3 ms·

He’s probably also too rich for fancy watches to actually be a useful signal of wealth amongst his peers.

intuitionist 8mo ago
The price isn’t keeping anyone at that level of wealth from buying a Nautilus or a Lange 1 or a panda Daytona. But they can still flex with ultralimited pieces like Zuck’s Greubel Forsey.
- soperj 8mo ago
  I didn't realize that "fools and their money will soon be parted" was a flex.
  - intuitionist 8mo ago
    “There are three of these things made in a year, and I’ve got the juice to get one of them” is. Zuck doesn’t care about a million dollar price tag, any more than I would care about a couple bucks.
    - soperj 8mo ago
      If he was buying a solid gold furby would you have the same take? That's great that he doesn't care, still looks like an idiot to me.
eucyclos 8mo ago
I had a coworker who became nouveau riche a while back- he made fuck you money day trading during the roaringkitty debacle - and one interesting thing he said about the experience was that he learned certain luxury goods, such as high end watches, don't depreciate. Like gold jewelry one can usually resell them for cost plus inflation. As such, his logic was that a fancy watch is essentially free while a cheap watch costs whatever it costs. Not sure if that's the truth or clever marketing by purveyors of luxury goods, but it changes the wealth signaling dynamics of fancy watches if it is.
- OJFord 8mo ago
  I don't think that's really any more true of watches and gold jewellery than it is cars - which is to say it's true of some models, or over time and especially what comes to be considered a classic. Maybe he meant second-hand though? If someone else has already taken the 'used' depreciation on a watch, the 'art' added value on the gold price, then yes I think it's probably fair to say they hold their residual value better than a lot of things that continue to depreciate.
- cam_l 8mo ago
  I dunno about that. I bought a Casio at a garage sale in the late eighties for 20 cents, and sold it to a mate 10 years later, give or take, for a couple of bucks. It was still running, still keeping time. Expensive watches are way closer to bitcoins than useful assets. They inherently rely on the gullibility of other rich prick wanna be's. Still a good bet probably.. sadly..
- garethsprice 8mo ago
  Patek and Rolex have generally always held value well. The internet has brought price transparency and created a secondary market that has made this true for most well-known brands these days, with the caveat that there is not a high degree of liquidity (yes you can sell a Rolex same-day at a pawn shop but you'll take a big hit, otherwise you are waiting a while for a buyer and navigating various risks like scammers). So you likely won't get rich day-trading (or even collecting) watches, but besides the initial capital investment it is not as irrational as it seems at first. Of course, that only adds to the signaling power for the classes where merely having money isn't enough, and being a "savvy investor" is a status marker (ie. the upper-middle and nouveau riche). The Patek Nautilus PG mentions is particularly interesting as a status symbol as it has not only held value but, for various reasons, been an outlier that has appreciated drastically in value. It'd be gauche even on Sand Hill Rd to wear a hat that says "My investments beat the S&P 500" — but for the last few years, flashing a Nautilus (~413% investment return from 2016-2026 vs ~322% in the S&P) is the equivalent of that, a self-reinforcing cycle boosting its value as a Veblen good where the high price is the point.

The price isn’t keeping anyone at that level of wealth from buying a Nautilus or a Lange 1 or a panda Daytona. But they can still flex with ultralimited pieces like Zuck’s Greubel Forsey.

soperj 8mo ago
I didn't realize that "fools and their money will soon be parted" was a flex.
- intuitionist 8mo ago
  “There are three of these things made in a year, and I’ve got the juice to get one of them” is. Zuck doesn’t care about a million dollar price tag, any more than I would care about a couple bucks.
  - soperj 8mo ago
    If he was buying a solid gold furby would you have the same take? That's great that he doesn't care, still looks like an idiot to me.

eucyclos 8mo ago

I had a coworker who became nouveau riche a while back- he made fuck you money day trading during the roaringkitty debacle - and one interesting thing he said about the experience was that he learned certain luxury goods, such as high end watches, don't depreciate. Like gold jewelry one can usually resell them for cost plus inflation. As such, his logic was that a fancy watch is essentially free while a cheap watch costs whatever it costs. Not sure if that's the truth or clever marketing by purveyors of luxury goods, but it changes the wealth signaling dynamics of fancy watches if it is.

OJFord 8mo ago
I don't think that's really any more true of watches and gold jewellery than it is cars - which is to say it's true of some models, or over time and especially what comes to be considered a classic. Maybe he meant second-hand though? If someone else has already taken the 'used' depreciation on a watch, the 'art' added value on the gold price, then yes I think it's probably fair to say they hold their residual value better than a lot of things that continue to depreciate.
cam_l 8mo ago
I dunno about that. I bought a Casio at a garage sale in the late eighties for 20 cents, and sold it to a mate 10 years later, give or take, for a couple of bucks. It was still running, still keeping time. Expensive watches are way closer to bitcoins than useful assets. They inherently rely on the gullibility of other rich prick wanna be's. Still a good bet probably.. sadly..
garethsprice 8mo ago
Patek and Rolex have generally always held value well. The internet has brought price transparency and created a secondary market that has made this true for most well-known brands these days, with the caveat that there is not a high degree of liquidity (yes you can sell a Rolex same-day at a pawn shop but you'll take a big hit, otherwise you are waiting a while for a buyer and navigating various risks like scammers). So you likely won't get rich day-trading (or even collecting) watches, but besides the initial capital investment it is not as irrational as it seems at first. Of course, that only adds to the signaling power for the classes where merely having money isn't enough, and being a "savvy investor" is a status marker (ie. the upper-middle and nouveau riche). The Patek Nautilus PG mentions is particularly interesting as a status symbol as it has not only held value but, for various reasons, been an outlier that has appreciated drastically in value. It'd be gauche even on Sand Hill Rd to wear a hat that says "My investments beat the S&P 500" — but for the last few years, flashing a Nautilus (~413% investment return from 2016-2026 vs ~322% in the S&P) is the equivalent of that, a self-reinforcing cycle boosting its value as a Veblen good where the high price is the point.