Best watch for around $5,000?

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Post Reply
yobria
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: SF CA USA

Post by yobria » Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:16 pm

black jack wrote:My theory is that it's actually his ice-breaker device, providing an opening for women to strike up a conversation with him, though my daughter was not in his target age group. If so, I salute his style.
Of course! The purpose of $5,000 watches to to show status within the social hierarchy. The purpose of status is to attract mates and pass on ones genes. That's Anthopology 101. Personally I wish our culture could find cheaper ways to show status, elaborate head dresses for example. Then we could use resources for more rational purposes, like [pick the good cause of your choice].

Nick

norak
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:02 pm

Post by norak » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:17 pm

Can anyone here tell me whether the fake watches are as good as the real thing?

Giving an expensive watch to someone I hypothesize is a signal to them that you care because it shows that you are willing to sacrifice a significant amount of your wealth.

If a watch has lots of gold or platinum in it, buying a watch or any other type of jewelry can be an indirect way of investing in precious metals.

Better yet, instead of buying a watch for someone you can just give then a bar of gold. The person receiving the bar of gold, I'm sure, will be pleased because a bar of gold is worth its weight in gold. Much of the value of a watch, on the other hand, is in the labor.

norak
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:02 pm

Post by norak » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:21 pm

Of course! The purpose of $5,000 watches to to show status within the social hierarchy. The purpose of status is to attract mates and pass on ones genes. That's Anthopology 101.
Are women really attracted to a man with a nice watch?

I've been watching some videos of Scott Alexander and I am thinking that maybe I should emulate him in order to be more successful attracting females. Do you people think I should copy Scott in order to be more successful with females? The problem is that Scott's personality is nothing like mine. Many people say that you should be yourself, but sometimes being yourself does not attract the females, so you have to be different. You have to signal your wealth like Scott does.

chaz
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Post by chaz » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:24 pm

norak wrote:
Of course! The purpose of $5,000 watches to to show status within the social hierarchy. The purpose of status is to attract mates and pass on ones genes. That's Anthopology 101.
Are women really attracted to a man with a nice watch?

I've been watching some videos of Scott Alexander and I am thinking that maybe I should emulate him in order to be more successful attracting females. Do you people think I should copy Scott in order to be more successful with females? The problem is that Scott's personality is nothing like mine. Many people say that you should be yourself, but sometimes being yourself does not attract the females, so you have to be different. You have to signal your wealth like Scott does.
Yes. A good watch is a chick magnet.
Chaz | | “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen | | http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

likegarden
Posts: 2591
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:33 pm

Post by likegarden » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:51 pm

Yes, with my fake Rolex (had diamonds) I was an attraction at the local Bingo place. It worked accurately for many years.

chaz
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Post by chaz » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:57 pm

Bernd wrote:Yes, with my fake Rolex (had diamonds) I was an attraction at the local Bingo place. It worked accurately for many years.
Did you do OK at bingo?
Chaz | | “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen | | http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

User avatar
pjstack
Posts: 1308
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:03 am
Location: Harbor City, CA

Post by pjstack » Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:02 pm

How long will Petrocelli keep us in suspense?

Petro, did you ever get your watch? With all the sincere (and not so) suggestions, surely you must have made a decision by now!

Don't leave us hanging!
pjstack

User avatar
craigr
Posts: 2696
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:54 pm

Post by craigr » Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:02 pm

I actually found a watch that will really impress the ladies here:

http://www.leapsecond.com/pages/atomic-bill/
IMPORTANT NOTE: My old website crawlingroad{dot}com is no longer available or run by me. | | Please refer to archive.is or archive.org for old links in my post.

chaz
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Post by chaz » Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:19 pm

craigr wrote:I actually found a watch that will really impress the ladies here:

http://www.leapsecond.com/pages/atomic-bill/
It may be the most accurate wristwatch, but I am not as strong as Bill. I will continue to wear my non-atomic Omega.
Chaz | | “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen | | http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

norak
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:02 pm

Post by norak » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:00 pm

Yes. A good watch is a chick magnet.
So by good do you mean expensive? This would make sense since an expensive watch signals to a female that you have a lot of money.

This I think is an imperfect signal since being asset rich does now make your net worth high. For example, if you take out a loan from the bank to buy a $10,000 watch, you signal to females that you are wealthy when in fact the act of borrowing money to buy this expensive watch has reduced your net worth.

Wouldn't it simply be better or more efficient for me to just show a female my Vanguard quarterly statement?

chaz
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Post by chaz » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:26 pm

norak wrote:
Yes. A good watch is a chick magnet.
So by good do you mean expensive? This would make sense since an expensive watch signals to a female that you have a lot of money.

This I think is an imperfect signal since being asset rich does now make your net worth high. For example, if you take out a loan from the bank to buy a $10,000 watch, you signal to females that you are wealthy when in fact the act of borrowing money to buy this expensive watch has reduced your net worth.

Wouldn't it simply be better or more efficient for me to just show a female my Vanguard quarterly statement?
The woman sees the watch. She doesn't get a current balance sheet, and your last Vanguard quarterly statement may not show that you have closed your account and gambled away all your money.
Chaz | | “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen | | http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

eucalyptus
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:24 pm

Post by eucalyptus » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:29 pm

I wonder whether any of you could acknowledge that one might own an expensive indulgence - a watch, or a car, or example - simply for the love of the thing, and not to impress others.

I don't wear a watch, and I don't much care for the recent fashion of very large watches, but I appreciate the beauty and ingenuity of the machine. What's wrong with connoisseurship?

My own fascination is cars, and I find many who think all car purchases are made as social expression. I wonder why these "haters" believe car enthusiasts want to impress them, or even care what they think?

Conspicuous pious non-consumption is nonetheless conspicuous. Earlier in the thread a poster boasts that he has a $35 watch, and John Bogle has an even cheaper model. I have no watch at all - do I win?

User avatar
Petrocelli
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: Fenway Park, between 2nd and 3rd base

Post by Petrocelli » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:38 pm

pjstack wrote:How long will Petrocelli keep us in suspense?

Petro, did you ever get your watch? With all the sincere (and not so) suggestions, surely you must have made a decision by now!

Don't leave us hanging!
Actually, my 50th birthday is months off. I wanted to start researching early because of the cost.

Presently, I am focusing on lighter watches as opposed to heavier ones. I am partial to watches by Breguet and Vacheron Constantin, but the ones like cost more like $10,000 to $30,000, and I couldn't justify spending that much.
Petrocelli (not the real Rico, but just a fan)

User avatar
Petrocelli
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: Fenway Park, between 2nd and 3rd base

Post by Petrocelli » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:39 pm

SoonerSunDevil wrote:
Another great way to pick up women is to walk a puppy at a dog park.
Your law degree will help you pick up women better than a Labrador Retriever. Trust me on this.
Petrocelli (not the real Rico, but just a fan)

User avatar
Petrocelli
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: Fenway Park, between 2nd and 3rd base

Post by Petrocelli » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:41 pm

norak wrote:Can anyone here tell me whether the fake watches are as good as the real thing?
No.

Part of the reason you buy an expensive watch is that it will hold its value. Look at Taylor Larrimore's example. The watches he bought in 1945 would be worth thousands -- maybe hundreds of thousands -- of dollars today. A fake Rolex will probably depreciate over time simply because you could always buy another.
Petrocelli (not the real Rico, but just a fan)

chaz
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Post by chaz » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:49 pm

eucalyptus wrote:I wonder whether any of you could acknowledge that one might own an expensive indulgence - a watch, or a car, or example - simply for the love of the thing, and not to impress others.

I don't wear a watch, and I don't much care for the recent fashion of very large watches, but I appreciate the beauty and ingenuity of the machine. What's wrong with connoisseurship?

My own fascination is cars, and I find many who think all car purchases are made as social expression. I wonder why these "haters" believe car enthusiasts want to impress them, or even care what they think?

Conspicuous pious non-consumption is nonetheless conspicuous. Earlier in the thread a poster boasts that he has a $35 watch, and John Bogle has an even cheaper model. I have no watch at all - do I win?
No, not having a watch isn't the same as having a cheap watch.
Chaz | | “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen | | http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

User avatar
Petrocelli
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: Fenway Park, between 2nd and 3rd base

Post by Petrocelli » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:57 pm

eucalyptus wrote:
I don't wear a watch, and I don't much care for the recent fashion of very large watches, but I appreciate the beauty and ingenuity of the machine. What's wrong with connoisseurship?

My own fascination is cars, and I find many who think all car purchases are made as social expression. I wonder why these "haters" believe car enthusiasts want to impress them, or even care what they think?
You hit the nail on the head.

Odds are, if you buy a $100,000 Vacheron Constantin watch, probably no one will ever know it is an expensive watch, other than your kids when they have it appraised after you die.

I drive a Mercedes because I drive alot, and like the way it handles. If it impresses other people, that's OK, but its not the main reason I buy it. If anyone is impressed by a $36,000 car, then they are easily impressed.
Last edited by Petrocelli on Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Petrocelli (not the real Rico, but just a fan)

yobria
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: SF CA USA

Post by yobria » Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:29 pm

eucalyptus wrote:I wonder whether any of you could acknowledge that one might own an expensive indulgence - a watch, or a car, or example - simply for the love of the thing, and not to impress others.
The conscious bit of the human brain (a tiny part of the total) can appreciate a $5,000 watch for its intrinsic beauty. But the status seeking subconscious must kick in before you actually buy one! (Unless you're very rich and price is no object). Of course things can be a combination of beautiful and status fulfilling, but watches are mostly the latter IMO. Here's first summary paragraph of the Rolex brand from Wikipedia:
Rolex SA is a Swiss manufacturer of wristwatches and accessories. Rolex watches are popularly considered status symbols.[1][2][3][4] Rolex is the largest single luxury watch brand by far, producing about 2,000 watches per day, with estimated revenues of around US$ 3 billion (2003).[5] BusinessWeek magazine ranks Rolex #71 on its 2007 annual list of the 100 most valuable global brands, top among all watchmakers.[6]
Nick

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 35877
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Post by nisiprius » Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:48 pm

A local billboard claims that James Bond now wears an Omega, instead of a Rolex. An OMEGA Seamaster Planet Ocean 600m Co-Axial Chronometer, to be specific.

I wonder why Bond did that? I am sure it could only have been for practical reasons.

This is good to know. Can you imagine how awful it would be to buy a Rolex Oyster in order to be like James Bond, only to have him switch to an Omega?
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

Gekko
Posts: 3779
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: USA

Post by Gekko » Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:35 pm

Petrocelli wrote:
eucalyptus wrote:
I don't wear a watch, and I don't much care for the recent fashion of very large watches, but I appreciate the beauty and ingenuity of the machine. What's wrong with connoisseurship?

My own fascination is cars, and I find many who think all car purchases are made as social expression. I wonder why these "haters" believe car enthusiasts want to impress them, or even care what they think?
You hit the nail on the head.

Odds are, if you buy a $100,000 Vacheron Constantin watch, probably no one will ever know it is an expensive watch, other than your kids when they have it appraised after you die.

I drive a Mercedes because I drive alot, and like the way it handles. If it impresses other people, that's OK, but its not the main reason I buy it. If anyone is impressed by a $36,000 car, then they are easily impressed.
you have the C-Class right? you know what the C stands for? CHEAP.

chaz
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Post by chaz » Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:38 pm

nisiprius wrote:A local billboard claims that James Bond now wears an Omega, instead of a Rolex. An OMEGA Seamaster Planet Ocean 600m Co-Axial Chronometer, to be specific.

I wonder why Bond did that? I am sure it could only have been for practical reasons.

This is good to know. Can you imagine how awful it would be to buy a Rolex Oyster in order to be like James Bond, only to have him switch to an Omega?
The Omega Seamaster is a wonderful watch.
Chaz | | “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen | | http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

eucalyptus
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:24 pm

Post by eucalyptus » Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:04 pm

There's no question that Rolex and many other luxury goods manufacturers market their products as status symbols. Rolex describing itself:

"The leading name in luxury watches, Rolex has been the pre-eminent symbol of performance and prestige for over a century."

As a car enthusiast, I have access to a lot of the auto manufacturer publications. When I read about something like the Audi or Maserati "lifestyle," I can't help but chuckle; even a quick flip of an upscale automaker's mag's pages usually reveals that a car's "lifestyle" involves jewelry, exotic vacations, friends with jets, being thin and beautiful and improbably adventurous, and generally acquiring, maintaining and operating yachtloads of expensive stuff.

My point is that it's also possible to own something rare and beautiful and expensive just for the joy of the thing, without regard to its display. Petro's desire to buy an heirloom and someday give it to his son makes sense to me; I have a vintage car I someday want to give to my daughter. My car's value may surprise my daughter, but my hope is that she'll drive it and remember me every time she does.

Really, folks - how seriously can you take someone you "impress" with your watch or car?

User avatar
Petrocelli
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: Fenway Park, between 2nd and 3rd base

Post by Petrocelli » Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:21 pm

Gekko wrote:
you have the C-Class right? you know what the C stands for? CHEAP.
Yep. As an added bonus, I can get over 30 mpg on long trips. Cheap is good.
Petrocelli (not the real Rico, but just a fan)

User avatar
stratton
Posts: 11082
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:05 pm
Location: Puget Sound

Post by stratton » Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:01 pm

Petrocelli wrote:
Gekko wrote:
you have the C-Class right? you know what the C stands for? CHEAP.
Yep. As an added bonus, I can get over 30 mpg on long trips. Cheap is good.
Maybe we should call you Petrol for short! :lol:

Paul

Infinite333
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:29 am

Post by Infinite333 » Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:57 am

I know nothing about watches, but am curious. Can one usually buy legitimate luxury watches cheaper in their country of origin? Ie. Buying a Rolex in Switzerland. If so, how much cheaper?

SkepticalGuy
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:04 am

Post by SkepticalGuy » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:45 pm

eucalyptus wrote:I wonder whether any of you could acknowledge that one might own an expensive indulgence - a watch, or a car, or example - simply for the love of the thing, and not to impress others.

I don't wear a watch, and I don't much care for the recent fashion of very large watches, but I appreciate the beauty and ingenuity of the machine. What's wrong with connoisseurship?

My own fascination is cars, and I find many who think all car purchases are made as social expression. I wonder why these "haters" believe car enthusiasts want to impress them, or even care what they think?
Much as I enjoy giving Petrocelli a hard time about his watch and car, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with liking an object that happens to be expensive.

Last summer I saw a painting that was so unexpectedly beautiful to me I nearly cried. If I'd had a spare $20 million in my pocket I would have made an offer even though a larger and more durable velvet Elvis ("Velvis") only costs about $20. Completely out of character for a cheap SOB like me. Would it have been a status symbol suitable for a hedge fund king? Sure. Did I even think about that angle? No.

If you really like expensive cars, watches, and clothes, though, you're going to take some unfair shots on two counts even if your appreciation is deep and genuine.

The first kind of criticism is, oddly enough, invited by car and jewelry fans themselves who often tell us loud and clear that they buy stuff so that people will know they bought it. Fair or not, you're apt to be identified with that crowd when you park a $90k Jaguar in your driveway.

The other reason you may get slammed is that buying cars and jewelry isn't a very imaginative use of wealth. Why not DNA sequencers and cellos? Is it because you don't have any interests beyond emulating what you've seen other (presumably) rich people do?

This is a more interesting criticism but not a fatal moral condemnation. Aside from the fact that you may like those things for their own merits, trying to adjust your behavior to ensure that other people consider imaginative would be pretty bizarre.

This is all a long-winded way of saying that you like what you like and that's all there is to it. It's interesting to speculate about what motivates people to own things, but I don't think it has any moral significance unless someone is getting hurt.

chaz
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Post by chaz » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:01 pm

Getting a nice watch is a good use of wealth.
Chaz | | “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen | | http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 11175
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Post by HomerJ » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:07 pm

chaz wrote:Getting a nice watch is a good use of wealth.
As this thread attests, that is a very subjective statement. You definitely need to add a "for me" to the end of that statement.

User avatar
MIARay
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:15 pm

Post by MIARay » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:18 pm

No watch or if you must, a Casio G-Shock...

chaz
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Post by chaz » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:18 pm

rrosenkoetter wrote:
chaz wrote:Getting a nice watch is a good use of wealth.
As this thread attests, that is a very subjective statement. You definitely need to add a "for me" to the end of that statement.
"for me."
Chaz | | “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen | | http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

User avatar
Opponent Process
Posts: 5157
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:19 pm

Post by Opponent Process » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:29 pm

eucalyptus wrote:I have a vintage car I someday want to give to my daughter...my hope is that she'll drive it and remember me every time she does.

Really, folks - how seriously can you take someone you "impress" with your watch or car?
you just insulted your daughter and proved everyone else's point. why does your daughter need a car to remember you by? if I can't afford to buy my children expensive heirlooms, will they not remember me as a good father?

yobria
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: SF CA USA

Post by yobria » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:32 pm

Sticking to the original topic, watches, there is no arguing that people pay $5,000 for a Rolex solely for its beauty or accuracy, since very similar watches can be had for $250. A person can fool himself into believing this, but the rest of the world knows better (Note my Wikipedia quote above).

Is there anything immoral about this deeply human desire? Is there a limit to how much someone should be able to pay for a watch when someone else on the same planet (or country or city or block) doesn't have, say, access to health care? Who knows. We address this to some extent with graduated income and luxury taxes.

Nick

User avatar
Petrocelli
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: Fenway Park, between 2nd and 3rd base

Post by Petrocelli » Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:18 pm

yobria wrote:Sticking to the original topic, watches, there is no arguing that people pay $5,000 for a Rolex solely for its beauty or accuracy, since very similar watches can be had for $250. A person can fool himself into believing this, but the rest of the world knows better (Note my Wikipedia quote above).
Nick:

A $250 watch is not "similar" to a Rolex. A Rolex will probably appreciate in value, and will look great in 100 years. As I discussed above, the Rolex I bought my wife 20 years ago for $2,000 now retails for around $8,000. In fact, I am going to guess that if we sold the watch tomorrow, its return may beat TSM.

The initial question asked the best watch for around $5,000. Somewhere in this thread, someone directed me to a forum where they discuss watches like the Diehards discuss mutual funds. I have also been given several suggestions for watches. However, perhaps as expected, somewhere the thread morphed in to a discussion of whether someone should buy a $5,000 watch. My thought in that is simple:

If you make $5,000 a month, probably not. If you make $5,000 a week, why not?
Petrocelli (not the real Rico, but just a fan)

User avatar
Petrocelli
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: Fenway Park, between 2nd and 3rd base

Post by Petrocelli » Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:21 pm

Opponent Process wrote: you just insulted your daughter and proved everyone else's point. why does your daughter need a car to remember you by? if I can't afford to buy my children expensive heirlooms, will they not remember me as a good father?
I think you are missing the point.

My mom died 25 years ago. My dad gave me a necklace which was my mom's favorite. When my wife wears it, I think of my mom. What's wrong with that?

I think you could give your kid your old Timex. If they wear it, they will think of you. However, why not give them a watch that will last as long as they will and will appreciate in value?
Petrocelli (not the real Rico, but just a fan)

sprmario2k3
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:09 pm

Post by sprmario2k3 » Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:52 pm

Best watch for around $5,000. IMO, Rolex Datejust. I personally loved all the options I could choose from:

Band - oyster or jubilee
Bezel - smooth or jagged
Dial color - white, blue, silver, etc.
Markers - arabic #s, roman #s, or batons.

I went with smooth bezel, white face, roman numerals, and the oyster band.

I did a lot of research before buying mine 4 years ago and there are some nice watches similar in price but a Rolex holds its value the best. If you decide to get an Omega or something similar make sure you are paying well below retail. I think 30% below retail is doable on an Omega.

BTW, both my father and my brother have bought fakes within the last few years and they are both broken. One was about a $50 fake bought in NYC. It stopped working after about 9 months. The other was a $100 fake bought in China. It looked very close to the real deal, but was way way lighter. The glass cracked after 6 months.

My 4 year old watch is pristine. Only a few small scratches that will be polished away next year when i take it in for a 5 year check up. I wear it probably 350 out of 365 days in the year.

User avatar
SoonerSunDevil
Posts: 2000
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: The desert

Post by SoonerSunDevil » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:06 pm

Petrocelli wrote:
Gekko wrote:
you have the C-Class right? you know what the C stands for? CHEAP.
Yep. As an added bonus, I can get over 30 mpg on long trips. Cheap is good.
Something tells me Petro could buy an E or S class Mercedes without a problem. You drive a Lexus, right Gekko? Do the windows still have "Toyota" etched on the bottom? Talk about cheap...

User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 11175
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Post by HomerJ » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:20 pm

Petrocelli wrote: My thought in that is simple:

If you make $5,000 a month, probably not. If you make $5,000 a week, why not?
(generic "you" below - I'm not singling Petrocelli out)

See, this is the crux of the matter...

So if you can afford it, it's okay to spend it. I can truly can see the correctness of this statement. You earned it, its your money, who are we to tell anyone how to spend their money....

But is there any amount of money where it becomes "wrong"? If Bill Gates spent all his money on a 40 foot tall gold statue of himself, would we be disgusted, or say "You go Bill, your money, do what you want with it!"

(Note I would be opposed to any laws that stopped Bill from spending his money any way he wanted, but I still retain the right to be disgusted and consider his choice immoral).

Instead Bill created a foundation and is seriously making a difference in the world.

We all know about the opportunity cost of money. There's a certain point where you are just throwing money away. Not to you, of course, you have enough money to retire, to live comfortably, with some (lots?) left over... There is no opportunity lost when you spend $5,000, $10,000, $50,000 on a luxury item. You don't give anything up to get that item. It's from your excess money.

But that money could be used in other ways... that money could save peoples lives, give people new chances, really help people.

It's a hard question... When you have a billion dollars, blowing $600,000 on a car isn't a big deal. You wanted that car, that's how much it cost, you paid it.

But I submit there's something wrong with the people way up in that spectrum. They really have lost perspective of the value of money.

Imagine what a million dollars could do to help people...

Is spending $5000 on a 50th birthday gift a waste? Nah, I don't think so.... It IS a one-time special occasion.

But as we get richer and richer, we really need to think about what money represents. The opportunity cost of money. Once I walked by a guy playing blackjack in Vegas at $300 a hand.. I watched him lose $4000 in about 3 minutes. Now that money means nothing to him... Then I watched the cocktail waitress give him a drink. How much would that $4000 that the man just threw away have meant to her?

I feel we really have to be careful about keeping a perspective on money. It's represents food, heat, housing in a good school neighborhood, college education, health care, etc.

I'm not saying we should deny ourselves any and all luxuries... I'm saying we should be mindful of the value of money. There IS a point of diminishing returns for everything... A $50,000 car is 5x nicer than a $10,000 car. A $100,000 car is probably 1.5x nicer than a $50,000 car... so you're slightly wasting money here. A $600,000 car is NOT 6x nicer than a $100,000 car.... You are definitely wasting money at that point.

Man, I'm sorry for such a long rant... I'm not a hippie liberal freak, really... Maybe I haven't been rich long enough to get numb to money, but I still remember being poor, and I still think it's a crime to waste money when so many people are hurting.

We're very very lucky guys... Yes, we made our own fortunes, mostly, but admit there was some luck involved... Even if it was just the luck of being born in the right country at the right time.

We should be mindful of we have and not throw it away.

(My rant has barely anything to do with a $5000 watch anymore... sorry Petrocelli - not talking about you)

yobria
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: SF CA USA

Post by yobria » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:50 pm

Petrocelli,

I won't question your personal motives, but sticking to my story that most people buy brand name stuff for the status value. The subconscious mind is a devious master. Also, it's a myth that watches are good investments, see:

"Watches with a good resale value are a good investment, right?"

and

"Watches not a good investment? But many classic watches sell for far more now than when new!"

Here:

http://www.chronocentric.com/watches/bu ... tml#resale

Nick

Gekko
Posts: 3779
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: USA

Post by Gekko » Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:17 pm

Why Men Spend: To Lure Mates by Mary Pilon - Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Turns out that peacock tails and plasma screen TVs might mean the same thing from a biological perspective. Relatively recent overspending patterns among men are merely the result of an evolutionary drive to attract mates, according to new research from University of Michigan researcher Daniel Kruger. Prof. Kruger looked at a random sample of men aged 18-45 and asked them questions about how much they spend, save and what their relationship patterns were like. Kruger's questions probed the linkage between how much of one man's income is spent on consumer goods and his sexual relationships. He found that society is engaged in a status race. Men who have a greater tendency to maximize their display of economic power (even if this means racking up credit card debt to do it) score relatively higher in mating effort. Punchline: those who show more bling have more partners in the short run, but the savers tend to do better when it comes to marital bliss. Those who enter into a committed relationship shift away from seeking mates and "towards investment in the relationship and potential offspring," he writes. Here, the savers are rewarded. "Men are competing with each other to demonstrate their resource potential," Kruger says. "That drives this keeping up with the Jones phenomenon. It's a perpetual spiral of competitiveness."

sprmario2k3
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:09 pm

Post by sprmario2k3 » Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:26 pm

"In another example, a basic Rolex DateJust bought in 1981 for $900 would equal $1700 spent in 2000. This watch is now worth at least $1400, so has also retained over 80% of its "real" value. That translates to a cost of 300 modern dollars (plus maintenance) for 20 years of enjoyment of this watch."

Perfect... this is my watch and this was my expectation when i bought it. From what I had read, and what i had researched in looking at used watches. A Rolex probably loses 20% of its value out the door immediately... and then tends to hold at about that level in adjusted dollars over time assuming good care and maintenance over time.

User avatar
MoreCowbell
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:32 pm
Location: Midwest

Post by MoreCowbell » Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:29 pm

Petro,

So, did I miss the post?

What did you end up getting?

(pictures appreciated)
Dan

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 35877
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Post by nisiprius » Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:49 pm

sprmario2k3 wrote:"In another example, a basic Rolex DateJust bought in 1981 for $900 would equal $1700 spent in 2000. This watch is now worth at least $1400, so has also retained over 80% of its "real" value. That translates to a cost of 300 modern dollars (plus maintenance) for 20 years of enjoyment of this watch."

Perfect... this is my watch and this was my expectation when i bought it. From what I had read, and what i had researched in looking at used watches. A Rolex probably loses 20% of its value out the door immediately... and then tends to hold at about that level in adjusted dollars over time assuming good care and maintenance over time.
All of these remarks about their holding value make me wonder. Has anyone actually tried to sell a Rolex? Are you sure that in real life you can get these prices for real Rolexes that have seen real use, as opposed to these being prices for Rolexes in impossibly perfect mint condition?

And as these "values" the price to buy one from a dealer, or the price you can get when you sell one to a dealer?

I thought that with collectibles the spread was enormous, like a factor of two or more.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

chaz
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Post by chaz » Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:56 pm

SoonerSunDevil wrote:
Petrocelli wrote:
Gekko wrote:
you have the C-Class right? you know what the C stands for? CHEAP.
Yep. As an added bonus, I can get over 30 mpg on long trips. Cheap is good.
Something tells me Petro could buy an E or S class Mercedes without a problem. You drive a Lexus, right Gekko? Do the windows still have "Toyota" etched on the bottom? Talk about cheap...
A Lexus is still more expensive than a Camry.
Chaz | | “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen | | http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

chaz
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Post by chaz » Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:59 pm

rrosenkoetter wrote:
Petrocelli wrote: My thought in that is simple:

If you make $5,000 a month, probably not. If you make $5,000 a week, why not?
(generic "you" below - I'm not singling Petrocelli out)

See, this is the crux of the matter...

So if you can afford it, it's okay to spend it. I can truly can see the correctness of this statement. You earned it, its your money, who are we to tell anyone how to spend their money....

But is there any amount of money where it becomes "wrong"? If Bill Gates spent all his money on a 40 foot tall gold statue of himself, would we be disgusted, or say "You go Bill, your money, do what you want with it!"

(Note I would be opposed to any laws that stopped Bill from spending his money any way he wanted, but I still retain the right to be disgusted and consider his choice immoral).

Instead Bill created a foundation and is seriously making a difference in the world.

We all know about the opportunity cost of money. There's a certain point where you are just throwing money away. Not to you, of course, you have enough money to retire, to live comfortably, with some (lots?) left over... There is no opportunity lost when you spend $5,000, $10,000, $50,000 on a luxury item. You don't give anything up to get that item. It's from your excess money.

But that money could be used in other ways... that money could save peoples lives, give people new chances, really help people.

It's a hard question... When you have a billion dollars, blowing $600,000 on a car isn't a big deal. You wanted that car, that's how much it cost, you paid it.

But I submit there's something wrong with the people way up in that spectrum. They really have lost perspective of the value of money.

Imagine what a million dollars could do to help people...

Is spending $5000 on a 50th birthday gift a waste? Nah, I don't think so.... It IS a one-time special occasion.

But as we get richer and richer, we really need to think about what money represents. The opportunity cost of money. Once I walked by a guy playing blackjack in Vegas at $300 a hand.. I watched him lose $4000 in about 3 minutes. Now that money means nothing to him... Then I watched the cocktail waitress give him a drink. How much would that $4000 that the man just threw away have meant to her?

I feel we really have to be careful about keeping a perspective on money. It's represents food, heat, housing in a good school neighborhood, college education, health care, etc.

I'm not saying we should deny ourselves any and all luxuries... I'm saying we should be mindful of the value of money. There IS a point of diminishing returns for everything... A $50,000 car is 5x nicer than a $10,000 car. A $100,000 car is probably 1.5x nicer than a $50,000 car... so you're slightly wasting money here. A $600,000 car is NOT 6x nicer than a $100,000 car.... You are definitely wasting money at that point.

Man, I'm sorry for such a long rant... I'm not a hippie liberal freak, really... Maybe I haven't been rich long enough to get numb to money, but I still remember being poor, and I still think it's a crime to waste money when so many people are hurting.

We're very very lucky guys... Yes, we made our own fortunes, mostly, but admit there was some luck involved... Even if it was just the luck of being born in the right country at the right time.

We should be mindful of we have and not throw it away.

(My rant has barely anything to do with a $5000 watch anymore... sorry Petrocelli - not talking about you)
There is probably a city ordinance against a 40 foot high statue, even of Bill Gates.
Chaz | | “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen | | http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

User avatar
craigr
Posts: 2696
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:54 pm

Post by craigr » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:14 pm

The purchase of an expensive watch pays the people at the watch factory so they and their families can support themselves. The watch factory buys parts and supplies from other companies so they can pay employees to support themselves. Those companies in turn buy raw materials from others that have employees who get paid to support themselves. Etc.

Buying an expensive watch does not mean that money is not spent well. It's just not spent in the way the critics think it should have been spent. But I think many of the critics aren't considering that the money spent on the watch is not simply set on fire, but is taken and used by others further down the chain. It is not "wasted."

I met a boat maker last week. Business is bad for him now and he may have to lay off employees. Whenever I hear about a luxury items being bad I think of people like him being affected, not the guy buying the yacht. Who cares about the guy buying the yacht anyway except for jealousy reasons? The yacht owner needs to hire people to maintain it, man it, pilot it, and put it in a marina. Those people are happy he has a yacht because now they have a job. It also goes without saying that the people who actually made the yacht benefited as well.

Does the jeweler care about the person who buys an expensive watch? Why should he? The guy buying an expensive watch enjoys the product and needs to take it to him every couple years to maintain it. Now the jeweler can support himself doing what he likes to do.

In the case of an expensive car, boat, watch, etc the number of interconnecting industries that rely on that business is staggeringly high. Lumber, metal, machining, plastics, carpentry, electronics, motors, glass, etc. The list is practically endless. Buying an expensive watch is not as wasteful as some people may think.
Last edited by craigr on Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.
IMPORTANT NOTE: My old website crawlingroad{dot}com is no longer available or run by me. | | Please refer to archive.is or archive.org for old links in my post.

User avatar
pjstack
Posts: 1308
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:03 am
Location: Harbor City, CA

Post by pjstack » Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:57 pm

All of these remarks about their holding value make me wonder. Has anyone actually tried to sell a Rolex? Are you sure that in real life you can get these prices for real Rolexes that have seen real use, as opposed to these being prices for Rolexes in impossibly perfect mint condition?
Well, yes, I have. As I mentioned way back on page one of this thread, I was stationed on a remote island in the Pacific in 1974 & 1975. I bought a Rolex dive watch (Oyster, date adjust) for the princely sum of $365 or thereabouts. It was not a pampered status symbol, it spent many an hour scuba diving with me enduring a few coral scrapes along the way.

I retired in 1979 and somewhere around 1992 (when my diving days were over) I took it to a jewelry store that handled second hand watches. The man offered me $700 for it but I told him I would have to check back with him because someone else had offered me $1,000. (This was almost true, perhaps based upon something I had read.)

He told me to wait a minute and he got on the phone with someone and asked if they were still interested in a Rolex. The answer must have been "Yes", because he promptly paid me a grand then and there.

I was rather astonished to find out that someone was obviously prepared to spend more than a grand for a second hand watch!

So, yes, there is a market for second hand Rolexes.
pjstack

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 35877
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Post by nisiprius » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:11 pm

Some years ago, my son was into model aviation and we attended a national meeting in which, among other things, I saw my first "indoor models." These are astonishing creations, made of the most incredibly thin balsa wood struts, wings and control surface made of something called "microfilm," and rather large rubber bands. The things seemed to have no more strength than a soap bubble, and would flex like crazy under the force of the rubber band. When released into the air, they would hang there like milkweed silk or dandelion fluff. They looked like they were flying in maple syrup, the propellors turning less than one turn per second. Yet they flew, and would go around in slow circles, perhaps a foot higher with every circle as long as the rubber band was still wound, and stay up for fifteen or twenty minutes.

One of the funniest things I saw was an airplane like this that had been painted to fool the eye. It looked exactly like an $0.79 Guillow's balsa-wood toy plane. The owner, who was in his early twenties, would come strolling into these events with what looked like a cheap toy plane, until the instant he let go of it and it would fly like the lightweight microfilm beauty it was.

So, I'm thinking. Wouldn't it be cool to have a $5,000 Rolex movement installed into a genuine Timex case, with the original Timex faceplate, hands, etc. So it would look exactly like a Timex, and nobody but you would know that it was a Rolex inside.

It would still keep time as accurately as a Rolex, it would give you the pride of knowing you had something superbly well-crafted, and would last just as long so you could still hand it to your children. It would have every characteristic of a Rolex except the social cachet.

How many people would want one?
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

mithrandir
Posts: 812
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:49 pm
Location: US

Post by mithrandir » Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:22 am

chaz wrote: The woman sees the watch. She doesn't get a current balance sheet, and your last Vanguard quarterly statement may not show that you have closed your account and gambled away all your money.
But she won't know if you actually own the watch or are still making payments on it.

When I see anybody with anything fancy, I don't think much of it because I assume they bought it on credit. Fancy material possessions are rather meaningless in term of social status.

chaz
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Post by chaz » Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:49 am

mithrandir wrote:
chaz wrote: The woman sees the watch. She doesn't get a current balance sheet, and your last Vanguard quarterly statement may not show that you have closed your account and gambled away all your money.
But she won't know if you actually own the watch or are still making payments on it.

When I see anybody with anything fancy, I don't think much of it because I assume they bought it on credit. Fancy material possessions are rather meaningless in term of social status.
That's true. Many things are bought on credit, and the woman isn't privy to that info at first.
Chaz | | “Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen | | http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

User avatar
Opponent Process
Posts: 5157
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:19 pm

Post by Opponent Process » Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:56 am

chaz wrote:
mithrandir wrote:
chaz wrote: The woman sees the watch. She doesn't get a current balance sheet, and your last Vanguard quarterly statement may not show that you have closed your account and gambled away all your money.
But she won't know if you actually own the watch or are still making payments on it.

When I see anybody with anything fancy, I don't think much of it because I assume they bought it on credit. Fancy material possessions are rather meaningless in term of social status.
That's true. Many things are bought on credit, and the woman isn't privy to that info at first.
it doesn't matter because you'll already have mated with her before she finds out.

Post Reply