They Have No Clothes ... but Their Watches Are Really Nice
by Tom Neven on 04/28/2008 at 11:22 AM
Hans Christian Andersen knew a thing or two about human nature, but I wonder if he could have imagined the insanity of today's scammers and swindlers.
I just read about the newest must-have watch manufactured by Geneva's finest. This fine timepiece is not for ordinary mortals, who might actually need to know the time. No, this watch is for the rarified breed of people who need not concern themselves with such petty matters as what hour it might happen to be; no, they merely need to know if it's day or night. As the sales copy so elegantly puts it, this timepiece splits "the universe of time into two fundamentally opposing sections: day versus night."
Wow, who could resist?
Well, I could, seeing as they want $300,000 for this glorified hunk of metal. Oh, and also because I happen to have windows in my house.
Reading about his reminded me of Edgar Allan Poe's "The Masque of the Red Death." The people this watch appeals to are locked away in their safe castles, thinking the destruction of the world will pass them by. They do not see that death is walking among us every day. But such has always been the case, and still we never learn.
1. nick said the following at 11:30 AM on Apr 28:
It would be most practical for the cubical monkey who never sees the light of day, unfortunately he probably couldn't afford it on his salary.
2. kman said the following at 11:44 AM on Apr 28:
Alrighty then.
Why not wear a little mechanical gizmo that does nothing useful at all? This one is pretty much there now.
"The ultimate luxury is wearing nonsense on your arm."
3. P&P said the following at 12:03 PM on Apr 28:
It's mechanical art. A fun concept, but not one I'd ever buy. I'll stick to my men's Timex with big numbers and a light.
4. Eliza said the following at 12:12 PM on Apr 28:
Nonsense on your arm would be a bracelet, wouldn't it?
5. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:58 PM on Apr 28:
Obviously this isn't so much for telling time as it is a piece of jewelry like an earring or necklace.
I wouldn't be too critical of it though. We ourselves are often guilty of this. Honestly, the only reason we don't wear the same thing every day and at all events is because we care about looks. Why would this watch be any different?
6. Derek Wong said the following at 1:50 PM on Apr 28:
I like Mike Theemling's comment about how we change clothes mainly to please others' aesthetics. It's true. If it were up to me, I'd be wearing basketball shorts and a T-shirt, and I'd only change it when it got dirty. And although that might end up being everyday, I'd be changing it for my own sake rather than to impress others.
Even with all of that, though, the "watch" is still dumb. As the saying goes, a fool and his money are soon parted.
7. Carl said the following at 1:57 PM on Apr 28:
For my 18th birthday I asked for and received a $12 analog watch. Five years later I asked for an identical replacement and got it too. Simplicity truly is bliss.
8. kman said the following at 2:02 PM on Apr 28:
1 Corinthians 10:23 I think speaks to this, unless you think it applies only to eating meat sacrificed to idols.
Our clothes are not only worn to impress others. They provide protection from the elements and other people. Our clothes can signify something (think of the Jewish priest's clothes)or communicate to others (soldier,police, doctor) or indicate professionalism (suit and tie). God does not want us too preoccupied with what we are to wear (See the Sermon on the Mount) in that He has promised to provide for us.
You can say the same about our physical appearance.
9. Nicole said the following at 2:07 PM on Apr 28:
Ah, this just goes to prove one of my undergrad economic profs rules: there is a market for everything.
It's a lot of money for a piece of jewelry, but aren't there many other pieces of jewelry that cost that much? Not that I would buy it or any other piece of jewelry that cost that much -- even if I had that kind of money.
10. Bethany said the following at 2:48 PM on Apr 28:
For $300,000, I'd tell people whether it was day or night. Good grief.
On a less expensive note, one of my coworkers wears watches that coordinate with her outfit - the only problem is that they DON'T WORK. I don't get it.
11. composer girl said the following at 3:01 PM on Apr 28:
P&P (#3) said:
"It's mechanical art. A fun concept, but not one I'd ever buy. I'll stick to my men's Timex with big numbers and a light."
from the Romain Jerome website:
"An exceptional timepiece that does not indicate the time!...A new interpretation of Time based around two Tourbillons operating sequentially. The Day Tourbillon operates during the day...and stops after twelve hours, handing over to the Night Tourbillon...An avant-garde approach, that is different and even disturbing."
I think that this is fascinating. Do a little more reading about tourbillons if you want to have a greater appreciation for the watchmaker's craft. The makers are obviously not catering to your Average Joe. Of course it would be unrealistic for your ordinary citizen to spend $300,000 dollars on a watch that doesn't tell time. But I think that as a piece of artwork, it is quite intriguing. I seriously doubt it will become the next Timex, but I wouldn't be suprised to see it in 50 to 100 years in the National Gallery of Art.
12. BDB said the following at 3:40 PM on Apr 28:
I met a cute clerk at a watch store once. She wasn't wearing any rings.
I really was looking for a watch, too.
But when I realized that the ones she was selling cost more than my car...
Well, I stifled what I was thinking and politely left with a catalog...
13. Justin T. said the following at 3:42 PM on Apr 28:
I might buy one for $10, simply because it's an interesting art piece. But $300,000? Hah. Do they realize what $300,000 can buy for a NORMAL person?
14. Christina said the following at 5:30 PM on Apr 28:
Justin T. (#13) said:
"Do they realize what $300,000 can buy for a NORMAL person?"
A normal person indeed. I'd hate to be the there-are-starving-children-in-Africa girl, but there are starving children in Africa!
15. Jethro said the following at 6:01 PM on Apr 28:
This watch does seem a little silly, but I have a real soft spot for luxury watches. Mmmm Breitling.
16. hxcjf said the following at 6:32 PM on Apr 28:
Its a tourbillon watch, that's why it is so expensive. It has a special gyro called a tourbillon that is extremely precise and very hard to machine. I plan on owning one like it someday. Nothing wrong with that.
17. Samantha said the following at 6:56 PM on Apr 28:
This is a Christian site. Do we really have to post judgements about people we don't know, such as people who want to buy these watches? Is that what Jesus would want us to do?
18. Louise said the following at 6:15 AM on Apr 29:
One would think that something called a "watch" would tell time!
This is just a piece of expensive jewelry.
And I thought $5K was excessive for a watch....just shows how out of the loop I am.
19. Leah said the following at 7:55 AM on Apr 29:
In reference to Mike Theemling and Eliza: the difference between this watch and jewellery is that jewellery is intended to simply be decoration. A watch is supposed to be practical and tell the time. When they cease to do that, they lose their entire point of existence. (in my opinion). So wearing an item which doesn't do what it SHOULD do is nonsense. Wearing a bracelet isn't nonsense, because at least its purpose is being fulfilled! :)
20. Julia H said the following at 8:48 AM on Apr 29:
If you live in the high Arctic it could be very useful indeed.
21. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:36 AM on Apr 29:
In response to some comments:
kman, you are correct that clothing can serve other purposes (thanks for bringing that up). It's very true that it can signify occupations, positions, or allegiances (uniforms). Also, clothing does protect us from the elements. Still, most of the clothes that are worn/sold throughout the world does not serve this purpose. And even warm/waterproof clothing is designed so that there is fashion involved (why don't we all only own one coat/jacket?).
It is true that watches are used to tell time, but it seems that often it's also meant for fashion. Here's another example of "non-utility" apparel: pockets (This is mainly for men as women are cursed with having fewer pockets). Despite things such as suits and sports jackets having pockets, men are encouraged NOT to use them. In fact, some pockets are sewn up so you can't use them. But they are still added because they look "nicer". The point is that sometimes fashion trumps utility. Which would most women rather wear with a nice outfit if they had to choose one for the evening: A nice watch that complements the attire but doesn't work or a $10 digital velcro watch from Wal-Mart that works?
22. Andrea said the following at 10:52 AM on Apr 29:
I am not surprised. I work in the luxury goods advertising business, and I frequently see watches come through our studio that ring up at $20,000 and above. The jewelry rings up even higher.
Honestly? I'm so jaded. It's just a metal and cogs and gears and expensive carbon and a fancy strap. Slap a name on it, and you can sell anything.
23. Nicole said the following at 3:38 PM on Apr 29:
Mike #21 --
I would rather wear the $10 watch from walmart that works. But that's just me. Mine actually cost $8 and most of the paint is chipped off and I never take it off... despite having a prettier watch that doesn't work.
But while knwoing if even if I had the money I wouldn't buy it, if someone else wants to buy it, good for them. A watch does have the purpose of telling time, but it can also just have the purpose of looking cute. Or of being a cool gadget. This watch is very much like a piece of jewelry and it is completely fulfilling its purpose of looks and being a cool gadget.
24. BDB said the following at 5:00 PM on Apr 29:
Nicole (#23) wrote:
>>but it can also just have the purpose of looking cute.<<
Wow...I feel blessed that I've never needed to buy a watch that looked cute...never bought cute shoes, either...
Mike (#21) wrote:
>>(why don't we all only own one coat/jacket?).<<
We're supposed to own more than one? Oh - layering...
>>A nice watch that complements the attire but doesn't work or a $10 digital velcro watch from Wal-Mart that works?<<
Maybe a Swatch that combines the two?
25. Rachael said the following at 5:17 PM on Apr 29:
That's crazy that there's a watch that costs $300,000...
On a different note (but still related to money), I wonder if occasionally we should 'think outside the box' on how money should be spent.
Recently the story of Mary of Bethany has been discussed in BSF. In the past, I hadn't realized that the woman in Matthew 26 was the same Mary who was the sister of Lazarus and Martha (maybe because I didn't realize that there were 2 different people who poured out ointment upon Jesus...the other story with a different woman is in Luke 7). The same woman who was commended for sitting at Jesus' feet,, soaking up His every word. Somehow that added knowledge wedged Mary's testimony deeper into my heart. She loved Jesus. She sat and listened to him. And in Matthew 26 she poured out "very expensive ointment...on his head". She was commended for this action as well, even though, according to Judas, the value was 300 denarii, or, a year's wages. Granted, this was definitely a special occasion -- THE special occasion; she did it to prepare Jesus for his burial. Indeed, that only happened once and will never happen again. However, I wonder if there are times when money spent in areas (deemed to be frivilous) actually honors God in ways we wouldn't expect.
No, I'm not talking about the $300,000 watch here. :) But perhaps we should be careful if we feel tempted to internally judge others' spending habits...
God knows the heart.
26. Rachael said the following at 5:24 PM on Apr 29:
(Hey -- this comment was flagged as spam, so I edited it a bit and took out my many attempted links - :) we'll see if this works...)
That's crazy that there's a watch that costs $300,000...
On a different note (but still related to money), I wonder if occasionally we should 'think outside the box' on how money should be spent.
Recently the story of Mary of Bethany has been discussed in BSF. In the past, I hadn't realized that the woman in Matthew 26 was the same Mary who was the sister of Lazarus and Martha (maybe because I didn't realize that there were 2 different people who poured out ointment upon Jesus...the other story with a different woman is in Luke 7). The same woman who was commended for sitting at Jesus' feet, soaking up His every word. Somehow that added knowledge wedged Mary's testimony deeper into my heart. She loved Jesus. She sat and listened to him. And in Matthew 26 she poured out "very expensive ointment...on his head". She was commended for this action as well, even though, according to Judas, the value was 300 denarii, or, a year's wages (John 12). Granted, this was definitely a special occasion -- THE special occasion; she did it to prepare Jesus for his burial. Indeed, that only happened once and will never happen again. However, I wonder if there are times when money spent in areas (deemed to be frivolous) actually honors God in ways we wouldn't expect.
No, I'm not talking about the $300,000 watch here. :) But perhaps we should be careful if we feel tempted to internally judge others' spending habits...
God knows the heart. (1 John 3)
27. Romy said the following at 1:29 AM on Apr 30:
"Honestly, the only reason we don't wear the same thing every day and at all events is because we care about looks."
I don't agree with Mike that looks are the only reason we wear different clothes at different times. Clothes are intricately tied up with culture and are a potent means of social communication. We wear suits to an interview to communicate our seriousness and desire for the job; I wear a nice dress to a wedding to honor the bride and groom. The appropriate clothing for a situation is one way we communicate our respect for others and our willingness to be a part of society. There's a lot more to clothing than simply vanity.
28. whs said the following at 12:39 PM on Apr 30:
In his book "Rainbows for the Fallen World" Calvin Seerveld, professor of philosophical aesthetics at the Institute for Christian Studies, has argued "aesthetic obedience is required of everyone by the Lord-artist or not."
29. Nicole said the following at 8:44 PM on Apr 30:
BDB #24
Clearly I've never bought a watch for cuteness either. Mine was $8 at walmart and the paint is chipping off.
BUT my roommate bought me a watch (years ago when she wasn't my roommate)cause it was cute -- certainly not to tell time since it was one of those stupid ones that only were marked in four places so if the hands weren't on the 12,3,6 or 9 you were just estimating the time anyways. So apparently people wear them. I of course got it wet -- apparently cute watches aren't waterproof.
I have bought shoes just because they were cute though I will admit.
30. BDB said the following at 6:03 PM on May 2:
Nicole (#29) wrote:
>>it was one of those stupid ones that only were marked in four places so if the hands weren't on the 12,3,6 or 9 you were just estimating the time anyways.<<
Well, my staff commented that I looked at my watch an awful lot - made them feel less valued. So, for formal occasions, I got an analog one with a few tic marks. If I REALLY need to know what time it is, I can look at at my phone.
Though buying it was kind of a fluke. First, I was trying to find one watch that had everything. Then I realized that for the same price, I could by TWO, one for with a suit, one that would survive being dropped on my tile floor repeatedly.
When the everyday one came, it needed to be sized. I went to the new Sears jewelry department, which was pretty empty. It took the poor clerk and hour to take out the links. I felt so bad for her...I bought the second watch there. I certainly had time to look at all of them...
Now I've learned that there are watch repair places that can do the job in 5 minutes for $5 because they have the right tools...