Mildly interesting
-
I will never understand the fascination with expensive watches. Janet had a Rolex when we me. It was beautiful but needed a tune-up every two or three years at $300 a pop, and that was 30 years ago. I haven't spent $300 on watches in my life.
Again, there is a qualitative experiential difference between a Mercedes S class and an 88 (red) Corolla. two o'clock is 2 o'clock on a Rolex or a Timex.
wrote on 17 Feb 2025, 17:01 last edited by@Mik said in Mildly interesting:
I will never understand the fascination with expensive watches. Janet had a Rolex when we me. It was beautiful but needed a tune-up every two or three years at $300 a pop, and that was 30 years ago. I haven't spent $300 on watches in my life.
Again, there is a qualitative experiential difference between a Mercedes S class and an 88 (red) Corolla. two o'clock is 2 o'clock on a Rolex or a Timex.
What’s the qualitative difference between an $30 pendant and a $30K pendant?
-
wrote on 17 Feb 2025, 17:03 last edited by
The quality and beauty of the materials and design. But a pendant is not intended to measure anything or be informative.
-
The quality and beauty of the materials and design. But a pendant is not intended to measure anything or be informative.
wrote on 17 Feb 2025, 17:24 last edited by@Mik said in Mildly interesting:
The quality and beauty of the materials and design. But a pendant is not intended to measure anything or be informative.
Okay, let’s put it this way. What’s the Qualitative Experiential Difference in spending an extra $15K to get a piano in Bubinga instead of Ebony? The performance of the piano is the same…
-
I will never understand the fascination with expensive watches. Janet had a Rolex when we me. It was beautiful but needed a tune-up every two or three years at $300 a pop, and that was 30 years ago. I haven't spent $300 on watches in my life.
Again, there is a qualitative experiential difference between a Mercedes S class and an 88 (red) Corolla. two o'clock is 2 o'clock on a Rolex or a Timex.
wrote on 17 Feb 2025, 18:05 last edited by jon-nyc@Mik said in Mildly interesting:
I will never understand the fascination with expensive watches. Janet had a Rolex when we me. It was beautiful but needed a tune-up every two or three years at $300 a pop, and that was 30 years ago. I haven't spent $300 on watches in my life.
That reminds me I need to send my IWC Portugueser in for a $500 tune up.
That’s a guess. It was maybe $375 when I did it last time but that was 15 years ago.
-
wrote on 17 Feb 2025, 18:06 last edited by
Honestly I’ll probably tune it one last time and give it to my son for college graduation.
-
@Mik said in Mildly interesting:
The quality and beauty of the materials and design. But a pendant is not intended to measure anything or be informative.
Okay, let’s put it this way. What’s the Qualitative Experiential Difference in spending an extra $15K to get a piano in Bubinga instead of Ebony? The performance of the piano is the same…
wrote on 17 Feb 2025, 18:14 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Mildly interesting:
@Mik said in Mildly interesting:
The quality and beauty of the materials and design. But a pendant is not intended to measure anything or be informative.
Okay, let’s put it this way. What’s the Qualitative Experiential Difference in spending an extra $15K to get a piano in Bubinga instead of Ebony? The performance of the piano is the same…
In the case of the watch, the cheap option generally performs better.
I'm with Mik, I've never understood blowing tens of thousands on a watch.
-
@Mik said in Mildly interesting:
The quality and beauty of the materials and design. But a pendant is not intended to measure anything or be informative.
Okay, let’s put it this way. What’s the Qualitative Experiential Difference in spending an extra $15K to get a piano in Bubinga instead of Ebony? The performance of the piano is the same…
wrote on 17 Feb 2025, 18:34 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Mildly interesting:
@Mik said in Mildly interesting:
The quality and beauty of the materials and design. But a pendant is not intended to measure anything or be informative.
Okay, let’s put it this way. What’s the Qualitative Experiential Difference in spending an extra $15K to get a piano in Bubinga instead of Ebony? The performance of the piano is the same…
Because it is a large piece of furniture and needs to look good in your house. Beside that the difference in price between ebony and a wood finish is not orders of magnitude like between a functional and high-end watch.
If you wanted to use pianos, you could simply say the choice between a Samick and a Bechstein. There's a huge qualitative difference in the experience and the performance. That does not apply to watches.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Mildly interesting:
@Mik said in Mildly interesting:
The quality and beauty of the materials and design. But a pendant is not intended to measure anything or be informative.
Okay, let’s put it this way. What’s the Qualitative Experiential Difference in spending an extra $15K to get a piano in Bubinga instead of Ebony? The performance of the piano is the same…
Because it is a large piece of furniture and needs to look good in your house. Beside that the difference in price between ebony and a wood finish is not orders of magnitude like between a functional and high-end watch.
If you wanted to use pianos, you could simply say the choice between a Samick and a Bechstein. There's a huge qualitative difference in the experience and the performance. That does not apply to watches.
wrote on 17 Feb 2025, 23:05 last edited by@Mik said in Mildly interesting:
@LuFins-Dad said in Mildly interesting:
@Mik said in Mildly interesting:
The quality and beauty of the materials and design. But a pendant is not intended to measure anything or be informative.
Okay, let’s put it this way. What’s the Qualitative Experiential Difference in spending an extra $15K to get a piano in Bubinga instead of Ebony? The performance of the piano is the same…
Because it is a large piece of furniture and needs to look good in your house. Beside that the difference in price between ebony and a wood finish is not orders of magnitude like between a functional and high-end watch.
If you wanted to use pianos, you could simply say the choice between a Samick and a Bechstein. There's a huge qualitative difference in the experience and the performance. That does not apply to watches.
Yes, there’s a huge qualitative difference between a Bechstein and a Samick. That’s why I didn’t use that. But let’s stick with Bechstein. A Bechstein C8 upright piano is $88,000 in Vavona and $73,000 in Ebony. There is no qualitative difference in performance. It produces the same quality of tone, the same notes. It performs the basic function exactly the same. So why pay more?
Now you note that the furniture might look better in your home. Great. But that’s subjective not quantitative, and is irrelevant to the primary purpose of the machine, to translate your input into music. So the subjective value of the appearance will justify the higher price despite no qualitative
And yes, $15K isn’t orders of magnitude more expensive, but there are many other examples… Bösendorfer 225’s start ~ $200K Here’s one for $10,000,000 https://pollaro.com/moonlight/
Pretty sure that’s orders of magnitude for an item whose primary function has no qualitative difference. Now we can argue that the Moonlight has other functions as cabinet, design, etc… I would argue that the same thing holds true for a watch. I’m not a watch guy (or jewelry at all for that matter), but I can understand it. I can see where having a beautiful piece if art and jewelry that is built by hand with that intricate machinery and still maintain time that is only .00000002% off a digital watch can be incredibly appealing…
-
wrote on 17 Feb 2025, 23:42 last edited by
You are deliberately missing the point. There’s not the huge difference between 73 and 88 as there is in watches.
-
wrote on 18 Feb 2025, 00:30 last edited by
I dont have any expensive watches, but I think for people who "collect" them or buy them, they are like pieces or art.
The price itself does not justify what you receive, just as if you were buying a painting by a famous person that costs USD$XXX+ dollars.
For sure, if you just buying something to tell time, then you would not buy an expensive watch.
-
wrote on 18 Feb 2025, 01:50 last edited by
For a mere $430,000, you too can look like a Russian oligarch!
I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder
-
wrote on 18 Feb 2025, 01:57 last edited by
On his deathbed, he'll have a Rosebud moment where a single tear will stream down his cheek as he laments that nobody ever asked him what time it was.
-
On his deathbed, he'll have a Rosebud moment where a single tear will stream down his cheek as he laments that nobody ever asked him what time it was.
-
wrote on 18 Feb 2025, 02:45 last edited by
I got this watch for my birthday. It's my first Citizen and the most expensive watch I have ever owned. I think it looks much better than the $430k watch that phibes posted. It's solar powered with a 20 year battery that can be replaced. I suppose the battery will still have to be manufactured in 20 years for that to be possible. Whatever, I hope I live to see the battery die.
I have an opportunity to buy a Rolex but even with the great deal of 1/3 it's actual value, it's still way too much to spend on a watch. And it's not something I could sell due to me valuing a friendship over money. If did buy it, which I won't, I would wear it but not every day. -
wrote on 18 Feb 2025, 04:02 last edited by
U came the same argument for pens? A bic will get your message across like a Mont Blanc
-
wrote on 18 Feb 2025, 04:04 last edited by
Btw I have neither, Rolex or Mont Blanc.
-
wrote on 18 Feb 2025, 04:11 last edited by
I don't own a Mont Blanc.
-
wrote on 18 Feb 2025, 04:11 last edited by
Or a Rolex.
-
wrote on 19 Feb 2025, 03:13 last edited by
In case you ever wondered why wine bottles are exactly 750 ml. and not, for example 1 liter (1000 milliliters).
In the 19th century the main customer of the French wine producers was England. The English unit of measurement for liquid volume is imperial gallon, which is equal to 4.54609 liters. To simplify the calculations when converting units of measurement, the French transported wine from Bordeaux in 225 liter barrels or exactly 50 gallons, corresponding to 300 bottles of 750 ml. To make it easier for them, they assumed that 50 gallons = 300 bottles.
So, one gallon corresponds to 6 bottles. In fact, this is the reason why even today, wine cases often contain 6 bottles. -
wrote on 19 Feb 2025, 15:08 last edited by
-
T taiwan_girl referenced this topic on 22 Feb 2025, 01:50
