That guy's wrist relative to his hand is unnervingly thin.

>A relative of mine has just offered to get me a watch for Chrimbo, with a budget of up to 120 quid-ish.

That's a bit bizarre. By the sounds of things you don't even particularly want a flash watch.

>And I suspect that women would be rather put off by it.

Women can jog on if they think they can lecture anyone on fashion, but yeah, there's no real point in a Casio. It gives off a slightly asparagus vibe and your Bin Laden-chic will inevitably end up collecting dust as it won't help pull any outfits together which is all today's watches are for.

>>5908

Do you think there's been some photoshop involved?

>First option is a fitness watch

They're worth it if you're planning to use it for all of its functions. The heart rate and so on will be much better on a pricier model, but unless you're actually interested in tracking your steps and sleep and all that then I wouldn't see the point in having one as an everyday watch.

Casio digital are wonderful and really go with anything. You certainly won't look like a tryhard wearing one, they are practical as well as stylish. I also wouldn't worry about what women think about your watch, most women (actually, most people) will barely notice your watch, especially an understated Casio digital. For what it's worth I just asked my girlfriend what make of watch I wear and what it looks like, and she got as far as 'it's silver?'

>classic analogue

Fossil are actually a very decent brand in this price range, so if you're wanting something like that then pursue that line, they do smaller diameter cases for sure (though as pointed out, I think that chap has exceptionally thin wrists) you should be able to find out the diameter easily enough.

A Seiko 5 or a Citizen eco-drive would be the two mainstay classics of the minimalist analogue styles - plug both of those into Amazon to see the ranges. If it was me, the one watch I'd want in this price range would be the Orient Mako, though you might not like the bezel with the numbers and such on it.

Really, a Seiko 5 is the smart choice here. It's a 'proper' watch and works well anywhere. There's a few variants so go nuts.

>>5910

Probably - men tend to buy larger watches, so making it look bigger is a conceivable marketing practice.

>>5909
>>5911

Thanks for the feedback. I do fancy a watch, which is why it came up when she asked what I wanted. She's actually rather wealthy, and I somehow suggested the price range since I know she'd happily pay a lot more than that - expensive gifts make me feel guilty, something that would no doubt interest a psychologist.

Getting back on track, my eye was drawn to the Fossil brand and they're certainly my style. Thinking about it, what I'd really like is a watch I'd feel comfortable wearing on first dates and to formal affairs. A fitbit or Casio doesn't really fit the bill, so I think I'll make that a purchase of my own come January, as something for day-to-day wear. I imagine she'd prefer to give me something more personal anyway.

I was considering this one. It's by Skagen, who are predictably minimalist as a Scandi company, they're rather like Fossil in fact. What do you lads think? I know it's slightly above the price range but I guarantee that's not really an issue.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Braun-Analogue-Stainless-Bracelet-BN0211BKMHG/dp/B01GJ3BH5I/ref=sr_1_2?s=watch&ie=UTF8&qid=1544914851&sr=1-2

This is my personal favourite, insofar as that I've made a custom watchface for my smartwatch to mimic this.

>>5914
I remember looking at that and liking it, I just couldn't get past the yellow second hand (it is possible to discuss your taste in watches without sounding like a nit-picking ponce?) and the fact that it has the same logo as my razor. I'm settling on two of them now, I'll post a comparison.

I like this one because it shows the date, but unlike most with this feature is only 5mm thick. The Skagen above is 8mm thick and 40mm in diameter - I don't have huge wrists so it might end up looking silly. It's impossible to tell online sadly. It's suitably minimalist, I like the sapphire background and it's also the cheapest, which is a factor for me at least.

Whereas this Skagen is exactly the style I want, but lacks a date option and doesn't have luminescent hands. It's a very, very nice watch though. And only 5mm thick, which suits me since I dislike chunky watches.

Which would you lads pick?

>>5917
The Skagen. You use your phone for telling the time and date like a normal person would, goofball. Watches have become male jewellery.

>>5917

I prefer the looks of the Skagen, but the lack of lume on the hands would annoy me greatly, but if you never find yourself looking at your watch in the dark i can't see it being an issue.

>>5918
>>5919
I found that having a smartwatch, even just for telling the time, reduced the amount of pointless fiddling I do with my phone - if I pull it out to check the time, I'll probably end up having a little scroll down Facebook too.

>>5920
I have a Samsung Gear Fit 2 as my first smartwatch. It's not hugely functional compared to others - by design of Samsung, because even though it can run apps perfectly well they market it as a fitness band - but fuck me is it comfortable. Normally watches dig into my wrist but with this baby's ergonomic shape I usually forget I'm wearing it. So fuck 'fancy' watches - it tells the time and it's really comfortable, that's all you need.

>>5922

A smallish watch with a NATO strap can be extremely comfortable. A NATO strap runs underneath the watch case, so there's little or no metal in contact with your skin. The Timex Weekender is an inexpensive classic.

https://www.timex.co.uk/weekender-stripe-38mm-nylon-strap-watch/Weekender-Stripe-38mm-Nylon-Strap-Watch.html?dwvar_Weekender-Stripe-38mm-Nylon-Strap-Watch_color=Chrome-Blue-White&cgid=weekender-shop-all#start=1

Thanks for the advice everyone, in the end I settled for the Bering.

I agree that the Skagen looks a little better, but looking through their reviews there appear to be a lot of QC issues, especially with later models. This apparently has become worse since Skagen was acquired by Fossil a few years ago. The Skagen 2-year warranty notably doesn't cover the glass, which is apparently liable to crack with little provocation. The model I'd eyed is particularly thin and with a large face, which is asking for trouble in that department.

In any case I like the luminescent hands and date display - I know I can use my phone for that, but I don't fancy whipping it out for anything that trivial - I'm getting a bloody watch after all.

On an unrelated note, I was under the impression that I had rather small wrists and measured them last night to discover they're over 7". Is that about normal size?

>>5924

It's pretty much dead on average. The fashion in recent years has been for absolutely massive watches, which makes a lot of men feel small-wristed for no good reason. My wrists are smaller than 6", which is a genuine nuisance if you're into watches.

My wrists are barely over 5.5" round.
Which is a bloody pain because I like watches. Even small dress watches look big on me.

I literally have a thicker cock than my wrists. That's not bragging, I just have pipe cleaners instead of arms.

Can I even manage to get a watch that isn't for kids?

>>5927
You could always wear the watch on your cock

>>5927>>5928
Is it thicker on the soft or just hard? Maintaining an erection for the entire time you're out of the house could be a serious ordeal.

>>5927
> I just have pipe cleaners instead of arms.
Are there any exercise routine to buff them up?

>>5930

Exercise won't make your bones bigger.

>>5925
Hmm, depending on how tightly I measure,somewhere between 7.5 and 7.75 inches. How do you spindly lads not break all the time? (maybe you're less clumsy than me, I guess).
inb4 'no such thing as big boned' tedious shitstorm.
My current watch is getting old, and the tritium glowy bits are becoming annoyingly dim after 15 years or so. I like the combination of clockwork and radioactivity, but Traser don't seem do do anythign any more with that combination, which isn't some glaring adventure type thing with garish tat all over.
https://www.traser.com/our-collection/active-lifestyle/p67-officer-pro/p67-officer-pro-automatic-black/
seems to be the most subtle, and it's not what I want, at all.
Ideally, I'd like hands, numbers and date, with glowy bits in useful places. Can live without the date.
Any suggestions from you lot?

>>5931 Exercise won't make your bones bigger.

Then how come my right wrist is substantially bigger than the left?
Might be too late to change it now, but I'd imagine that the habits of my youth made a difference.

>>5933
Pretty sure regular micro fractions can make bones bigger and harder over long periods of time. Something something Jackie Chan punching sand.

It's not a watch, but my mum gave me the early Christmas gift of a really thick, silver, bracelet and I have no idea why. It makes my wrist look tiny and I have no idea why she thought I'd like it, I think this is the year when I tell her "socks and pants are the only clothes you can buy me". Last year she got me a burgundy graphic t-shirt of a bird with the words "KAW!" over it.

>>5934

This is absolutely true. Bone structure can be considerably changed by activity. Resistance and "impact" type training not only increase bone density but also cross-sectional measures.

Note that tendons and other tissues can also thicken with activity. You'll normally notice a difference in the forearms between dominant and non-dominant hands.

>>5936

So what activities should I do to get hench wrists? Wanking obviously doesn't work because I do more than enough of that.

I don't see how there's much I can do really. I'm quite slim in general but not underweight. My forearms just taper inwards like a conical flask. There's no muscle on that part of your arm no matter who you are, and I'd have to be morbidly obese on the rest of my body before it started to go there.

>>5932

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Traser-p5900-506-33-11-Wristwatch/dp/B000NNY078?ref_=fsclp_pl_dp_9

https://mwcwatches.com/collections/tritium-gtls-self-luminous-watches


If you've got cash to splash:
https://www.nitewatches.com/store/gb/

>>5932

Tissot and Nite are the two brands that spring to mind when I hear 'tritium'. Nite in particular make very minimalist, but still quite lovely, military inspired pieces.

I think Mondiale also do trit watches but I can't be arsed to google it.

Hmm, £175 for new lights, a (probably null) service and pressure test. Probably worth it to keep old faithful running - I like the battle-scarred look along with the pristine sapphire.

Skagen have a number of watches in their sale, including refurbished hybrid smartwatches from £45.

https://www.skagen.com/en-gb/sale?cat=174&product_list_order=price_asc

>>5941
There's nothing there that really appeals more than the one I'd eyed, and a few weeks on I'm very happen with the Bering. For once I made the right choice.

>>5941
They have their full on smartwatch for £80.

I have my LG Watch Urbane but this looks far, far classier.

I'm tempted, but I don't really need it.

>>5941
What features does a 'hybrid smartwatch' have?

Their website isn't very helpful.

>>5944

Hmm, strangely resistible. I really ought to be the target market for smart watches, but I think I'll stick to clockwork and ignoring emails.

>>5943
Got home to order it and they are already all gone. Fucks sake.

>>5947
If it makes you feel any better, I just learned from today's episode of Couples Come Dine With Me that skagen is just the Swedish words for shrimps. A pretty awful name for a watch brand frankly.

Makes me even happier I picked the Bering, you never know when you're going to bump into a Swede who's longing for an excuse to sneer at lesser beings for their gauche fashion sense.

Bumping this thread because I am in need of a watch, but I haven't worn one in almost twenty years so I don't really know where to start. My budget is up to £150 but I'd probably be happy with something half that price. I'm looking for something simple and respectable looking rather than flashy style over substance, with a preference towards a leather strap and a white face.

Any suggestions, lads?

>>6370

The Timex Weekender range would likely suit your half that price budget, they are nice watches but tick quite loud - it will annoy you if you keep it in your bedroom.

For something closer to your upper limit, an Orient Bambino or a Seiko 5 (or Seiko Automatic) would suit. For me personally I'd strike somewhere in the middle with a Casio Lineage/waveceptor, but then you'd also have to find and fit a leather strap for that one.

>>6370

Skagen Signatur?

https://www.skagen.com/en-gb/products/signatur-brown-leather-watch/SKW6374.html

>>6371
Thanks, lad. I think the Seiko ones have the nicest looking watch faces but I read something the other day about them trading on reputation and having quality control issues these days.

>>6372
Skagen are one of the brands I'd been considering. Thanks, lad.

>>6370
Did the same thing a couple of months ago. like >>6371 said Timex's weekender and expedition ranges are definitely worth a look but they all have electronic backlights instead of luminous dials if that matters to you.

Citizen's Eco Drive range probably has something but they don't list everything on their website, especially the less expensive models so you're better off looking at reseller's sites. They're a bit more expensive than Timex but they're all solar powered and can apparently run maintenance free for over a decade as long as you don't over discharge the battery by leaving it in a dark drawer for months.

Fossil make some nice looking designs but people say the build quality can sometimes be a bit questionable, although it's hard to tell if it's a genuine issue or just watch collectors shitting on Fossil for being a "fashion" brand.

If you fancy something mechanical Seiko and Vostok make some good but not too expensive automatics in your price range.

Also you can get some really nice after-market leather straps so don't rule anything out just because of the strap it comes with.

>>6373
Only issues I've heard about with seikos is that the SKXs (now discontinued) had been having problems with misaligned dials.

>>6374
>Also you can get some really nice after-market leather straps so don't rule anything out just because of the strap it comes with.

That is a very good point, especially as I read something the other day that said you should always change the strap when you buy a watch so if you sell it on you can put the original back on to make it look in mint condition.

>>6375

I did see one of the more prominent (well, everything is relative) watch youtubers complaining about Seiko quality control in regards to the new lines of Seiko 5's.

However, I'd not let it put you off, provided you can be arsed to return a watch if you're not happy with it. I find watches are one of the easiest things to either have fixed under warranty, replaced or refunded with basically no drama - watch retailers are usually passionate about the products so understand the concerns, and everyone else is a megaretailer who has automated, no questions asked returns policies, backed up by the distance selling regulations.

It's a shame they seem to have been having issues, though, Seiko are perhaps my favourite watch brand.

What do you lads think of the Casio duro watch? It's about £50 on Amazon but it'd have to be imported from America as it isn't sold here. My main concern is it looks massive.

>>6378 here again.

I saw one in an antique shop earlier today for about £40. They are indeed fucking massive.

There's a perfectly good thread for you watch fags fellows here. All the more suiting that the board is labled /poof/.

You know what, I think I will go for a Duro. Which colour? I assume it'd be fairly easy to mod if I wanted a different colour bezel.

https://www.greatwatches.co.uk/collections/frontpage/products/casio-mdv-106b-1a1v-mens-duro-200m-2021-watch-analog-200m-diver-brand-new

https://www.greatwatches.co.uk/collections/frontpage/products/pre-order-casio-mdv-106b-1a2v-mens-duro-200m-2021-watch-analog-200m-diver-brand-new

https://www.greatwatches.co.uk/products/casio-mdv-106-1a-mens-duro-200m-2020-analog-200m-diver-sports-watch-brand-new

>>6423

I'd go for the pepsi dial personally (the red and blue), but it's all down to preference really.

You can indeed get bezel inserts, though a quick google suggests you'd have to order them from the US, and they'd cost about as much as the entire watch - though they're made of ceramic, which is a nicer, more scratch resistant material than the typical aluminium ones, so probably worth it.

Got a lovely solar powered and another kinetic Seiko for xmas.

Watch geek hapy.

I've ordered a chinese tourbillion, I'm quite excited for it as it's a little bit special despite being rather cheap.

>>6425
The missus got me a Mr Jones Watch. They're novelty, I suppose, but they work with artists to make fun little watches with unusual cartoony faces. Attached is not the one I got, but the best example of what they do.

Given that I still check my phone for the time even when I'm wearing a watch, it's a nice gift and I'll wear it every now and then as an accessory.

>>6427

I like these a lot. My friend has the sugar skull one, and it gets a lot of attention, it's a lot of fun. And it surprised me to find out they're automatic watches, I assumed they were overpriced fashion pieces, but in fact they're bang on the money for what they are.

I like this one a lot - the only reason I haven't bought it is because "MJW" is the initials of a very annoying colleague, and I don't want to think about him every time I look at my cool fun watch.

I bought a Citizen Promaster Sky CB5000-50L watch in November. It ticked all the boxes for me, although I'd never spent over 300 quid on a wristwatch. It just seemed like an outrageous amount, when even a £50 or £100 watch can do the job very accurately. But I absolutely love my new watch and haven't looked back.

My Promaster is radio controlled and solar powered, so it's almost zero maintenance for decades. The lithium ion cell inside it can last well over a decade if you take the time to recharge it very regularly (the manual is very particular about that) with sunlight or artifical indoor light. From what you read on the web, even a single deep discharge can damage the cell so that it needs to be replaced.

I have always valued quartz accuracy over the prestige of owning a mechanical watch, and it seemed like a selling point even at 330 quid, for which you can already get a halfway respectable mechanical watch. I've always felt that there's no point even owning a watch if it can't tell time with the highest possible accuracy. Why spend (tens of) thousands on a luxury watch, when it's going to be off by five seconds every day.

My only niggle is that the stainless steel scratches very easily. I've had stainless steel watches before, so I knew what I was getting, but it's sort of more annoying on a watch that you've spent that much money on. For about 100 quid more, you can get the identical watch made of more scratch resistant titanium, which I tried on in a shop, but titanium being much lighter, it just felt like a cheap toy watch. I like the heavy feel of stainless steel on my wrist. It just feels more like I got my money's worth.

>>6429
That looks really nice. I'm jealous of it being radio controlled, that's a neat feature.

>>6429

>I've always felt that there's no point even owning a watch if it can't tell time with the highest possible accuracy. Why spend (tens of) thousands on a luxury watch, when it's going to be off by five seconds every day.

Even though I do own mechanical watches (and they're more like +5 seconds a week but your point is valid), I think a lot about how the 'best' watch I will ever own is this, a solar powered, radio controlled, near indestructible g-shock. It's as accurate as it could possibly be, waterproof, shockproof, and will live forever. Perhaps the only way it falls down is that I wouldn't wear it to a wedding, but then again, I probably could. It cost £89.

Of course the fascination with mechanical watches for me is that they're mechanical at all, I like the engineering that goes into them. Do I like that aspect enough to buy a 15 grand Rolex? Do I fuck.

>>6431

>Do I like that aspect enough to buy a 15 grand Rolex? Do I fuck.

Even if you see a luxury mechanical watch as an investment, as some people do, your timepiece is only going to maintain its value and be a profitable investment if you have it serviced regularly, ideally at authorised dealerships. Which is going to cost a good amount of money and will diminish your net profit if you actually decide to sell it one day. And you are going to have to wear it sparingly and effectively you'll need an additional daily beater watch. It's in a way similar to investing in a luxury classic car. Just buying a classic Jag, Merc or even a Ferrari isn't going to be a profitable investment if you keep it parked in front of your house as a daily driver and scrimp on the repairs.


>>6430

> I'm jealous of it being radio controlled, that's a neat feature.

I didn't really see that as a selling point at first, as even a Swatch Irony quartz watch which I had before is only off by about 20 seconds to half a minute a month, but in a tech geek kind of way, it's really neat to have. Can recommend.

You can pick up a Rolex replica that'd be indistinguishable to the majority of people for about £300 to £400, but I don't really see the point.

https://geektime.cc/product/submariner-41mm-126610-ln-black-ceramic-904l-steel-vsf-vs3235/

https://geektime.cc/product/yacht-master-42mm-226659-vsf-3d-black-ceramic-bezel-on-black-rubber-strap-vs3235/

>>6432

I was going to make the car analogy as I read you first sentence. I'm into my cars as well, and could afford a Ferrari if I really wanted one, but paying £3000 for an alternator would bring me much, much less joy than buying whole fucking Triumph for the same price. Similarly, a watch movement that can't be serviced by the young lad in the Watch Lab Express or Timpsons does not make me feel special, it makes me feel like a fool whose money was easily parted.

I admire Rolexes too, but I don't think I could ever buy a new one (not that you actually can, right now - there's waiting lists for years for some) because I just don't think they're that exciting of a watch company. They do some interesting things, but they do them in an extremely soulless way - horology is, to me, about handcrafted luxury, not using expensive lasers to etch stuff on your dials. But that's getting a bit too into it, I think.

I think Rolex in particular is desirable for many simply because people know they're expensive - like >>6433 says you can get a swiss made replica for a fraction of the cost with the exact same quality and complexity. I fully support anyone who wants to look like a flash git on a budget. I think most people like Rolex because it's baked into us that a Rolex means you've 'made it', though that's an extremely recent interpretation of the brand.

For me as a watch nerd I'd not buy a replica, but that's more because I know I'd enjoy a 'real' seiko for the same price more. I also don't like drawing attention to myself, I don't necessarily want people to know how much my watches cost - I've never posted a picture of any of mine here. I wear a £1600 Oris to work every day and not once has anyone noticed or commented on it, and I like it that way - I have seen people wearing Rolexes get into all sorts of horrific conversations like "how much did you pay for that" or "what do you do for a living" - no thanks.

I'm thinking about making my most expensive watch purchase, a Grand Seiko snowflake. They're about five grand, which I accept is ridiculous, and I'd be extremely embarrassed if anyone knew what it was or what it cost. But I think they're absolute works of art, at least as close as you can get to that in something made as a product.

>>6434
>I think most people like Rolex because it's baked into us that a Rolex means you've 'made it'
Who taught you all this?

>>6435
Big Clockwork.

>>6435

Rolex have always been considered exceptionally well made watches, but for the longest time they were affordable. Their dive watches were tools for working men, their dressier watches were just a cheaper way for a middle class salesman to get a luxury watch on their wrist than Cartier et al.

I can only imagine the Rolex marketing division did a lot of work to get them into films, onto celebrities, and then that hype fed into itself. There's no denying Rolex make good watches - everything they do is made in house, they source their own precious metals, grow their own sapphire, build everything to the most exacting standards. But none of that matters, not really, when you can just say "Steve McQueen wore this one, it's £20000"

The price of everything even remotely collectable seems to have shot up in the last decade - classic cars, watches, vintage clothes, all used to be relatively cheap fun for those with particular interests, but I suppose the advent of get rich quick investment apps and crypto and all that has given us the idea that everything is speculative, everything's going to be worth loads in x amount of years. And so people pay 10 grand for a used Milgauss, a watch that has (had?) an MSRP new of £3000 and everyone said was the runt of the Rolex litter five years ago. But now, now it's a future classic, you see. And you can't buy one because of the waiting list, so quick, buy mine.

It's shite. Buy what you enjoy, if you can afford it, and if it's not made of bricks, or has moving parts, don't expect to ever get your money back. Better yet, buy something you love enough that you'd not sell it unless you really had to. That's what I do, and I can't say I've ever regretted buying anything.

>>6435

The funny thing is that however that idea started, it's absolutely true now. A new Rolex on the grey market costs more than the average uk household income, and to get one at the AD, to even be on a waiting list for the big releases, you have to be a very valuable customer. So at least you have to have a notable amount of financial success to have a new one on your wrist right now.

>>6437

>The price of everything even remotely collectable seems to have shot up in the last decade - classic cars, watches, vintage clothes, all used to be relatively cheap fun for those with particular interests, but I suppose the advent of get rich quick investment apps and crypto and all that has given us the idea that everything is speculative, everything's going to be worth loads in x amount of years

It's fascinating actually, I've seen a video or two and read at least one article somewhere on the idea that we actually are seeing some sort of meta-speculation bubble that's affecting basically all collectibles markets.

You can see a concrete example in the retro games scene at the minute- Sealed copies of twenty five year old Mario games, for example, going for hundreds of thousands, millions in some instances. The dead giveaway is the involvement of a verification company that will give you a valuation and a certificate- If you dig up the backgrounds of the people running this company, it's the very same people who engineered the collectible comics bubble in the 90s in a very similar way. Nobody wants to pay £200,000 for a sealed copy of Mario 64 for the intrinsic value of the item itself; but people who want to magically turn their money into more money for free certainly do.

he question is, will the house of cards inevitably come crashing down as it has done in previous speculative bubbles, or has our economy reached such a point of self-parody that it really can carry on growing forever, based on the force of nothing but sheer make believe?

>>6439
Will Beanie Babies make a comeback?

>>6439

>will the house of cards inevitably come crashing down as it has done in previous speculative bubbles, or has our economy reached such a point of self-parody that it really can carry on growing forever, based on the force of nothing but sheer make believe?

From the ways I have seen people in my 90's JDM car groups talk about how a rusted, non turbo Skyline is worth 20 grand because of the 'prestige of Nissan' then I would say it's definitely the latter.

I think the fact that we're all on the internet, that we're all sat in little groups telling each other that yes, a 1991 MX5 with more rust than metal left on it is actually worth £5k, because they're getting rarer, you know, and besides, I bought one for £4.5k a year ago so they're definitely worth it, obviously. I just don't see how the bubble can burst without external economic influence, not when there's so many echo chambers that can inflate prices without even really realising that's what they're doing.

>>6438

Same sort of prices as an ape jpg then.

>>6438

There's a small plot-arc in the early episode of Succession where one of the middle-management spends a huge part of his salary on fancy watch for his boss/father-in-law as a birthday gift and it just gets off-handedly used as hush-money for the parents of a child who gets psychologically abused by one of the rich people, for fun.

I'm not trying to attack you all for it, you seem fairly self-aware of the surrounding issues. I'm just thinking out loud here - but to place so much value in an item seems to be just as much a sign that you haven't "made it", not to the top at least. It's a rented pineapple; a fancy car parked outside of a council flat. Again, not meaning to criticise either you or the council house owner for your lot in life, but the way the object is implicitly signalling support for a system that exploits and doesn't value either of you. You both worked or work hard to have the valued object but they're circus participation medals.

>>6442

No, I know that. It's why I wouldn't buy one. I grew up poor, so owning a Rolex really was something I saw as a huge statement of wealth and success, but as you point out, it's small fry, really. Even in the watch world, in terms of luxury watches, a Rolex is nothing, price wise, compared to a Patek or an AP. And yet you could wear a £230,000 chrono Nautilus and nobody would have a clue. Rolex are perhaps the Dolce or Lambo of watches, they're the ones you buy when you want people to know you've bought them.

But like you say, a used Rolex, most people with full time jobs could buy one, maybe outright, or maybe with a reasonable deposit and a 0% finance deal. But their name alone, at least where I'm from, is what you're really buying. But I don't buy watches because they're expensive. The majority of my collection are Seikos. I like interesting watches, I like well made watches. I will pay a fair bit if those two overlap. I don't plan on selling any, I cringe at the thought of ever flexing any of them, even to other watch nerds.

I genuinely believe there are watch makers, even big names you recognise, even ones owned by the Swatch Group or whoever, who genuinely care about the watches they make, and aren't just doing it for the money. Rolex is certainly not one of those, they are a self perpetuating nightmare of veblen goods, even if their watches are actually made as well as they can be made, it's just not the same thing.

>>6437

>The price of everything even remotely collectable seems to have shot up in the last decade - classic cars, watches, vintage clothes, all used to be relatively cheap fun for those with particular interests

Just as an example, I saw a Ferrari Testarossa once in a queue in front of me at a car wash, circa 2008. The owner told me he had just bought it the same day, and for just over £40,000. It looked in very good condition. Testarossas were one of the most infamous dream cars of the mid- to late 80s, not just for being on Miami Vice, but because they were the embodiment of 80s ostentation. And no posters of it that you had in your younglad bedroom growing up prepared you for how absurdly low and wide the car is when you are standing right in front of one. But I digress. In 2008, they were cheap as chips in relative terms, and nobody quite wanted them. 40 grand was an absolute steal, considering you were getting a flat-12 supercar Ferrari for your money, at a time when even an upmarket family estate car could be in that price range. Nowadays, a well-kept example of a Testarossa will set you back at least £100K, probably north of £120K for a certified concorso condition one. If it had a celebrity previous owner, we'll be talking silly money altogether.

> but I suppose the advent of get rich quick investment apps and crypto and all that has given us the idea that everything is speculative, everything's going to be worth loads in x amount of years

I'd say it's still the cheap money and expansive monetary policies of central banks. You still get almost no interest on your money if you park it in passive-income financial investments, so people have spent over a decade putting their money in all sorts of other things, whose prices have then gone up based on the laws of supply and demand, and have given investors astronomical returns, which then need to be reinvested and drive up prices all over again. It's now the new norm, as there are still untold sums pouring both into the luxury goods and the property market, because people think the boom will last forever, and because those markets obviously haven't run out of idiots yet who are willing to pay even more for an item than you did.

As bubbles go, they all burst eventually. We saw a sharp drop in property prices and all manner of luxury goods from classic cars to watches following the 2007/2008 meltdown of the global financial system, which goes a long way explaining why a nice Testarossa could be had for 40 grand, and the biggest danger is to assume that that sort of thing can never happen again. The monetary value of most things that have gone up in the current investment bubble is almost entirely subjective, their price tag can be £200K one day and £20K the following week.

>>6444
>Ferrari Testarossa

I always end up with this stuck in my head when I see its name mentioned.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJC1bms0EVo

Then again, I struggle with the fact that Jeff is played by the same person who was Ray Von in Phoenix Nights.

>>6444

>As bubbles go, they all burst eventually

It's a real shame for someone like me, A shed dweller who accidentally now has enough money to buy my dream cars of the 80s and 90s, but simply can't allow myself to buy them at the ludicrous prices they're at now. Even if the bubble does pop, likely by the time it does, the cars will be rare by attrition anyway, and will naturally be more expensive as there's so much less of them.

>>6444
I'm sure this is what's happening to housing. It's the safest investment, so if you have 200 grand spare, you'd be a fool to invest in anything else. This results in me, personally, being specifically fucked over and I will never buy a fancy watch until I have a house first, so I'll leave you to your thread. I always get Sekonda watches because I like the name.

>>6447
House prices have been booming a lot longer than that. In the late 90s it became a lot easier to get a buy-to-let mortgage as the rules were relaxed and there was a large push to get rid of the stigma of being a landlord. The telly was constant property porn, which really fuelled the idea of seeing houses as being an investment rather than somewhere to live. The dot.com bubble and the financial crisis made many very wary about stockmarket investing whereas investing in a property feels safe as it's tangible; BTL also has the advantage of being able to use leverage. There's also the fact that the housing stock doesn't meet our demographics well enough; there's not enough bungalows for our aging population and a lot of family houses have been converted into HMOs to accommodate students and migrants.

>>6448

> The dot.com bubble and the financial crisis made many very wary about stockmarket investing whereas investing in a property feels safe as it's tangible


A lot of it depends on the envisaged time frame of your investment. Few people are in the business of flipping houses the way a lot of people buy and sell stock, but if you are, you can turn a loss on a property you've bought and want to sell soon. And with all the paperwork that comes with buying or selling a house, ordinary people almost without exception are in it for long-term ownership. Occasional market bubble bursts notwithstanding, it's almost impossible to sell a house you've bought for yourself at a loss, because you aren't forced to weather short-term fluctuations in resale value, as many people are who try to earn money with stocks.

Then again, ask somebody who has been living in their humble detached four-bedroom home in central London for decades if they see their house as an investment and if they feel wealthy for owning something that's worth the best part of a million quid on paper.

I'm not sure what's ahead for luxury watches. But when people start offering you completely silly amounts for your classic vintage jewellery or wristwatch, then it can be a sign that the market is topping out. You can only turn a pofit on something that is prone to market value fluctuations if you'll find the bigger idiot. Somebody who is stupid enough to buy the thing off you for more money than you paid. Markets crash when they run out of bigger idiots.

>>6449

>Then again, ask somebody who has been living in their humble detached four-bedroom home in central London for decades if they see their house as an investment and if they feel wealthy for owning something that's worth the best part of a million quid on paper.

Funny one that, because I would. But then, I can imagine to a Londoner the prospect of selling their million quid east-end mansion and moving up north to live in a much bigger house that cost a quarter the price, and living comfortably on the difference, is a lot like if you tell me that I could move to Poland and live like a king.

I shouldn't have looked at replicas. I'm now having to talk myself out of spending ~£250 on a Seamaster.

https://jtimewatch.net/product/seamaster-2018-diver-300m-vsf-11-best-edition-black-ceramic-black-dial-on-black-rubber-strap-a8800/

>>6450

>is a lot like if you tell me that I could move to Poland and live like a king.

There are places in some dirt poor shithole countries in Southeast Asia and Oceania where you're the fucking emperor with £25K a year. And you have picture perfect tropical beaches at your doorstep.

>>6451

And what will you tell people when they ask if that's a real Omega.

It's better to shop for a real watch that's in your budget than to pretend you splashed out on a luxury watch that would realistically break your bank.

>>6452

>And what will you tell people when they ask if that's a real Omega.

Why can't he just say "yeah"? It's not like people will know. I collect watches and absolutely couldn't tell a replica from a real one, unless perhaps you let me wind it.

By the way the real sign you've made it isn't a Rolex, it's how many ovens you have in your kitchen. Two is getting into top tax bracket, three or more is real money.

>>6452
>And what will you tell people when they ask if that's a real Omega.

Oh, I wouldn't wear it outside. I don't want to be mugged because people think I'm wearing a Seamaster worth several grand.

>>6454

>it's how many ovens you have in your kitchen. Two is getting into top tax bracket, three or more is real money.

Hardly, when you can get a brand-name built-in oven from Curry's for under 500 quid.

I'd say an elaborate free-standing cooking range by a trusted premium brand name that spans at least five feet in width is the real sign of success. It means that not only were you able to spend over 1,000-2,000 quid or perhaps much more on an appliance, but you have enough room for it in your kitchen, and you have the free time to be a cooking enthusiast, as a cooking range like that is a complete waste of money if you only use your kitchen to reheat take aways after work.

It used to be that the size of your TV screen was a mark of your financial and professional success. Before 40'' TVs could be had for a song and became the insignia of council flat dwelling dolescum smoking fags all day while watching Jeremy Kyle, anything larger than about 30 inches would cost you some very serious money.

>>6456

Yeah, you can get a cheap oven, sure, but have you seen a working man's kitchen? You just wouldn't have the room. Beyond that, you only need two ovens if you have the space, and the social freedom, to entertain. I thought you lot were good at readong too much into class signifiers.

An aga is either old money, or someone who earns less money than I do but wants to pretend like they do, or they recently moved to a village and are leaning into it.

>>6457

>Yeah, you can get a cheap oven, sure, but have you seen a working man's kitchen? You just wouldn't have the room.

I had friends who lived in a two-bedroom rented flat for a while, and although they both had steady jobs, they were hardly top earners. And their kitchen was a bit on the small side. And yet, they had two ovens in it.

>>6458

They probably had won the lottery, but didn't want to tell you.

>>6456

>a cooking range like that is a complete waste of money if you only use your kitchen to reheat take aways after work.

Yes, that's the point. It's important to have all the accoutrements, actually using them is besides the point. The entire middle class lifestyle is built upon having signifiers like this regardless of if you actually have a practical use for them; or indeed, in the Big TV Debate, if you would have a practical use for them, but choose to deny yourself it.

Have you even noticed middle class people hide their washing machine, dishwasher, ironing board, clothes drying rack etc out of the way in a separate room? Normal people have these things out in the open in the kitchen, where they get used, because they are in use regularly. Middle class people prefer to pretend there's magic elves that do it all out of sight and out of mind, because it's undignified to show your guests (and by extension, the world) that you put your own clothes in your own washer, by hand.

Middle class people are scum.

>>6460
Wait... not having your ironing board on view makes you middle class?

>>6460

This post made me laugh. As a working class lad growing up with a few siblings in a busy little terraced house, I remember my mother doing what seemed to be tonnes of washing and folding laundry in the kitchen.

I'm now living in a refurbished flat where the washing machine and dryer are in a separate room. I think it's mainly because of the noise the machines make, but I'd actually agree people are far too precious about this sort of thing. If you're comfortable enough with people to invite them to your house...

>>6461
More importantly, there are two types of people in society: middle-class people, and the entirely different ones, their polar opposites, the "normal" people.

May I recommend this excellent article from 2009 about differences between working class and middle class life in Liverpool.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8223453.stm

>>6464
The food timing thing was a massive shock for me when I got to uni. Teatime for me was always 4.30 or 5, but I was regularly eating an hour or two before anyone else.

>>6464
I always get a tickle out of people identifying as "lower-middle class". It's like "I'm not one of them, honestly".

>>6466
I usually say that because I grew up fully working class, but it's a but incongruous to claim that now, given I am an additional rate tax payer who lives in a four bedroom detached house.

>>6466
Being middle-class is our equivalent of when Americans talk about "white girls". They're everywhere, they're a massive demographic, and yet openly admitting to being one is absolute poison, like being a terrorist or a paedophile. It's ridiculous, but there you go.

>>6468

True enough, but you've got it backwards.

Americans talk about things like "white girls" because, much like their physically and symbolically mutilated cocks, they have had their class consciousness worn down to total numbness.

Truly there is no more a subjugated a people on earth than the American.

>>6469
Yanklad here, and I think I've mentioned before that "working class" over here is more or less only used for minimum wage workers and those living in poverty. It's very rare to hear anyone use the phrases "working class" or "blue collar" without them being disparaging.