[easytiger]

Tell that to every girl wearing ear rings or a diamond ring or a guy wearing a necklace. People accessorize. Get over it. For less tha the price of a mid range rolex you can also buy a rubidium atomic oscillator. I'm failing to see your point?

[jacquesm]

The point is, to the point of being pointless: that you can buy stuff because it has utility or that you can buy stuff for signalling purposes.

A Rolex is signalling stuff masquerading as utility stuff.

The utility value of a Rolex is approximately $50 (the price of a half-decent watch that will tell the time accurately for many years to come, assuming your phone doesn't already do that for you). The rest is signalling value (and in the case of a gold one some intrinsic value).

I'm perfectly ok with you not seeing my point. In the end the guy with the jeans and the t-shirt is quite possibly a lot wealthier than the guy with the Ferrari and the Rolex. (Especially when they're not bought with cash.)

[nzp]

I'm not sure it's always just about utility vs. signalling. I have no care for social signalling at all, but if I had money to throw away I would probably buy some things which you classify as signalling devices. For sure, though, I certainly wouldn't buy a blinged out gold Rolex (hideous) but rather something like a Speedmaster (on which I'd probably put a NATO or a velcro strap), and certainly not a sports car you can drive on public roads. Sure, both of these machines don't have that much practical utility, but they are engineering works of art. Just as some people collect art to show off their money, or store capital, some collect it because they appreciate good taste and amazing craftsmanship. It's still irrational but I wouldn't put it in the same bag as signalling.