Some people just don't get it...

[KDS777]

My response to these kinds of comments and\or people in general is simple, concise and absolutely boot in your face direct.

"Because I can"

[GradyPhilpott]

I agree with the argument that there are no real good reasons to buy expensive watches and to back that up, I own and wear plenty of cheap watches, but I still buy expensive watches.

The bottom line for me is that within a self-imposed financial limit, I pay what I must for the watches I like, whether that price is $20 or $9999.99 (four digits is my limit).

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

Some people like nice watches, other don't. Some like nice clothes, others don't. Some like nice cars, others don't.
You'll go crazy trying to argue one way or another. Live and let live

^^^ Who's to say what's right or wrong in terms of one's fiscal appropriations? If ROI and material content are the measurable parameters, then 90% of all consumers are probably wasting their money and resources on stuff others might question. Life is too short to dwell on these abstract factors.

Best advice. Stay high (in regards to whatever turns you on) but keep your priorities straight.

[BLACKHORSE 6]

At the end of the day, a work by Rembrandt is nothing but old paint swirled onto a piece of canvas and David is nothing but a piece of rock that some guy chiseled on for a while. However, no one in their right mind would say that they aren't priceless.

I'm not saying that Rolex and other Swiss watches are all pieces of art, but I am saying that sometimes things are more than just a collection of its materials and parts. I definitely think that prices are pushing the bounds on what we should fork over for most watches, but to dismiss the whole thing an ridiculous misses the mark by a wide margin.

Of course, this is all just my humble opinion.

[swils8610]

Why argue with a friend? It's your money. Buy what you want with it. The same could be said for a car. I feel no need to argue/justify what I spend my money on to anyone except my wife...and she really doesn't care. She likes her Apple Watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Wingman244]

It is a luxury item. But one should be aware that Rolex watches have a huge markup. Case in point. Look at a Zenith El Primero - you can get one new for about $6k USD. They put that exact same movement in the Daytona (detuned it - why or why?) and how much were Daytona's selling for?

There is a reason that Rolex and the world treats a Rolex watch as almost a form of currency.

But any debate on "what is it worth" is useless. As a real estate agent will state:

"What is it worth? Whatever someone is willing to pay for it."

[ryan.uk]

Originally Posted by swils8610

Why argue with a friend? It's your money. Buy what you want with it. The same could be said for a car. I feel no need to argue/justify what I spend my money on to anyone except my wife...and she really doesn't care. She likes her Apple Watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Not really an argument, just a good-hearted debate we often get in to. His point is valid, and because I am fairly good at being objective it's hard to defend my position or make him understand that there's no 'rational' reason why people fork out thousands for a watch.

I, like I guess many of you, really get enjoyment out of a decent timepiece.. the 'richer' it is, the less obtainable, less common, more intricate, stylish, technically capable etc... the better.

Like someone was just saying there.. a watch isn't necessarily art, but they can be in their own right. I mean gee; Harrisons' marine chronometers are sort of art I think? :)

I look at the second hand sweeping along smoothly, listen to the rapid tick-tocking of the movement, look at the light glinting of the satin finish of the bracelet, the gleam of the indices.. and I get real satisfaction from it. More so than I would certain pieces of genuinely acknowledged art.

[ryan.uk]

Originally Posted by BLACKHORSE 6

At the end of the day, a work by Rembrandt is nothing but old paint swirled onto a piece of canvas and David is nothing but a piece of rock that some guy chiseled on for a while. However, no one in their right mind would say that they aren't priceless.

I'm not saying that Rolex and other Swiss watches are all pieces of art, but I am saying that sometimes things are more than just a collection of its materials and parts. I definitely think that prices are pushing the bounds on what we should fork over for most watches, but to dismiss the whole thing an ridiculous misses the mark by a wide margin.

Of course, this is all just my humble opinion.

Completely agree with your humble opinion and enjoyed your point and analogy with art, very well said indeed.

[Andrewlennywatches]

Originally Posted by GB-man

He is largely right. I buy them because I love them and I can afford to do so. Life is short do what makes you happy.

I totally agree

[swils8610]

Originally Posted by ryan.uk

Not really an argument, just a good-hearted debate we often get in to. His point is valid, and because I am fairly good at being objective it's hard to defend my position or make him understand that there's no 'rational' reason why people fork out thousands for a watch.

I, like I guess many of you, really get enjoyment out of a decent timepiece.. the 'richer' it is, the less obtainable, less common, more intricate, stylish, technically capable etc... the better.

Like someone was just saying there.. a watch isn't necessarily art, but they can be in their own right. I mean gee; Harrisons' marine chronometers are sort of art I think? :)

I look at the second hand sweeping along smoothly, listen to the rapid tick-tocking of the movement, look at the light glinting of the satin finish of the bracelet, the gleam of the indices.. and I get real satisfaction from it. More so than I would certain pieces of genuinely acknowledged art.

And that my friend is what makes all WIS! Most people don't get it like we do. Cheers!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Rock]

Most people have their own set of priorities and bag those of others. That's just human nature. The thing about Human Beings is that they look similar but they are all so different.

[lapince]

Originally Posted by Etschell

i dont feed the trolls or argue with people.

some people spend the vast majority of their disposable income on a car payment and mortgage, which i find laughable.

Yep, I only took a credit to buy my first bike when I was 18, other than that I never took any credit, so sure I might be much richer now and could have much more real estate than what I have, if things had gone the right way, mostly they did but not always, I buy normal cars but aged 2-3 years old with small mileage, usually around 20k, ALL of my watches are worth more than my car, a BMW 320 from 2009, or my bike, a Harley 48, because I don't put money in things that loose most of their value, and that is what most cars and bikes do. The best answer is that we own expensive watches because we can and get pleasure from having a high end mechanical marvel on the wrist, but few people will understand this.

Originally Posted by swils8610

And that my friend is what makes all WIS! Most people don't get it like we do. Cheers!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

99.9% of the people will never get why you would buy a Rolex when you can read the time on your phone, or have a watch for 300$, not even talking about a Patek, but we do and luckily there are enough people who do which is why on a few selected pieces you are sure to keep your money if you bought wisely, though the huge majority of watches will make you loose a ton of cash if you bought from an AD...

[Wahlberg]

Originally Posted by Etschell

some people spend the vast majority of their disposable income on a car payment and mortgage, which i find laughable.

What should they spend it on if they don't have any hobbies or interests? If you make/have a lot of money and disposable income it's easy to do whatever you want. This isn't the case for most people, so the most important thing is a (decent) roof above their head.

There is a huge difference in the US and EU market regarding prices of houses/living and average wage. So I can understand if your point view if it's based on the US market.

[corn18]

This watch does way more than and is way more accurate than my Daytona or BLNR. I think it looks cooler, too (I'm a Trekie). And it cost 400 times less than either of the Rolexes. But I still love my Rolex. Same thing would apply to a BMW vs. Toyota Corolla argument. These kind of discussions will go on as long as we have a choice.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by GB-man

He is largely right. I buy them because I love them and I can afford to do so. Life is short do what makes you happy.

Pretty healthy approach to this, and most other quandaries

[tom2517]

Originally Posted by ryan.uk

I have a very good pal/colleague who just can't get his head around why anyone would pay umpteen thousands of pounds for a watch.

I've had many a good debate with him on the topic. We've gone through the art of horology, history, pedigree, materials, finish, even status - however he does always manage to beat me down and I'm left thinking in many aspects he's right.

His argument is that with your general non-PM piece, the materials can't be worth all that much.

He'll say the materials are worth around 10% of the cost.

He'll argue that viably you can put a fair proportion down to R&D and build work - the movements are solid, accurate and nicely finished, largely by hand and have benefited by Rolex investing in advancing their technologies. But how much of your ticket price goes to that? Let's say another 20-30%.

Then what are you left with? A bit towards sales (boxing/packaging/transportation), a bit towards advertising and sponsorships (certainly none towards after-sales support or customer service), so perhaps another 10-20%.

His killer argument is that a large, perhaps the most significant chunk, of what you pay is purely towards the brand for a luxury timepiece.

I've seen myself, let's say 'less scrupulous', pieces on my worldly travels that are near identical to 'more scrupulous' pieces that sell for hundreds (if that), not thousands - which somewhat backs up my pals comments.

This post is just to see if anyone has a great 'gotcha' argument I can put back to him - I'm left saying that I am happy with my luxury watches, and comfortable if a large part of what I pay goes just to 'the brand'.

I know that a bit of what you pay is just a 'price of entry' to the luxury watch market and will happily sit as non-depreciable value. Similar to how a 'luxury' German car compares to a decent Ford saloon say.

You can buy similar looking timepieces for peanuts that maybe have reasonable automatic movements, but you don't get the real deal, you don't get the attention to detail, you don't get platinum-laced bezel graduations, white gold indices and sapphire crystal glass, you don't get a guarantee that the OEM will be able to service that watch for the rest of your life, and many generations thereafter, and frankly you don't get to put a timepiece on your wrist and know in yourself that it's a Rolex, or a PP, or an AP or whatever your fancy is.

Just wonder if anyone has got any good insight in to or can validate what the actual cost make-up of a luxury timepiece actually is (or maybe we don't actually want to know ).

Your friend is not wrong (except he underestimated advertising cost), people usually way overestimate how much it cost to produce a watch.

In the end making a watch is manufacturing, and Swiss have been making watches for a long time, they are very good and very proficient at what they do.

Most of the money goes towards advertising and marketing, it cost far more to sell the watch than making the watch. Brand is created with money, lots of it.

And of course, they also rake in high profits. Patek Stern family is worth 3B, building a 500M dollar new facility with no loans from banks, that's a lot of dough for a company that only makes 50,000 watches a year.

[PanosI]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

your friend doesn't see the value in watches. that's fine. i'd just leave it at that. pretty simple.

(and in 20 years, you'll still have the watch, and he'll be on fancy car number 5 and have spent much more money. whatever makes one happy. YOLO!)

What he said !

YOLO !

( car No 5, more money spent and vanished and you still have your watch, that you have enjoyed and more money than you spent if you decide to sell it. YOLO ! again )

[zama]

Originally Posted by Rudy40

Houses & Most Cars besides antique cars...lose value over the years....But Rolex has a proven track record of maintaining most of there value hence you maintain condition,papers,etc...its like investment in Gold & Silver...so really it's a very smart investment as well...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

Not where I live, house prices have gone through the roof, does not stop me enjoying my watches, they are better investments than most cars (I have made money on some collectible cars) but not better than houses, at least not in Sydney Australia.

[daveathall]

Some people spend thousands of pounds on holidays (vacations), they have a brilliant couple of weeks and have memories and photos for the rest of their lives. I can understand that and support their decision to do that, but it's not for me. I would rather have an expensive watch. I have no qualms about people spending their money on whatever they want, so long as it makes them happy that is the main thing, as mentioned before, live and let live.

One life. Live it!

[tom2517]

Originally Posted by daveathall

Some people spend thousands of pounds on holidays (vacations), they have a brilliant couple of weeks and have memories and photos for the rest of their lives. I can understand that and support their decision to do that, but it's not for me. I would rather have an expensive watch. I have no qualms about people spending their money on whatever they want, so long as it makes them happy that is the main thing, as mentioned before, live and let live.

One life. Live it!

Yep, some wines can cost up 100k+ , a Picasso painting is made with canvas and some paint but worth 100M+, how much does it really cost to make them?
Value is perceived, buy what you like and enjoy it.

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by tom2517

Yep, some wines can cost up 100k+ , a Picasso painting is made with canvas and some paint but worth 100M+, how much does it really cost to make them?
Value is perceived, buy what you like and enjoy it.

The problem with this example is that the items listed have substantial value not because of their material but because of their rarity. A typical Rolex is a product of mass production.

[lapince]

Originally Posted by BLACKHORSE 6

At the end of the day, a work by Rembrandt is nothing but old paint swirled onto a piece of canvas and David is nothing but a piece of rock that some guy chiseled on for a while. However, no one in their right mind would say that they aren't priceless.

I'm not saying that Rolex and other Swiss watches are all pieces of art, but I am saying that sometimes things are more than just a collection of its materials and parts. I definitely think that prices are pushing the bounds on what we should fork over for most watches, but to dismiss the whole thing an ridiculous misses the mark by a wide margin.

Of course, this is all just my humble opinion.

For me some ultra high end watches are pieces of art, either very expensive from big brands like Patek or small brands like Roger Smith or Voutilainen, especially the made to order pieces from the last two, might sound stupid but for me it is a little bit like ordering a painting made for you by one of the masters, except a watch will give me much more enjoyment than any painting

[Tony64]

To the OP and his friend who doesn't understand the appeal of an item priced vastly disproportionate to its material value, I have two words: Veblen. Economics.

If he remains unconvinced, inquire how his wife/fiancé likes the zirconium engagement ring that he bought her...

[Eatapp]

I'd be curious to know if your friend has any hobbies of his own? I feel like most people have something they really enjoy and put time/money in to that can be seen as, "a waste of money".

[lapince]

Originally Posted by Tony64

To the OP and his friend who doesn't understand the appeal of an item priced vastly disproportionate to its material value, I have two words: Veblen. Economics.

If he remains unconvinced, inquire how his wife/fiancé likes the zirconium engagement ring that he bought her...

[tom2517]

Originally Posted by Tony64

The problem with this example is that the items listed have substantial value not because of their material but because of their rarity. A typical Rolex is a product of mass production.

My point is value is perceived, the cost is often far from the market value, whether it's due to rarity, brand value and whatnot.

[AK797]

Your figures are indicating Rolex's total costs are around 40-50%. As they sell them to the ADs for just over 60% they are not making huge profits, even by this reckoning, it's all pretty reasonable actually for one of the most sought after luxurious Veblen goods.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by tom2517

My point is value is perceived, the cost is often far from the market value, whether it's due to rarity, brand value and whatnot.

Yep, I get this and agree with you Tom. A holiday is worthless money wise after the event but, how much is a memory worth? As I previously said, people should just spend their money on what gives them enjoyment. I don't judge them, it is a matter of choice. I don't want to be the richest bloke in the graveyard.

[Abdullah71601]

I live in Arkansas and recreation here means hunting and fishing. People spend Daytona money on small aluminum fishing boats and platona money on big, fast, glass boats. They sell a ton of ATV's here that are typically Sub money or more. Not to mention what people spend on 4x4 trucks, deer hunting leases, and deer camps.

Don't even get me started on trips to Razorback football games...

My watches are cheap fodder compared to the value of some of the recreational equipment parked in my neighborhood. It all comes down to priorities. If your priorities are anything other saving every penny for retirement, you probably have a hobby that someone somewhere thinks is a ridiculous waste of money.

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by tom2517

My point is value is perceived, the cost is often far from the market value, whether it's due to rarity, brand value and whatnot.

I understand your point, just not the example you gave. Comparing the value of something no longer being produced to a current production item introduces elements that go beyond material and utility.

Whether a rare painting is worth $1 or $1M is another matter entirely and has absolutely nothing to do with the price of canvas and paint.

Regardless, I agree with your point.