4 ms·

More akin to TF2 Hats or CS:GO knives -- expensive, limited supply, status symbol with practicality approaching zero. Also look nice, but so are cheap Seikos, o

More akin to TF2 Hats or CS:GO knives -- expensive, limited supply, status symbol with practicality approaching zero. Also look nice, but so are cheap Seikos, or cheap CS:GO skins.

Veen 6y ago
> with practicality approaching zero They tell the time and sometimes the date. I find that quite useful.
- nullifidian 6y ago
  Quartz watches are much better at telling time. Some of them can tell time using GPS with atomic precision. Quartz watches don't require regular servicing, and are accurate to ±5 seconds per year for the better models. If telling time is what you want, you won't buy a mechanical watch, the same way you won't buy a wood-burning stove for cooking. Smart watches like Apple watch can also do many other things. Buying a mechanical watch is utterly irrational, if you subtract the status, scarcity, and design components.
  - Veen 6y ago
    > Buying a mechanical watch is utterly irrational, if you subtract the status, scarcity, and design components. Yes, buying something is irrational if you "subtract" all the reasons people buy it, but I don't think your conception of those reasons is accurate. I like my mechanical watch for many reasons that have nothing to do with status and scarcity. It looks good and I appreciate the quality of workmanship. I find the mechanism's complexity and delicacy beautiful. I like that it has a glass back and I can watch it work. I like that it is entirely powered by my own body's motion, and I never have to charge it or change its batteries. I find its ability to keep time through purely mechanical rather than digital processes fascinating, and a useful balance to a life that would otherwise be dominated by ones and zeroes. I find the history of the watchmaker and watchmaking interesting, and like that I wear an item that is part of a centuries-long story. I like that, if maintained well, my watch will work when I am 80 years old and I can give it to my son—something that cannot be said of an Apple Watch. I like that it doesn't have notifications and doesn't track me: it only provides useful information to me and not to the company that made it. It is less accurate than a quartz watch, but I neither need nor want atomic precision from a watch. You conflate "rational" with "utilitarian" or "practical" but they aren't the same thing at all. Even if people bought mechanical watches solely for the status and looks, that would not be "utterly irrational" because those are values of importance to them.
    - nullifidian 6y ago
      >quality of workmanship. >I find the mechanism's complexity and delicacy beautiful. The way I see it these are just self-deceptive rationalizations. You don't need to __own__ an expensive or complicated mechanism to "appreciate it". It's enough for it to exist in the world. I appreciate the ingenuity of ITER, I don't want to own it. Also, it can be argued that pointless mechanical complexity (mechanical watches are truly pointless today) is immoral profligate decadence, and misallocation of human labor. Some grand complication watches cost obscene money. >I find its ability to keep time through purely mechanical rather than digital processes fascinating The price ceiling for a well crafted relatively complicated mechanical watch minus the status, prestige etc is $1000, and automatic mechanical Seikos start from around $100. Doesn't explain the $7000 for cheapest steel Rolex, or most watches interesting to an average watch nerd. >when I am 80 years old and I can give it to my son Modern quartz watches can also do that, and won't require any part swapping due to wear. >You conflate "rational" with "utilitarian" or "practical" rational is defined as "based on sensible practical reasons rather than emotions" in MacMillan dictionary for example.
      - nullifidian 6y ago
        UPD: found a funny thing https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08NDJFMZX/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08NDJFMZX/ (Richard Mille watches start at around $80,000 USD)

More akin to TF2 Hats or CS:GO knives -- expensive, limited supply, status symbol with practicality approaching zero. Also look nice, but so are cheap Seikos, or cheap CS:GO skins.

Veen 6y ago

> with practicality approaching zero They tell the time and sometimes the date. I find that quite useful.

nullifidian 6y ago
Quartz watches are much better at telling time. Some of them can tell time using GPS with atomic precision. Quartz watches don't require regular servicing, and are accurate to ±5 seconds per year for the better models. If telling time is what you want, you won't buy a mechanical watch, the same way you won't buy a wood-burning stove for cooking. Smart watches like Apple watch can also do many other things. Buying a mechanical watch is utterly irrational, if you subtract the status, scarcity, and design components.
- Veen 6y ago
  > Buying a mechanical watch is utterly irrational, if you subtract the status, scarcity, and design components. Yes, buying something is irrational if you "subtract" all the reasons people buy it, but I don't think your conception of those reasons is accurate. I like my mechanical watch for many reasons that have nothing to do with status and scarcity. It looks good and I appreciate the quality of workmanship. I find the mechanism's complexity and delicacy beautiful. I like that it has a glass back and I can watch it work. I like that it is entirely powered by my own body's motion, and I never have to charge it or change its batteries. I find its ability to keep time through purely mechanical rather than digital processes fascinating, and a useful balance to a life that would otherwise be dominated by ones and zeroes. I find the history of the watchmaker and watchmaking interesting, and like that I wear an item that is part of a centuries-long story. I like that, if maintained well, my watch will work when I am 80 years old and I can give it to my son—something that cannot be said of an Apple Watch. I like that it doesn't have notifications and doesn't track me: it only provides useful information to me and not to the company that made it. It is less accurate than a quartz watch, but I neither need nor want atomic precision from a watch. You conflate "rational" with "utilitarian" or "practical" but they aren't the same thing at all. Even if people bought mechanical watches solely for the status and looks, that would not be "utterly irrational" because those are values of importance to them.
  - nullifidian 6y ago
    >quality of workmanship. >I find the mechanism's complexity and delicacy beautiful. The way I see it these are just self-deceptive rationalizations. You don't need to __own__ an expensive or complicated mechanism to "appreciate it". It's enough for it to exist in the world. I appreciate the ingenuity of ITER, I don't want to own it. Also, it can be argued that pointless mechanical complexity (mechanical watches are truly pointless today) is immoral profligate decadence, and misallocation of human labor. Some grand complication watches cost obscene money. >I find its ability to keep time through purely mechanical rather than digital processes fascinating The price ceiling for a well crafted relatively complicated mechanical watch minus the status, prestige etc is $1000, and automatic mechanical Seikos start from around $100. Doesn't explain the $7000 for cheapest steel Rolex, or most watches interesting to an average watch nerd. >when I am 80 years old and I can give it to my son Modern quartz watches can also do that, and won't require any part swapping due to wear. >You conflate "rational" with "utilitarian" or "practical" rational is defined as "based on sensible practical reasons rather than emotions" in MacMillan dictionary for example.
    - nullifidian 6y ago
      UPD: found a funny thing https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08NDJFMZX/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08NDJFMZX/ (Richard Mille watches start at around $80,000 USD)