13 ms·

Anyone with $(80,00-250,000) (which is a lot of you) can buy a Nautilus today[1]. This status-through-martyrdom ritual to get it from retail at MSRP is utterly

Anyone with $(80,00-250,000) (which is a lot of you) can buy a Nautilus today[1]. This status-through-martyrdom ritual to get it from retail at MSRP is utterly bizarre. [1] https://www.chrono24.com/patekphilippe/nautilus--mod106.htm https://www.chrono24.com/patekphilippe/nautilus--mod106.htm

thot_experiment 8mo ago
Holy shit that's an ugly watch too, looks like something outta chinatown lmao.
- PaulHoule 8mo ago
  Ads for Patek Philippe on the back of The Economist get more and more annoying over time. (e.g. the president writes "How Happy I am to be a Nepo Baby")
- LevGoldstein 8mo ago
  My least favorite of that eras Gerald Genta designs. The original Royal Oak is comparatively far more attractive. Both are outdone by the 222 (different designer though), but it's all subjective.
- garethsprice 8mo ago
  It being an "acquired taste" is part of the appeal. A lot of high-end stuff is ass-ugly on purpose. If everyone liked it because it simply looked nice, you couldn't tell who's "in the club" of other rich people. Brands will attach elaborate stories and histories to objects to make people feel cultured that they have invested time in acquiring the knowledge, but really it comes down to in-group object recognition.
- ninalanyon 8mo ago
  These things are shibboleths. It doesn't really matter what they look like or whether they are actually any good for their ostensible purpose so long as they signal that you are a member of the correct group.
candiddevmike 8mo ago
More and more I realize I am completely obvlious to all of the class signaling happening here. I couldn't imagine spending that much on anything, let alone a watch. And I certainly wouldn't think someone wearing that did, either. I feel bad for the folks who pick up on stuff like this, that must be a heavy weight to bear constantly comparing yourself to other people.
- AnotherGoodName 8mo ago
  Ironically a desire for such social signalling requires being poor enough that you believe the item is worth a vast and near unobtainable amount of money making it seem like a very impressive signal to you. That’s what makes these items desirable. As in these signals can be a sign of just how poor you are as opposed to how wealthy. A classic case is when you observe teenager targeted status signalling trends. This can be as low value as an expensive shirt, ie shirts branded ‘supreme’ costing $300 which isn’t worth signalling to anyone who pays rent or a mortgage. But to a teenager? Wow man $300! such status!!! On the flip side if we see someone above teenager age wearing such teenager targeted status symbols we reasonably subconsciously assume they live with their parents and have very little income. This continues up the wealth chain forever. Status symbols are invariably a way to see just how little people actually have because the person wearing the status symbol clearly believes the value of what they are flaunting is impressive. Status symbols aren’t a signal of how much money you have so much as signal of what you believe to be an incredible amount of wealth to flaunt.
  - apsurd 8mo ago
    Well framed. I will add though that it's not entirely indicative of how much one thinks is a lot; it can also be, as was explained to me, that for ultra wealthy people, the price, at any magnitude becomes a rounding error. half a million for a car sounds absurd to me, but it's 0.5% of $100M. Compare that to $50k car on a ~$200k median net-worth US household.
  - Earw0rm 8mo ago
    Yep. I'm in a European city, most of the people driving Mercedes and BMW cars are, if not outright poor, low-status, low-education, low long-term wealth. The old money drives beat-up cars (often Swedish made, US imports for enthusiasts, or old-style 4x4s for outdoor pursuits) and are more likely to take taxis. Young, highly-educated BoBo types walk, take transit or cycle. Just-above-poor neighbourhoods have a much higher proportion of flash cars than rich ones.

thot_experiment 8mo ago

Holy shit that's an ugly watch too, looks like something outta chinatown lmao.

PaulHoule 8mo ago
Ads for Patek Philippe on the back of The Economist get more and more annoying over time. (e.g. the president writes "How Happy I am to be a Nepo Baby")
LevGoldstein 8mo ago
My least favorite of that eras Gerald Genta designs. The original Royal Oak is comparatively far more attractive. Both are outdone by the 222 (different designer though), but it's all subjective.
garethsprice 8mo ago
It being an "acquired taste" is part of the appeal. A lot of high-end stuff is ass-ugly on purpose. If everyone liked it because it simply looked nice, you couldn't tell who's "in the club" of other rich people. Brands will attach elaborate stories and histories to objects to make people feel cultured that they have invested time in acquiring the knowledge, but really it comes down to in-group object recognition.
ninalanyon 8mo ago
These things are shibboleths. It doesn't really matter what they look like or whether they are actually any good for their ostensible purpose so long as they signal that you are a member of the correct group.

candiddevmike 8mo ago

More and more I realize I am completely obvlious to all of the class signaling happening here. I couldn't imagine spending that much on anything, let alone a watch. And I certainly wouldn't think someone wearing that did, either. I feel bad for the folks who pick up on stuff like this, that must be a heavy weight to bear constantly comparing yourself to other people.

AnotherGoodName 8mo ago
Ironically a desire for such social signalling requires being poor enough that you believe the item is worth a vast and near unobtainable amount of money making it seem like a very impressive signal to you. That’s what makes these items desirable. As in these signals can be a sign of just how poor you are as opposed to how wealthy. A classic case is when you observe teenager targeted status signalling trends. This can be as low value as an expensive shirt, ie shirts branded ‘supreme’ costing $300 which isn’t worth signalling to anyone who pays rent or a mortgage. But to a teenager? Wow man $300! such status!!! On the flip side if we see someone above teenager age wearing such teenager targeted status symbols we reasonably subconsciously assume they live with their parents and have very little income. This continues up the wealth chain forever. Status symbols are invariably a way to see just how little people actually have because the person wearing the status symbol clearly believes the value of what they are flaunting is impressive. Status symbols aren’t a signal of how much money you have so much as signal of what you believe to be an incredible amount of wealth to flaunt.
- apsurd 8mo ago
  Well framed. I will add though that it's not entirely indicative of how much one thinks is a lot; it can also be, as was explained to me, that for ultra wealthy people, the price, at any magnitude becomes a rounding error. half a million for a car sounds absurd to me, but it's 0.5% of $100M. Compare that to $50k car on a ~$200k median net-worth US household.
- Earw0rm 8mo ago
  Yep. I'm in a European city, most of the people driving Mercedes and BMW cars are, if not outright poor, low-status, low-education, low long-term wealth. The old money drives beat-up cars (often Swedish made, US imports for enthusiasts, or old-style 4x4s for outdoor pursuits) and are more likely to take taxis. Young, highly-educated BoBo types walk, take transit or cycle. Just-above-poor neighbourhoods have a much higher proportion of flash cars than rich ones.