Absolutist and sensationalist statements are the only thing that drive forum discussions, especially in watch forums. Every thread on WUS is the same rehash of "WEAR IT IN GOOD HEALTH" and then dies after six posts. With the exception of a few threads where there is some honest, opinionated discussion, everything else is just people clapping each other on the back repeatedly. Yawn.
Its one thing to argue about whether Rolex's current market prices are justifiable, but the whole vintage Rolex circlejerk is something beyond it entirely. It is, to me, a clear example of something being "awesome" by the sheer virtue of its alleged "scarcity" and nothing else!
When you can buy a 200+ year old Japanese sword that was painstakingly handcrafted by a team of men over several weeks, forged by the sweat of their brow and the blood of their hands, which has not only seen but physically made history, for less than half as much, its a wonder to me why someone would pay that money for a 40 year old Rolex dredged from the bottom of a lake.
I think Frills covered most of this quite well. I'll just add that there are over 2,200 posts in this thread, so IMHO this thread has done quite well without many absolutist and sensational statements. In the world of watches- absolutist & sensational statements are often exaggerations that when scrutinized are just inaccurate. So they serve little purpose, other than to maybe perpetuate myths or inaccuracies.
As for the 200+ year old sword selling for half of what a particular Rolex sells for, its simply what the market dictates. Age, workmanship, and rarity are good factors in understanding value, but without large scale interest in an item, it may not be as valuable as something else. Maybe the inability for most to wear/use a sword regularly, and its size/space constraints in displaying them, along with possible a concern about whether future generations will be interested in them or collect them results in their values being less than that of some watches. Watches can be worn daily, take up less space, and some may almost be seen as investments when dealing with vintage Pateks, Rolex, and other fine brands. I'm not saying its right, but people speak with their wallets,and perhaps the market for vintage watches is stronger than that of vintage swords.
Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. None of my posts were going after you. Your final few posts were simply you losing your cool and then becoming insulting. You might not like my posts, but most are fairly well reasoned, and are about opinions and watches...not people.
Most of my posts were quite positive about your choice. I thought your discussion regarding your purchase was both interesting and reasonable until you said, "I'm not prepared to pay that kind of premium simply to attract a very select niche of men who appreciate the nuances of why the daytona is as awesome as it is over the speedy."
Funny that you accuse Daytona owners of purchasing their watches for the purpose of attracting men who appreciate the nuances of their watch, and yet here you are posting pix of your watch and showing us your purchase. Is that not the same? Isn't your comment a swipe at Daytona owners? Isn't it holding yourself above Daytona owners? Perhaps you don't see that in your statement, but its there. Just consider that as food for thought.
In the end, I'm willing to extend an olive branch, and I apologize for any transgressions you feel I've made toward you. However, if you are unwilling to move forward and you want to keep throwing barbs my way, I'm more than willing to deal with them as I see fit. Again, I wish you well with your recent purchase.