29 ms·

William Gibson wrote a piece for Wired back in the day about his obsession with mechanical watches.[1] He puts it thus: ``` Mechanical watches are so brilliant

William Gibson wrote a piece for Wired back in the day about his obsession with mechanical watches.[1] He puts it thus: ``` Mechanical watches are so brilliantly unnecessary. Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time, and high-end contemporary Swiss watches are priced like small cars. But mechanical watches partake of what my friend John Clute calls the Tamagotchi Gesture. They're pointless in a peculiarly needful way; they're comforting precisely because they require tending. And vintage mechanical watches are among the very finest fossils of the pre-digital age. Each one is a miniature world unto itself, a tiny functioning mechanism, a congeries of minute and mysterious moving parts. Moving parts! And consequently these watches are, in a sense, alive. They have heartbeats. They seem to respond, Tamagotchi-like, to "love," in the form, usually, of the expensive ministrations of specialist technicians. Like ancient steam-tractors or Vincent motorcycles, they can be painstakingly restored from virtually any stage of ruin. ``` (1): Seems to be pay-walled now but you can find the whole thing in Distrust that Particular Flavor

jhgb 4y ago
To me they're the timekeeping equivalent of pole vaulting yourself onto the second floor. A normal person would use stairs, but it's impressive and even cheered on by a bunch of onlookers when someone can do it just by jumping on a long stick.
polio 4y ago
They're beautiful and impressive, but I find the amount of money that flows into "high horology" to be an sum with an egregious opportunity cost to society, made even worse by the fact that all that complexity goes towards a movement that is worse at keeping time than a rudimentary quartz. If people want Tamagotchis, they can get a Tamagotchi. I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead and find simpler luxuries.
- what-imright 4y ago
  The solution of giving away your money over buying something is some broken logic. Plenty of corrupt charity officials line their pockets and live it up on donations. The rich don’t owe society, exactly the opposite, hence the money. It represents an unpaid debt so you can’t turn around and ask for it back.
  - Sporktacular 4y ago
    "The rich don’t owe society, exactly the opposite" This is precisely wrong. The rich do indeed owe society. They owe their wealth to the workers working for them. To the education system that educated their workers and made them productive, the roads that brought them to work and the health system that keeps them at work. This is obvious from the number of millionaires produced by healthy, educated, stable societies vs others. Other countries produce fewer and then only natural resource millionaires in the favour of the ruling elites. But they can't do so without labour and the resources owned by those societies. The rich owe almost everything not produced by their own hands. And comparing the figures of corruption in those countries to that of charities generally is so absurd it's laughable.
    - mulmen 4y ago
      Ostensibly wealth is a settled debt.
      - Sporktacular 4y ago
        Ostensibly. 'Owe' is more than accounting parlance.
        mulmen 4y ago
        Is it? This is social accounting. It all translates.
        Sporktacular 4y ago
        Yeah. Just as wealth is more than accounting parlance.
    - dotancohen 4y ago
      > They owe their wealth to the workers working for > them. To the education system that educated their > workers and made them productive, the roads that > brought them to work and the health system that > keeps them at work. Assuming that they've paid their taxes, they've paid their debt.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  For sure, charities would be a much better use of the money involved... but on the other hand couldn't you say the same about art in general? I think what makes it different is the conspicuousness of these watches when they become a way to advertise wealth and status. But I like that artists/engineers can make a living by putting their time into producing such marvellous things. The world is richer for them.
  - winReInstall 4y ago
    Eh, these are cnc milled and and robot handled just like any other industrial good. Sure the quality expectations are high, but the production process is nothing unique..
    - quickthrower2 4y ago
      Swiss watchmakers innovated CNC machinery though.
    - Sporktacular 4y ago
      I'm guessing the part production is automated but low yield and the mechanisms/watches hand-assembled. For a run of 150 it makes no sense making a custom assembly device. Why does the production process have to be unique for the result to be art? It's like saying Picasso wasn't making art because he used paint, brushes and canvass like everyone else.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > on the other hand couldn't you say the same about art in general? I would say that mass-produced art should be pretty cheap, and these are mass-produced.
    - Sporktacular 4y ago
      These ones are not.
      - 4y ago
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  Same with "ultra" and "hyper" cars
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    Those cars are way worse. It’s not just flashing money around, it’s actively making your wealth other people’s problem. From the noise they make, the extra gas they burn, to having to drive careful around them because you’re going to get sued into oblivion if you fuck them up
    - dghlsakjg 4y ago
      I've always thought that there should be a property damage liability limit on public roads. If you want to drive a $250k lambo why do I have to buy extra insurance because you brought an expensive toy out to play on vital public infrastructure? Pass the extra liability beyond, say, $100k to the owner of the toy car. If some shitty driver plows into my crappy old car, they are out maybe $3k in property damage. If they happen to hit a supercar, then somehow the same action nets them a liability that could buy them a starter home? Mind you, I live in BC, where there is only one liability insurance company, and they have a government mandate to insure everyone with a license, no matter how bad their driving record is. Which means that every idiot's risk gets spread onto my bill.
  - user_7832 4y ago
    I would actually disagree with this one even though I agree with the overall sentiment. Hypercars are much better than regular/sports cars, and should be considered the atomic clock equivalent to the quartz watch - far more accuracy/performance albeit at a significant literal cost. I do not know the real world implications of hyper cars on fuel consumption (I can't expect it to be very good, but I don't expect too many such vehicles either). For better or for worse there are many more mundane things that can have a much larger improvement for human life (eg reducing food waste).
    - fomine3 4y ago
      I believe hypercars are much worse for every practical point like reliability, noise, ... Performance is superior but won't work on most public road.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  Watches are about movement/storage of wealth and tax evasion. Like art, very high timepiece value is its ability to move money. They're Old Money Cryptocurrency. Bring $50,000 in cash on a plane to another country and you're a drug dealer/criminal, or at the very least, the tax inspectors want to talk to you. Bring a $50,000 watch on holiday or a business trip, and nobody blinks an eye. Your average customs/border/security person probably no idea what a $1,000 watch looks like compared to a $50,000 or $100,000 watch...or they're The Chinese in particular are using luxury watches to get around money export controls (you can't export more than a fairly small amount of money out of China.) Further reading: Tax evasion: https://thetruthaboutwatches.com/2020/09/uk-kills-new-watch-smuggling/ https://thetruthaboutwatches.com/2020/09/uk-kills-new-watch-... Chinese wealth export mechanism: https://www.ft.com/content/a9a34f94-9a49-4938-ae9e-ec4e6d2f4838 https://www.ft.com/content/a9a34f94-9a49-4938-ae9e-ec4e6d2f4...
  - akomtu 4y ago
    So a watch serves as a proof of work, and a distributed ledger of watchsmiths can verify a watch for you, anonymously, for a small fee.
    - Sporktacular 4y ago
      Proof of stake anyway.
      - akomtu 4y ago
        Proof of stake is precious stones and metals.
        quickthrower2 4y ago
        Also proof of work (mining)
  - b06timmer 4y ago
    Early explorers, journalists, etc., wore Rolex watches because they could barter the watch to get them out of a jam. I currently have a Seiko 5 mechanical watch. It doesn't hack or keep time particularly well (runs fast) but I love it all the same for its quirks.
- mulmen 4y ago
  It’s easy to spend other people’s money. The base argument of democracy is that because none of us knows the downstream effects we all share decision making. In other words: “that’s just like, your opinion, man.”
  - nextaccountic 4y ago
    Democracy works with one person = one vote. When you have one dollar = one vote you get a plutocracy instead. So when consumers vote with their wallets, this vote isn't democratic at all. People that don't have money in their wallets don't get to vote.
    - kqr 4y ago
      Put differently: we want market economies to be about satisfying the greatest need. In practise, they're about satisfying the greatest ability to pay. And ability to pay does not come with need -- it comes with privilege, luck, and political skill.
    - mulmen 4y ago
      The point is you don’t get to tell other people how to spend their money outside the narrow exception of taxation and prohibition, both of which are democratically defined.
  - polio 4y ago
    Yes, I know it is my opinion.
- disillusioned 4y ago
  I mean, herein lies the philosophical argument of opportunity cost to society in general. Every thing we spend money that is, perhaps, any amount over-engineered or nice-for-nice sake, or made of slightly higher grade materials, or, well, anything other than strictly utilitarian and minimalist as possible is technically consuming opportunity cost that could benefit society. If I order wings with my pizza tonight, as I have done, and I decide to consume both of those things, instead of donating the money on the wings to someone else, I've directed excess to myself instead of to the betterment of society. And obviously that's the reductive, logical conclusion of the argument. What I'm getting at is that it's an interesting mental and philosophical exercise to figure out where that line lies. Does it lie with $400M super-yachts? Sure, probably we don't need that wealth going directly to propping up the yacht industry, which, itself, doesn't need to exist from a utilitarian perspective. But I'm not sure how to define where that line lies. Is it the old "know it when you see it" line? If I buy a 26' sailboat, is that still falling into the ostentatious conspicuous-consumption-that-could've-been-spent-on-others? Of course it is. What about a jet ski? What about a $400 kayak? I'm not sure the answer here. I agree with your core sentiment that "I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities" in that it sounds lovely. I struggle with the idea that charities have to exist to patchwork fix parts of society and government that are inherently broken. Creating a construct that inherently hyper benefits a small coterie of people and necessarily introduces some inequities, and then hoping that that same small coterie of people will feel just guilty enough to donate to others to try to whitewash some of those problems... is inherently flawed. Obviously. But I also recognize that the downstream and upstream of the middle of the bell curve of capitalism is basically what powers almost all of our jobs. We work because we produce something that someone, somewhere wants. Or needs, sometimes. But a LOT of it is "wants." And if it was _just_ needs, the economy would be an even bleaker place. We've seen what that looks like too. That being said, I personally feel like, you know, a clever tax policy helps with a lot of this, if it's underpinned with effective enforcement and effective oversight and efficient use of those funds. But boy are those tricky.
  - lmm 4y ago
    I find a super-yacht less offensive than an expensive watch, because at least a super-yacht lets you do things that a regular yacht couldn't, or do them better. Getting a yacht with e.g. a helipad on it is obviously a luxury, but it's a reasonable luxury: anyone can see how it's nicer to be able to fly to your yacht rather than having to bring it in and out of port. What makes these watches so infuriating is that all that money (and not just notional money, but real hours of skilled labour) is poured into a black hole: at the end of the day you get a watch that's very visibly less good than a $300 smartwatch.
- Mikeb85 4y ago
  > I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead and find simpler luxuries. Why? Are watchmakers not people who deserve to have an income? Do they not then spend their income on goods and services that help the economy?
  - metadat 4y ago
    I believe parent comment is trying to convey that more societal good could be done through more effective donations compared to donating thousands to a watchmaker or watchmaking corporation. Are they using the surplus to better society or only to enrich themselves?
    - Mikeb85 4y ago
      More societal good would be done if governments enacted policies which help people instead of relying on charity from the wealthy... Also watchmaking is blue collar work.
      - metadat 4y ago
        100% agree.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > Why? Are watchmakers not people who deserve to have an income? Why? Just because they're good at something that takes effort? By that logic everyone who has a challenging hobby - and most hobbies are ultimately challenging - deserves an income from it. Would you say that anyone who's good at any sport, or any craft, or any game, or even knowing celebrity trivia, deserves an income? IMO at most people who produce real value for others can be said to "deserve" an income. And while watchmakers produce something that a small number of people are willing to pay a lot for, it's hard to say that they're producing real value as opposed to some kind of Veblen status display. (Contrast that with something like a mansion or a sports car - although it's a luxury good, there are tangible ways in which it's objectively better than the "cheap" equivalent, in a way that a mechanical watch is not)
- Justin_K 4y ago
  Should we also drive shitty cars and live in small houses?
  - kqr 4y ago
    Quartz watches are not shitty or small. They are more accurate and reliable than mechanical watches. (I say this as an owner of several mechanical watches. I love them, but they are strictly worse than anything decently priced in any watch store.)
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    Should? No. But smaller cars and houses can be nicer. Smaller house = easier to maintain, for example.
- nunez 4y ago
  ironically, there is a lot of overlap between the "buys hyper expensive wrist Tamagotchis", "owns a charity," and "donates to charities" Venn diagram.
- Animats 4y ago
  Mechanical watch pricing has become silly. The Rolex Submariner, a useful tool in the 1950s for mariners and pilots, sold for $150 in 1953, or about $1500 now. It now costs about $8950. Same item. “Rolex is not in the watch business, we are in the luxury business” - attributed to a Rolex chairman.
- rmason 4y ago
  It's an acceptable way for men to wear jewelry. To flaunt success without being gaudy. I prefer skeleton watches and although even more expensive models exist imho Richard Mille makes the top of the line.
- SergeAx 4y ago
  Expensive timepiece today is the only way for a man to show off his wealth indoors in a relatively tasteful manner. Woman can wear gold and diamonds on the neck, in the ears, on the wrists, on the lapel. She may carry a bag which costs thousands. Man can't wear any gold at all, except he is a rap star. He can't even wear cufflinks outside formal attire. Not sure about even a ring with stone. Maybe steel one with small diamond will not look extremely kitsch, but it is a big maybe. Expensive low-key watch on steel or leather wristband is totally okay in almost any social situation. In case someone suddenly recognizes the brand - you always may say that it is a Chinese replica. Not that I endorse that, just pointing out.
  - sgregnt 4y ago
    I think you partially left out expansive clothes / shoes brands.
    - SergeAx 4y ago
      I saw men in Armani jumpsuits and Gucci hoodies. They look... hilarious.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
  It is an NFT of sorts, only without the cryptographic proof.
huhtenberg 4y ago
> Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time ... and that's my cue to pimp one of the most practical watch of all time - Casio Oceanus, the 100 series. * Analog watch face. * Quartz, radio auto-sync, solar-powered. * Sapphire glass, titanium body and bracelet. Waterproof. * Clean design. Under $500. https://www.google.com/search?q=OCW-S100-1AJF&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=OCW-S100-1AJF&tbm=isch
- LeoPanthera 4y ago
  In my opinion, its successor, the S200, has a cleaner design.
  - huhtenberg 4y ago
    Steel instead of titanium and the glass is flat (?), very nice. I do wish that S100 was a bit heavier.
  - itisit 4y ago
    Do you mean the T200? There is no S200 per se.
    - LeoPanthera 4y ago
      I did mean the T200.
      - itisit 4y ago
        Tough choice! I prefer the blue dial of the T200, but I'm partial to titanium bands (i.e. S100).
- mrwh 4y ago
  Handsome watch!
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  Practical watches are ones where it's clear at a glance which way up it goes and what the time is; they have numbers on them, preferably in a digital readout like 00:40. Watches without numbers are fashion watches. Watches with analogue faces are relics from when technology only let you decypher the time from rotating pointers. Rotating pointers where the numbers they point at have been removed are form over function.
DesiLurker 4y ago
as I always say about watches, they are socially accepted forms of men's jewelry. after advent of smartphones they are hardly about time anyways. its mostly style & flex. That too in a in-group because most people including many jewelers cant tell difference between and original and a replica for some common mid-high end watches like rolex submariner. I am actually fine with these 'vanity jewels' for high end buyers so long as they don't end up being a tax haven like art market. its all a way for the money to flow back into society and some more productive good in subsequent iterations. I mean after all its better than a NFT of picture that watch.
- MrDunham 4y ago
  > watches, they are socially accepted forms of men's jewelry. after advent of smartphones they are hardly about time anyways. its mostly style & flex. As a daily wear of a “dumb watch“ I somewhat agree with this statement. Having a watch that matches my shoes and belt certainly makes an outfit look both more professional and well coordinated (RE jewelry/style). However, I find that when I don’t wear my watch and just have my smartphone it is a significantly diminished experience. Having to pull my phone out of my pocket to check the time is both socially less acceptable (am I checking the time or am I just bored with our conversation?) and far more likely to pull me into some rabbit hole and off of what I was currently doing. So… it’s actually kind of nice to have a watch around, even if it only cost ~$100 (Skagen are amazing value for the price).
  - DesiLurker 4y ago
    I agree, smartphone is a context switch, much better to have a watch. I have had a minor hack for WFH for last 2 year. Just to feel a bit of formalism I rotate through my watches every day of the week. also its a good vanity decision at the start of the day.
nl 4y ago
If you spend any time in Singapore you'll note that the fact that private ownership of cars is so difficult and rare it means people use other luxury goods to denote status. To generalize hugely, women buy designer handbags and men have watches. It took me a while to work out, but it makes perfect sense once you think it through. It's so hard to get yourself a BMW 3 Series so you spend $20K on a watch instead.
- megablast 4y ago
  > that private ownership of cars is so difficult and rare How it should be everywhere.
- lvturner 4y ago
  This is also true in Hong Kong, but cars are readily available - and you find people with both. I think there are some more cultural nuances to watch ownership in this region.
agumonkey 4y ago
I felt similarly to computer tape drives. People in general miss turntables and k7 players. Maybe it's a level of complexity that you can still relate too and thus feel more about. Your life does not revolve about perfect information at infinitely low cost. You want to be stimulated / inspired. A modern SoC with all its technical prowess is out of reach to your senses.
kristianp 4y ago
Here's the Wired article: https://www.wired.com/1999/01/ebay/ https://www.wired.com/1999/01/ebay/ or https://archive.ph/IlcZ0 https://archive.ph/IlcZ0
Mikeb85 4y ago
> high-end contemporary Swiss watches are priced like small cars. Richard Mille watches are priced like Ferraris lol...
samizdis 4y ago
Doesn't seem to be paywalled (from where I am, in the UK), if this [1] is the article to which you are referring: William Gibson on Twitter, Antique Watches and Internet Obsessions, published Sept 14, 2012. [1] https://www.wired.com/2012/09/william-gibson-part-2-twitter/ https://www.wired.com/2012/09/william-gibson-part-2-twitter/
silverlake 4y ago
Watches are jewelry for men, like a tiara for women. It is pure status signaling.
hulitu 4y ago
> Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time, Citation needed (as in measurement report). AFAIK some years ago electronic watches had some problems with the time reference.

jhgb 4y ago

To me they're the timekeeping equivalent of pole vaulting yourself onto the second floor. A normal person would use stairs, but it's impressive and even cheered on by a bunch of onlookers when someone can do it just by jumping on a long stick.

polio 4y ago

They're beautiful and impressive, but I find the amount of money that flows into "high horology" to be an sum with an egregious opportunity cost to society, made even worse by the fact that all that complexity goes towards a movement that is worse at keeping time than a rudimentary quartz. If people want Tamagotchis, they can get a Tamagotchi. I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead and find simpler luxuries.

what-imright 4y ago
The solution of giving away your money over buying something is some broken logic. Plenty of corrupt charity officials line their pockets and live it up on donations. The rich don’t owe society, exactly the opposite, hence the money. It represents an unpaid debt so you can’t turn around and ask for it back.
- Sporktacular 4y ago
  "The rich don’t owe society, exactly the opposite" This is precisely wrong. The rich do indeed owe society. They owe their wealth to the workers working for them. To the education system that educated their workers and made them productive, the roads that brought them to work and the health system that keeps them at work. This is obvious from the number of millionaires produced by healthy, educated, stable societies vs others. Other countries produce fewer and then only natural resource millionaires in the favour of the ruling elites. But they can't do so without labour and the resources owned by those societies. The rich owe almost everything not produced by their own hands. And comparing the figures of corruption in those countries to that of charities generally is so absurd it's laughable.
  - mulmen 4y ago
    Ostensibly wealth is a settled debt.
    - Sporktacular 4y ago
      Ostensibly. 'Owe' is more than accounting parlance.
      - mulmen 4y ago
        Is it? This is social accounting. It all translates.
        Sporktacular 4y ago
        Yeah. Just as wealth is more than accounting parlance.
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    > They owe their wealth to the workers working for > them. To the education system that educated their > workers and made them productive, the roads that > brought them to work and the health system that > keeps them at work. Assuming that they've paid their taxes, they've paid their debt.
Sporktacular 4y ago
For sure, charities would be a much better use of the money involved... but on the other hand couldn't you say the same about art in general? I think what makes it different is the conspicuousness of these watches when they become a way to advertise wealth and status. But I like that artists/engineers can make a living by putting their time into producing such marvellous things. The world is richer for them.
- winReInstall 4y ago
  Eh, these are cnc milled and and robot handled just like any other industrial good. Sure the quality expectations are high, but the production process is nothing unique..
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    Swiss watchmakers innovated CNC machinery though.
  - Sporktacular 4y ago
    I'm guessing the part production is automated but low yield and the mechanisms/watches hand-assembled. For a run of 150 it makes no sense making a custom assembly device. Why does the production process have to be unique for the result to be art? It's like saying Picasso wasn't making art because he used paint, brushes and canvass like everyone else.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > on the other hand couldn't you say the same about art in general? I would say that mass-produced art should be pretty cheap, and these are mass-produced.
  - Sporktacular 4y ago
    These ones are not.
    - 4y ago
iancmceachern 4y ago
Same with "ultra" and "hyper" cars
- kennywinker 4y ago
  Those cars are way worse. It’s not just flashing money around, it’s actively making your wealth other people’s problem. From the noise they make, the extra gas they burn, to having to drive careful around them because you’re going to get sued into oblivion if you fuck them up
  - dghlsakjg 4y ago
    I've always thought that there should be a property damage liability limit on public roads. If you want to drive a $250k lambo why do I have to buy extra insurance because you brought an expensive toy out to play on vital public infrastructure? Pass the extra liability beyond, say, $100k to the owner of the toy car. If some shitty driver plows into my crappy old car, they are out maybe $3k in property damage. If they happen to hit a supercar, then somehow the same action nets them a liability that could buy them a starter home? Mind you, I live in BC, where there is only one liability insurance company, and they have a government mandate to insure everyone with a license, no matter how bad their driving record is. Which means that every idiot's risk gets spread onto my bill.
- user_7832 4y ago
  I would actually disagree with this one even though I agree with the overall sentiment. Hypercars are much better than regular/sports cars, and should be considered the atomic clock equivalent to the quartz watch - far more accuracy/performance albeit at a significant literal cost. I do not know the real world implications of hyper cars on fuel consumption (I can't expect it to be very good, but I don't expect too many such vehicles either). For better or for worse there are many more mundane things that can have a much larger improvement for human life (eg reducing food waste).
  - fomine3 4y ago
    I believe hypercars are much worse for every practical point like reliability, noise, ... Performance is superior but won't work on most public road.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
Watches are about movement/storage of wealth and tax evasion. Like art, very high timepiece value is its ability to move money. They're Old Money Cryptocurrency. Bring $50,000 in cash on a plane to another country and you're a drug dealer/criminal, or at the very least, the tax inspectors want to talk to you. Bring a $50,000 watch on holiday or a business trip, and nobody blinks an eye. Your average customs/border/security person probably no idea what a $1,000 watch looks like compared to a $50,000 or $100,000 watch...or they're The Chinese in particular are using luxury watches to get around money export controls (you can't export more than a fairly small amount of money out of China.) Further reading: Tax evasion: https://thetruthaboutwatches.com/2020/09/uk-kills-new-watch-smuggling/ https://thetruthaboutwatches.com/2020/09/uk-kills-new-watch-... Chinese wealth export mechanism: https://www.ft.com/content/a9a34f94-9a49-4938-ae9e-ec4e6d2f4838 https://www.ft.com/content/a9a34f94-9a49-4938-ae9e-ec4e6d2f4...
- akomtu 4y ago
  So a watch serves as a proof of work, and a distributed ledger of watchsmiths can verify a watch for you, anonymously, for a small fee.
  - Sporktacular 4y ago
    Proof of stake anyway.
    - akomtu 4y ago
      Proof of stake is precious stones and metals.
      - quickthrower2 4y ago
        Also proof of work (mining)
- b06timmer 4y ago
  Early explorers, journalists, etc., wore Rolex watches because they could barter the watch to get them out of a jam. I currently have a Seiko 5 mechanical watch. It doesn't hack or keep time particularly well (runs fast) but I love it all the same for its quirks.
mulmen 4y ago
It’s easy to spend other people’s money. The base argument of democracy is that because none of us knows the downstream effects we all share decision making. In other words: “that’s just like, your opinion, man.”
- nextaccountic 4y ago
  Democracy works with one person = one vote. When you have one dollar = one vote you get a plutocracy instead. So when consumers vote with their wallets, this vote isn't democratic at all. People that don't have money in their wallets don't get to vote.
  - kqr 4y ago
    Put differently: we want market economies to be about satisfying the greatest need. In practise, they're about satisfying the greatest ability to pay. And ability to pay does not come with need -- it comes with privilege, luck, and political skill.
  - mulmen 4y ago
    The point is you don’t get to tell other people how to spend their money outside the narrow exception of taxation and prohibition, both of which are democratically defined.
- polio 4y ago
  Yes, I know it is my opinion.
disillusioned 4y ago
I mean, herein lies the philosophical argument of opportunity cost to society in general. Every thing we spend money that is, perhaps, any amount over-engineered or nice-for-nice sake, or made of slightly higher grade materials, or, well, anything other than strictly utilitarian and minimalist as possible is technically consuming opportunity cost that could benefit society. If I order wings with my pizza tonight, as I have done, and I decide to consume both of those things, instead of donating the money on the wings to someone else, I've directed excess to myself instead of to the betterment of society. And obviously that's the reductive, logical conclusion of the argument. What I'm getting at is that it's an interesting mental and philosophical exercise to figure out where that line lies. Does it lie with $400M super-yachts? Sure, probably we don't need that wealth going directly to propping up the yacht industry, which, itself, doesn't need to exist from a utilitarian perspective. But I'm not sure how to define where that line lies. Is it the old "know it when you see it" line? If I buy a 26' sailboat, is that still falling into the ostentatious conspicuous-consumption-that-could've-been-spent-on-others? Of course it is. What about a jet ski? What about a $400 kayak? I'm not sure the answer here. I agree with your core sentiment that "I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities" in that it sounds lovely. I struggle with the idea that charities have to exist to patchwork fix parts of society and government that are inherently broken. Creating a construct that inherently hyper benefits a small coterie of people and necessarily introduces some inequities, and then hoping that that same small coterie of people will feel just guilty enough to donate to others to try to whitewash some of those problems... is inherently flawed. Obviously. But I also recognize that the downstream and upstream of the middle of the bell curve of capitalism is basically what powers almost all of our jobs. We work because we produce something that someone, somewhere wants. Or needs, sometimes. But a LOT of it is "wants." And if it was _just_ needs, the economy would be an even bleaker place. We've seen what that looks like too. That being said, I personally feel like, you know, a clever tax policy helps with a lot of this, if it's underpinned with effective enforcement and effective oversight and efficient use of those funds. But boy are those tricky.
- lmm 4y ago
  I find a super-yacht less offensive than an expensive watch, because at least a super-yacht lets you do things that a regular yacht couldn't, or do them better. Getting a yacht with e.g. a helipad on it is obviously a luxury, but it's a reasonable luxury: anyone can see how it's nicer to be able to fly to your yacht rather than having to bring it in and out of port. What makes these watches so infuriating is that all that money (and not just notional money, but real hours of skilled labour) is poured into a black hole: at the end of the day you get a watch that's very visibly less good than a $300 smartwatch.
Mikeb85 4y ago
> I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead and find simpler luxuries. Why? Are watchmakers not people who deserve to have an income? Do they not then spend their income on goods and services that help the economy?
- metadat 4y ago
  I believe parent comment is trying to convey that more societal good could be done through more effective donations compared to donating thousands to a watchmaker or watchmaking corporation. Are they using the surplus to better society or only to enrich themselves?
  - Mikeb85 4y ago
    More societal good would be done if governments enacted policies which help people instead of relying on charity from the wealthy... Also watchmaking is blue collar work.
    - metadat 4y ago
      100% agree.
- lmm 4y ago
  > Why? Are watchmakers not people who deserve to have an income? Why? Just because they're good at something that takes effort? By that logic everyone who has a challenging hobby - and most hobbies are ultimately challenging - deserves an income from it. Would you say that anyone who's good at any sport, or any craft, or any game, or even knowing celebrity trivia, deserves an income? IMO at most people who produce real value for others can be said to "deserve" an income. And while watchmakers produce something that a small number of people are willing to pay a lot for, it's hard to say that they're producing real value as opposed to some kind of Veblen status display. (Contrast that with something like a mansion or a sports car - although it's a luxury good, there are tangible ways in which it's objectively better than the "cheap" equivalent, in a way that a mechanical watch is not)
Justin_K 4y ago
Should we also drive shitty cars and live in small houses?
- kqr 4y ago
  Quartz watches are not shitty or small. They are more accurate and reliable than mechanical watches. (I say this as an owner of several mechanical watches. I love them, but they are strictly worse than anything decently priced in any watch store.)
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Should? No. But smaller cars and houses can be nicer. Smaller house = easier to maintain, for example.
nunez 4y ago
ironically, there is a lot of overlap between the "buys hyper expensive wrist Tamagotchis", "owns a charity," and "donates to charities" Venn diagram.
Animats 4y ago
Mechanical watch pricing has become silly. The Rolex Submariner, a useful tool in the 1950s for mariners and pilots, sold for $150 in 1953, or about $1500 now. It now costs about $8950. Same item. “Rolex is not in the watch business, we are in the luxury business” - attributed to a Rolex chairman.
rmason 4y ago
It's an acceptable way for men to wear jewelry. To flaunt success without being gaudy. I prefer skeleton watches and although even more expensive models exist imho Richard Mille makes the top of the line.
SergeAx 4y ago
Expensive timepiece today is the only way for a man to show off his wealth indoors in a relatively tasteful manner. Woman can wear gold and diamonds on the neck, in the ears, on the wrists, on the lapel. She may carry a bag which costs thousands. Man can't wear any gold at all, except he is a rap star. He can't even wear cufflinks outside formal attire. Not sure about even a ring with stone. Maybe steel one with small diamond will not look extremely kitsch, but it is a big maybe. Expensive low-key watch on steel or leather wristband is totally okay in almost any social situation. In case someone suddenly recognizes the brand - you always may say that it is a Chinese replica. Not that I endorse that, just pointing out.
- sgregnt 4y ago
  I think you partially left out expansive clothes / shoes brands.
  - SergeAx 4y ago
    I saw men in Armani jumpsuits and Gucci hoodies. They look... hilarious.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
It is an NFT of sorts, only without the cryptographic proof.

huhtenberg 4y ago

> Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time ... and that's my cue to pimp one of the most practical watch of all time - Casio Oceanus, the 100 series. * Analog watch face. * Quartz, radio auto-sync, solar-powered. * Sapphire glass, titanium body and bracelet. Waterproof. * Clean design. Under $500. https://www.google.com/search?q=OCW-S100-1AJF&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=OCW-S100-1AJF&tbm=isch

LeoPanthera 4y ago
In my opinion, its successor, the S200, has a cleaner design.
- huhtenberg 4y ago
  Steel instead of titanium and the glass is flat (?), very nice. I do wish that S100 was a bit heavier.
- itisit 4y ago
  Do you mean the T200? There is no S200 per se.
  - LeoPanthera 4y ago
    I did mean the T200.
    - itisit 4y ago
      Tough choice! I prefer the blue dial of the T200, but I'm partial to titanium bands (i.e. S100).
mrwh 4y ago
Handsome watch!
jodrellblank 4y ago
Practical watches are ones where it's clear at a glance which way up it goes and what the time is; they have numbers on them, preferably in a digital readout like 00:40. Watches without numbers are fashion watches. Watches with analogue faces are relics from when technology only let you decypher the time from rotating pointers. Rotating pointers where the numbers they point at have been removed are form over function.

DesiLurker 4y ago

as I always say about watches, they are socially accepted forms of men's jewelry. after advent of smartphones they are hardly about time anyways. its mostly style & flex. That too in a in-group because most people including many jewelers cant tell difference between and original and a replica for some common mid-high end watches like rolex submariner. I am actually fine with these 'vanity jewels' for high end buyers so long as they don't end up being a tax haven like art market. its all a way for the money to flow back into society and some more productive good in subsequent iterations. I mean after all its better than a NFT of picture that watch.

MrDunham 4y ago
> watches, they are socially accepted forms of men's jewelry. after advent of smartphones they are hardly about time anyways. its mostly style & flex. As a daily wear of a “dumb watch“ I somewhat agree with this statement. Having a watch that matches my shoes and belt certainly makes an outfit look both more professional and well coordinated (RE jewelry/style). However, I find that when I don’t wear my watch and just have my smartphone it is a significantly diminished experience. Having to pull my phone out of my pocket to check the time is both socially less acceptable (am I checking the time or am I just bored with our conversation?) and far more likely to pull me into some rabbit hole and off of what I was currently doing. So… it’s actually kind of nice to have a watch around, even if it only cost ~$100 (Skagen are amazing value for the price).
- DesiLurker 4y ago
  I agree, smartphone is a context switch, much better to have a watch. I have had a minor hack for WFH for last 2 year. Just to feel a bit of formalism I rotate through my watches every day of the week. also its a good vanity decision at the start of the day.

nl 4y ago

If you spend any time in Singapore you'll note that the fact that private ownership of cars is so difficult and rare it means people use other luxury goods to denote status. To generalize hugely, women buy designer handbags and men have watches. It took me a while to work out, but it makes perfect sense once you think it through. It's so hard to get yourself a BMW 3 Series so you spend $20K on a watch instead.

megablast 4y ago
> that private ownership of cars is so difficult and rare How it should be everywhere.
lvturner 4y ago
This is also true in Hong Kong, but cars are readily available - and you find people with both. I think there are some more cultural nuances to watch ownership in this region.

agumonkey 4y ago

I felt similarly to computer tape drives. People in general miss turntables and k7 players. Maybe it's a level of complexity that you can still relate too and thus feel more about. Your life does not revolve about perfect information at infinitely low cost. You want to be stimulated / inspired. A modern SoC with all its technical prowess is out of reach to your senses.

kristianp 4y ago

Here's the Wired article: https://www.wired.com/1999/01/ebay/ https://www.wired.com/1999/01/ebay/ or https://archive.ph/IlcZ0 https://archive.ph/IlcZ0

Mikeb85 4y ago

> high-end contemporary Swiss watches are priced like small cars. Richard Mille watches are priced like Ferraris lol...

samizdis 4y ago

Doesn't seem to be paywalled (from where I am, in the UK), if this [1] is the article to which you are referring: William Gibson on Twitter, Antique Watches and Internet Obsessions, published Sept 14, 2012. [1] https://www.wired.com/2012/09/william-gibson-part-2-twitter/ https://www.wired.com/2012/09/william-gibson-part-2-twitter/

silverlake 4y ago

Watches are jewelry for men, like a tiara for women. It is pure status signaling.

hulitu 4y ago

> Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time, Citation needed (as in measurement report). AFAIK some years ago electronic watches had some problems with the time reference.