big house. Does that make them show-offs if they're completing a dream they had, that they'd prefer a car over a bigger house? And it doesn't mean they're show-offs, some will be, some won't. Plus you're ignoring the point that you can move to a bigger house when you need it. Buying it now is just excess. And generally far more people would think you're rich if you have a big house in a nice area than if you had an expensive watch (they wouldn't realise it was expensive) - so who is the one flaunting their wealth now?

Yes, some of my points are a bit stupid, but they're to try and make the point that not everyone who buys something expensive is stupid or showing off. It's because they appreciate and prioritise different things compared to you. I actually don't get watches at all, and have none. But you could criticise me for the mountain bikes or cars I am looking at currently which are "not needed" but are what I'd prefer to spend my money on compared to a bigger house.

[michael gould]

Perhaps people buy expensive " things" because they can

[chris5150]

You should actually be quite happy that wealthier people spend money on expensive things, it keeps the economy going. Quite simple really, the more money you have , the more you should spend. The most tedious/boring people in the world are those that are penny pinching misers, probably have a million in the bank, but never spend a bean more than the neccesities...dull dull dull
Quite simple ethos...earn it then spend it
What you spend it on is upto you

[Mosdef]

H22observer said:

You could, but you would be completely wrong. Watches and Houses are not comparable.

If you had a house that had more rooms (+ a garage) than required, then you have the option of having children, allowing a friend or family member to move in, converting a spare room into a study, converting the garage into a gym, the option of taking in a tenant and helping pay the bills in later life if your situation changes.

It's about flexibility, practicality, piece of mind, quality of life and comfort.

Wanting to live in a reasonably nice area doesn't need any explanation.

Wanting to own a £20000 watch might though.

It's amazing how you keep missing the point. Why does wanting to own a £20k watch require an explanation? You probably aspire to own a few things worth £5 that I'd say are a waste of money.

[Pommygranite]

Mosdef said:

H22observer said:

You could, but you would be completely wrong. Watches and Houses are not comparable.

If you had a house that had more rooms (+ a garage) than required, then you have the option of having children, allowing a friend or family member to move in, converting a spare room into a study, converting the garage into a gym, the option of taking in a tenant and helping pay the bills in later life if your situation changes.

It's about flexibility, practicality, piece of mind, quality of life and comfort.

Wanting to live in a reasonably nice area doesn't need any explanation.

Wanting to own a £20000 watch might though.

It's amazing how you keep missing the point. Why does wanting to own a £20k watch require an explanation? You probably aspire to own a few things worth £5 that I'd say are a waste of money.

He'd happily spend a ton on Xbox and Playsation games which are worth less than a used condom when used but that's justifiable but a nice watch isn't. There's literally no return from playing games but apparently its ok to enjoy that hobby but not another that doesnt meet his left wing socialist approval.

He just doesn't get it.

[chris5150]

Quote.....

You could, but you would be completely wrong. Watches and Houses are not comparable.

If you had a house that had more rooms (+ a garage) than required, then you have the option of having children, allowing a friend or family member to move in, converting a spare room into a study, converting the garage into a gym, the option of taking in a tenant and helping pay the bills in later life if your situation changes.

It's about flexibility, practicality, piece of mind, quality of life and comfort.

Wanting to live in a reasonably nice area doesn't need any explanation.

Wanting to own a £20000 watch might though.
____________________________________________________________________________

But then again the person that bought a rolex Daytona big red back in 1985 for £600 and sold it last year for £25k might feel that explains itself somewhat well enough.

One also needs to consider the fact that regardless of values going up, generally if you buy right then watches will not depreciate like say Ferraris or any other high value car...most 20k watches will basically stay 20k watches until you want to cash them in

[Mosdef]

Pommygranite said:

Mosdef said:

H22observer said:

You could, but you would be completely wrong. Watches and Houses are not comparable.

If you had a house that had more rooms (+ a garage) than required, then you have the option of having children, allowing a friend or family member to move in, converting a spare room into a study, converting the garage into a gym, the option of taking in a tenant and helping pay the bills in later life if your situation changes.

It's about flexibility, practicality, piece of mind, quality of life and comfort.

Wanting to live in a reasonably nice area doesn't need any explanation.

Wanting to own a £20000 watch might though.

It's amazing how you keep missing the point. Why does wanting to own a £20k watch require an explanation? You probably aspire to own a few things worth £5 that I'd say are a waste of money.

He'd happily spend a ton on Xbox and Playsation games which are worth less than a used condom when used but that's justifiable but a nice watch isn't. There's literally no return from playing games but apparently its ok to enjoy that hobby but not another that doesnt meet his left wing socialist approval.

He just doesn't get it.

"It's about flexibility, practicality, piece of mind, quality of life and comfort." This is the bit that really mystifies me. If you're wealthy enough to afford a big house with lots of rooms for a variety of purposes, I very much doubt you're considering letting a friend or relative move in, letting a room out etc. It's just going to be about quality of life and comfort, the ability to let out rooms most probably won't enter the buyers'/owners' minds.

What utter drivel.