241–250 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These ones are not.
150 of the exact same model, among huge piles of other models. I don't want to argue about word choice. In the distinction I was describing, however imperfectly worded, watches like this easily go on the bulk side of the line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're beautiful and impressive, but I find the amount of money that flows into "high horology" to be an sum with an egregious opportunity cost to society, made even worse by the fact that all that complexity goes towards a movement that is worse at keeping time than a rudimentary quartz. If people want Tamagotchis, they can get a Tamagotchi. I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead an…
Expensive timepiece today is the only way for a man to show off his wealth indoors in a relatively tasteful manner. Woman can wear gold and diamonds on the neck, in the ears, on the wrists, on the lapel. She may carry a bag which costs thousands. Man can't wear any gold at all, except he is a rap star. He can't even wear cufflinks outside formal attire. Not sure about even a ring with stone. Maybe steel one with smal…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Expensive timepiece today is the only way for a man to show off his wealth indoors in a relatively tasteful manner. Woman can wear gold and diamonds on the neck, in the ears, on the wrists, on the lapel. She may carry a bag which costs thousands. Man can't wear any gold at all, except he is a rap star. He can't even wear cufflinks outside formal attire. Not sure about even a ring with stone. Maybe steel one with smal…
I think you partially left out expansive clothes / shoes brands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why is someone willing to pay them? Because luxury watches are a status item. Why are they a status item? Because enough people believe them to be one. So value (in this sense) is not really between buyer and seller at all, but a common agreement between a large enough number of people. What OP in this discussion did was shine a spotlight on that fact, maybe in the hopes of getting at least one person to change w…
> Because luxury watches are a status item. Rolexes are a status item. They're cheap in the world of watches. Many brands you've never heard of command far higher prices. The value is in the fact someone who studied horology their whole life devoted a certain amount of hours and effort into creating something. People who love watches love the craftsmanship.
So "hours of craftsmanship and effort" is not what makes something valuable. It takes something else -- in this case that it's a status symbol. A long time ago it would have been certain tulips. Now it's watches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well it's not bad faith if I'm accidentally somewhat unclear. Like, I could say something completely objective like "100 for watches" if that's better, and it would be impossible to argue about whether 150 is more or less than 100. If I'm wrong about the production of 150 watches having some quality, argue about that quality, no need to argue about broader categories in a completely abstract way while introducing no…
I think he's disagreeing with the arbitrariness of where you're drawing lines to make your argument sound more reasonable. And he's free to argue his way. Mass production already has a definition and I'm pretty sure significant manual work goes into each copy. But this is beside the point. Regardless of how many copies are made, the creativity and ingenuity that went into the first one alone makes it something marvel…
So it's true that I should classify batches of 100+ and mass production quite differently. Along with pure one-offs and batches under five. But my original point still applies. I think these different quantities should be treated quite differently in terms of how art can be very expensive.
In your other comment you said: Finally, quantity is irrelevant to whether something is classified as art. My point was that the fact that it was created at all is meaningful and valuable.
It's art, very good art, but it's also far short of 150 artistically different watches. Almost everything is art at some level, but the amount that the artistry should affect price depends on production quantities and methods. Most of the artistry here is one piece.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>envelope of the possible Maybe limits of human hand craft which I assume is the allure of these bespoke time pieces. That said I don't actually see the description mention hand crafting other than polishing and drawing a few surfaces. Otherwise I don't see why this is pushing any envelopes when we can make micrometer MEMS machinery. Which would be pretty slick - theoretical minimum micrometer thick watch mechanism e…
I'm sure you're correct and making a thinner mechanical wristwatch that doesn't just fold in half is really easy! I look forward to your Show HN on a wristwatch How long do you figure it will take you? three months? six? should I send an email to remind you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s easy to spend other people’s money. The base argument of democracy is that because none of us knows the downstream effects we all share decision making. In other words: “that’s just like, your opinion, man.”
Democracy works with one person = one vote. When you have one dollar = one vote you get a plutocracy instead. So when consumers vote with their wallets, this vote isn't democratic at all. People that don't have money in their wallets don't get to vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because luxury watches are a status item. Rolexes are a status item. They're cheap in the world of watches. Many brands you've never heard of command far higher prices. The value is in the fact someone who studied horology their whole life devoted a certain amount of hours and effort into creating something. People who love watches love the craftsmanship.
Sure, but this sidetrack were started from the fact that there are many hobbies where people devote hours of craftsmanship and effort into creating something that's not considered nearly as valuable. So "hours of craftsmanship and effort" is not what makes something valuable. It takes something else -- in this case that it's a status symbol. A long time ago it would have been certain tulips. Now it's watches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Practical watches are ones where it's clear at a glance which way up it goes and what the time is; they have numbers on them, preferably in a digital readout like 00:40. Watches without numbers are fashion watches. Watches with analogue faces are relics from when technology only let you decypher the time from rotating pointers. Rotating pointers where the numbers they point at have been removed are form over function…
Numbers aren’t necessary to tell the time and the analog watch provides more information in the hours hand than digital does in the first two digits. I think you’d find that the time to tell the time can be quicker in analog than digital but I couldn’t find any studies.
Given how much we read numbers in everyday life, we have more practise at reading numbers and it requires fewer steps. Analogue clock faces are only really used for time, we do that less often and it requires more work. How could it be quicker?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Practical watches are ones where it's clear at a glance which way up it goes and what the time is; they have numbers on them, preferably in a digital readout like 00:40. Watches without numbers are fashion watches. Watches with analogue faces are relics from when technology only let you decypher the time from rotating pointers. Rotating pointers where the numbers they point at have been removed are form over function…
Analog watches let you glance at the time more subtly while in a meeting. Numberless watches are instantly readable after you own one for a little bit.
... how?