My wife chose her own engagement ring, cost £90
So you paid more then you had to then. Why?
Which you famously never do!
Tru dat.
Argh my arch-Nemesis is abound!
So you can buy an engagement ring for less meaning it was chosen purely on aesthetic grounds. You're as guilty as the Patek Phillipe crowd
And can I point out there's nothing wrong with that at all.
Theres a programme on [s]gaudy tat[/s] exclusive watch dealers, and suchlike, on BBC2 at the moment
Just watching it, I like watches but I'm gob smacked that that OK, quite nice Rolex just went for £700k at auction!
Thats a lot of coke and hookers!! 😯
10 grand for a cake?! Puts the watches in perspective! 😯
[quote=tomhoward ]I also wonder if the haters would be quite so passionate in their hatred of these things if a big lottery win came their way. Like all the winners that suddenly and inexplicably start voting for the blue team, post win. Odd, that.
My first contribution to this thread, so I probably wasn't included in your list, but no, if I had a big lottery win I wouldn't buy one of these watches. Because the reason I don't currently own one has nothing to do with the affordability. I might buy an iPhone though.
[quote=Edukator ]I know when it's time for lunch, the sun comes around the corner of the house onto the area it's nice to sit and eat lunch.
Edu has it here for me. I'm not at all envious of the lifestyles of those people who own these watches (well if I had their money I'd sell up and buy myself an Edu lifestyle).
[quote=tinybits ]So you can buy an engagement ring for less meaning it was chosen purely on aesthetic grounds.
I'm not sure you're getting molgrips point here - he does query why those who like the aesthetic don't just buy a well made fake which looks the same, and is the same in every functional sense.
Those watches look like something out of a cheap dress suit watchshop
So you paid more then you had to then. Why?
As aracer said. The point is that we bought the prettiest one. It's cost is related to the cost of making it and the cost of finding the stone, which was Tanzanite. The coat of the watch is over inflated beyond what it coat, because mugs will pay it for no other reason than its expensive.
I believe the marketing industry has a name for this phenomenon, something like "perceived quality" I.E. people think it's worth a lot simply because it cost a lot.
If you only liked the watch for its looks, you would be thrilled to be able to buy the fake for a fraction.
Jesus! Those watches (250k each) look like something Huggy Bear would balk at for looking a bit too tacky!
That Rolex that just went on tv in Geniva was ghastly.
Very few things have a real value. Whether it's a Rolex, an iPhone or a pair of Levis jeans, a large percentage of the cost is the 'perceived quality'.
We are all guilty of falling for this.
Actually, I didn't ask why. I stated that you could have bought one for less but you didn't. That means you're making a purchase based on asthetics and a value to you.
same as those watch buyers.
Oh, and binners, +1 - that chiming watch was absolutely gopping- but then that's my perception, and it would be if it cost £1!
Antiques Roadshow is on now. That's another one that amazes me. You see the ridiculous valuations put on stuff that's invariabley absolutely bloody awful, but old, and think to yourself 'who on earth buys this tat?'
That means you're making a purchase based on asthetics and a value to you.
Of course, and it's the nature of this 'value' that I'm questioning here.
It's the Emperor's new clothes.
It's the Emperor's new clothes.
I'm not sure many disagree with that, but it's everywhere, not just watches.
The value argument is simple - its like a well made suit or pair of shoes. You can buy cheap versions but is that value?
Simple analogy: buy a classic watch versus an new apple watch or a casio. All tell the time. But two will depreciate (rapidly?) in value and one will (a) last longer than the other two AND (b) increase in value. Assuming that you can make the choice, which one is the best?
IMO simple classics a the best, many of the super expensive bling ones are truly horrendous. But a nice classic will endure for generations - now, who made that point originally?!?
Having said ^, true wealth is enjoying the things that money can't buy. So sounds like Edukator is the wealthiest man on STW!!
Doesn't your other half make nice hand woven scarves?
I have seen scarves for £1:99 why would you need to pay more?
AND (b) increase in value.
It [u]may [/u] increase in value, they have had a good run but whether this will continue in perpetuity is another matter. My old boss was told the same about classic cars, I bought his old one for just over a third of what he had paid.
"May" indeed mefty, that is true!
Lots of alternative assets have had a good run thanks to our central banks stealing money of us elsewhere!!
You can buy cheap versions but is that value?
Good question. But surely economists have names for the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic value...?
I have seen scarves for £1:99 why would you need to pay more?
If I thought someone was buying them for the reasons people buy these watches then I'd be similarly unimpressed. If someone else made the exact same scarf for less I would not be trying to persuade them to buy my wife's scarf for more, just because more.
Doesn't your other half make nice hand woven scarves?
I have seen scarves for £1:99 why would you need to pay more?
Who's? Molgrips? You're kidding me! If that's right then that's comedy genius
Why? The scarves don't look the same as the ones in the shops, plus you can't get tesco to make them to your specification either.
This is my point. Her scarves are not the same as the ones in the shops. If they were we'd be guilty as charged.
But in any case, this is me making the argument and my wife making the scarves. She is her own woman, the arguments are not related.
You chaps do know that this thread is all Benedict Cumberbatch's fault.
If he didn't mention PP in 'Cabin Preassure' i would never have wonderd if it was a real thing or just a made up name, so everyone boycott Cumberbatch.
[img] 
[/img]
It is also the BBC fault for paying for the show 'Cabin Pressuer' and in so giving Cumberbatch money to live off, so it is not just Cumberbatchs fault for all the lost lives, broken familys and sheep thrown through windows that this thread has caused, it is also the BBCs fault so stop paying your licence.
Forgot to mention that it is also STWs fault for unknowingly advertising PP which showed me what it acutually is, so the fault lies with BBC and STW but mostly Benedict Cumberbatch (who is evil and the destroyer of worlds).
I think you lot should go over to the Sherlock thread and pour scorn and Honey Badgers onto all the Benedict Cumberbatch fanboys.
I hope this explination helps the healing process begin.
I am all for people who have enough cash to buy what they want however I know of people spending several thousands on jewellery and they are renting a house. My mrs worked with a guy who's wealthy parents to buy him a watch (it was a years wage to him) that is what I do not get especially when you can get more accurate watches for buttons.Obviously they can do what they want with their cash but I can't get my head round spending that cash and renting property. (As you might have guessed I do not do jewellery)
Well I don't know what people are whinging about. In that BBC2 programme there were 2 people at least that came from 'normal' backgrounds and were making a very good living of the fact that the very rich are happy to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on watches and other items. It's their money, they've earned it, for them spending £250k on a watch is the same as you or I spending £250 on a watch relative to what we earn, and 2 normal working class people are making very good livings out of these people. Everyones a winner. I know people who wouldn't spend much more than £100 on a bike and think that anyone prepared to spend thousand of pounds on a bike, or hundreds of pounds on bike components are complete imbeciles of the highest order. The amounts of money might be different, the principle is the same.
especially when you can get more accurate watches [s]for[/s] with buttons
[quote=richmars ]Very few [b]branded[/b] things have a real value. Whether it's a Rolex, an iPhone or a pair of Levis jeans, a large percentage of the cost is the 'perceived quality'.
We are all guilty of falling for this.
Fixed. Though it's still not quite right, because an iPhone for example does have a real value, which is arguably slightly more than any other smartphone (here isn't the place to go into that any further). Sure some of it is marketing, but not all, and in that case there is a genuine basis for it being considered a premium product, even if the premium you pay is more than the premium you get.
As always, things are shades of grey. Almost everything you buy you're paying for a certain amount of marketing - at least almost anything that has any sort of brand, even if that brand is Tesco Value. What people "object" to is where you're mostly paying for the marketing - which is a reason my current sunnies are Bolle safety glasses rather than Oakleys.
edit: though me objecting to this sort of thing feels a bit like biting the hand which feeds - I have plenty of branded kit, some of which has labels which say "marketing sample", all "paid" for by the people who buy branded stuff which is marketed...
Mrs CFH wears Hermès scarves. They're lovely things, and very different from a £1.99 Tesco value special.
She likes them, so I like buying them for her.
Wobbliscott - that's pretty much the gist of what we were saying while watching it.
Don't hate the player. Hate the game.
Good luck to the people making a good living selling over-priced garish bling to insecure people who clearly have more money than sense, trying to buy status. At the end of the day, those people were buying obscenely expensive watches that they'd never even actually seen. 😯
But surely a tesco £1.99 scarf does what a hand woven scarf does, keeps your neck warm, possibly even better as there's no human element to make a mistake with the weave.
It's not about your wife Molgrips, it's about the argument. You can't argue one way for something you do agree with (say bikes or, scarves) and another for ones you don't, like watches.
Well, you will but i can't be bothered anymore. Work tomorrow and unlike most, I'm really looking forward to it so I'm getting prepped now. Happy new year!
[quote=tinybits ]But surely a tesco £1.99 scarf does what a hand woven scarf does, keeps your neck warm, possibly even better as there's no human element to make a mistake with the weave.
You still seem to be completely missing the point. Mrs molgrips' customers don't buy the scarves because they are more expensive than Tesco's ones.
Who said I agree with her?
Anyway - you're demonstrating that you haven't correctly understood the point I am trying to make.
Just to re-iterate:
Most of the value of the expensive watches is perceived - in other words, people value them simply because they are expensive and have been told they are expensive. So they make up reasons.
Hence the thought experiment: If there were a copy of an expensive watch that were indistinguishable, but you knew it were a fake, would you buy it? Most would not, I suspect.
My wife makes scarves that are different to 1.99 ones in material and appearance. They are displayed, and you are free to buy them if you like, or not if you don't. If they were exactly the same as the £1.99 ones she would not make them at all.
You have not correctly understood the argument.
EDIT aracer has though and has responded much more succinctly.
Ok, one more as sodding windows is updating,
No, they are buying something of no better functionality, for more money, for another reason.
I'm going to guess at exclusivity and asthetics and wanting a none mass produced product.
Edit: after mols post above. Ah, I see, I'm arguing over the real thing, not your fakes question. I readily admit I completely missed that that argument was ongoing. Interesting question, and in my case yes mostly, but it's sometimes nice to know you've worked and saved hard bough to buy the real thing.
I am not sure that there are any haters on here just some people who don't see why anyone would spend alot of money on a watch. It should come as hardly as a surprise, appreciation of watches is not going to be universal - no pun intended - neither is a love of expensive cars, artisan beer, or whatever else one chooses to spend money on - there is no right or wrong, it is just personal opinion, potentially shaped by marketeers.
I can't comment on why people buy them - but they are not priced, specified or marketed to make people think they are worth any particular sum.
They are priced according to time and materials.
Aesthetics are part of why (very few) people buy them, but I have already attempted to separate aesthetics from this argument above.
Mrs molgrips' customers don't buy the scarves because they are more expensive than Tesco's ones
But why is this different to buying expensive watches. Why is one group 'insecure', with 'more money then sense'?
tinybits - how much of the cost of mrs molgrips' scarves do you think goes on the marketing?
[quote=richmars ]But why is this different to buying expensive watches.
Because a significant amount of the perceived value of those is down to the cost.
But it's the cost of pointless engineering.
If Mrs Grips bought wool from virgin alpacas hand suckled on the southern slopes of the mystical Maccu Piccu to capture the wisdom of the ancients then I would call bullshit just as much.
However she buys whatever is a good deal and will make a nice scarf.
Most of the value of the expensive watches is perceived - in other words, people value them simply because they are expensive and have been told they are expensive. So they make up reasons.
You know very little about the watch industry.
While there is a lot of intangible 'value' in a lot of watchmaking there is a huge amount of engineering/design/craft/skill/ingenuity/hard work in the high end. I have seen watchmakers at work in a few Geneva manufacturers and the thing that struck me was they while many could not afford the top end products they made they were absolutely engrossed in what they and their colleagues did and the pursuit of beautiful in engineering and jewellery was at the heart of what they did.
Most (not all) timepieces are incredibly intricate and a lot of their 'value' comes from the very process of their creation and the hours spent on their construction. Sure there is loads of gaudy bling for the oligarch /Footballer market but the industry is just continuing a long tradition of embellishing the everyday that started in the iron ages.
Not everyone's cup of tea but some people appreciate intricate engineering like this and are prepared to pay for it:
[img]
(Yes it's my pic)
But the screw heads don't line up. For that sort of money, that's the sort of detail I'd expect.
