Product Video for the New $2.75M Patek Philippe Watch Is Most Incredible | Hacker News Reader

Product Video for the New $2.75M Patek Philippe Watch Is Most Incredible

patek.com

21 pointsrakic14 comments

An incredible amount of engineering for what's ultimately an obsolete plaything of the super rich.

"Plaything" is generous. A yacht is a plaything (and far more functional). An expensive watch is a status symbol -- the "classy" way of wearing a sign that says, "I can burn [thousands/millions] on something pointless. That's how rich I am."

Not really. It's all very relative. I don't see what difference it makes if you have 3 billion dollars and spend .09% of your wealth on a watch vs. having a net worth of 10 thousand dollars while spending $50 on a watch, which would be over 5 times the amount relative to net worth. As a first-world inhabitant of moderate means, you could argue there are better ways to put that 2.75M to use, but so could a third-world inhabitant of lesser means with your $50 watch.

You're looking at it from a different angle than I was.

You're saying that, as a financial decision, spending $2.75M isn't necessarily stupid because $2.75M is peanuts to some people.

I agree, though it depends on their goals. If they want to make more money, it's obviously a poor decision. If they want to look like a vain, wealthy, frivolous person, then it's a great decision.

My comment was from the angle of whether I think someone who would spend $2.75M on a watch is A) cool, B) a good person, or C) a good decision maker.

Related to all of those aspects, I consider "looking like a rich person" to be an incredibly sad, ridiculous goal, especially when $2.75M could be used for such interesting, useful things (both selfish and unselfish).

And, of course, it's not 100% relative because goods/services cost absolute amounts of money. Fifty dollars is equivalent to, let's say, 10 hamburgers, and $2.75M is equivalent to 550,000 hamburgers.

Put that into any other unit you want to (charitable donations, vacations, houses, massages, political contributions, art, etc.). The point is that throwing away $2.75M on something frivolous is far different from throwing away $50, no matter how much money you make.

Not at all. You're discounting the fact that $50 is a month's wages to some people in some countries or that a loaf of bread cost a wheelbarrow's full of trillion dollar bills in Zimbabwe. A person might buy a watch like that because the amount is disposable, and they like the craftsmanship. It's you're assumption they're trying to impress people because you've formed a value system through your experiences in life, and you can't see it through any other lens that your own.

Someone who can buy a $2.75 M dollar watch likely looks at life very different than you do whether they go and buy a watch like that or not. Don't assume people who get what they want are naive, greedy, vain etc. They might have different reasons that on a relative basis are just as good as any you'd have.

I already agreed that, depending on the goal, it's a good decision. Sure, craftsmanship could be their reason. I find it unlikely that there aren't any $100k watches that approach the quality or aesthetic appeal, but it's certainly possible.

It's not just that the watch is $2.75M. It's just that the markup is so high. It's being sold for that price just to sell it for that price. It's not like paying for the construction of a $2.75M house, which might cost nearly that much to build.

And as far as conforming to my value system, I acknowledged that there was subjectivity in my reaction. But I don't have any problem with that. I also wouldn't mind including my own subjective morality when criticizing Bernie Madoff or John Wayne Gacy. Value systems may be individual and entirely relative, but our society has agreed on some useful tenets that I happily subscribe to (don't harm others, don't be greedy, etc.)

Fair enough - I can appreciate your point of view and logic.

Its also an ultra-portable asset for when the stuff hits the fan.

That's assuming that it holds its value and that everyone agrees on that value.

I would argue that it's a terrible way to store value because very few humans in the world would buy a watch (or ANYTHING) that expensive. It's one of the least liquid assets you can own, certainly less liquid than a car of the same price.

Oil or copper, by contrast, are useful in and of themselves and will continue to be valuable to human societies for many decades. You can also trade them electronically, which makes them portable.

If you can't trade those things electronically, the world has fallen apart so completely that you're pretty screwed anyway. It would be complete and utter chaos, and on one would be buying your watch.

There are still have working watches from the late 1800's. That is kind of cool, but now its a status symbol.

Warning: this link points to a 926MB mp4. Anyone have a non-direct download mirror before we kill the site?

With those margins, maybe we can expect them to afford keeping their website up.

It's subtler than a facial tattoo, louder than the startup-school after party, and it looks gaudier than be-sequined sliced bread.

What is the green mechanical pencil the artist is using early on in the video?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com