Hacker News Reader

Comment by staplung | Hacker News Reader

William Gibson wrote a piece for Wired back in the day about his obsession with mechanical watches.[1] He puts it thus:

``` Mechanical watches are so brilliantly unnecessary.

Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time, and high-end contemporary Swiss watches are priced like small cars. But mechanical watches partake of what my friend John Clute calls the Tamagotchi Gesture. They're pointless in a peculiarly needful way; they're comforting precisely because they require tending.

And vintage mechanical watches are among the very finest fossils of the pre-digital age. Each one is a miniature world unto itself, a tiny functioning mechanism, a congeries of minute and mysterious moving parts. Moving parts! And consequently these watches are, in a sense, alive. They have heartbeats. They seem to respond, Tamagotchi-like, to "love," in the form, usually, of the expensive ministrations of specialist technicians. Like ancient steam-tractors or Vincent motorcycles, they can be painstakingly restored from virtually any stage of ruin. ```

(1): Seems to be pay-walled now but you can find the whole thing in Distrust that Particular Flavor

View on HN

They're beautiful and impressive, but I find the amount of money that flows into "high horology" to be an sum with an egregious opportunity cost to society, made even worse by the fact that all that complexity goes towards a movement that is worse at keeping time than a rudimentary quartz. If people want Tamagotchis, they can get a Tamagotchi. I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead and find simpler luxuries.

The solution of giving away your money over buying something is some broken logic. Plenty of corrupt charity officials line their pockets and live it up on donations. The rich don’t owe society, exactly the opposite, hence the money. It represents an unpaid debt so you can’t turn around and ask for it back.

"The rich don’t owe society, exactly the opposite"

This is precisely wrong. The rich do indeed owe society. They owe their wealth to the workers working for them. To the education system that educated their workers and made them productive, the roads that brought them to work and the health system that keeps them at work.

This is obvious from the number of millionaires produced by healthy, educated, stable societies vs others. Other countries produce fewer and then only natural resource millionaires in the favour of the ruling elites. But they can't do so without labour and the resources owned by those societies. The rich owe almost everything not produced by their own hands.

And comparing the figures of corruption in those countries to that of charities generally is so absurd it's laughable.

Ostensibly wealth is a settled debt.

Ostensibly. 'Owe' is more than accounting parlance.

Is it? This is social accounting. It all translates.

Yeah. Just as wealth is more than accounting parlance.

  > They owe their wealth to the workers working for
  > them. To the education system that educated their
  > workers and made them productive, the roads that
  > brought them to work and the health system that
  > keeps them at work.

Assuming that they've paid their taxes, they've paid their debt.

Assuming further that the taxes accurately measure the benefit that comes from the interaction of luck, privilege and society.

Assuming even further that taxes effectively redistribute wealth to workers, educators, and nurturers.

These are together three assumptions, none of which I think are true.

Taxes are the price we pay for society. Quite! Well, a price never fully captures the value to the buyer of what they're acquiring. Otherwise they'd be worse off for making the exchange. We cooperate because we both gain more than we lose from said cooperation. That's a great and beautiful thing.

This is a lazy libertarian talking point. When someone accepts come award saying he owes his success to his family/mentor/agent, it's not an IOU for some cash value.

But even if it was, how would you quantify whether a tax rate captures the full, less-tangible value of what a society provides? If through lobbying or creative accounting, a billionaire is able to reduce his yearly taxable income to $100 then he's met your definition of fully paid-up, when obviously he 'owes' (in the ethical, non-accounting sense) a lot more.

Because society provides more than just economic opportunity, taxes are just one of the things we're required to pay back. We're expected to follow the law or sometimes fight for it (giving up some of our absolute freedoms), to be helpful or follow hundreds of other social conventions. If you insist on reducing all that to a tax rate, then it's so low that it points to a welfare state for the rich.

Indeed, the rich owe society for all these things. The amount they owe is called the price. And the time for which they owe it is from the moment of services rendered until the invoice is paid. Some of them, indeed, weasel out of paying the agreed-upon prices for their inputs. A certain former President comes to mind. But once paid, the debts are clear.

Don't go to the dentist. Some of them live lavishly pushing unneeded and overpriced care.

The rich wouldn't exist without society. They owe far more than the average person. Simply maintaining and storing wealth requires rather complex societal structures; before modern society wealth was only a product of power, because without power any schlub with a dagger would come for you. Today's wealthy need a small entourage of security and bookkeepers, but that's a far cry from a whole-ass army.

Oh no. US billionaires do, indeed, have a military. It is the largest, most powerful, most well equipped military in human history. It is the US armed forces. They also have police departments across the country. This is a very large subsidy to these billionaires, as are: mass transit, food stamps, WIC, etc. Without these government services (which the billionaires put in place through politicians whom they purchased), the billionaires would have to provide the services or be killed by angry mobs.

The US military is a jobs program that elevates hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. It’s the most effective socialist program in human history. It’s unassailable in domestic politics.

This fact cannot be emphasized enough. The pity of it is that the jobs are not oriented towards public works.

It’s arguable but generally I agree. The New Deal worked for the US. National service policies in general seem to work well globally.

Defense seems to be a non-issue but domestic service is debatable. It’s disgusting but this is our reality. It’s the ultimate condemnation of “conservative” values.

As a millennial I would have joined the National Guard if there was a guarantee of no service in foreign wars.

I think a peaceful national service organization that guaranteed some kind of modest lifetime pension and higher education would resolve a lot of debates.

But, for most US military vets that’s already true of their service.

> The pity of it is that the jobs are not oriented towards public works

Except for the National Guard and the Coast Guard (which, as I understand it, gets some military money).

Yeah, fair enough. Coasties seem to do a lot of drug enforcement which is a shame (because The War on Drugs is a lost cause at best).

Well, technically they are interdicting smugglers. The smugglers happen to be carrying drugs because they are illegal. But even if we legalized all drugs domestically we would still need someone to monitor and prevent smuggling.

The USCG is a full on branch of the armed forces with an additional law enforcement mandate. During wartime it was under the command of the Department of the Navy. Currently it is under the DHS.

It's why I mention "effective" charities. Corruption and inefficiency among charities is yet another issue that we can solve.

I can believe that some rich individuals are uniquely gifted in some way that makes them deserving of being richer than most of other people. I also think that the magnitude of this phenomenon is not proportional to how much richer they are, in practice. I share the sentiment that most of the wealth of billionaires is attributable to their workers, luck, and favorable environmental circumstances. Some marginal amount is due to the industriousness and ingenuity of the person in question.

Generally agree. But if they're gifted then, then like any lottery winner, it's hard to see them as more deserving of wealth than any other.

For sure, charities would be a much better use of the money involved... but on the other hand couldn't you say the same about art in general?

I think what makes it different is the conspicuousness of these watches when they become a way to advertise wealth and status. But I like that artists/engineers can make a living by putting their time into producing such marvellous things. The world is richer for them.

> on the other hand couldn't you say the same about art in general?

I would say that mass-produced art should be pretty cheap, and these are mass-produced.

These ones are not.

150 of the exact same model, among huge piles of other models.

I don't want to argue about word choice. In the distinction I was describing, however imperfectly worded, watches like this easily go on the bulk side of the line.

No, they don’t. And you won’t find many watch enthusiasts who agree with you either about this class of watch.

I drew a line. It goes on that side of the line I drew.

> And you won’t find many watch enthusiasts who agree with you either about this class of watch.

What specifically would they disagree with? The idea that these 150 watches are made in bulk to a single design, and that watches of this class have many closely related designs? Or something I said that wasn't watch-specific?

If they're not made in bulk that's extremely interesting to me. Would that be like old guns that didn't have interchangeable parts, each one carefully and individually refined by expert hand to fit together? More so? Less so? How much variance is there between pieces? (I'd guess many old watches are like that but I haven't heard so specifically.)

To me it seems in bad faith to use a word that draws a line in a roughly agreed upon place, and then claim you have freedom to place that line wherever you want, and thus are always correct in asserting that it is "made in bulk". Using your argument, you could claim that 1, or even 0 watches are "made in bulk", or that 30C is "cold" bc you draw the line of "cold" at 40C, etc. Throwing away all understanding of concepts that has ever existed in order to win this one point seems pointless to me

Well it's not bad faith if I'm accidentally somewhat unclear. Like, I could say something completely objective like "100 for watches" if that's better, and it would be impossible to argue about whether 150 is more or less than 100.

If I'm wrong about the production of 150 watches having some quality, argue about that quality, no need to argue about broader categories in a completely abstract way while introducing no other examples.

For your analogy, if I say a temperature is cold so we shouldn't do some activity, let's talk about that activity and how the temperature affects it, not how we categorize temperatures.

I think he's disagreeing with the arbitrariness of where you're drawing lines to make your argument sound more reasonable. And he's free to argue his way. Mass production already has a definition and I'm pretty sure significant manual work goes into each copy.

But this is beside the point. Regardless of how many copies are made, the creativity and ingenuity that went into the first one alone makes it something marvellous. Jaquet-Droz only made one handwriting automaton boy. But if he made 150 it would still be a contribution to human endeavour and I'm glad for that.

Manual work goes into each copy, manual artistry less so.

So it's true that I should classify batches of 100+ and mass production quite differently. Along with pure one-offs and batches under five. But my original point still applies. I think these different quantities should be treated quite differently in terms of how art can be very expensive.

In your other comment you said: Finally, quantity is irrelevant to whether something is classified as art. My point was that the fact that it was created at all is meaningful and valuable.

It's art, very good art, but it's also far short of 150 artistically different watches. Almost everything is art at some level, but the amount that the artistry should affect price depends on production quantities and methods. Most of the artistry here is one piece.

But all this missed the point. I like that there are artists making these things. If they go on to be copied X times so that it can provide a living wage to the original artists and designers, then in my opinion it's money well spent, even if some of it goes to the (also talented) machinists and assemblers.

I also think it's good that it's accessible to 150 people who maybe appreciate the artistry that went into it, as opposed to 1 super rich guy who maybe doesn't.

All I'm saying is charity is really important, arguably more so than art, but when they're created with skill and artistry; appreciated and not just consumed conspicuously as wealth/status objects, such things have value too.

So I generally agree with all this. But in my opinion there's a limit to how much money you can justify with "it's art". If you're making 150 of something, you shouldn't be justifying a particularly huge price with it being art. If it really cost that much, and the price of making just one would have been ridiculously huge, then there is a point where I'd say the whole project is not worth it, is not making the world a better place. (Note: I am not stating any opinion on where this watch is relative to that level.)

Or to restate and elaborate on my original point: 99% of the time, it's fine to use art as a reason to buy something. You don't always have to be donating every dollar to charities. But for any level of justification you want to reach for the price of a piece of art, the dollar amount that fits under "justified" depends on how many copies are being made.

It is not bad faith at all. He is pointing out that the watches are an example of artificial scarcity. The original engineering may be impressive but once the tooling and quality control has been setup the process will be, to a reasonable extent, automated.

Whether 10, 50 or 100 or 100000 of these watches are made, is the process any different? Is it more like a limited edition print. High DPI printing is an example of technology magic but you can't argue that the choice to limit the output of a printer to a few runs means that the print itself is not mass produced

But that's not going to be how these watches are made. They set it to 150, which means there is almost no value in creating customised tooling just for the assembly. The parts may be mass produced (and used in other products), but their tolerances in this assembly will mean they have a low yield, and expensive manual quality control.

This is called batch production. It is not akin to a printer and even if it was, limiting the production quantity would, by definition, mean it is not mass produced.

Finally, quantity is irrelevant to whether something is classified as art. My point was that the fact that it was created at all is meaningful and valuable.

Does art cease being art because the artist created plates and created 100 prints before it wears out? Is that less art than a painting?

> Does art cease being art because the artist created plates and created 100 prints before it wears out? Is that less art than a painting?

Of course not. It's just as much an art.

But those prints shouldn't be priced with the same premium that a single original often has.

It should be priced at the maximum value someone is willing to pay for it… and naturally in market economy it often will. The Artist needs to also make a living and not all of their artwork will sell at earth shattering prices. It seems just as arbitrary to limit the price of the item to a fraction of the value of a single item. I do wish more art was auctioned rather than come with a fixed price tag to make the market more fluid and less egotistical.

The art world seems to think so.

Imagine thinking that there's 150 of a watch means its mass produced.

> Imagine thinking

You don't have to mock me for using the wrong word.

I hope you realize it's my vocabulary having a slight issue here, and not my understanding of the world, right?

Your vocabulary isn't at fault, nothing to do with that at all, it's that you think 150 of a watch is in some way mass produced.

I had an incorrect sense of when to use the term "mass". It's vocabulary.

What weird hill are you trying to die on here? You're saying that 150 of a watch means it's mass-produced, ie that there's a heap of them, that they're made en masse, in bulk, whatever terminology you want to use. You understand that because it's exactly what you were getting at. The point is that 150 of them is still bugger all.

150 copies of something is enough that it's extremely different from making one or two copies. Isn't that obvious?

It doesn't matter if they're both "bugger all" compared to some arbitrary threshold. It's a huge difference in scale and methodology. There's more than two categories here!

And I don't know why you think I'm trying to die on a hill, the only downvoted comment in the chain is your first one...

Several works of Pissarro, Munch, Matisse, Picasso, Miro et cetera are in museums in a single copy. MOST of their work are in private collections in a numbered signed lithographs.

Eh, these are cnc milled and and robot handled just like any other industrial good. Sure the quality expectations are high, but the production process is nothing unique..

Swiss watchmakers innovated CNC machinery though.

I'm guessing the part production is automated but low yield and the mechanisms/watches hand-assembled. For a run of 150 it makes no sense making a custom assembly device.

Why does the production process have to be unique for the result to be art? It's like saying Picasso wasn't making art because he used paint, brushes and canvass like everyone else.

Same with "ultra" and "hyper" cars

Those cars are way worse. It’s not just flashing money around, it’s actively making your wealth other people’s problem. From the noise they make, the extra gas they burn, to having to drive careful around them because you’re going to get sued into oblivion if you fuck them up

I've always thought that there should be a property damage liability limit on public roads. If you want to drive a $250k lambo why do I have to buy extra insurance because you brought an expensive toy out to play on vital public infrastructure?

Pass the extra liability beyond, say, $100k to the owner of the toy car. If some shitty driver plows into my crappy old car, they are out maybe $3k in property damage. If they happen to hit a supercar, then somehow the same action nets them a liability that could buy them a starter home?

Mind you, I live in BC, where there is only one liability insurance company, and they have a government mandate to insure everyone with a license, no matter how bad their driving record is. Which means that every idiot's risk gets spread onto my bill.

I would actually disagree with this one even though I agree with the overall sentiment.

Hypercars are much better than regular/sports cars, and should be considered the atomic clock equivalent to the quartz watch - far more accuracy/performance albeit at a significant literal cost.

I do not know the real world implications of hyper cars on fuel consumption (I can't expect it to be very good, but I don't expect too many such vehicles either). For better or for worse there are many more mundane things that can have a much larger improvement for human life (eg reducing food waste).

I believe hypercars are much worse for every practical point like reliability, noise, ... Performance is superior but won't work on most public road.

Watches are about movement/storage of wealth and tax evasion. Like art, very high timepiece value is its ability to move money. They're Old Money Cryptocurrency.

Bring $50,000 in cash on a plane to another country and you're a drug dealer/criminal, or at the very least, the tax inspectors want to talk to you.

Bring a $50,000 watch on holiday or a business trip, and nobody blinks an eye. Your average customs/border/security person probably no idea what a $1,000 watch looks like compared to a $50,000 or $100,000 watch...or they're

The Chinese in particular are using luxury watches to get around money export controls (you can't export more than a fairly small amount of money out of China.)

Further reading:

Tax evasion: https://thetruthaboutwatches.com/2020/09/uk-kills-new-watch-...

Chinese wealth export mechanism: https://www.ft.com/content/a9a34f94-9a49-4938-ae9e-ec4e6d2f4...

So a watch serves as a proof of work, and a distributed ledger of watchsmiths can verify a watch for you, anonymously, for a small fee.

Proof of stake anyway.

Proof of stake is precious stones and metals.

Also proof of work (mining)

Early explorers, journalists, etc., wore Rolex watches because they could barter the watch to get them out of a jam.

I currently have a Seiko 5 mechanical watch. It doesn't hack or keep time particularly well (runs fast) but I love it all the same for its quirks.

It’s easy to spend other people’s money.

The base argument of democracy is that because none of us knows the downstream effects we all share decision making.

In other words: “that’s just like, your opinion, man.”

Democracy works with one person = one vote. When you have one dollar = one vote you get a plutocracy instead.

So when consumers vote with their wallets, this vote isn't democratic at all. People that don't have money in their wallets don't get to vote.

Put differently: we want market economies to be about satisfying the greatest need. In practise, they're about satisfying the greatest ability to pay. And ability to pay does not come with need -- it comes with privilege, luck, and political skill.

The point is you don’t get to tell other people how to spend their money outside the narrow exception of taxation and prohibition, both of which are democratically defined.

Yes, I know it is my opinion.

I mean, herein lies the philosophical argument of opportunity cost to society in general. Every thing we spend money that is, perhaps, any amount over-engineered or nice-for-nice sake, or made of slightly higher grade materials, or, well, anything other than strictly utilitarian and minimalist as possible is technically consuming opportunity cost that could benefit society.

If I order wings with my pizza tonight, as I have done, and I decide to consume both of those things, instead of donating the money on the wings to someone else, I've directed excess to myself instead of to the betterment of society. And obviously that's the reductive, logical conclusion of the argument. What I'm getting at is that it's an interesting mental and philosophical exercise to figure out where that line lies. Does it lie with $400M super-yachts? Sure, probably we don't need that wealth going directly to propping up the yacht industry, which, itself, doesn't need to exist from a utilitarian perspective. But I'm not sure how to define where that line lies. Is it the old "know it when you see it" line? If I buy a 26' sailboat, is that still falling into the ostentatious conspicuous-consumption-that-could've-been-spent-on-others? Of course it is. What about a jet ski? What about a $400 kayak?

I'm not sure the answer here. I agree with your core sentiment that "I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities" in that it sounds lovely. I struggle with the idea that charities have to exist to patchwork fix parts of society and government that are inherently broken. Creating a construct that inherently hyper benefits a small coterie of people and necessarily introduces some inequities, and then hoping that that same small coterie of people will feel just guilty enough to donate to others to try to whitewash some of those problems... is inherently flawed. Obviously.

But I also recognize that the downstream and upstream of the middle of the bell curve of capitalism is basically what powers almost all of our jobs. We work because we produce something that someone, somewhere wants. Or needs, sometimes. But a LOT of it is "wants." And if it was _just_ needs, the economy would be an even bleaker place. We've seen what that looks like too.

That being said, I personally feel like, you know, a clever tax policy helps with a lot of this, if it's underpinned with effective enforcement and effective oversight and efficient use of those funds. But boy are those tricky.

I find a super-yacht less offensive than an expensive watch, because at least a super-yacht lets you do things that a regular yacht couldn't, or do them better. Getting a yacht with e.g. a helipad on it is obviously a luxury, but it's a reasonable luxury: anyone can see how it's nicer to be able to fly to your yacht rather than having to bring it in and out of port. What makes these watches so infuriating is that all that money (and not just notional money, but real hours of skilled labour) is poured into a black hole: at the end of the day you get a watch that's very visibly less good than a $300 smartwatch.

A mechanical watch has some advantages over a smartwatch:

- you can be relatively certain it's not spying on you.

- you don't need to charge it every week.

- it probably has better water resistance.

Right, we all want nice things. But the nice things that the ultra-rich desire are almost garish in their tone-deafness. Spending an extra $10 on a meal is a relatively accessible luxury, that perhaps 90% of the population can imagine doing every so often. Accessible luxury is almost therapeutic, though, as it gives transient relief to an otherwise overburdened class in society. I cannot imagine what end the luxuries of the ultra-rich serve, save for the ego. In my opinion, the moral valence of luxuries depends on the practicality of that luxury spending in the grander scheme of the person's life, as well as the cost of that luxury. Most people don't spend a meaningful amount of money on luxuries for that opportunity cost to be significant.

And yeah, ideally charities would not need to exist. I also believe that government could become a lot more efficient. I think a luxury tax is a good solution, provided that those funds are put to good work. The nature of these ultra-rich toys can make them hard to tax, though. If America wants to levy a tax, I can just buy it the next time I'm in Geneva.

> I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead and find simpler luxuries.

Why? Are watchmakers not people who deserve to have an income? Do they not then spend their income on goods and services that help the economy?

I believe parent comment is trying to convey that more societal good could be done through more effective donations compared to donating thousands to a watchmaker or watchmaking corporation.

Are they using the surplus to better society or only to enrich themselves?

More societal good would be done if governments enacted policies which help people instead of relying on charity from the wealthy...

Also watchmaking is blue collar work.

100% agree.

> Why? Are watchmakers not people who deserve to have an income?

Why? Just because they're good at something that takes effort? By that logic everyone who has a challenging hobby - and most hobbies are ultimately challenging - deserves an income from it. Would you say that anyone who's good at any sport, or any craft, or any game, or even knowing celebrity trivia, deserves an income?

IMO at most people who produce real value for others can be said to "deserve" an income. And while watchmakers produce something that a small number of people are willing to pay a lot for, it's hard to say that they're producing real value as opposed to some kind of Veblen status display. (Contrast that with something like a mansion or a sports car - although it's a luxury good, there are tangible ways in which it's objectively better than the "cheap" equivalent, in a way that a mechanical watch is not)

Because someone is willing to pay them one. Value is between buyer and seller. It's not for an onlooker to say which value is "real" and which is not.

But why is someone willing to pay them? Because luxury watches are a status item. Why are they a status item? Because enough people believe them to be one.

So value (in this sense) is not really between buyer and seller at all, but a common agreement between a large enough number of people.

What OP in this discussion did was shine a spotlight on that fact, maybe in the hopes of getting at least one person to change what they think is valuable, to ultimately help society redirect money to more needed things.

> Because luxury watches are a status item.

Rolexes are a status item. They're cheap in the world of watches. Many brands you've never heard of command far higher prices.

The value is in the fact someone who studied horology their whole life devoted a certain amount of hours and effort into creating something. People who love watches love the craftsmanship.

Sure, but this sidetrack were started from the fact that there are many hobbies where people devote hours of craftsmanship and effort into creating something that's not considered nearly as valuable.

So "hours of craftsmanship and effort" is not what makes something valuable. It takes something else -- in this case that it's a status symbol. A long time ago it would have been certain tulips. Now it's watches.

It's demand that makes it valuable. And it's demanded because some people appreciate it. That's it. If people want it, it has value. Period.

No, but it's different. Wheat has value because people want it. Regular watches have value because people want them. Luxury watches have value because other people want them.

Owning an actual luxury item is pointless if there's nobody to brag about it to.

> IMO at most people who produce real value

This is a terrible take. So you're saying restaurant workers in high end restaurants don't deserve income, neither do musicians, or any number of artists and artisans based on what YOU think is valuable to society.

The value isn't in what they produce, the value is in the fact that someone will pay them for it and the worker will then contribute to and participate in the economy and society.

> This is a terrible take. So you're saying restaurant workers in high end restaurants don't deserve income, neither do musicians, or any number of artists and artisans based on what YOU think is valuable to society.

Good service or entertainment definitely has real value. But yes, IMO if people are producing something whose value is fake (e.g. artificial scarcity) then they don't "deserve" income; if they can get someone to pay them for whatever they're doing then more power to them, but they shouldn't feel entitled to it.

> they can get someone to pay them for whatever they're doing then more power to them

Which is exactly the situation

> they shouldn't feel entitled to it.

It's more that others shouldn't feel entitled to take away their profession for "reasons" when they very clearly are in demand...

> It's more that others shouldn't feel entitled to take away their profession for "reasons" when they very clearly are in demand...

Everyone is entitled to try to change fashion. If your profession is only in demand because of fashion rather than real value creation, you should make peace with the possibility that fashion will change, or find a different profession.

Should we also drive shitty cars and live in small houses?

Quartz watches are not shitty or small. They are more accurate and reliable than mechanical watches.

(I say this as an owner of several mechanical watches. I love them, but they are strictly worse than anything decently priced in any watch store.)

Should? No. But smaller cars and houses can be nicer. Smaller house = easier to maintain, for example.

ironically, there is a lot of overlap between the "buys hyper expensive wrist Tamagotchis", "owns a charity," and "donates to charities" Venn diagram.

Mechanical watch pricing has become silly. The Rolex Submariner, a useful tool in the 1950s for mariners and pilots, sold for $150 in 1953, or about $1500 now. It now costs about $8950. Same item. “Rolex is not in the watch business, we are in the luxury business” - attributed to a Rolex chairman.

It's an acceptable way for men to wear jewelry. To flaunt success without being gaudy. I prefer skeleton watches and although even more expensive models exist imho Richard Mille makes the top of the line.

Expensive timepiece today is the only way for a man to show off his wealth indoors in a relatively tasteful manner.

Woman can wear gold and diamonds on the neck, in the ears, on the wrists, on the lapel. She may carry a bag which costs thousands. Man can't wear any gold at all, except he is a rap star. He can't even wear cufflinks outside formal attire. Not sure about even a ring with stone. Maybe steel one with small diamond will not look extremely kitsch, but it is a big maybe.

Expensive low-key watch on steel or leather wristband is totally okay in almost any social situation. In case someone suddenly recognizes the brand - you always may say that it is a Chinese replica.

Not that I endorse that, just pointing out.

I think you partially left out expansive clothes / shoes brands.

I saw men in Armani jumpsuits and Gucci hoodies. They look... hilarious.

It is an NFT of sorts, only without the cryptographic proof.

To me they're the timekeeping equivalent of pole vaulting yourself onto the second floor. A normal person would use stairs, but it's impressive and even cheered on by a bunch of onlookers when someone can do it just by jumping on a long stick.

> Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time

... and that's my cue to pimp one of the most practical watch of all time - Casio Oceanus, the 100 series.

  * Analog watch face.
  * Quartz, radio auto-sync, solar-powered.
  * Sapphire glass, titanium body and bracelet. Waterproof.
  * Clean design. Under $500.

https://www.google.com/search?q=OCW-S100-1AJF&tbm=isch

In my opinion, its successor, the S200, has a cleaner design.

Steel instead of titanium and the glass is flat (?), very nice. I do wish that S100 was a bit heavier.

Do you mean the T200? There is no S200 per se.

I did mean the T200.

Tough choice! I prefer the blue dial of the T200, but I'm partial to titanium bands (i.e. S100).

Handsome watch!

Practical watches are ones where it's clear at a glance which way up it goes and what the time is; they have numbers on them, preferably in a digital readout like 00:40. Watches without numbers are fashion watches. Watches with analogue faces are relics from when technology only let you decypher the time from rotating pointers. Rotating pointers where the numbers they point at have been removed are form over function.

Technology Connections did a really interesting video showing how a traditional clock face can give a different perspective on the flow of time through the day, as the face and hand let you easily judge the remaining fraction in an hour.

I don’t think this format is antiquated at all

I find it much easier to make mental time maths on an analogue face. I mean, it's basically what a time calculator device would look like, if it existed.

24-hour ones are even better, but sadly rare.

This thread makes me think about how the common usage "a quarter past" and "a quarter two" likely come from the clock dial, and how we don't use that kind of language in other measuring scenarios - with a metre rule saying "a quarter to three metres", and how we don't say "a third past" or "a third to" meaning twenty minutes past the hour and twenty minutes to the hour.

Numbers aren’t necessary to tell the time and the analog watch provides more information in the hours hand than digital does in the first two digits. I think you’d find that the time to tell the time can be quicker in analog than digital but I couldn’t find any studies.

I didn't say numbers were necessary, people can learn an awful lot of contortions to achieve things. I said more like: given two devices which let you know the time, one needs you to imagine a ring of natural numbers, identify which number the short hand just passed, and identify which number the long hand just passed and multiply it by five and then guesstimate how many 6-degree increments it has moved since then and add that on, then adjust for whether the short hand said "12" and it's night time or not; the other has the time written out and you can read it, the former is not the more practical one.

Given how much we read numbers in everyday life, we have more practise at reading numbers and it requires fewer steps. Analogue clock faces are only really used for time, we do that less often and it requires more work. How could it be quicker?

Analog watches let you glance at the time more subtly while in a meeting. Numberless watches are instantly readable after you own one for a little bit.

> "Analog watches let you glance at the time more subtly while in a meeting."

... how?

LCD panels have poor viewing angles.

One cool thing about an analog watch is that, since it’s motion is synced with the rotation of the earth, you can use it as a compass.

Watches are worn on the wrist, so up is always the pinky side of the wrist.

The beauty of an analog watch is that it is a graphical display of time that doesn't even need numbers.

The hands indicate both a numeric time as well as a representative of how far through a day, hour, or minute you are.

This is the same reason that cars still have dial style gauges. The brain can parse the relative location of a rotary dial faster than it can parse 4376RPM.

Once you teach your brain how an analog clock works it reads as fast or faster than a digital clock.

Thick and heavy compared to the watch in the fine article. For a desk jockey maybe that doesn't matter. If I'm being flung around at seven G, I'll take the thin, light watch at great expense.

I mean, everything is thick and heavy compared to the watch linked in this post.

Sounds like a big "if" unless you're taking about that time you jumped off the third floor.

Back here in the real-world, you're a deskjockey.

It's important to check the time on the way down from the third floor though, clearly. Need to have your watch on whilst in motion.

I probably wouln't want to wear an expensive watch while doing intense activities that would experience that kind of acceleration, but maybe that's just me.

It can't beat the Casio A159W unfortunately.

Apples to oranges. A158W is a digital watch.

They said "most practical watch of all time" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, thank you. Now I have an new object (OCW-S100-1AJF) of my desire that I need to pursue :)

Interesting to see these prices "all over the place" but yours is indeed a good average.

If you spend any time in Singapore you'll note that the fact that private ownership of cars is so difficult and rare it means people use other luxury goods to denote status.

To generalize hugely, women buy designer handbags and men have watches. It took me a while to work out, but it makes perfect sense once you think it through. It's so hard to get yourself a BMW 3 Series so you spend $20K on a watch instead.

> that private ownership of cars is so difficult and rare

How it should be everywhere.

This is also true in Hong Kong, but cars are readily available - and you find people with both. I think there are some more cultural nuances to watch ownership in this region.

I felt similarly to computer tape drives. People in general miss turntables and k7 players. Maybe it's a level of complexity that you can still relate too and thus feel more about. Your life does not revolve about perfect information at infinitely low cost. You want to be stimulated / inspired. A modern SoC with all its technical prowess is out of reach to your senses.

Here's the Wired article: https://www.wired.com/1999/01/ebay/ or https://archive.ph/IlcZ0

as I always say about watches, they are socially accepted forms of men's jewelry. after advent of smartphones they are hardly about time anyways. its mostly style & flex. That too in a in-group because most people including many jewelers cant tell difference between and original and a replica for some common mid-high end watches like rolex submariner.

I am actually fine with these 'vanity jewels' for high end buyers so long as they don't end up being a tax haven like art market. its all a way for the money to flow back into society and some more productive good in subsequent iterations. I mean after all its better than a NFT of picture that watch.

> watches, they are socially accepted forms of men's jewelry. after advent of smartphones they are hardly about time anyways. its mostly style & flex.

As a daily wear of a “dumb watch“ I somewhat agree with this statement. Having a watch that matches my shoes and belt certainly makes an outfit look both more professional and well coordinated (RE jewelry/style).

However, I find that when I don’t wear my watch and just have my smartphone it is a significantly diminished experience.

Having to pull my phone out of my pocket to check the time is both socially less acceptable (am I checking the time or am I just bored with our conversation?) and far more likely to pull me into some rabbit hole and off of what I was currently doing.

So… it’s actually kind of nice to have a watch around, even if it only cost ~$100 (Skagen are amazing value for the price).

I agree, smartphone is a context switch, much better to have a watch.

I have had a minor hack for WFH for last 2 year. Just to feel a bit of formalism I rotate through my watches every day of the week. also its a good vanity decision at the start of the day.

> Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time,

Citation needed (as in measurement report). AFAIK some years ago electronic watches had some problems with the time reference.

Watches are jewelry for men, like a tiara for women. It is pure status signaling.

Doesn't seem to be paywalled (from where I am, in the UK), if this [1] is the article to which you are referring: William Gibson on Twitter, Antique Watches and Internet Obsessions, published Sept 14, 2012.

[1] https://www.wired.com/2012/09/william-gibson-part-2-twitter/

> high-end contemporary Swiss watches are priced like small cars.

Richard Mille watches are priced like Ferraris lol...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com