Hacker News Reader

I disagree. It's worth asking why some people find brand watches beautiful? Where did they get their sense of aesthetic? Were they born with a congenital preference for RM 16-01 Citron?

Culture shapes our taste. Companies go on multi-decade billion-dollar campaigns to shape our culture. We like certain things because famous actors or athletes endorse them; because hip hop artists rap about them; because influencers talk about them; because Hollywood portrays them a certain way. This extends to all modern aesthetic preferences from architecture to watches to cars to furniture to dating.

I think the argument pg is making is that brand-obsessed cultures are not maximally truth/beauty-seeking and gets really weird. e.g. Japanese Ohaguro, Chinese foot binding, various cranial deformation practices from the Mayans to the Huns, high-heels, ugly (to outside observers) watches.

It's a really thought-provoking essay. But it's too heterodox and "autistic" to share with most of my friends. Socially speaking, it's best to outwardly embrace the current zeitgeist.

> RM 16-01 Citron

Wow that is certainly a look.

Citron is obviously a weird watch but you can always find weird expensive examples of anything. Most expensive watches look normal and they look really beautiful thanks to the attention that goes into building them.

Yes, what I find beautiful is the craftsmanship, dedication, and the singular, almost monastic focus required to become a master in some human pursuit, whether its software, sushi, or making watches. I find dedication and sacrifice deeply moving and eternally beautiful.

> I disagree. It's worth asking why some people find brand watches beautiful? Where did they get their sense of aesthetic? Were they born with a congenital preference for RM 16-01 Citron?

There's plenty of art that's celebrated, but also kinda weird and ugly. Is "Vertumnus" by Giuseppe Arcimboldo (1591) also a product of the "brand age"? What about various gargoyles and grotesques on old church buildings?

Some people just like weird art, maybe because they think it reflects their own quirky or rebellious nature. Some of these people have money. I don't see why we need some sort of a cynical theory of a "brand-obsessed culture" at the center of it. How many people in your social circle are obsessed with brands? We might have a brand or two we like, typically because we like the way the products look or work. That's about it.

I know some people who like expensive watches. They talk about the design a lot more than they talk about who made it.

They may be beautiful, but the fact remains if you could produce and sell Patek Philippe Nautilus for $200 no one would be interested in it. The same is not true for most other beautiful objects

Well firstly, they don't charge $200 for them because they can't produce them for $200. But the point I'm making is he seems to be trying to say they aren't beautiful. He says he's describing this "dark" world or "strange" watches. I do actually think he probably thinks the watches look strange. I don't think he thinks they're beautiful, maybe he'll find a brand to fall in love with one day. I doubt it because he seems to have too much of himself invested in this. But the people buying them don't think they're strange, they think they're beautiful. I don't go out telling everyone that they shouldn't buy a Ferrari because my Honda Civic can do the same job.

You're confusing the price of something with how much it costs to make it. Prices are just a made up number. Hopefully, the amount someone will pay you for the watch you made is more than it costs you to make it, and you have a sustainable business, but the funny thing about capitalism is that is not at all guaranteed. If the company wants to juice sales, they'll have a limited time discount. Or how about when the company is bankrupt and out of business? Then theres a fire sale and the price of something is pennies on the dollar. So they could sell the watches for $200, or they could give them away for free, or they can charge $100k, or they could barter for them. It's all a matter of business.

I think you are missing his point - the items are desireable because of the brand. The stories, the movie stars, the songs and so on.

They don’t possess a universal, objectively valuable beauty that motivates the desire. If they did, fakes would be equally desireable and they are not.

I have a set of very expensive hand made japanese irons (golf clubs). I assure you I did not buy them from social influence or clout. In fact, nobody ever really sees them except me. I bought them because the craftsmanship and how truly beautiful they are. They make me smile.

No one is saying that beautiful things don't exist. Just that watches specifically are rarely worth $100k because of their beauty.

> But the people buying them don't think they're strange, they think they're beautiful.

Can you reflect on why they think those designs are more beautiful than others?

So you’re saying that $200 watches don’t sell?

But here - https://spechtandsohne.com/product-category/icon-quartz/

And they are pretty popular with folks who like watches.

They’re only popular because they appeal to the real luxury product, like counterfeit Rolexes.

To everyone else who reads this and thinks to themselves "Man, this guy has a refined palate that PG doesn't have. PG can't appreciate beauty", go take a look at the Nautilus yourself https://glennbradford.com/products/patek-philippe-nautilus-0...

It looks like an Aliexpress Timex.

Where do you think the Aliexpress Timex designs came from?

Guy who still wears high-heels because they originated in men using them in stirrups. "No, babe, this is normal. It's actually good men's fashion. Where did you think your heels originated?"

I was not expecting it to be this ugly.

You are pointing to an outlier that is not expensive due to its beauty but historical significance. Typical expensive watches look normal and beautiful:

https://www.iwc.com/gb-en/watches/pilot-watches/iw388106-pil...

https://www.omegawatches.com/en-gb/watch-omega-speedmaster-m...

https://www.rolex.com/watches/submariner/m124060-0001

dang why did I click, they are gorgeous...

Is this trolling or are you serious? Those are all, imo, hideous! They are blocky and unrefined and like they’re uncomfortable to wear.

While I wouldn't call them ugly, I agree that they look just like, well, watches to me. I wouldn't pay a premium for any of them.

Since I'm not into luxury watches, a common occurrence is:

Me to a stranger: "Wow, cool watch! Which one is it?"

Stranger: "Random cheap brand I found on Amazon."

If you've never heard of Omega, Rolex, etc, chances are you won't be able to distinguish a cheap watch from an expensive watch. It's just the brand.

(OK, OK, chances are the material is a lot better - scratchproof, etc - but probably still costs less than 10% to make than what they sell for).

Of course, they look like normal watches, that’s the point. However, if you paid for, you would get an extremely polished watch, rares/high-quality materials, hand-checked for every imperfection etc. as opposed to an almost the same looking watch for a brand, say Orient, which you would be able to find minor imperfections even as a non-enthusiast.

I dunno. Having looked at cheaper watches, I don't see imperfections. I'll grant that over time they'll show up (quicker wear and tear).

Here's the thing: Ever since I was a kid, the following features were basic:

1. Tells time

2. Tells date

3. Stopwatch

4. Alarm

5. Chrono (yes, I used that a lot for years).

All this for $50 or less.

I'm assuming the >$100 watches have all this? If not, IMO, the watch is simply failing at the very basics. It shouldn't even be called a watch.

Then Tier 2:

- Timer

- Multiple alarms

- World time

I pay extra for these (and use all of them).

The next tier (Tier 3):

- No batteries and/or solar. Definitely no manual winding.

The next tier:

- Stuff like GPS, sunrise/sunset, etc.

Personally, only after Tier 3 would I consider paying extra for all the things you mentioned. But paying $300+ for a watch without a timer or world time? You've been scammed.

How much have you paid for a pen? Montblanc ball point pens can exceed $1000. Apply everything you said to a (ballpoint) pen - one that most likely will write poorer than a good $50 fountain pen - and you'll see how people view what you are saying.

These particular watches are not my taste as well (I do not find them ugly though) but these are some of the most popular examples watch community find very pretty.

Heh.

Just today I went to a watch repair person because the keeper on my strap broke. He said the only option is to buy the exact strap from the manufacturer.

The strap costs $120.

My watch costs $340 (although I got it on a discount for $220).

This is the most expensive watch I've ever bought. I typically would pay $50 or less (with the exception of one G-Shock that cost $80). I finally decide to buy something "pricey" and the darn thing breaks in less than 2 years - something that never happens with the cheap watches I've bought.

No thanks. I'm not paying $120 for a new strap. I'm getting a cheap watch that will last me over a decade (as most of my watches do).

I had the same experience with fountain pens. Every fountain pen I've paid more than $50 for has been worse than my favorite cheap ones.

If I were to plot quality on the y-axis, and price on the x-axis, I think I'll find a U or V curve, where on the very cheap end things are reliable and last long, and likewise on the very expensive end. But in the middle, you're just paying extra for crap.

Arguably, you could say I'm not paying enough. A $330 watch isn't expensive. I should have paid $3000. A $90 pen isn't expensive. I should have paid $250.

No thanks. When the <$50 products perform as well as the expensive ones, I'm not paying more.

I agree with several things in TFA but you're right that some people just love these because they look beautiful.

TFA says this:

> If mechanical watches had only been accurate to a minute a day they couldn't have made the leap from keeping time to displaying wealth.

I don't think it's necessarily about displaying wealth: we could discuss humans (not just women but also men) wearing some kind of jewelry since thousands of years, including poor people who don't do it to display wealth but just because they enjoy the look of it. There was an article about monkeys enjoying the looks of crystals the other day I think.

One example would be people who don't dress nicely and who drive a cheap car and overal look like they just don't care about what others do think, and yet wear a dive watch. There are countless dive watches, be it a cheap no-name one, a perfect chinese replica of a Rolex Submariner (some replicas have most parts that can be exchanged with real Rolexes, which created the entire "frankenwatch" thing: where some parts are from the true brand and others have been swapped by chinese parts) or a real Rolex Submariner or Sea-Dweller costing $10 K to $20 K (for the base models).

Also in an age of alienating technology, something has to be said about a 100% mechanical device that's not connected to anything and doesn't require a battery to work, however imprecisely: it's not just about the beauty of the object when you look at it. It's also the beauty in having something that's not spying on you.

Just like there are people who, for a variety of reason, only ever take out their old Ferrari for a spin at night (when there's no trafic).

I take it you could very probably say: "Most people own fancy mechanical watches and high-end sport cars to flaunt wealth". But you can't generalize to 100% of watch owners and Ferrari owners.

> The people who buy them love them.

Yeah, when you spend half a million dollars on a watch, the sunk-cost fallacy has gotta hit hard.

Really?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/187srga/what_watch...

Clunky AF. The guy wearing this watch edited the OP's article, amongst other things. To any reasonable person the vast majority of these watches look like absolute dogshit. You know what looks good? The watches that these brands make for women!

PG described exactly the intention that goes into the design of these watches, in this very article. It's not what you say it is!

> They look beautiful.

I dunno there. I think that Paul Graham does not know much about what he talks about ... but these watches are not beautiful. I give you that there was care and intention put into them, but they are just ugly as a result.

And I did went through period of trying to find cool good looking old school watch. For some reason, the current watch style is ranging between "meh" and "ugly".

I agree. Following his x account and posts, intellectuality in PG’s content has gone massively downhill (starting from slightly earlier than his recent rants about ‘wokeness’).

Once one of my favourite writers is really hard to read now.

It feels to me like he is so overconfident now that he thinks he gets it in any topic, even on the ones he has very little understanding of.

I’d wish for a more pointed rebuttal than merely a post complaining that the writer now sucks on here. It seems substantial to a degree of a post to me at least even if not whole in its conclusions.

Fair enough.

This particular article, I would say compherensive, but lacking substance.

The very promise of this article, that people primarily paying for brand name is simply wrong and it does not take too much time to spend in watch circles to know this.

What people pay is not performance/features/value, obviously. But the prime factor is also not the brand name. With the exception of Rolex, practically nobody knows if your watch costed $100 or $100,000.

What people pay for is artistry, reliability, and level-of-polish. These all have a cost that justify the price of the watch. Nobody pays $10,000 for a watch that could be produced for $100 just because of its brand name.