[Peloton25]

I think it really depends on your perspective of watches - if you see it only as a tool for telling time (an opinion I happen to share with flemke) then there's no value in even owning one anymore. If you don't appreciate the mechanics/craftsmanship of them then what is left?

The only watch I've worn in the past few years is the Tag Heuer that was included with the F1, something I purchased for the novelty and collectability factors at what I felt was a ridiculous price. I'm quite sure while wearing it the few brief times I thought it appropriate, that it was never once used for actually telling the time. I did have an F1 owner notice it and tell me it was a 'very smart watch for a guy like me' but otherwise it doesn't stand out like the watches of today and I have since parted with it, selling it to someone who was significantly more eager to own it than I had ever been.

You could easily have that rather utilitarian opinion of watches but a different opinion of furniture if you think decorating a home is more important than decorating your wrist; or impressing others which seems to be the primary motivator of wearing those fancy watches.

Not long ago there was a photo on FB of a Carrera GT and someone's wristwatch in the foreground with the caption "The watch is worth more than the car" and my only thought was "To who, exactly...?"

>8^)
ER


BTW: My IKEA furniture has yet to fail me but I also don't own a fruit bowl.

[NotNormal]

The thing is you can say the same about anything, including cars. To this end and for a bit of fun I did a cheeky edit of you post to prove pretty much what you wrote can be applied to any object

Peloton25 said:

I think it really depends on your perspective of cars - if you see it only as a tool for getting from A to B (an opinion I happen to share with Mrs Miggins) then there's no value in even owning one anymore. If you don't appreciate the mechanics/craftsmanship of them then what is left?

The only car I've driven in the past few years is the Mclaren F1 that I won in a competition, something I used for the novelty and collectability factors at what I felt was a ridiculous sale price. I'm quite sure while driving it the few brief times I thought it appropriate, that it was never once used for actually enjoying the drive. I did have an F1 owner notice it and tell me it was a 'very smart car for a guy like me' but otherwise it doesn't stand out like the cars of today and I have since parted with it, selling it to someone who was significantly more eager to own it than I had ever been.

You could easily have that rather utilitarian opinion of cars but a different opinion of furniture if you think decorating a home is more important than filling your garage; or impressing others which seems to be the primary motivator of driving those fancy cars.

Not long ago there was a photo on FB of a very expensive watch and someone's McLaren F1 was in the background with the caption "The car is worth more than the watch" and my only thought was "To who, exactly...?"

>8^)
ER


BTW: My IKEA furniture has yet to fail me but I also don't own a fruit bowl.

Edited by NotNormal on Friday 8th August 09:17

[flemke]

Piers_K said:

This mobile phone you use as a watch, you wouldn't happen to use it as a camera too, would you........

How did you guess?

I appreciate and respect a proper camera but, in practice, I don't often take photos, and I don't like lugging around a tool that is awkward to carry, easily damaged, and readily nicked.

[HereBeMonsters]

Uriel said:

flemke said:

I mean, the time one sees on a mobile phone, or on a Swatch, or on a clock in a public place, that is the same time that one sees on a Richard Mille atrocity, is it not? These vanity watches, do they tell you a better time or something like that?

Interesting view point given the very subject of this thread. I think it's been fairly well established here, that there are many objectively better cars available for a fraction of the cost of the F1 with only subjective user experience, looks and heritage accounting for the regard its held in, and it's inflated price. I reckon the same argument could be made to justify an expensive Rolex or similar.

Do you feel the same about some high end cabinetmaking vs an Ikea sideboard when one holds your friut bowl off the floor just the same as the other?

Very good question.

Personally, I love the intricacy in the miniaturized engineering found in a watch. If I had the money (by which I mean, I wouldn't miss the amount they cost) then I probably would own a Richard Mille. As it is, I have a few that I love, mostly with display backs so I can see the movement, and yes, I regularly just watch it ticking. Weird to some (most!) but I enjoy it.

Interested to hear flemke's views on it - it sounds like watches are just not an area of engineering that interests him, despite his obvious interest in other areas of craftsmanship.

[HereBeMonsters]

Peloton25 said:

The only watch I've worn in the past few years is the Tag Heuer that was included with the F1, something I purchased for the novelty and collectability factors at what I felt was a ridiculous price. I'm quite sure while wearing it the few brief times I thought it appropriate, that it was never once used for actually telling the time. I did have an F1 owner notice it and tell me it was a 'very smart watch for a guy like me' but otherwise it doesn't stand out like the watches of today and I have since parted with it, selling it to someone who was significantly more eager to own it than I had ever been.

Have you got any pictures of this Tag? Would be interested to see.

[flemke]

Uriel said:

flemke said:

I mean, the time one sees on a mobile phone, or on a Swatch, or on a clock in a public place, that is the same time that one sees on a Richard Mille atrocity, is it not? These vanity watches, do they tell you a better time or something like that?

Interesting view point given the very subject of this thread. I think it's been fairly well established here, that there are many objectively better cars available for a fraction of the cost of the F1 with only subjective user experience, looks and heritage accounting for the regard its held in, and it's inflated price. I reckon the same argument could be made to justify an expensive Rolex or similar.

Do you feel the same about some high end cabinetmaking vs an Ikea sideboard when one holds your friut bowl off the floor just the same as the other?

That's a fair question.

I don't object to "nice" (as in, well-made, attractive, fit-for-purpose) things, and indeed I have spent much of my life trying to design and make such things. I have also bought some.

In the case of OTT watches, however, my aversion is twofold:

1) I believe that fashion and prettifying, glamourising things belong on women, not on men.

Although I could have imagined that huge square Richard Mille watch looking smart or cool or fun on women of all shapes and sizes, whenever I saw it on Felipe Massa, I thought, "FFS, man, what are you thinking of?"

2) I don't like being ripped off. The price charged for something - in particular, something that is currently in production, so there is no issue of scarcity value - ought to bear some relationship to what it cost to produce.

These fashion watches, and indeed most of what is pumped out by the dearer end of the fashion industry, cost the retail consumer an absurdly greater amount that what it cost the maker to produce them.

What explains the disparity?

Amongst other things, we have the fact that retail space on, say, Fifth Avenue or Bond Street, costs a huge multiple of what it costs on a normal shopping street, or an Amazon warehouse. I don't need all that fancy bull5hit to help me buy a watch or a pair of trousers.

Then there is the cost of their advertising. Patek Phillipe seems to have full page ads in many motoring magazines every month. As a consumer, I don't need all those stupid ads trying to coax me into paying far over the odds for a nice watch in order to justify indulging oneself by the prospect of subsequently indulging one's children.

Then there are the profit margins. Does it really cost one watchmaker 5x as much to build a very similar watch as it does another?

Why is it that a gold watchband will cost £8k more than a stainless watchband, when the extra cost of the metal is only £2k?

I have a friend who has been in the precious stone business for 40 years. She tells me that pretty much all precious stones come from the same source - De Beers. The industry worldwide has a grading system, making precious stones in effect commodities. For a given set of grades, a stone bought in Monte Carlo and one bought in Glasgow will be indistinguishable, equally valuable. A stone is a stone.

Compared with my friend's retail price for a given stone, for the exact "same" stone Cartier in London will charge 4x as much. Four forking times!

A friend of a friend owns a huge clothing manufacturing business in Asia. He employs more than 10,000 people. He produces all the shirts sold worldwide of a certain type for one of the best known brands.

The RRP range for these shirts is £30-£50.

For the most expensive of these shirts, the manufacturer gets paid approximately $0.75. That is, cents.


If something actually cost a lot to produce, then one might say that its high price is justified. If a high price is merely waste and profiteering, however, then it is usually hard to find a respectable justification.

[flemke]

HereBeMonsters said:

Peloton25 said:

The only watch I've worn in the past few years is the Tag Heuer that was included with the F1, something I purchased for the novelty and collectability factors at what I felt was a ridiculous price. I'm quite sure while wearing it the few brief times I thought it appropriate, that it was never once used for actually telling the time. I did have an F1 owner notice it and tell me it was a 'very smart watch for a guy like me' but otherwise it doesn't stand out like the watches of today and I have since parted with it, selling it to someone who was significantly more eager to own it than I had ever been.

Have you got any pictures of this Tag? Would be interested to see.

Picture from the internet, but this is the model:



I cannot make it out in this image, but each watch had the accompanying car's chassis # written on the face.

[GarrettMacD]

Is that the Ferrari emblem in the bottom right hand corner, sullying the F1 brand?

flemke said:

Picture from the internet, but this is the model:



I cannot make it out in this image, but each watch had the accompanying car's chassis # written on the face.

[Uriel]

That's all fair enough, thanks. Although, when it comes to the 5th Ave shops and rates, I can't imagine the Park Lane F1 showroom's rates were on the low side.

And I genuinely can't remember the answer, though I'm sure it has been mentioned in the past here, how does the cost of a VW Corrado wing mirror compare with a McLaren F1 mirror, or any of the other shared parts?

I guess it's a matter of degrees and acceptance. I can justify (even if I know the numbers don't quite stack up) a JLC charging £10k for a mechanical watch that involves a lot of R&D in its design and crasftmanship and manual labour in its construction with a component of brand/ponciness added on top for vanity's sake. A technically similar watch with a wky design from a more 'fashionable' maker like RM charging £250k with the extra £240k being just the brand, then yeah, I think that's silly. But I'm well away that people will make the same argument comparing a £10 Casio and a £200 Seiko.

Edited by Uriel on Friday 8th August 11:01

[greygoose]

Surprised Ron hasn't had that image removed from the Internet.

[Dick Seaman]

Slightly clearer pic, showing the chassis number. It's a 6000 Series Tag, I have a very similar Senna edition.

[evenflow]

flemke said:

AreOut said:

flemke said:

A few years ago I saw an ad for a watch that I liked the look of and thought about buying it. I went to a shop and learned, to my surprise, that it cost something like £8,500. There was no way that I was going to pay that much for a watch, unless it was a gift for someone else.

I mean, the time one sees on a mobile phone, or on a Swatch, or on a clock in a public place, that is the same time that one sees on a Richard Mille atrocity, is it not? These vanity watches, do they tell you a better time or something like that?

it's a fashion detail, five quid chinese trousers cover your legs as well as five thousand one

Are you saying that out there somewhere is a five grand pair of trousers?

There is a recent news story about a gold shirt (which weighs 4kg). The ultimate in vulgarity?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2719014/Se...

[pits]

flemke said:

pits said:

flemke said:

Pommygranite said:

Flemke, all this talk of watches - are you a 'watch' person and what watch/watches do you have and wear daily?

My watch is an icon on my mobile phone.

I think I remember reading on one of these threads about what you (flemke) thought of Volvo's or something, and went on to say how your dad always wanted one but couldn't afford one. I then put yourself into my "decent chap" section, but that answer there about the watches is utterly superb, probably one of the best things I have ever read.

A few years ago I saw an ad for a watch that I liked the look of and thought about buying it. I went to a shop and learned, to my surprise, that it cost something like £8,500. There was no way that I was going to pay that much for a watch, unless it was a gift for someone else.

I mean, the time one sees on a mobile phone, or on a Swatch, or on a clock in a public place, that is the same time that one sees on a Richard Mille atrocity, is it not? These vanity watches, do they tell you a better time or something like that?

This is exactly my point, I know a few people with the biggest watches in the world and always have them slightly loose as to make a point of it being in their wrists, I usually take out my phone and go "look at that, 8pm already" no different to the manky old clock in the pub it tells exactly the same time as some of these stupid watches.

I do have an Omega Seamaster, it was bought before I was born by my Grandad as a gift to me when he died. I've worn it a few times and I can't justify walking around with a very expensive (in my mind) watch on my wrist that could be lost/stolen/broken.


That said I do appreciate the craftsmanship of a watch, but that is about it.

[Animal]

pits said:

This is exactly my point, I know a few people with the biggest watches in the world and always have them slightly loose as to make a point of it being in their wrists, I usually take out my phone and go "look at that, 8pm already" no different to the manky old clock in the pub it tells exactly the same time as some of these stupid watches.

I do have an Omega Seamaster, it was bought before I was born by my Grandad as a gift to me when he died. I've worn it a few times and I can't justify walking around with a very expensive (in my mind) watch on my wrist that could be lost/stolen/broken.


That said I do appreciate the craftsmanship of a watch, but that is about it.

If it didn't have a personal value to you you'd have gotten rid of it by now, that's the point.

[HereBeMonsters]

pits said:

This is exactly my point, I know a few people with the biggest watches in the world and always have them slightly loose as to make a point of it being in their wrists, I usually take out my phone and go "look at that, 8pm already" no different to the manky old clock in the pub it tells exactly the same time as some of these stupid watches.

I do have an Omega Seamaster, it was bought before I was born by my Grandad as a gift to me when he died. I've worn it a few times and I can't justify walking around with a very expensive (in my mind) watch on my wrist that could be lost/stolen/broken.


That said I do appreciate the craftsmanship of a watch, but that is about it.

Sorry, what's your point? You don't like people who wear big or expensive watches because the time is the same for everyone. Yet you have an expensive watch, but that's OK because it was a gift?

[LaurasOtherHalf]

This thread is like a parody of itself

[AlmostUseful]

Piers_K said:

flemke said:

I shall be visiting the factory to view the car before they start putting the body panels on it.

This mobile phone you use as a watch, you wouldn't happen to use it as a camera too, would you........

He doesn't need to, he's got Peloton25 and Hurst01 taking photos of him everywhere he goes!

[hurstg01]

AlmostUseful said:

Piers_K said:

flemke said:

I shall be visiting the factory to view the car before they start putting the body panels on it.

This mobile phone you use as a watch, you wouldn't happen to use it as a camera too, would you........

He doesn't need to, he's got Peloton25 and Hurst01 taking photos of him everywhere he goes!

I don't take photo's of Mr F where-ever he is, as I am sure by now an injunction would be sought . We have met a few times, had a drink, a good natter over the phone a couple of times and 'debated' over emails various times over the last few years [and long may that continue].

I have a fair library on the F1, both photographic and literary, and have been fortunate to see many F1's in all guises and made a lot of good contacts and friends through my passion - P25 and Mr F being two of them. I also have a vast collection of memorabilia on the car, and have been lucky enough to go to the MTC a couple of times and even in to Unit 2 and MSO for a look round and had the day added to Mclaren's facebook page . I try to share photo's and knowledge [if I am allowed to share] with others who are less fortunate to have the access I have had but who also love the F1 to keep their interest and enthusiasm going.

If that's a bad thing, shoot me now

[Peloton25]

NotNormal said:

To this end and for a bit of fun I did a cheeky edit of you post to prove pretty much what you wrote can be applied to any object.

Bit of a 'Captain Obvious' effort, but glad you were having fun.

>8^)
ER

[NotNormal]

Peloton25 said:

Bit of a 'Captain Obvious' effort, but glad you were having fun.

>8^)
ER

Amusing response...


...especially as you were the one wrote that bit of text in all seriousness!! Maybe the irony is lost over the pond?