"Men who buy expensive watches are stupid"

[H22observer]

RichB said:

H22observer said:

My point is that the desire to own an expensive watch is not a natural aspiration in the same way that wanting to own a house is. Owning a house is necessary for security. Both personal and financial.

And the point that I responded to was that you said "nice house and "nice car". I fail to see why having aspirations to own a nice house and nice car is any different to having aspirations to own a nice watch. Ipso facto, they are all aspirational.

A nice watch isn't an essential in the modern world and is not a universal aspiration, in the same way as collecting fine art and antique furniture isn't universal either. They are interests & hobbies, not aspirations.

When i meet up with friends, the usual questions are :

"Where are you working now? Do you like it?"
"Which car do you own now?"
"Where are you living these days?"

If you answers are :

"I'm on the dole", "I don't have a car any more" & "I'm sofa surfing at the moment" - then your friends will assume that things aren't going too well for you at the moment and probably pity you at a conscious or subconscious level.

People rarely question why i don't wear an expensive watch. I rarely hear people discussing watches either. I doubt anybody cares, actually, because it isn't really a symbol of anything and doesn't mean anything.....other than the fact you've probably spent a large chunk of your wages on a watch.

It's only an aspiration for people who believe that watches are aspirational, which isn't everybody.

[AlexC1981]

TKF said:

No, the cost isn't relative. And the principle isn't the same either

The article in the OP is discussing watches costing six figures (GBP). That's the price of a house (a st one) and many times the average claims admin's salary.

Cotty's absurd custom Vape costs the same as twenty packs of fags. (Guessing at that cost as I don't smoke, fake or properly)

My statement concerned the relation of the cost impact to earnings, not the proportion of the price difference between the items in question. Pared down to basics, the principle under discussion is comparing Item A with Item B when both items do the same job as good as each other, but Item B costs more than Item A. Is the person who buys Item B stupid?

Cotty's example fulfils the requirements of the principle under discussion and so does Jimmy's comparison of a Seiko 5 with a GS.

I do think you are being deliberately provocative. Calling Cotty's vape (which he is obviously fond of) absurd has exposed you as a meany

[H22observer]

RichB said:

H22observer said:

Owning a nice house and fairly nice car are aspirational.
Owning an expensive watch <etc.> something very different indeed.

Nope I don't get that.

Maybe you confuse Aspirational with Aspirational Brand :


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirational_brand

[RichB]

H22observer said:

RichB said:

H22observer said:

Owning a nice house and fairly nice car are aspirational.
Owning an expensive watch <etc.> something very different indeed.

Nope I don't get that.

Maybe you confuse Aspirational with Aspirational Brand :

No I don't.

You didn't mention the word brand and neither did I. I believe you're just trying to obfuscate the discussion now.

[NDA]

I'm not sure how having a hand made watch is 'showing off'. Mine lives under a sleeve 99% of the time and I didn't buy it to impress anyone.

[H22observer]

audidoody said:

H22observer said:

It looks like the writing of a very normal person that isn't obsessed with acquiring status symbols to me.

Alex Proud is a bloke who sells photographic prints of film stars (NB not the negative) for £1,900 and thinks it's stupid to spend a lot on a watch.

:BANGSHEAD:

https://www.proudonline.co.uk/c/26/film

He selling them though, not buying them. Maybe he has contempt for his customers & thinks they are all stupid as well, like that character in 'Harry & Paul' :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVvcD4Czx4Y&fe...

[Cotty]

AlexC1981 said:

I do think you are being deliberately provocative. Calling Cotty's vape (which he is obviously fond of) absurd has exposed you as a meany

I just put that down to the general negativity of people in general. Its like people don't like to see other people doing well even if it has no affect on them.

"This person has quit cigs to improve his health and save money by switching to electronic cigs, im going to try put down whatever they are doing although it has nothing to do with me". Sorry but I just don't understand that mentality.

[H22observer]

RichB said:

H22observer said:

RichB said:

H22observer said:

Owning a nice house and fairly nice car are aspirational.
Owning an expensive watch <etc.> something very different indeed.

Nope I don't get that.

Maybe you confuse Aspirational with Aspirational Brand :

No I don't.

You didn't mention the word brand and neither did I. I believe you're just trying to obfuscate the discussion now.

Switch the word 'Brand' for 'Product' then. Far from obfuscating the discussion, i wish to clarify the difference between Aspiration and an Aspirational Brand/Product.

"An important characteristic of an aspirational product is that the part of its exposure audience that is at present economically unable to purchase it, thinks of itself as having a fair probability of at a certain point in the future being able to do so. This part of the exposure audience is referred to as the aspirational audience, whereas the part of the exposure audience that already can afford the product is called the consumption audience"

[NRS]

Speedracer329 said:

Fotic said:

Cotty said:

Fotic said:

What's any of that got to do with your £100 fake cigarette?

If you don't understand I don't have the time to explain it to you. Good day.

Ok, bye! Thanks for showing us your fake cigarette.

I get what you are alluding to cotty, & I think Fotic does too, he is just being antagonistic, obviously vaping is something that upsets him for some reason.
For crying out loud do we have to have friction is this part of the forum?

People are always customising cheap everyday items to bling them up & make them more personal, in much the same way that someone will by a diamond encrusted Rolex to show off they are richer than someone with a basic Rolex. Taste has nothing to do with it.

Can anyone who disagrees with Cotty please explain why? It seems to me:

Don't buy a watch that can tell the time for £5 and get one that is more special (engineering, materials etc) for £20 000.

Don't buy a cheap vap and get one made with special materials, handmade etc for more money.

[sparkyhx]

watches are useful jewelery. how useful is a diamond ring.

Money does buy you a degree of exclusivity, but not always, if you know what you are doing you can get exclusivity without spending masses.

Edited by sparkyhx on Tuesday 22 July 21:43

[RichB]

H22observer said:

Far from obfuscating the discussion, i wish to clarify the difference between Aspiration and an Aspirational Brand/Product.

You may but I don't. That was never my intention and as you've not answered any of my points I'll take it that you can't. Go and do your clarification.

[milner993]

I haven't bought my "expensive" watch yet but I'm not buying it because it tells the time better than a £10 casio I'm buying it because I think its beautiful it's something that will make me smile everytime I wear it knowing that I worked hard for it and that one day when I have a son he will hopefully enjoy wearing it. (new watch next week hopefully)

[H22observer]

RichB said:

H22observer said:

Far from obfuscating the discussion, i wish to clarify the difference between Aspiration and an Aspirational Brand/Product.

You may but I don't. That was never my intention and as you've not answered any of my points I'll take it that you can't.

You're confusing me now. What are the points you are making?

My clarification :

A nice house - Most normal people aspire to own one

A nice car - A lot of people aspire to own one, but not everybody likes cars or knows how to drive. That said, even those who can't drive can still appreciate a nice car.

A nice expensive watch - Some people aspire to own them, but an awful lot of people don't aspire to own one because it ranks so low on the list that it doesn't even register.

[RichB]

H22observer said:

What are the points you are making?

That people aspire to own all three, thanks for confirming.

[Pit Pony]

Murcielago_Boy said:

One mans "expensive" is another mans toilet roll.

Indeed. If you struggle to spend all your money, it's a good way of sharing it around. If only we could encourage people to buy british goods, thus supporting british jobs, it would be even better.

[H22observer]

RichB said:

H22observer said:

What are the points you are making?

That people aspire to own all three, thanks for confirming.

By your logic then, a Playstation 4 is "aspirational" if people want it. Where are we drawing the line? How about Season 4 of Game Of Thrones? People will want to own a copy so that must be aspirational as well.

[trashbat]

This is all a good chuckle. Thanks for that.

Expensive watches always slightly bewilder me. I like the writer's Jag comparison, to be honest. Unlike cars, you spend more than a small figure on a watch, and in terms of pure product and engineering, you get nothing extra. In terms of the average person, they've no idea what you've done. The only person who really notices is another person who buys expensive watches. At best you get clocked by someone who's probably bought a more expensive watch than you. At worst you get clocked by the same person who's also a horrible self obsessed watch dhead.

I don't get it.

What I do get is that as your income scales up, you scale up your purchasing. You suddenly pay me a lot more and I might buy a nicer car, house or a fking Taste the Difference quiche. The trouble is that once past some point of no longer living in an actual skip eating moths, there's no way to actually objectively justify this, other than the basis of 'I can so why the fk not'. It's all self-indulgent materialist frippery for aholes. Unfortunately or otherwise, that is the main basis of our lives, certainly including mine, so knock yourselves out. What else are you going to do with it, plant a fking forest?

However, anyone who pens Pseud's Corner bks about the existential or whatever else point of all? wker.

[audidoody]

Hard-Drive said:

It's all about law of diminishing returns IMHO. Whilst wearing a £2500 SMP will be a nicer thing to do than wearing a £250 Seiko or a £25 digital, there's no way that a £25000 watch is going to deliver that much more of an experience over the SMP. And because of that, I think the article is pretty much spot on.

Unless you're driving an f-type on a track there is not much real world difference between a £20k Mondeo and the £70k jag. They will both get from a to b within a few minutes of each other.

[RichB]

H22observer said:

RichB said:

H22observer said:

What are the points you are making?

That people aspire to own all three, thanks for confirming.

By your logic then, a Playstation 4 is "aspirational" if people want it. Where are we drawing the line? How about Season 4 of Game Of Thrones? People will want to own a copy so that must be aspirational as well.

Back to the point, the possessions under discussion; houses, cars and watches and you said

H22observer said:

A nice expensive watch - Some people aspire to own them...

[H22observer]

Pit Pony said:

Murcielago_Boy said:

One mans "expensive" is another mans toilet roll.

Indeed. If you struggle to spend all your money, it's a good way of sharing it around.

Sharing it around with whom? A watch manufacturer in Switzerland that turns over several billion dollars per year, but doesn't pay any tax because it's owned by "A charity" ?

Philanthropy, eh.