4 ms·
I never cease to be amazed at ostentatiousness. I cannot see how a Rolex has 58 times worth of improvement in its timekeeping ability over my $100 Seiko. And ev
by hilbert42 4y ago
I never cease to be amazed at ostentatiousness. I cannot see how a Rolex has 58 times worth of improvement in its timekeeping ability over my $100 Seiko. And even if it did I cannot see how I could usefully use the extra precision.
Some people just have too much money to waste.
Afterthought: same goes for diamonds, they're far more valuable for industrial use than adorning some socialite's tiara.
- nvarsj 4y agoThe story is complete pretentious garbage, no doubt. No one "deserves" to own a Rolex, good lord. On the flip side, I see nothing wrong with enjoying luxury watches. Rolex make really great watches that will last a lifetime. And be built nicer, with better and more expensive materials and much more precision engineering than cheaper watches. Yeah, it's not necessary at all, (I can just buy a new Casio FW91 every few years), but if you appreciate the fine details and engineering involved it can be worth it.
- hilbert42 4y agoRight, there's nothing wrong with owning a luxury watch that's well engineered. I'm sure I'd buy one that's better than my Seiko if I had oodles of loot. But Rolex is so far above that point that owing one is a mark of pretentiousness.
- dTal 4y agoThe precision is probably worse, actually. You're paying for brand cachet, not good engineering. In any case, no mechanical watch will outperform a 1$ qwartz movement.