Reply With QuoteAnd very poor journalism.Originally Posted by GMT-Master
Not quite sure what to fully make of this article, smacks of jealousy and small mindedness to me!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/think...-watch.html?fb
And very poor journalism.
Why have only 2 threads on this article when you can have 3
It's really more about people who work in banks than it is about watches, though it sounds like he knows nothing about both subjects.
I'm afraid I couldn't bring myself to read it all - but he seems to have missed out the whole 'craftsmanship' thing. Bit like saying "I can't understand the value of a beautifully made piece of furniture when I can get something to do the same job from IKEA". He also focuses in on precious metals and gemstones, rather than talking about the complications of producing things like tourbillons, minute repeaters, or perpetual calendars.
Sloppy, and petty minded IMO. Also conveniently misses the point that even a 'humble' £1500 Seamaster is ridiculously expensive and flashy to most people because he has one and therefore it's OK.
I've recently read some really good articles by that guy, but this one is pretty poor in all regards.
Wankers who think like this are dime a dozen. Even on this forum itself. Who gives a FF what such morons think?😃
That was my thought exactly. Everything's relative. To him, a £1,500 watch is acceptable, because that's what his salary probably affords him as a luxury. To a single mum on benefits, that £1,500 would feed her family for a long old time. So as soon as you get past the point of satisfying basic human needs, EVERYTHING is a luxury. Does the fact his Seamaster only cost 150 times more than a £10 Casio make him a better person than somebody who spends £15,000 or £150,000?
Judging by the quality of his writing that's also probably more salary than he deserves.
I expected to disagree with him a lot more than I did. He is, after all, clearly thinking of watches that have crossed the line into utter vulgarity, and there are plenty to choose from to illustrate his point. There's certainly a decedent side to the watch game that sticks in the throat at times. The question is really where do you draw the line. His humble Omega Seamaster would appear far from humble to many. The line is more about good taste, intention, and context than price. Vulgar ostentation has never been compatible with good taste. But good and bad taste are very democratic, you can find them at all price points.
Have to agree with him, I certainly would not want a £20k watch and would rather spend the money elsewhere if I had the choice, it's only an opinion certainly not anything to get worked up about. He's good on Four Rooms.
We all draw our own line.
Nothing to get worked up about. He stated a few facts and expressed a few opinions. Nothing more or less.
And opinions held by a great many other people too (remember, we are, as a hobby group, in the minority here...) - many of whom are far from "morons".
Some of the points made were cold truth, and as such won't amuse those it refers to, but much of it was obviously calculated to hook the biters (successfully it seems).
All the usual faces, mine included, will appear, with all the usual opinions and then the discussion will die until next time...
Good post.
As I said, morons and wankers😃😃
You have a way of proving yourself correct. Language young man...
Agree , that was rather excessive and offensive but the point still stands.
I bet he has a painting worth more than a £20k.
What a tosser.
Good point - or possibly two good points.
I took his comments as a sales pitch - those who choose to spend thousands on a watch would be much better placed buying something from his shop.
I don't think the article is that bad. It's an opinion piece. Relatively well written.
ItsGuy's post has more to say and is better written than the published article.
Methinks we have a professional writer amongst us.
I've just spotted a counter article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/fashi...ell-spent.html
And a good one too
Sounds like someone who couldn't think of what to write for his column this week so picked watches even though the whole article goes against what he really thinks. I failed to be convinced these are his genuine opinions, especially since he talks about buying a £10 Casio if you need to know the time, whilst admitting he's had a few Omega Seamasters.
To be fair, I found it hard to disagree with a few of his points but then that's how it would appear to people who aren't in the rarefied geeky World we occupy.
He also seems to think that it is a very black and white spectrum - 'cheaper' automatics like the Seamaster or horrible hockey puck Hublots and the like. It's hard to tell if he realises you can get some very discreet watches that aren't all bling, at the 20k level.
Overall, a pretty half-baked article.
Pretty much summed it up for me.
Frankly, the article just made me laugh.
I remain unsure if he's a "businessman" as stated, or actually a socialist. As to it being "cool" to set fire to a stack of money, well, really?
The only real crime when it comes to having lots of money is not spending it. And I can't think of many people who have lots of money who don't spend it (or invest it, where the companies in which they invest get to spend their money and promise some sort of return). The writer implies that there are better things to spend $100K (or £100K) on than a watch, but what does it matter? The people who sell the watch and relieve Mr. Moneybags of his pile of cash aren't going to sit on the money. They re-invest what they need to in their business and spend the rest (putting it to work in the broader economy). And that's the whole point. As long as people spend their money (on whatever they want to spend it on), the economy keeps rolling. So it matters not to me if someone wants to spend a million dollars or pounds on a watch. As long as the wheels keep turning and the money keeps moving, we'll all be fine.
I'll say! Hypocritical too. A name to avoid in future, on both the literary and philosophical fronts, as he comes up well short on both.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
The article was originally titled:
"Men who buy expensive watches are Stupid"
The Telegraph site changed the title.
A bitter man who perhaps seems to regard himself as a failure. I won't disagree... :)
It's just an opinion piece, did anyone read the "An expensive watch is money well spent" article? Worth a look:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/fashi...ell-spent.html
Having read that, it seems we've all been played somewhat.
Interesting and amusing are the reactions so far to the counter-arguement piece - which is apparently so much better written than the one that contradicts forum opinion...
Yep it's a comment piece, perfectly well written, meant to provoke debate, and, of course, hits on the website. Personally I'd call a £1,500 watch 'very expensive' and can't imagine why on earth anyone would want something 30 times the cost of a Rolex Sub, which for me is watch perfection. People calling it bad journalism are somewhat missing the point! Seems that anyone not agreeing with 'watchforumland' views can be tagged 'morons' 'w**kers' 'bitter' 'failures' etc etc, which says far more about those posting those comments than someone who's written a bog standard clickbait comment piece.
ahahah exactly what I would say :)
my money i'll blow it on whatever S""T I want :)
It very much seems that he's looked at one or two £20k+ abominations and cranked this piece out without bothering to dwell any deeper.
He wrote a comment piece, people commented on it. Not being professional writers, they kept their opinions of him short and sweet! :)
Posting Permissions