I’m not saying they’re an investment or not; but isn’t that statement above you saying they’re not an investment..?

No, it’s not, actually. :-

Ok, so I’ll explain as people are obviously struggling…

Watches are jewellery, beyond their basic function. IE, spensive watches are spensive jewellery. A cheapo watch is bought because it tells the time. A spensive watch is bought because it tells the time and[i] is nicely made, looks pretty, etc, but will offer no functional advantage over a cheapo one which is probbly just as accurate (if not, as is often the case, more so). So, a watch can be bought as an ‘investment’, sure, but those who claim ‘oh, it’s an investment, I’m not buying it cos it’s jewellery, are quoting the great Greek philosopher Testicles. It’s an attempt to say ‘oh no, I’m not vain or ostentatious and I’m secure enough not to be any more aspirational’. Just flipping admit that you’ve bought it cos it helps you feel good- a ‘vanity’ item. There’s nowt wrong with that in itself. We all like nice things, it’s in our nature. Hence art and creativity and stuff.

It’s only really an ‘investment’ if you don’t wear it, keep it as pristine as possible so as not to diminish it’s value.

You can buy stocks and shares as an ‘investment’. You don’t wear them on your wrist as a piece of jewellery though, do you?

Any clearer?

Oh, and to reiterate; I have absolutely nothing against wearing watches as jewellery. Enjoy it!

Ah but, it’s not mutually exclusive is it? You can buy a vanity item in the safe knowledge over time, it’ll keep or increase its value. One of mine has doubled in the 20 years I’ve had it. I didn’t buy it for that, I fall itno the CGAS category and just like em (as above).

I could probably sell most of my watches for similar to what I paid for them, maybe even make a few quid on a couple, partly because I got good discounts when I bought most of them, but mainly because the price of Swiss watches has gone through the roof and continues to rise. Rolex seem to have twice yearly increases, Panerai went up across the board another 7% on the 1st August after a 7.5% rise in January… An Omega Seamaster auto that cost £1250 3 years back now goes for £2300. The only change is a slightly different escapement, but Swatch need Omega to fill a slightly different market segment so rather than change the product, they change the price. Same with Breitling, stick in a manufacture movement and they’re £7k. Crazy money.

Unless you managed to pick up a cheap Double Red Sub or an early Daytona, I’m not sure they’d class as a particularly safe investment though. Yes, you can make money but I’d suggest it’s often through luck rather than judgement and if that’s your motive then there are much better places to put your cash.

having done nothing more than play golf with it on

never play golf with a mechanical (or any) watch on – there is a fair amount of shock and vibration generated, even with todays ‘skills compensator’ clubs.

You can buy stocks and shares as an ‘investment’. You don’t wear them on your wrist as a piece of jewellery though, do you?

Any clearer?No. Sounds to me like someone was pwned and is trying to justify his error.

So let me get this right. Buy an expensive watch as jewellry not an investment. Don’t wear it when you’re “doing stuff” since it might break. Keep it for special. Oh, but if you don’t wear it it will eventually stop, so don’t forget to wear it, but don’t wear it when doing stuff ‘cos you might break it. Keep it for special. Oh, and they don’t keep very good time. 😆

never play golf with a mechanical (or any) watch on – there is a fair amount of shock and vibration generated, even with todays ‘skills compensator’ clubs.

So not only is it inaccurate, but you can’t wear it if you’re being overly active?

Wow, bargain. I’m starting to understand why people buy Rolexes to keep in a drawer at home.

Woody – Member
No. Sounds to me like someone was pwned and is trying to justify his error.

Unbelievable! If I was Fred I’d leave the thread in disgust and say no more….

…that’s what he usually does 😛

That Hublot I bought (and took back) was a pure vanity purchase, simple. It simply didn’t feel right to me wear it, simple.

However for the last 10yrs I’ve been wearing a rather expensive watch that I won when sailing, we all got them, they’re all engraved with the boat name/date of competition/position/yacht club.. to say I’m proud to wear it is an understatement, eveytime I look at it I’m reminded of the all the training/competition/environment/club/people, I can even remember the cigar smoke and popping of champagne corks, the rumbling French acceptance that we beat them on their own stretch of water, the sun, the rain, the waves, the rocks and most of all… those gorgeoue French Girls..(hahha, ooop’s) this watch brings back some mighty fine memories that only me and a couple of mates can share..priceless.

I’ve already agreed with my mum that I’ll get her Kenwood Chef when she goes. It was a wedding present in the mid-70s and some of my most treasured memories are of making stuff with it. They certainly don’t make them like that any more, the thing will probably outlast me too.

And that is precisely why I want our old one – with my two little ones at the age that making stuff with them is fun for both them and us and I would really like to spark up the old Chef. It is probably bigger than our kitchen mind you 🙂

Well I have a good few £’s of watches.
Only really old ones mind – these new ones are bit too bling for me.
I like having something 50 years on my wrist..
Most accurate – casio atomic 5600 – £40..

good story bikebuoy. I do wonder if you’d have the same feeling with a less expensive watch though. I assume it is not the fact it is expensive that evokes all those memories, so a £50 engraved Seiko quartz watch would give you the same sense of pride, no? I’m not talking about a cheap looking Casio digital, but there are attractive watches out there that don’t cost the price of a small car.

Ohh and Elfin – I normally reading your arguments and considering an alternative point of view.

But on this one you really are being very boring. 🙁

But on this one you really are being very boring

Reminds me of when I argue drunk. It matters not what I’m saying, all I do is disagree with everyone and change the point I’m trying to make 😆

Reminds me of when I argue drunk. It matters not what I’m saying, all I do is disagree with everyone and change the point I’m trying to make

Blimey most of the big hitters on here must be alkys then.

Seriously though do old watches go up and down in value like say classic cars?

quoting the great Greek philosopher Testicles

Lol, this thread was worth it for that – bravo 🙂

The thing that gets me is that all that money and fiddliness is simply for it’s own sake. People make them and sell them for a bomb simply because that’s what they can do, and people will buy them just because they are there. It’s a waste of effort imo. Like diamonds – they are expensive because someone’s artificially managing the price, not because they are intrinsically special, really.

I am all for aesthetics and beauty, but that doesn’t have to come with justification like ‘oh it’s engineering’ or ‘it’s rare and exclusive’. I feel that people’s perceptions of worth are being influenced by cost and status rather than any true beauty or function.

If you met someone on the trail who talked loudly about how great a rider they were but were in fact average, you’d hate them for it. I can’t see the difference here.

The thing that gets me is that all that money and fiddliness is simply for it’s own sake. People make them and sell them for a bomb simply because that’s what they can do, and people will buy them just because they are there

Agree

It’s a waste of effort imo

Disagree

A friend of mine paints for a living. His paintings are incredible and some of them are close to indistinguishable from a photo. Why do it then? Why buy them? Why not just take a photo and save the money? A lot of people appreciate the effort and skill in painting a picture/making a watch/hand-making a bike frame and will pay a premium for that.

The daft thing with watches is that the aesthetic is at the expense of the functionality

All of this reminds me of circa. 1990 Ringle Bottle Cages. I bought one and it cost about £20. For something to simply hold a water bottle. Something costing £1 would have done the same job.

Still – they go for £30 second hand now.

Ahhh I think you are right, if the watch I wear wasn’t and “expensive” one and it had the same features and engraving it most certainly would envolke the same memories..

I’m off to find some old photos of that event..

£30 !! Good god 😯 – I have a blue one of those which was last seen rolling towards the back of the garage. I’ll have to rescue it later.

When I looked for that pic I saw several others on (retrobike??) website – some in a real mess and still going for £18 :-O

I sold mine a few years ago for £10 to a work colleague.

His paintings are incredible and some of them are close to indistinguishable from a photo. Why do it then?

I think only he can answer that definitively.

Some things are extremely difficult to do but that doesn’t automatically make them worthy of something. Look through the Guinness Book of Records for a few ideas.

‘s like posh custom made rolled on the thighs of virgins etc bike frames. Nice to look at, maybe give you a warm feeling inside, make others gasp at the price. Some of them will work almost as well as a halfords special, some of them won’t but hey ho spend your money on what you want.

I will still shake my head in a condescending way tho

8)

I think only he can answer that definitively.

I can answer it too, as can many people who appreciate the aesthetic of these things as well as the skill involved. If I suggested it was just about the difficulty I’ve made my point badly.

Anyway, I REFUSE to go down the usual STW route of arguing over semantics, since it feels a bit pointless without TJ 😆

The daft thing with watches is that the aesthetic is at the expense of the functionality

Not sure how you’ve arrived at that conclusion – a COSC certified chronometer operates within margins most people wouldn’t notice; good enough to get a stricken space ship back to earth, and most automatics can run not far off COSC standards if they’re properly regulated. They are also much more sturdy than some people are suggesting – I have a Seiko Monster which gets worn for mountain biking, DIY, chopping wood and so on and still works absolutely fine. I have also worn my Seamaster to do the same things, although I tend not to use it for biking as I don’t want to keep changing the bracelet for a nato strap.

I find it strange that people tend to polarise the argument into a function/vanity dichotomy as if they were the only factors at work – most of the stuff I own that I’ve spent significant money on has been picked for its aesthetic value, which includes the watches I own. I could say the same thing for my bikes – I bought a horst link Turner 5 Spot years back because it was highly rated by existing owners, but it was also visually appealing. I still own it and ride it regularly, and I still love the look of it. Other folks have come on here coo-ing over stuff like Nicolais, which I find unattractive, but I’m happy for them if they’re pleased with their purchase. In terms of watches, I don’t like the styling of G-Shocks, but lots of folk on here love the look, so what’s the problem?

At the end of the day, I’m not sure celebrating “ugly” because it’s cheap is any less perverse than spending £7,000 on a vanity project watch.

Not sure how you’ve arrived at that conclusion

Really? Have you not read this thread? Many people have posted about how their “fancy” watch loses/gains time at levels far greater than a cheaper quartz one. That was how it all started.

I get the aesthetic appeal of a nice watch, I really do. I get that some people are wowed by the skill and precision of the movements. Read my posts. If I had that kind of money I’d love a posh watch. However, this thread has opened my eyes in that I assumed these watches were as accurate as a quartz watch when many people are saying that is not the case. Do I feel a bit disillusioned? Yes. Is that aesthetic at the expense of functionality? Yes

Anyway, I REFUSE to go down the usual STW route of arguing over semantics, since it feels a bit pointless without TJ

I thought that was what Elfin was doing in TJs absence and why I was finding him boring. 😀

Anyway, I REFUSE to go down the usual STW route of arguing over semantics, since it feels a bit pointless without TJ

Hiya !

I’m on your side stilltortoise

Buy expensive watches if you want but accept they are status symbols/ jewellery / nice toys. Don’t try to make an arguemtn for them on either functional or investment grounds. Its only an investment if your money ahas grown faster than if you invested it elsewhere

Wahey! I was waiting for you TJ 🙂

Well Elfin was telling me that if I bought one it would still be an investment even if I wasn’t expecting to make money out of it and simply wanting it as a heirloom.

As is so often the case, the thread has just descended into silly arguments.

I see where you’re coming from, MF, but I think the sticking point for me is the notion that you can buy heirlooms. To my mind, things become heirlooms over time by nature of the sentimental investments that get poured into them. I doubt that many housewives bought a Kenwood Chef for anything other than wholly practical reasons, yet they’re lovely things to hand down not because of their intrinsic value (other than longevity) but because of the happy memories associated with it.

Now, if you’re going to buy an expensive watch, wear it every day, love it and treasure it and value it, then when you hand it down to your kids it’s “dad’s watch” and something for them to remember you by, rather than just an expensive folly that lived at the back of your sock drawer for 20 years.

No. Sounds to me like someone was pwned and is trying to justify his error.

Oh, you’re another ‘I won’t bother to actually try to understand what the person is saying, I’ll just react to what I think I’ve read’ one, aren’t you? 😉

Ohh and Elfin – I normally reading your arguments and considering an alternative point of view.

But on this one you really are being very boring.

Why? Cos you din’t agree with my point of view? Or because I am, after all, right?

TBH I seldom read as much toss as I do on these watch threads. If some of you could listen to yourselfs banging on about ‘engineering’ or ‘certified chronometers’ ffs… As for COSC; it’s a Swiss organisation (funnily enough) which is basically part of an industry that likes to present itself as producing the finest timepieces in the World. They don’t like the Japanese companies much for some reason, I’d imagine…

Blokes buy spensive watches because it’s not custom (in the West at least) for men to wear lots of spensive jewellery. It’s still about status and wealth ultimately though. If it were custom for men to wear symbols of wealth and status, then they would. Interesting to note some of the snobbish attitudes towards blokes who wear big gold chains and stuff, from some folk on here. And the suggestion that the only ‘acceptable’ jewellery (sic) that should be worn by a man is a nice watch…

If it really were about telling the time accurately, you’d all be wearing some quartz jobby.

The thing that gets me is that all that money and fiddliness is simply for it’s own sake. People make them and sell them for a bomb simply because that’s what they can do, and people will buy them just because they are there. It’s a waste of effort imo. Like diamonds – they are expensive because someone’s artificially managing the price, not because they are intrinsically special, really.

I am all for aesthetics and beauty, but that doesn’t have to come with justification like ‘oh it’s engineering’ or ‘it’s rare and exclusive’. I feel that people’s perceptions of worth are being influenced by cost and status rather than any true beauty or function.

That, basically.

Ahh Cougar – that is where I am being misunderstood then – I am NOT buying it to keep locked away in the hope it will be worth more when I pass it down – it would be 100% something I would wear every day and something (I would hope) my children would remember me by (with the added consideration that I would be getting it initially for ME to remember MY mum and dad by (hence the engraving, which would definitely make it inherently less valuable second-hand anyway) and make a link between my children and their grand parents who they will never know.

Sorry, I kinda segued there – I wasn’t suggest you would or wouldn’t use it / lock it away particularly, I was just rolling by that point (-: As you were.

Why? Cos you din’t agree with my point of view? Or because I am, after all, right?

No, because you started trying to argue down to the literal potential meaning of the word ‘investment’ and it was clear you weren’t considering what I was wanting to achieve in getting a watch. That is why I stopped responding to you yesterday.

Suck it up – it isn’t often (if ever) I have accused you of being boring but I simply found you were on this occasion – making an argument out of nothing.

As an aside,

I’ve always wondered why people buy expensive things ‘for best’ and never use them. A mate of mine has a TAG, and in all the time I’ve known him I’ve nver actually seen him wear it. If I spent four figures on a watch, I’d want it surgically grafting to my arm. Better to have it scratched and battered (and used and loved) than kept pristine in a box, shirley?

There’s a (Northern?) notion of ‘sunday best’; save your best suits for events, roll out the good china twice a year and so on. I never understood that either. Or rather, I guess I do understand, but I don’t agree with it.

Oh, and just to help the Hard Of Thinking a little bit; here’s a couple of watches I really like for their aesthetic appeal:

Rado Sintra:

I have small wrists, and can’t stand huge chunky ‘divers’ watches as they just look silly on me. And I don’t need a ‘depth guage’ or a ‘tackymeter’. Rado do simple, elegant discrete watches and I like them cos they’re made from similar stuff to the heat shield tiles on the space Shuttle. 😀

Mondaine; maybe not über posh, but I love it for it’s simplicity again, and it’s ubiquitous iconic style:

Cougar – I have a friend who is in exactly that position – bought a really nice watch and won’t wear it for fear of losing it or scratching it or something.

Bloody daft.

We do have ‘best’ crockery though – wedding gift stuff that comes out twice a year* 🙂

*Mainly because it is right at the back of the cupboard and we can never be arsed to drag it all out/put it away.

I’m not convinced by the “investment” argument. A local jeweller is selling 1950s Omega watches from £350. Far cheaper than a new one, and IMO far nicer looking too.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with buying an expensive watch just because you want one, so why the spurious justifications?

Elfin – they are very beautiful watches I agree. Well the Mondaine one is, not so keen on the first one.

The first one reminds me of B&O hifi stuff – great to look at but not necessarily the best sound/vision for the money (or considerably less).