A few months ago, my trusty old Seiko died and I found myself in the market for a new watch. I ended up buying a 
1,000, 
10,000 on a watch that does nothing more than my $100 Seiko?
The answer, of course, is status. Thorstein Veblen got it right in his classic Theory of the Leisure Class:
Conspicuous consumption of valuable goods is a means of reputability to the gentleman of leisure.
And:
Since the consumption of these more excellent goods is an evidence of wealth, it becomes honorific; and conversely, the failure to consume in due quantity and quality becomes a mark of inferiority and demerit.
This leads to the perverse phenomenon of the “Veblen good”: a good for which demand increases as the price increases, because the high price is essential to the item’s exclusivity, and exclusivity begets status. Luxury brands need to maintain their high prices, lest the hoi polloi begin to partake. Louis Vuitton is learning this the hard way in China:
Still, brands that become too accessible are less appealing to superrich buyers. Louis Vuitton, for instance, is considered a “brand for secretaries” by many wealthy Chinese.
“Louis Vuitton has become too ordinary,” a billionaire woman told China Market Research Group managing director Shaun Rein in 2011. “Everyone has it. You see it in every restaurant in Beijing. I prefer Chanel or Bottega Veneta now. They are more exclusive.”
That same article includes this “pyramid of luxury brands” (click to enlarge):
Granting that status has some value, I still have to ask: is it worth it? Does the cachet of wearing a Patek Philippe justify the price?
It depends on your discretionary income. The vain have to spend it on *something*
Are the peacocks’ feathers worthwhile?
It may not be that every expensive thing really adds to sexual displays and the like, but the right sports car often works wonders. Much of it, though, seems to be mostly about setting the superrich above the riff-raff.
They rarely say anything good about inequality, but they do have their purchases send out that message.
Glen Davidson
In a reply to this post, commenter ‘Hamhock’ is quite honest about his motivations:
That’s a guy heading for a midlife crisis.
Rich:
No matter how much my discretionary income rises, I never seem to catch the expensive watch bug. There’s always something better to do with the money. If nothing else, it seems like “buy a
9,900 to charity” will always win out over “buy a $10,000 watch.”
I’m not saying that it’s wrong to spend money on oneself — far from it. I own and enjoy a lot of unnecessary things. It’s just that I see their worth in terms of what I can do with them, not what they say about me.
Status consciousness doesn’t strike me as a recipe for happiness.
Forbes magazine:
Top Watches For Social Peacocking
I am making do with a cheap timex. It keeps good time, and I never did care about social status. If it dies, I might decide to go without. The clock on my computer screen and the one on my cell phone should be enough.
You can either define your own worth, be define by your possessions (fight club) or be defined by others (Hamhock).
That being said I do have a vintage guitar collection worth a fair amount, but because it brings me pleasure, bot because I need to flaunt it. I don’t care if others find them worthless.
I will note there is a subset of the ‘super-rich’ who do not give a shit and wear lots of hoodies and sweat-pants,
Neil,
Yeah, a cheap quartz watch is more accurate than a $20,000 Patek Philippe (-3/+2 seconds per day).
A lot of youngsters go bare-wristed these days for that reason, though smart watches may reverse that trend.
Rich,
A good percentage of wealthy people lead lives that aren’t flashy at all — which is one of the reasons they become wealthy in the first place. When you live well below your means, the money tends to pile up, especially with compounding.
Often the flashiest people are those who aspire to wealth but haven’t arrived yet. I thought this statistic was fascinating:
I have a couple of Citizen Eco drive watches. That would be the original solar powered watch. I bought the second (both at Penney’s) because the first one stopped charging. Then I found that Citizen will replace the battery at a reasonable price.
They keep better time than a Rolex. With two, I can keep on charging in the window sill and wear the other. A charge lasts for months, but I found out the battery life is curtailed if you let it run down. Should last 10 to 20 years.
Now AI will argue for status and for people who seek it.
The development cost for good thins is borne mostly by the rich who buy the first — sometimes hand made — items.Decent stainless steel watches and synthetic gemstones are every bit as good as the expensive items, but someone has to pay for their invention and development. Same for designer clothing.
I have an Adriatica watch (it’s a Swiss brand popular in the Scandinavian countries and Eastern Europe). I got it many years ago as a present from my family, and it has served me well ever since. Not expensive enough to count as a status thing, but it keeps excellent time, the battery life is something like two years, and what I particularly love about it is the (literally) unscratchable sapphire glass. Very solid and practical, which is all I can desire.
When my wife’s father died, 20 years ago, we inherited some of his things, including a box with several watches, all not working. We took them to a watch repair shop. One was a Seiko which might have cost
1000 each just to open the back. I was appalled that anyone would spend that kind of money on a watch. I suppose each of those watches would be several thousand dollars. They are still sitting in the box, unrepaired.
I shopped for clothes last weekend, at J. C. Penney’s at the mall. That does show who I am and what kind of family I came from — my parents were leftie activists who had some white collar pretensions, but on an income that was blue collar level. So working items like watches were not thrown away, and were repaired until this was no longer possible.
I stopped wearing the watch after a while but we just found it during archaeological investigations in our bedroom, and I need to get it a new battery and will then start wearing it again, as it is quicker to look at than my cell phone.
We have just created a mutual support group for sub-Veblen wristwatch wearers (SV WWW). To upgrade it socially we would have to convert it into a club with an appropriately high membership fee.
Keiths,
Why do you need to spend $100 on a watch. What does that get you that a one dollar watch doesn’t?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Men-Women-Battery-Thin-Silicone-Digital-LED-Touch-Sport-Bracelet-Wrist-Watch-New-/221685877707?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2&hash=item339d820bcb
Its all relative.
Maybe we wants to know what date it is?
Richardthughes,
That watch displays the day and date.
Of course, you would have to be able to read the description that is right on the page, but, reading is not exactly your strong point…
My goodness phoodoo, you are right.
There may be aesthetic and durability issues, but okay.
As you’re here, how old is the age of the Universe | World | life and how do you know this?
thanks in advance!
I have to agree with phoodoo here. I still have my Seiko watch that I bought, if I recall correctly, some time around 1972. I stopped wearing it regularly after I broke the first bracelet and reverted to a cheap (3GBP) “sports” watch for everyday. I’ve now got out of the habit of wearing a watch at all as it is so easy to check the time with a phone (and there’s the bonus of an alarm) or the car and any number of devices around the house.
In 1972, if the occasion demanded, I’d be kitted out in three-piece sharp suit, big tie, pin, cufflinks etc.These days, I don’t give a stuff.
I should mention I’d never heard of Thorstein Veblen prior to reading this thread. his book The Theory of the Leisure Class seems as if it might be worth a read, if Wikipedia can be trusted. Seems he was both a pragmatist and influenced by Darwin!
phoodoo:
Something that
1. Doesn’t make me cringe when I look at it.
2. Is durable.
3. Has an analog display.
4. Doesn’t require me to press buttons to get information.
5. Is solar-powered, eliminating the need for battery replacement.
Was that so hard, phoodoo?
Mirrors are out then, eh Keiths? AMIRITE?
I’ll get my coat.
Alan,
I recommend it. Not only perceptive, it’s also a fun read, which is not something I can say about most late 19th-century academic writing.
And if you have a Kindle, the price ($0.00) can’t be beat.
keiths:
Rich:
Until you stop looking over my shoulder, yes.
Don’t forget your shoes.
I ordered the hard copy, should get here Sat. Some of the reviews suggested it was quite an arduous read..
This comment was funny:
There’s no accounting for taste!
I loved reading Veblen.
The point is you have just answered your own opening question. There are things you look for which please you in a watch. You haven’t just chosen the cheapest option which allows you to see the time, you have chosen what pleases you. So why is it so hard for you to see outside your own preferences, to imagine others? Perhaps that is part of your own cognitive blockage which paints other opinions of yours.
I happen to own a very expensive watch (100 times more than your Seiko), and I also give to charity. I don’t like to look at a Seiko. I like to look at my watch. Its mechanical, I never need to worry about changing the battery. I can afford it. Its a piece of art.
So your very deep question about why someone would buy a more expensive watch than you has been answered by you. Because if all you wanted to do was find out the time for the cheapest amount possible, it can be done for a dollar.
What’s so hard Keiths?
Next week Phoodoo learns about diminishing returns.
Richardthughes,
Is that your excuse for not learning to read?
I’m sorry I can’t read that, as I can’t read. I’m just mashing the keyboard, now hoping something intelligible comes out. Still dodging questions, Phoodoo? That (and you) is particularly sad.
Richardthughes,
Yes, I think you are just mashing the keyboard, that is my point. I mean, who thinks to write, “Oh, maybe he wants to see the date” as if that is going to be some brilliant retort that people will want to read? Clearly you don’t put a lot of time into your posts.
To whom were you trying to demonstrate how clever you are? I truly don’t understand people like you. In your own mind are you being clever?
Keiths presumably had a point in his mind for writing his OP. I responded by showing that the reason he has for choosing his Seiko are similar to the reasons others may have for choosing their watches. But your desire appears to just want to write absolutely anything, that I don’t think anyone can see a reason for. Its mind boggling.
What’s the odds of spontaneously generating an intelligible 33 character message, design detective?
Your inability to read ACTUAL TESTIMONY from someone engaged in social signalling is amusing though. Bravo! Now, outstanding questions? No I thought not. You’d only get laughed at. Again.
Poor phoodoo.
phoodoo:
Ah — that explains why I seem to have hit a nerve.
It isn’t. I understand that what pleases many people about expensive watches is the status they confer (or are imagined to confer). Did you read ‘Hamhock’ and Adams?
I can afford a lot of things that I don’t buy, because they’re not worth the price.
Hence my question:
petrushka:
I’m not arguing against status. In a social species like ours, status is quite important.
I’m just questioning the price tag.
keiths,
So that’s why you started this post? To show that your decision to spend 100 on your watch is precisely the right choice, and all other choices are the wrong ones?
If that is the case, who cares how much you spent on a watch? You are so happy with your 100 dollar watch that you felt the need to brag about how happy you are with it? You clearly never want to learn anything, so why don’t you just wear your watch and shut up? You thought there is a whole world of people who want to know what a great shopping choice you made? And you wanted others to know how frugally pragmatic, and only somewhat brand conscious you are. Have a party then.
Oh, and buy a decent brand wine, that shows you are practical, but discerning. Nothing too extravagant, but a nice savignon blanc; just good enough to show you can afford the nice things if you want them, but that emphasizes how little you care about making an impression. That’s the exact impression you hope to convey, right?
What a perfect example of the bungled logic of Keith. Social status is important, but I just think it should be a lot cheaper to gain it….
That’s why I chose the Seiko.
“Bragging about a $100 watch” from a guy who ‘spent a hundred times more’ on his. Gallienesque.
Poor phoodoo.
Not at all. To someone like Hamhock, for example, an expensive watch is probably worth every penny. Without it, he wouldn’t feel like he ‘belonged’.
I question his long-term strategy, but the relief of feeling like he belongs to an exclusive club might very well be worth the price of his watch.
Unless you are starving and the only seller of food is gouging ou, you don’t have to pay a price you don’t agree with.
I happen to know the price of bulk stainless steel, and the difficulties associated with shaping it.
900. If the movement breaks, it costs 
30 apiece.
I’m sure there is something to be said about the symbolism of gift giving. A
100.
petrushka,
True. And I didn’t!
But again, my question is about the price of status:
I’m in love with this rageblurt:
“If that is the case, who cares how much you spent on a watch? You are so happy with your 100 dollar watch that you felt the need to brag about how happy you are with it? You clearly never want to learn anything, so why don’t you just wear your watch and shut up? You thought there is a whole world of people who want to know what a great shopping choice you made? And you wanted others to know how frugally pragmatic, and only somewhat brand conscious you are. Have a party then.”
Butthurt well done with a side of unhinged.
petrushka,
Rich,
And slathered with projection.
It seems that phodoo can’t understand someone who doesn’t care, either way, what people think of his watch. What was he saying earlier?
keiths,
Blind wine taste tests are the same.
phoodoo,
Your logic needs some work, phoodoo. I’m not arguing that status should be ‘cheaper’. I’m questioning the amount that people spend to obtain it.
Also, more projection:
I prefer soda to wine.
I don’t care whether people think I can afford a nice “savignon” blanc. I wear mostly Levis and inexpensive polo shirts. I drive a 12-year old pickup truck. I don’t pay extra for titanium, platinum, black, or whatever the ‘exclusive’ credit cards are these days. There is nothing about my appearance that would clue you in to the size of my balance sheet. It just doesn’t matter to me. I’m not alone. Why is that mindset so incomprehensible to you?
It’s possible to enjoy wealth without advertising it, phoodoo.
The value of status is in the networking required to obtain and keep money. Not my cup of tea. But women flock to money and status, even those who write blogs about liberation.
That’s politically incorrect, but the truth.
keiths,
Right, its possible to enjoy wealth without showing it! Its also possible to buy an analog watch that doesn’t need a battery without spending 100 dollars! Its also possible to buy jeans that work just fine for less than Levis.
The whole point is that you are not consistent with your so called philosophy. You wanted a watch that doesn’t make you cringe to look at. So for you that price is 100. For others the price for something that doesn’t make them cringe is higher. Its no different than you. If you accuse people of wanting to buy status, then I accuse you of wanting to buy status with your Seiko, when you could have gotten the exact same thing for much less. You could have gotten the same thing as your Levis for much less.
I deal with some of the richest people in the world. They are artists, entertainers, eccentrics. Some of them have watches that cost as much as some people’s house. But if you looked at their watch, you wouldn’t know the first thing about what it is, or what it costs. They don’t care if you know how much their watch cost. In fact they are quite happy for you not to know the value of their watch. They didn’t buy it to show you are anyone else what it cost. They are quite happy for you to not know how much anything they own costs. You little theory that they are doing it for status is absolutely wrong.
They are buying it because they like it. They are buying it because it gives them pleasure. They already have status because of who they are and what they do. It doesn’t mean that some people don’t buy expensive things because they like to show they have expensive things, but that doesn’t demonstrate your theory. There is nothing flashy about a Patek Philipe watch. It doesn’t scream “look at me!”. Unless they took it off and handed it to you, you wouldn’t know what it is. Even then you probably still wouldn’t. Some watches are huge and covered with diamonds and shiny gold pieces, so you can see it from a mile away. A Patek Philipe watch certainly isn’t.
Some people simply have a different level of tolerance for what makes them cringe to look at. I don’t like the quality of the buckle of a Seiko watch. I don’t like the cheapness of the plastic pieces, or the look of the cheap pressed metal parts. But of course you asked the question, but you would never accept an answer that is not the one you want. It is the epitome of your personality. You want to say things that you believe but you don’t want to understand anything. You can’t understand anyone doing anything you wouldn’t do. I could not possibly care less about what you or someone like you thought of my status level. It never once crosses my mind when I buy something.
You should have just bought a
100 dollars is enough for you to do that.
Or rather, some women flock to money and status and some men also flock to money and status in potential partners.
Fewer men do so than women do so, because unfortunately the men’s potential mates (eg unmarried young women) have been systematically denied the opportunity to accrue wealth and/or boss status of their own. It’s better now in western nations than it used to be when married women were legally barred from owning property, but we’re only a few generations away from women who grew up while that was still true. And covert discrimination is still rampant, as we find when resumes with female-sounding names are ignored while the exact same resume submitted with a male-sounding name get a positive response. No wonder some women make the rational (if unconscious) choice to “flock to” money and status outside themselves. No wonder some men do, too, because not all men’s lives are gravy. either.