5 ms·

I have a somewhat different approach. I generally either prefer to get a "shit" version of something or a super-premium version. If the thing is simple and time

I have a somewhat different approach. I generally either prefer to get a "shit" version of something or a super-premium version. If the thing is simple and timeless and easy to transport, I opt for the timeless route. If I think I might not keep it for more than a year or two, I usually get the cheap one. Midrange "luxury" items seem to be barely better quality than the best-cheap-options available, while most of their cost seems to go to marketing (or styling, in the case of clothes/fashion products). They also quickly depreciate. Super premium items, however, usually retain their value and are significantly more satisfying to hold/use. The place where this has been the _least_ true, in my experience, is with electronics. All electronics depreciate quickly. There is no timeless smart phone. Incidentally, Kia has been doing a great job lately. I rent a car almost every week, and after comparing the Kia Forte with the Jetta and the Optima with the Passat, I prefer the Kia in both cases. The VW automatic transmissions don't seem to shift very smoothly, and I actually found the trim levels to be comparable and the Kias more fun to drive.

phlo 12y ago
As someone who found a bit of an interest in fountain pens some years ago, I understand and shared your penchant to go for super-premium when it comes to timeless items. I have bought the occasional $500 pen (Graf von Faber Castell and Caran d'Ache have a couple of very beautiful items), but after one of the more expensive pens suffered some scuffs from light use and a friend of mine broke another one's clip, I came to the conclusion that I have a tendency to, as they say, break shit. I enjoy using them. To me, the little marks in the pens' platinum-covered cap don't take away from their sentimental value, but if I were to ever try and sell them, I wouldn't hope to ever get my purchase price back. The same, I believe, holds true for watches. When I noticed I had lost my $30 Cadence in a Metro, I barely scoffed. Since I had liked the design, I had an identical backup at home. Losing a timeless super-premium $10k Omega, on the other hand would've been a more severe problem. The pens, the Rolex watch and many things like them will retain their value just fine -- if you never touch, use, or in any way enjoy them. My initial comment went in exactly the same direction as yours on midrange "luxury" items, with the possible difference that I would consider an iPhone, the beats earphones or (to a lesser degree) the Tesla as the midrange pseudo-luxury choice. In my opinion, a large part of the retail price of each of those lies in the brand value and in the marketing done by those brands. As I view it, their prices are determined not by their cost or performance, but mostly on what the customers will pay. In my perception, the midrange choice (Shure Earphones, Nexus or -- as others mentioned -- Moto E/G, Jetta) more closely reflects the cost to manufacture the item. Their profit margins are slimmer and, more importantly, more consistent. As a final point, my apologies to Kia. Being European I tend to stick to public transport, rarely drive, and if so, tend to get cars with a manual gearbox. I was going to go with Dacia (Renault's Low-End Brand, I believe) first, but couldn't tell how well-known they were in the States. I also was under the impression that VW's interior was considered to be of rather high quality while I have read some negative comments on Tesla's.
- busterarm 12y ago
  You can have a nice, semi-premium watch for cheap. Rolex Air Kings are fantastic watches and have a healthy and inexpensive used market. I hate current watch stylings (large, ~40mm+ faces) so my grandfather's Air King from '67 suits me fine for daily wear. You can do fantastically well for yourself if you have/develop a taste for Soviet watches. A large number of them look great and have as-good or nearly-as-good movements and can be had for $50-150($400 on the extreme outside...). The better ones among these will have service records with them. If you like great watches that get attention while being nearly-throwaway, this is the way to go.
  - Nullabillity 12y ago
    $50 for the privilege of not having to take your phone out of your pocket is still pretty expensive.
    - busterarm 12y ago
      Point being? You either like watches or you don't. There are situations where having (and checking) a watch is appropriate where checking a phone is not. Also maybe I might be somewhere that taking out my $900 phone might get me robbed - a $50 watch is a lot cheaper than that. The whole point of the discussion was watches as fashion accessory (while still being able to appreciate their engineering).
- colanderman 12y ago
  I've slowly come to the belief that if a product can't survive light use without damage, it's not a quality product, no matter how expensive it is. This is why I prefer tough soft-touch-plastic ThinkPads to dentable aluminum MacBooks, super-reliable Hondas to repair-prone BMWs, and unbreakable Corelle dinner ware to delicate fine china. I don't need my belongings to punish me for being a clumsy monkey. A product which silently conforms to the realities of human use is a beautiful, and sometimes rare, thing.
  - bronson 12y ago
JoshTriplett 12y ago
> I rent a car almost every week What circumstances make that sensible? And do you mean a traditional rental, or something like Zipcar?
- pixl97 12y ago
  I would assume he travels for work and uses rental car after reaching his destination by flight. I had a brother in law that commonly does that.
- nick_urban 12y ago
  Yup, pixl97 is correct. I travel for business to cities that are not pedestrian friendly. It's kind of ridiculous when you consider the amount it costs, but it's an expected, reimbursable business expense.

phlo 12y ago

As someone who found a bit of an interest in fountain pens some years ago, I understand and shared your penchant to go for super-premium when it comes to timeless items. I have bought the occasional $500 pen (Graf von Faber Castell and Caran d'Ache have a couple of very beautiful items), but after one of the more expensive pens suffered some scuffs from light use and a friend of mine broke another one's clip, I came to the conclusion that I have a tendency to, as they say, break shit. I enjoy using them. To me, the little marks in the pens' platinum-covered cap don't take away from their sentimental value, but if I were to ever try and sell them, I wouldn't hope to ever get my purchase price back. The same, I believe, holds true for watches. When I noticed I had lost my $30 Cadence in a Metro, I barely scoffed. Since I had liked the design, I had an identical backup at home. Losing a timeless super-premium $10k Omega, on the other hand would've been a more severe problem. The pens, the Rolex watch and many things like them will retain their value just fine -- if you never touch, use, or in any way enjoy them. My initial comment went in exactly the same direction as yours on midrange "luxury" items, with the possible difference that I would consider an iPhone, the beats earphones or (to a lesser degree) the Tesla as the midrange pseudo-luxury choice. In my opinion, a large part of the retail price of each of those lies in the brand value and in the marketing done by those brands. As I view it, their prices are determined not by their cost or performance, but mostly on what the customers will pay. In my perception, the midrange choice (Shure Earphones, Nexus or -- as others mentioned -- Moto E/G, Jetta) more closely reflects the cost to manufacture the item. Their profit margins are slimmer and, more importantly, more consistent. As a final point, my apologies to Kia. Being European I tend to stick to public transport, rarely drive, and if so, tend to get cars with a manual gearbox. I was going to go with Dacia (Renault's Low-End Brand, I believe) first, but couldn't tell how well-known they were in the States. I also was under the impression that VW's interior was considered to be of rather high quality while I have read some negative comments on Tesla's.

busterarm 12y ago
You can have a nice, semi-premium watch for cheap. Rolex Air Kings are fantastic watches and have a healthy and inexpensive used market. I hate current watch stylings (large, ~40mm+ faces) so my grandfather's Air King from '67 suits me fine for daily wear. You can do fantastically well for yourself if you have/develop a taste for Soviet watches. A large number of them look great and have as-good or nearly-as-good movements and can be had for $50-150($400 on the extreme outside...). The better ones among these will have service records with them. If you like great watches that get attention while being nearly-throwaway, this is the way to go.
- Nullabillity 12y ago
  $50 for the privilege of not having to take your phone out of your pocket is still pretty expensive.
  - busterarm 12y ago
    Point being? You either like watches or you don't. There are situations where having (and checking) a watch is appropriate where checking a phone is not. Also maybe I might be somewhere that taking out my $900 phone might get me robbed - a $50 watch is a lot cheaper than that. The whole point of the discussion was watches as fashion accessory (while still being able to appreciate their engineering).
colanderman 12y ago
I've slowly come to the belief that if a product can't survive light use without damage, it's not a quality product, no matter how expensive it is. This is why I prefer tough soft-touch-plastic ThinkPads to dentable aluminum MacBooks, super-reliable Hondas to repair-prone BMWs, and unbreakable Corelle dinner ware to delicate fine china. I don't need my belongings to punish me for being a clumsy monkey. A product which silently conforms to the realities of human use is a beautiful, and sometimes rare, thing.
- bronson 12y ago

JoshTriplett 12y ago

> I rent a car almost every week What circumstances make that sensible? And do you mean a traditional rental, or something like Zipcar?

pixl97 12y ago
I would assume he travels for work and uses rental car after reaching his destination by flight. I had a brother in law that commonly does that.
nick_urban 12y ago
Yup, pixl97 is correct. I travel for business to cities that are not pedestrian friendly. It's kind of ridiculous when you consider the amount it costs, but it's an expected, reimbursable business expense.