[detritus]

I'd like to think I wouldn't, were I in that lucky position. Genuinely-made art, perhaps I might have some time and cash for, but expensive wrist baubles that exist solely for the purpose of extracting money from rich people to salve their ego? No.

I'd hope I'd consider it for barely a half second then elect instead to give that money to charity instead.

I'm regularly in this mind, walking as I do around London and seeing the sheer array of useless crap that monied people spend money on to advertise the fact they have money. Instead, I wonder at how many people's lives could have been eased if instead of that expensive car, they'd bought a car actually suited to this city.

.

As an aside to this, I spent a week working at the house of a Rothschild a few years back. His admittedly fancy pad was utterly laden with artworks. His car, on the other hand, was a crappy small Japanese thing and he dressed about as scrappily as I do. I had a lot of respect for that chap.

[zepto]

> expensive wrist baubles that exist solely for the purpose of extracting money from rich people to salve their ego?

Why not just say you are an inverse snob?

[detritus]

Why must I when someone as helpful as you can come along and do it for me?

Enjoy your watch or whatever other pointless tat it is that you value.

[zepto]

I guess my point is that you don’t seem to know much about watches, and are basing your view on a caricature of ‘rich people’. To my eye, some watches certainly do look like silly baubles, but that is a question of taste.

For me, personally I look at the life of someone like Roger Smith, and envy his craftsmanship and dedication to mastery. I see a great deal of similarity between him, and say John Carmack - as dedicated masters of their medium.

I would like to own a Roger Smith watch, partly because it’s beautiful, and partly because I would like to live in a world where more people get to develop their skills, and where skills are passed on, and artistry is encouraged.

Of course it’s terrible that more people don’t have the opportunity to do this, but that doesn’t have anything to do with watches.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_W._Smith

Yes, it’s easier for the rich to possess art than the poor, of course. No, that doesn’t mean art is only about the rich.

[detritus]

Well, in that case you sound like an exception to the generality, so good for you (and I mean that genuinely, not the British snarky mode it's usually delivered).

However, most people use such baublage to signify success and wealth, appropriately or not.

I don't think it snobbish (inversely or otherwise) for me to think that this is a sad squandering of resource and a more than slightly horrid aspect of the human character.

[zepto]

> However, most people use such baublage to signify success and wealth, appropriately or not.

Do they? Maybe some do, but how do you know they aren’t just buying nicer stuff because they can afford to and it’s you know, nicer?

> I don't think it snobbish (inversely or otherwise) for me to think that this is a sad squandering of resource and a more than slightly horrid aspect of the human character.

I don’t see how people making fine watches is a ‘squandering of resources’. It’s also not obvious why you are attributing this ‘horrid aspect’ only to a stereotypical rich person.

Surely wearing a football shirt, cutting the labels of your clothes, wearing a chairman Mao suit, or a pair of Nike sneakers are all signalling status in one way or another.

Why are these things ok and watches are not? Why are expensive baubles more worthy of sneering than cheap ones?