Originally Posted by Brian SD,Feb. 24 2005,14:55
Well, spending $1000-2000 on a "fine watch" is different than just a "watch" in general. Like I said, I would probably buy one dress watch around a thousand dollars and stick to under $500 for the rest.
As drizzt pointed out, I thought this discussion was concerning goods that would appeal to stylish gentlemen - otherwise, one may assume that a $20 Timex would suffice as well. I don't mean to act rude, but it simply annoys me when people use terms such as "absurd" and "ludcrious" to define extravagant watch purchases but do not hesitate to spend several thousand dollars on clothing. Panzer
Taking the standpoint that you can buy a standard quartz watch for $20 and get everything you NEED, you do not think spending 50-100
times the bare minimum is absurd? Most people I know would think spending $100 on a watch is pushing the high end. I think $500 is plenty extravagant, and as my post hinted, I find anything above that to be absurd. Hell, I pay "absurd" prices for jeans, because I love jeans. Most people don't even believe me when I say I have paid over $200 for a pair of jeans. I'm not going to try to make euphemisms or excuses because I don't feel comfortable admitting that my hobby costs me a pretty penny. I understand your side and I agree that it is no surprise a stylish gentleman would be willing to shell out a lot more money for a watch, and my input on that is that a stylish gentleman doesn't *need* to pay more than $500 for a watch. I'm sorry that you're annoyed by my opinion. I would think it better to actually have more than one side of the coin in a discussion, instead of everyone just preaching to the choir like an audience at a Michael Moore film.