What does your watch say about you?

[tuscaneer]

SpeckledJim said:

Then it's an unfortunate coincidence that the watch you liked:

• Was very expensive
• Is the most widely recognisable brand for being expensive
• Is from the brand with the biggest marketing budget.

None of that was relevant at all? Just liked the colours?

Come on...

I don't really get what's so difficult to accept here??

I had a budget. I looked around at what watches were available at said budget.

I opted for a watch I knew looked great, had provenance and was depreciation proof.

I wasn't sitting at home watching the grand prix thinking "ooohhhh, how can I get some of the adrenaline and glamour of the f1 experience to rub off on me right here in my home??...... I know, i'll buy one of the watches that are advertised all over my telly and then maybe I can be like these jet-setting racing drivers"

[tuscaneer]

SpeckledJim said:

That between your two watches you have one that the muggles will spot as being very expensive, and one that the watch-watchers will recognise as very expensive. Thus covering all the bases. Good fleet-management.

Why do watch fans refuse to admit "I bought it because it gains me entry into the club, it's fking flash and it annoys my dad!"

That's the reason for most status symbols.

you're starting to come across a someone with a bit of a chip on his shoulder my friend. gains me entry into what club?? I have a certain budget for certain things, houses, cars , watches etc........ I choose the best I can for the budget I've got. I don't know why you have such an issue getting your head around this.

boxing gloves. here's a good example. I can buy any number of "quality" sparring standard gloves from 40-60 quid. there are one or two brands that I like the feel of more than others. hayabusa pro are knocking on for 100 quid but I can feel the difference. cleto reyes are made in mexico with goat hides, are moulded beautifully and hand made with the utmost care. 180 quid. there is a tangible difference as you go up the ladder. I have weighed up the pros and cons and have only ever bought one pair of reyes gloves. I am on my ninth pair of hayabusa. I don't touch the cheap ones. it's never just a case of more expensive= better

I'd wager a lot of money that if you suddenly had the option to upgrade your current house by a margin you'd do it. everybody aspires to have nicer cars, nicer houses etc. the people that tell you they don't are more often than not lying to you or lying to themselves.

Edited by tuscaneer on Tuesday 21st October 08:18

Edited by tuscaneer on Tuesday 21st October 08:19

[tuscaneer]

AvonRise said:

• You either have Jeremy Beadle hands or have bought a massive watch

• You have no taste

All in my opinion, of course.

i'm sure mr. audemars and mr. piguet would be turning in their graves at your disapproval

....and yes, the watch wears very big and no, I don't have any form of disability

[Blown2CV]

tuscaneer said:

SpeckledJim said:

That between your two watches you have one that the muggles will spot as being very expensive, and one that the watch-watchers will recognise as very expensive. Thus covering all the bases. Good fleet-management.

Why do watch fans refuse to admit "I bought it because it gains me entry into the club, it's fking flash and it annoys my dad!"

That's the reason for most status symbols.

you're starting to come across a someone with a bit of a chip on his shoulder my friend. gains me entry into what club?? I have a certain budget for certain things, houses, cars , watches etc........ I choose the best I can for the budget I've got. I don't know why you have such an issue getting your head around this.

boxing gloves. here's a good example. I can buy any number of "quality" sparring standard gloves from 40-60 quid. there are one or two brands that I like the feel of more than others. hayabusa pro are knocking on for 100 quid but I can feel the difference. cleto reyes are made in mexico with goat hides, are moulded beautifully and hand made with the utmost care. 180 quid. there is a tangible difference as you go up the ladder. I have weighed up the pros and cons and have only ever bought one pair of reyes gloves. I am on my ninth pair of hayabusa. I don't touch the cheap ones. it's never just a case of more expensive= better

I'd wager a lot of money that if you suddenly had the option to upgrade your current house by a margin you'd do it. everybody aspires to have nicer cars, nicer houses etc. the people that tell you they don't are more often than not lying to you or lying to themselves.

Edited by tuscaneer on Tuesday 21st October 08:18

Edited by tuscaneer on Tuesday 21st October 08:19

i read it as a compliment? Was he not talking about other watch fans and status symbols...

[tuscaneer]

Blown2CV said:

i read it as a compliment? Was he not talking about other watch fans and status symbols...

haha! no mate, definitely a dig. I was basically called a brand snob and the inference was that I was more interested in what I perceived as the rolex flash implication rather than the fact it's a bloody good looking watch with robust residuals.

and then I was accused of wearing a royal oak to impress other "watch snobs".....

all in all definitely a rub. if I've read it right......apparently i'm trying to impress the proletariat by wearing a rolex and trying to impress the "shhh....I know, i'm in the secret posh watch society too!" brigade with the royal oak

[Lorneg]

Aren't watches just like cars? We all think we pick a make and model based on rational decision making theory, but in reality we tend to just pick what we fancy most from our preconceived ideas of what’s important and what’s not. Once we've bought it we then run off all the good things about it to justify why we've made the smartest choice possible and why everyone else is a bit numpty. This is why I happen to know my 1996 Mercedes SL with its very small rear seats is the only sensible choice for a married man with two lanky teenage kids.

Many years ago, when I was first discovering why girls are so different to blokes, I knew this blonde bombshell who told me she always looked at a mans shoes and watch. If the shoes were clean and the watch was nice then he’d made it past the first hurdle and she would actually talk to him. Not sure why she told me that though as I was in my Clarks commando’s and Timex phase.

I think, like it or not, and even if you want it to say nothing, your choice of watch actually says an awful lot.

[Sy1441]

What does this say?

[tuscaneer]

Lorneg said:

Aren't watches just like cars? We all think we pick a make and model based on rational decision making theory, but in reality we tend to just pick what we fancy most from our preconceived ideas of what’s important and what’s not. Once we've bought it we then run off all the good things about it to justify why we've made the smartest choice possible and why everyone else is a bit numpty. This is why I happen to know my 1996 Mercedes SL with its very small rear seats is the only sensible choice for a married man with two lanky teenage kids.

Many years ago, when I was first discovering why girls are so different to blokes, I knew this blonde bombshell who told me she always looked at a mans shoes and watch. If the shoes were clean and the watch was nice then he’d made it past the first hurdle and she would actually talk to him. Not sure why she told me that though as I was in my Clarks commando’s and Timex phase.

I think, like it or not, and even if you want it to say nothing, your choice of watch actually says an awful lot.

fair points well made mate. in terms of cars I've always picked what gave me the horn.... now, why did any particular car at any particular time ACTUALLY give me the horn??

I have to try and be as honest as possible here.....

all my tvr's were absolutely about sexy looks and incredible power. I was very aware that tvr's weren't perceived to be as prestigious as certain other marques but I just wanted to drive a nutter bd car that happened to look sexy. I was also bang into the "britishness" of them.

Astons.....had a couple of them. really bought into the front engine "britishness" thing again.....but after a colourful tvr history I wanted something more sophisticated. I was getting a bit older and this maturing process was reflected in buying a db7. I won't lie......I had lusted after and bought into the whole "aston martin" thing. after several attempts to persuade stratstones to let me trade in a tvr for a db7 I let my last Tuscan go privately and bought a db7 privately......what a thing to behold. one of the last v12 db7's off the production line. the 1 hour drive home is one of the cherished memories I will take to my grave.....was it badge snobbery??? honestly, a little bit, yes.......but what a car. compared to all my tvr's even the paint finish seemed more luxurious and well made.

I got all excited when the baby aston was announced and in 2005 traded my db7 for a new v8v. I was still in "aston mode"......great car but didn't have quite the same feeling as when I got into a db7 for the first time.

then came Ferrari. test drove a 430 back to back with a Gallardo and the fezza wiped the floor with it. I was hesitant about driving such a bombastic vehicle with all the negative connotations but I couldn't get away from the fact that it was head and shoulders above ever other car i'd had....porsche,aston,tvr......all left in the weeds!

I went for a grigio Silverstone in an attempt to nullify the red Ferrari driver effect. i'm not just saying it, I really was self conscious when I got it. too brash, too flash.......but I got used to it!!

biggest regret in life was selling it and so within a few months I was back in one. this time the whole hog.....rosso paintwork and crema interior. to be honest, I do get a bit of a kick about how much attention it gets, but also worry about the fact it sticks out like a turd in a punch bowl!!(see my physical confrontation thread as evidence).... for me the best car on earth!!...or at least the best I can afford any way!!

I love the fact I drive a Ferrari. I DO get a bit of a kick about the fact it gets noticed. but if it was a pig to drive I would never have one, no matter how much of a "status symbol" it was perceived as..

Edited by tuscaneer on Tuesday 21st October 10:34

[SpeckledJim]

tuscaneer said:

I was basically called a brand snob

tuscaneer said:

I love the fact I drive a Ferrari. I DO get a bit of a kick about the fact it gets noticed. but if it was a pig to drive I would never have one, no matter how much of a "status symbol" it was perceived as..

That's what I'm getting at. It's fine to admit liking a flash car for the attention it garners, but never the watch. People are happy to admit they love being seen climbing out of a supercar at a nice country pub, but always insist they dunked £10k on a watch for private, personal reasons.

I don't understand the difference.

If the Rolex was £200 I'd suggest you wouldn't have considered it, because it wouldn't have said what you wanted it to say.

[tuscaneer]

SpeckledJim said:

That's what I'm getting at. It's fine to admit liking a flash car for the attention it garners, but never the watch. People are happy to admit they love being seen climbing out of a supercar at a nice country pub, but always insist they dunked £10k on a watch for private, personal reasons.

I don't understand the difference.

If the Rolex was £200 I'd suggest you wouldn't have considered it, because it wouldn't have said what you wanted it to say.

yeah, you've still missed a few key points. you are absolutely correct. if my gmt was a 200 quid watch it would not be the watch it is. rolex watches are north of 4/5 grand for more reasons than just the word "rolex" on the face you know...... if rolex watches were 200 quid units they wouldn't be able to use the component parts they do.

these things go hand in hand. Ferrari charge what they charge for their cars because they are at the pinnacle of their game. if Ferraris were 10 grand cars do you really think they would be of the same standard they are??

you don't seem to be able to separate sale price with associated cost of manufacture that leads a company to charge that sale price in the first place. the legend of a brand isn't synthesized in a corporate boardroom with sale prices set "reassuringly expensive" with no sympathy to build cost by a company with no heritage.

heritage is earned, a respected brand name is earned through endeavour and results.........not the other way round.

one final point, for round figures, and to remove myself entirely from the vulgarity of talking about pounds, shillings and pence....................if I could afford to spend 1 million quid on a house, why would I look at houses for 40k??



and as I stated..... no matter what brand snobbery was associated with Ferrari if the car wasn't as fantastic as it is I simply wouldn't entertain driving one. because I wanted one and then bought one doesn't make me a brand snob in any way shape or form, sorry

Edited by tuscaneer on Tuesday 21st October 11:05

[tuscaneer]

Sy1441 said:

What does this say?

very nice fella.....elegant, understated.......and you definitely don't perform the same daily tasks at work as I do!!

[Lorneg]

Sy1441 said:

What does this say?

it says SAAB 9-5, 'yes I know I could have bought a BMW M5 but this is more understated and anyway I'm not too bothered by what everyone else thinks as I happen to know it's really rather nice'

Alternatively it says 'nearly 4.20', just depends on what you meant in the question

Edited by Lorneg on Tuesday 21st October 11:21

[XJSJohn]

so where does the omega speedie fit into this .....

i wear mine because i always hankered after my Dad's (which he has worn since before i was born, so over 40 years) but the only way i will get it is on his passing (not my preferred may of acquiring a watch), so i got my own.

I like that it doesn't attract much attention from the non watch snob and is a fantastic piece of engineering. I also like the engineering connection by association of the moon missions etc.

[SpeckledJim]

tuscaneer said:

SpeckledJim said:

That's what I'm getting at. It's fine to admit liking a flash car for the attention it garners, but never the watch. People are happy to admit they love being seen climbing out of a supercar at a nice country pub, but always insist they dunked £10k on a watch for private, personal reasons.

I don't understand the difference.

If the Rolex was £200 I'd suggest you wouldn't have considered it, because it wouldn't have said what you wanted it to say.

yeah, you've still missed a few key points. you are absolutely correct. if my gmt was a 200 quid watch it would not be the watch it is. rolex watches are north of 4/5 grand for more reasons than just the word "rolex" on the face you know...... if rolex watches were 200 quid units they wouldn't be able to use the component parts they do.

these things go hand in hand. Ferrari charge what they charge for their cars because they are at the pinnacle of their game. if Ferraris were 10 grand cars do you really think they would be of the same standard they are??

you don't seem to be able to separate sale price with associated cost of manufacture that leads a company to charge that sale price in the first place. the legend of a brand isn't synthesized in a corporate boardroom with sale prices set "reassuringly expensive" with no sympathy to build cost by a company with no heritage.

heritage is earned, a respected brand name is earned through endeavour and results.........not the other way round.

one final point, for round figures, and to remove myself entirely from the vulgarity of talking about pounds, shillings and pence....................if I could afford to spend 1 million quid on a house, why would I look at houses for 40k??



and as I stated..... no matter what brand snobbery was associated with Ferrari if the car wasn't as fantastic as it is I simply wouldn't entertain driving one. because I wanted one and then bought one doesn't make me a brand snob in any way shape or form, sorry

Edited by tuscaneer on Tuesday 21st October 11:05

If the cost to make a £10k Rolex exceeds £1500 I'll eat my hat.

Prestige watches are like perfume and shampoo, the marketing to get you to buy it costs more than the thing you've bought.

Consider Rolex's huge communications activities. If the compelling reason to buy a Rolex was its inherent high quality, beyond that of its competitors, then that's what Rolex would be busting a gut to tell us about.

But they don't. 90% on their marketing effort goes into putting their brand alongside cool impressive events and cool impressive people.

That is revealing of their motivation.






Every Rolex owner will tell you the above has no effect on them, and is thus a total waste of money.

Rolex know better. That's why they do it.

[Lorneg]

XJSJohn said:

so where does the omega speedie fit into this .....

Porsche 911, 'best thing around in the 1970's and even though the current version is undoubtedly better, it's living a little on that early kudos.'

[tuscaneer]

SpeckledJim said:

If the cost to make a £10k Rolex exceeds £1500 I'll eat my hat.

Prestige watches are like perfume and shampoo, the marketing to get you to buy it costs more than the thing you've bought.

Consider Rolex's huge communications activities. If the compelling reason to buy a Rolex was its inherent high quality, beyond that of its competitors, then that's what Rolex would be busting a gut to tell us about.

But they don't. 90% on their marketing effort goes into putting their brand alongside cool impressive events and cool impressive people.

That is revealing of their motivation.






Every Rolex owner will tell you the above has no effect on them, and is thus a total waste of money.

Rolex know better. That's why they do it.

right, ok, rolex are ste quality then.........i'm no watch engineer but i'm pretty sure there there isn't anywhere near 1500 quids worth of guts in a £200 Michael kors.......if you get my meaning.

[tuscaneer]

......oh , and by the way, if you'd taken the time to address my specific comments relating to buying my rolex....." I wanted to by a watch that looked great, had provenance and was depreciation proof"....... you took me off on a tangent for a while there but my initial post on this still stands

[SpeckledJim]

tuscaneer said:

right, ok, rolex are ste quality then.........i'm no watch engineer but i'm pretty sure there there isn't anywhere near 1500 quids worth of guts in a £200 Michael kors.......if you get my meaning.

Granted, but you get more watch for your money at the £200 level than you do at £10k.

All a £10k watch says about anyone is that they are at least quite well-off, and they're commercially malleable.

The Swiss manufacturers are all at the same game. They jostle for position to 'own' certain sports, activities, celebrities, personality types and statements, but they know which way their bread is buttered.

They don't compete with each other on price, and they don't (except in a few limited cases) talk about the nuts and bolts, which in the vast majority of cases, is homogenous, mass-produced, uninspiring stuff at swingeing mark-ups.

It's a castle in the sky, held up by a desire to appear to share something with Roger Federer or Leonardo di Caprio.

[SpeckledJim]

tuscaneer said:

......oh , and by the way, if you'd taken the time to address my specific comments relating to buying my rolex....." I wanted to by a watch that looked great, had provenance and was depreciation proof"....... you took me off on a tangent for a while there but my initial post on this still stands

I'd agree it looks great - it does, it's lovely.

I'd agree that it has provenance, but I'd question why that is relevant, given your rejection of being a brand snob (your term)

I'd not agree it is depreciation proof, certainly once the current phase of rapidly increasing new RRPs is over, so used values are no longer being pulled upwards.

[RobCh]

Lorneg said:

Sy1441 said:

What does this say?

Alternatively it says 'nearly 4.20', just depends on what you meant in the question

Edited by Lorneg on Tuesday 21st October 11:21

Confusing timekeeper, then. To me it says nearly 8.20...