4 ms·
For me it's about the human experience being an analogue one, and having a watch that works and expressed in an analogue way is a beauty in itself and is instan
by basicplus2 9y ago
For me it's about the human experience being an analogue one, and having a watch that works and expressed in an analogue way is a beauty in itself and is instantly relatable, and has a meaning in itself. So this is its value that is not just about showing off craft
- asjdfjasfjsfe 9y agoI think the main selling point for the people actually buying the watches is the exclusivity and display of wealth they represent. To get a sense, you could have a look at this amusing parody article. It is a parody, but there are nonetheless a lot of people who think this way. http://www.businessinsider.com/gselevator-on-wall-street-watches-2016-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/gselevator-on-wall-street-wat... I mean, I dig the notion of the human experience being "analogue." But the human experience doesn't normally include spending twenty-plus years worth of a normal person's wages for a useless trinket to wear on your wrist. I'm really torn about this. The device is something amazing, but the cost is extravagant in the extreme.
- dsacco 9y agoI can understand why you're torn, but - speaking here as someone who owns such a watch - people vastly overestimate the Veblen status potential of expensive watches, which is unfortunate because that can lead them to be quick to judge their owners. I have met wealthy people in the sort of industries you might typically associate with this kind of pedigreed excess (Wall St, Big Law), and those folks don't appear to recognize what I'm wearing at all. Often they're wearing smart watches these days. The truth is that extremely expensive watches are a poor form of wealth signaling unless they're loud (think of a Hublot encrusted with diamonds, or something extremely iconic like a Rolex). If you walk into nearly any room wearing a Patek, Lange, Vacheron, etc. I can virtually guarantee that your watch will simply go unnoticed. I actually like Rolex watches quite a lot for the real engineering work that goes into manufacturing them, but I don't own one specifically because I'd rather not broadcast an expensive item on my wrist. I consider watches like these to be a form of art that emerges from the idea of practicality but also frees itself from it (as do most collectors I've personally spoken to).
- cc81 9y agoI own a Submariner and most people won't recognize it as there are so many other watches that look like it and those that see that it is a Rolex think it is a fake anyway, at least when I'm wearing my usual t-shirt/jeans combination.
- damnfine 9y agoConfirmed. Owned a real Rolex, saw a strangers copy, liked it better and bought one. Ended up selling both at a profit, so a win I suppose. But other than the other guys with expensive watches, no one cared. And after a while, I realized I didn't either. I now own a few 1800s era mechanicals, that were cheap, I can repair them (or at least try), and really seem to have more character and soul than the modern swiss movements.
- garretraziel 9y agoI have Seiko SKX007 (https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-seiko-skx007-divers-watch https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-seiko-skx007-divers-wa...) and it costs less than $200. There are Seiko 5 watches even cheaper than that.