6 ms·

I own a $25,000 Lange & Söhne. While watches are a time-honored way of signaling, I didn't buy it to show off. I've actually never met anyone who recognized it,

I own a $25,000 Lange & Söhne. While watches are a time-honored way of signaling, I didn't buy it to show off. I've actually never met anyone who recognized it, and off the top of my head I can't remember ever even getting a compliment on it. I'd never buy a Rolex, because they're too loud :) Here's the disconnect you're struggling with: you don't value watches. Or more accurately, you don't appreciate them beyond simple utilitarian timekeeping. That's fine, most people don't really care about them. Instead of trying to relate to people who buy expensive watches by valuing watches - which you clearly don't - relate to them through the broader experience of spending a lot of money on a hobby. Do you have any hobbies you spend "a lot" of money on, perhaps more than what's required just to engage with the hobby? Keep in mind that "a lot" is arbitrary. I have a friend who spends thousands of dollars on card games. I don't see the appeal, but it makes him happy and trading card games can be a fun activity. That hobby "doesn't require" a purchase of the most expensive, collectible versions of various cards, but people do it anyway. I'm pretty sure my friend doesn't do it to signal that he can spend that money :) The point is this: what's expensive for one person is affordable for another, and what's valuable for one person is frivolous for another. There's not much beyond that. It's all relative - in principle it all comes down to whether or not you spend strictly more than you need to on a thing so you can enjoy it beyond its raw functionality. If you do, then you're no longer treating that thing as a tool, you're treating it as a form of art. Like all forms of art, expensive watches are polarizing and subjective, and they attract a subculture of people who discriminate between things which seem utterly arbitrary to people who don't appreciate them.

kleiba 8y ago
Yeah, see and that's the thing: I simply cannot even imagine having a hobby that would have me spend thousands of dollars. I would sooner switch hobbies. I mean, I don't mind if others have such hobbies -- to each their own. As a matter of fact, I have some friends, too, who are into collecting expensive watches. Yet, I still don't get it, just like in the grandparent comment.
- typomatic 8y ago
  > I simply cannot even imagine having a hobby that would have me spend thousands of dollars. I would sooner switch hobbies. Your imagination needs work. Being on HN, I'd assume that you have at least one hobby that necessitates a significant amount of electronics (gaming console + TV, monitor + PC, laptop). Any one of these (if you actually care about the hobby) will run you thousands of dollars. You'll probably dodge at this moment and say how necessary or important or utilitarian all those things are, but that's just because you like your hobbies and don't like other people's.
  - girvo 8y ago
    Spot on. I’m into three main hobbies: gaming (and game development), audio production and recording, and photography (digital & film). It wasn’t until the other day when someone pointed out that all those hobbies are quite expensive that I sat down and thought about it: while I bought a lot of my gear second hand and did a good job of making my purchases efficient, it really does add up!
  - mhermher 8y ago
    I think the difference is that the hobby is the thing you do, not the act of buying itself. I have a probably un-utilitarian hobby of building/upgrading maintaining my desktop computer. But still, the hobby is the building/upgrading/maintaining part, not the buying part, using the thing is great too, but I probably don't purely need everything I've put into it. So in a way, I don't get it either. With the watch example, the hobby seems to be the act of buying itself, since you don't actually doanything.
    - throwawaymath 8y ago
      There are conferences and meetups you can go to for the purpose of hanging out with other watch collectors and geeking out about watch features. Buying the watch is not the hobby, wearing it is.
      - mmt 8y ago
charlesdm 8y ago
High five. They have nice watches. Which model do you own? Jaeger-LeCoultre owner here
- devy 8y ago
  Double High give. If we are talking about Richemont brands, I own a Baume & Mercier, and yes it was purchased for the Mrs as a Veblen goods :)
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  1815 38.5mm in white gold, model 235.026. Funny you say that, because at the time I was torn between the Lange and a Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Ultra Thin, model 130842J. I like the form factor and complications of the JLC, but the simplicity and movement of the Lange won out for me.
  - charlesdm 8y ago
    Nice watch! I have a JLC Master Ultra Thin Moon as my main watch, which I absolutely love. I tried the Ultra Thin, but I found it was a bit too thin for my wrist.
clairity 8y ago
> I own a $25,000 Lange & Söhne. While watches are a time-honored way of signaling, I didn't buy it to show off. [...arbitrary justification...] i see what you did there, you rascal--use a forum where people might care about such signalling and make sure they will know your watch in the future, so when they see it on your wrist, they'll wish they were you. -- non-watch wearer (see how much cooler i am for not caring?)
Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
> relate to them through the broader experience of spending a lot of money on a hobby. And when it comes to the hobby of expensive watches...you get nothing but an expensive watch. Every other hobby, you get something. PC gaming? You've got games you can play, and a monster computer that can run them with beautiful graphics. Card games? You've got a collection of cards and can quickly build new decks to adjust to the changing meta. Model trains? I've seen some really impressive miniature towns people have built around a model train set. I just don't understand expensive watches. > Here's the disconnect you're struggling with: you don't value watches. Or more accurately, you don't appreciate them beyond simple utilitarian timekeeping. That sums it all up pretty well. If I'm spending a lot of money on something, I want there to be at least something useful or enjoyable that I'm getting out of it, beyond the enjoyment of simply having it, which typically is not something ever feel about things. Things are just things. The only value they have IMO is their utility. (Though I would certainly attach sentimental value to something that was made by hand by a relative and passed down)
- tomsun 8y ago
  I think of it like mechanical art pieces. A blend of mechanical engineering, art, and craftmanship. Plus if it's made out of precious metal it's a hedge against inflation. And like art, it has a robust secondary market, which means some of the rare ones can go up in value, sometimes by a lot. People don't buy art because they get something, they buy art because they simply appreciate it. Everybody is different. I'd pick a thousand dollar watch over a MTG collection or a gaming tower any day (mostly because I don't think gaming is valuable at all)
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  It seems like you can't get past the idea that you're buying something expensive and ostensibly not doing anything with it. Consider it like this: if you were to buy a Rothko, you would not be able to do anything with your new painting except look at it. That sounds kind of dull, right? It is dull - unless, of course, you love art, and Rothko in particular. Maybe you also happen to be part of a community of art enthusiasts who similarly love Rothko's work. Maybe you like to get into spirited debates about it. So it is with watches (or anything else, really). You think that the enjoyment of a watch is simply having it, but that's not how the hobby is enjoyed by its enthusiasts. Watches like this are enjoyed by talking with other collectors, admiring the movement, geeking out over the features ("complications") built into the watch, commiserating over ingroup gossip, etc. It's not for everyone, and I don't blame people for not "getting" watches! The subculture might be somewhat inscrutable from the outside, and it can be easily dismissed as an idle fancy for the rich, but there is a lot more depth to it than what you're seeing.
asdignoionio 8y ago
You could have saved a dozen lives. Instead you bought a watch. I have a perfectly objective justification for holding you in perfect contempt. Take your moral relativism and shove it.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  False dichotomy. A person who can afford to spend $25K on a watch usually has some more money left after they bought the watch. You have no idea what throwawaymath does with the rest of his/her money. Maybe your judgementalism is as much a problem as their relativism? And, by the way, the point about "relativism" wasn't about moral relativism at all.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    I don't see how any of that is relevant to the point: "You could have saved a dozen lives. Instead you bought a watch. I have a perfectly objective justification for holding you in perfect contempt." Okay, granted that 'perfect contempt' is a bit strong, the reasoning seems good to me, I understand it and sympathize. How much money they have left over or what they do with the rest etc doesn't affect that in the slightest. Does it?
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      OK, here's someone with $1M. They keep it. If $25K could have saved a dozen lives, they could have saved 480 lives. Are you outraged? Here's someone with $1M. They give away $25K in a way that saves a dozen lives. They also spend another $25K on a watch. Are you outraged? Are you more outraged than the previous example because they wasted money on the watch? (Is that better or worse than keeping the money in the bank?) Here's someone with $1M. They give away $975K, saving 468 lives. They take the last $25K and spend it on a watch. Are you outraged because they didn't also give away the last $25K? Does the watch blind you to the good they did? Or did they have to give away all $1M to avoid your "perfect contempt"? See, you're judging their selfishness by the one purchase, not by the whole of their economic activity. I dispute whether that is a relevant metric.

kleiba 8y ago

Yeah, see and that's the thing: I simply cannot even imagine having a hobby that would have me spend thousands of dollars. I would sooner switch hobbies. I mean, I don't mind if others have such hobbies -- to each their own. As a matter of fact, I have some friends, too, who are into collecting expensive watches. Yet, I still don't get it, just like in the grandparent comment.

typomatic 8y ago
> I simply cannot even imagine having a hobby that would have me spend thousands of dollars. I would sooner switch hobbies. Your imagination needs work. Being on HN, I'd assume that you have at least one hobby that necessitates a significant amount of electronics (gaming console + TV, monitor + PC, laptop). Any one of these (if you actually care about the hobby) will run you thousands of dollars. You'll probably dodge at this moment and say how necessary or important or utilitarian all those things are, but that's just because you like your hobbies and don't like other people's.
- girvo 8y ago
  Spot on. I’m into three main hobbies: gaming (and game development), audio production and recording, and photography (digital & film). It wasn’t until the other day when someone pointed out that all those hobbies are quite expensive that I sat down and thought about it: while I bought a lot of my gear second hand and did a good job of making my purchases efficient, it really does add up!
- mhermher 8y ago
  I think the difference is that the hobby is the thing you do, not the act of buying itself. I have a probably un-utilitarian hobby of building/upgrading maintaining my desktop computer. But still, the hobby is the building/upgrading/maintaining part, not the buying part, using the thing is great too, but I probably don't purely need everything I've put into it. So in a way, I don't get it either. With the watch example, the hobby seems to be the act of buying itself, since you don't actually doanything.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    There are conferences and meetups you can go to for the purpose of hanging out with other watch collectors and geeking out about watch features. Buying the watch is not the hobby, wearing it is.
    - mmt 8y ago

charlesdm 8y ago

High five. They have nice watches. Which model do you own? Jaeger-LeCoultre owner here

devy 8y ago
Double High give. If we are talking about Richemont brands, I own a Baume & Mercier, and yes it was purchased for the Mrs as a Veblen goods :)
throwawaymath 8y ago
1815 38.5mm in white gold, model 235.026. Funny you say that, because at the time I was torn between the Lange and a Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Ultra Thin, model 130842J. I like the form factor and complications of the JLC, but the simplicity and movement of the Lange won out for me.
- charlesdm 8y ago
  Nice watch! I have a JLC Master Ultra Thin Moon as my main watch, which I absolutely love. I tried the Ultra Thin, but I found it was a bit too thin for my wrist.

clairity 8y ago

> I own a $25,000 Lange & Söhne. While watches are a time-honored way of signaling, I didn't buy it to show off. [...arbitrary justification...] i see what you did there, you rascal--use a forum where people might care about such signalling and make sure they will know your watch in the future, so when they see it on your wrist, they'll wish they were you. -- non-watch wearer (see how much cooler i am for not caring?)

Sohcahtoa82 8y ago

> relate to them through the broader experience of spending a lot of money on a hobby. And when it comes to the hobby of expensive watches...you get nothing but an expensive watch. Every other hobby, you get something. PC gaming? You've got games you can play, and a monster computer that can run them with beautiful graphics. Card games? You've got a collection of cards and can quickly build new decks to adjust to the changing meta. Model trains? I've seen some really impressive miniature towns people have built around a model train set. I just don't understand expensive watches. > Here's the disconnect you're struggling with: you don't value watches. Or more accurately, you don't appreciate them beyond simple utilitarian timekeeping. That sums it all up pretty well. If I'm spending a lot of money on something, I want there to be at least something useful or enjoyable that I'm getting out of it, beyond the enjoyment of simply having it, which typically is not something ever feel about things. Things are just things. The only value they have IMO is their utility. (Though I would certainly attach sentimental value to something that was made by hand by a relative and passed down)

tomsun 8y ago
I think of it like mechanical art pieces. A blend of mechanical engineering, art, and craftmanship. Plus if it's made out of precious metal it's a hedge against inflation. And like art, it has a robust secondary market, which means some of the rare ones can go up in value, sometimes by a lot. People don't buy art because they get something, they buy art because they simply appreciate it. Everybody is different. I'd pick a thousand dollar watch over a MTG collection or a gaming tower any day (mostly because I don't think gaming is valuable at all)
throwawaymath 8y ago
It seems like you can't get past the idea that you're buying something expensive and ostensibly not doing anything with it. Consider it like this: if you were to buy a Rothko, you would not be able to do anything with your new painting except look at it. That sounds kind of dull, right? It is dull - unless, of course, you love art, and Rothko in particular. Maybe you also happen to be part of a community of art enthusiasts who similarly love Rothko's work. Maybe you like to get into spirited debates about it. So it is with watches (or anything else, really). You think that the enjoyment of a watch is simply having it, but that's not how the hobby is enjoyed by its enthusiasts. Watches like this are enjoyed by talking with other collectors, admiring the movement, geeking out over the features ("complications") built into the watch, commiserating over ingroup gossip, etc. It's not for everyone, and I don't blame people for not "getting" watches! The subculture might be somewhat inscrutable from the outside, and it can be easily dismissed as an idle fancy for the rich, but there is a lot more depth to it than what you're seeing.

asdignoionio 8y ago

You could have saved a dozen lives. Instead you bought a watch. I have a perfectly objective justification for holding you in perfect contempt. Take your moral relativism and shove it.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
False dichotomy. A person who can afford to spend $25K on a watch usually has some more money left after they bought the watch. You have no idea what throwawaymath does with the rest of his/her money. Maybe your judgementalism is as much a problem as their relativism? And, by the way, the point about "relativism" wasn't about moral relativism at all.
- yesenadam 8y ago
  I don't see how any of that is relevant to the point: "You could have saved a dozen lives. Instead you bought a watch. I have a perfectly objective justification for holding you in perfect contempt." Okay, granted that 'perfect contempt' is a bit strong, the reasoning seems good to me, I understand it and sympathize. How much money they have left over or what they do with the rest etc doesn't affect that in the slightest. Does it?
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    OK, here's someone with $1M. They keep it. If $25K could have saved a dozen lives, they could have saved 480 lives. Are you outraged? Here's someone with $1M. They give away $25K in a way that saves a dozen lives. They also spend another $25K on a watch. Are you outraged? Are you more outraged than the previous example because they wasted money on the watch? (Is that better or worse than keeping the money in the bank?) Here's someone with $1M. They give away $975K, saving 468 lives. They take the last $25K and spend it on a watch. Are you outraged because they didn't also give away the last $25K? Does the watch blind you to the good they did? Or did they have to give away all $1M to avoid your "perfect contempt"? See, you're judging their selfishness by the one purchase, not by the whole of their economic activity. I dispute whether that is a relevant metric.