Quote:
Originally Posted by grimlock
At the risk of going off-topic, I'd like to look at the larger social aspects of hobbying.
To what extent is the conversation on function - the enjoyment of it? And to what extent is it about establishing a pecking order within a social group?
I'd say in any group, aspects of both exists.. as they should.
You discuss the topic at hand, and as all interaction between humans entails the subconscious undertones of social hierachy.. - the establishment of rank or relative worth, which determines access to 'resources', although I can't imagine what that means here except for direction of conversation.. but hierachy is entrenched in the human psyche even if it is inconsequential in the narrower context.
On fakes, the disgust from authentic supporters comes from the robbing of value from their hard-pursued acquisitions - entirely their right, and which serves as deliniation for social groups. However, there is also a game being played by the manufacturers -as is with all marketed products that serve a social value other than it's utilarian function - that of created or imagined value, or the concept of "social proof" - conspicuous items to display wealth, a proxy for mating desirability. (are all things about sex after all?)
The stretched-thin pursuer of authentics may have lost view of this "illusion", however to the multi-millionaire and billionaire, such a price level for such simple items does not contain an afterthought and is thus 'rational'. To everybody else, it's a misrepresentation and an attempt to flatter you own worth. Just as a faker (seriously or not) wants others to think he is more than he actualy is, the authentic-er also wants the same thing, just that he has invested more, and so predictably is greatly angered by those dabbling in "his game" but who, perhaps wisely, see the irrationality of it and only bets a nominal wager for fun.. rather than his life savings.
(No feelings were intended to be hurt..)
|
The social positioning angle is interesting and there's merit to it as that's surely on the mind of some folks who buy fakes. The thing about the folks who buy fakes when considered alongside the folks who buy their authentic "betters" is this:
- Folks who buy a fake and lack the resources to buy the authentic version also lack the resources to buy many of the other things that folks with money resources buy. That is, it's just show and being merely that, the charade won't last long or get them very far. That is, of course, if they perpetuate or allow others to think the items are authentic. If, however, these consumers openly admit the non-authentic nature of the watch, they've neither lost nor gained. So with these folks, it merely comes down to a matter of whether they have integrity. If they do, wearing a falsely branded item isn't going to alter their standing. If they don't, again, wearing the fake won't alter their standing and it may impair it once they are found out.
- Folks who buy fakes and yet have the money to buy the real thing lose nothing. They are able to walk the walk and thus lose no position as a result. That's because their place on the "social hierarchy" isn't jeopardized regardless of what trappings of wealth they display.
The integrity aspect, however, remains. So too do the pros and cons of displaying (or not) that character attribute.
Consider now the folks on the other side of the coin: the folks who bought authentic goods. The short of it with them is this: those that care, don't matter; and those that matter, don't care. The reason that's so is because social positioning really doesn't depend on a watch because the truth of it is that there're so very few watches that can be reliably used to infer wealth. Moreover, no matter how many other folks buy a pricey watch, their having it (or a fake that you or I believe to be the genuine article) doesn't do a thing to
A better bellwether might be the extent of one's charitable giving for how much you can give away without compromising one's own lifestyle speaks volumes more than how much can spend on oneself, particularly when that spending might be said to be a reflection of one's own lifestyle.
As far as positing an idea about why folks (and not the folks who are entitled to legal recourse in the matter) get irked about the fact that others buy/wear fake luxury goods is intellectual, and the social effect follows.
Consider, if you will, why one might spend huge sums ($8K+) on a watch. The reasons fall into four general areas, as far as I can tell.
- Collecting: Clearly, a collector of any serious stripe (no matter the degree of seriousness) cannot buy a fake to add to his collection unless s/he's trying to create some sort of case for/story around the differences between the two. S/he can buy a fake, but they could not (barring the exception noted) consider it a watch "in the collection," regardless of whatever reason they may buy/wear it.
- Sartorial/Fashion: Certainly, if there isn't an acceptable fake available, the sartorial buyer has little choice but to buy the authentic watch and pay the price for it. Outside of that, however, the reasons for having the watch for this consumer -- telling time and creating a "look" -- can be achieved effectively with either type of watch.
- "Posing:" This consumer can buy a genuine watch or a fake. Again, the central issue here is integrity of the user's character.
- Penury: This consumer certainly cannot buy the pricey watch However, as cheap as fakes are, there are still less expensive watches one can buy, and if our beggar friend must wear a watch -- a specious "need" for such a person seeing as a watch of one's own is not the sole way one can discern the time of day...a beggar need only ask for it and s/he will likely fare more successfully than when asking for money -- they would logically choose the least expensive option.
I suspect that most pricey watch wearers fall into the first two groups. A person need not be exclusively in one or the other of those two groups; straddling and floating between them is quite possible, indeed likely, but still, one is going to be primarily driven by one or the other of those two reasons. If, when asked what one's collecting objectives and themes are, one has none, it's clear that one is more a sartorial collector than a curatorial one. That then becomes the dominant reason for the purchase that gives the group to which one belongs.
So now, getting back to the cause of the ire...why is
logos the driver behind the ire? The answer is quite simple. As stated earlier in this thread, aside from complicated watches, telling time isn't enhanced by the price of the watch. If one is spending to obtain a look, one looks rather foolish having spent a lot of money to obtain a look that would be no different had one instead bought the fake. People despise fake watches (perhaps also the people who buy/wear them) because the overwhelming majority of consumers choose a watch because it looks good, and upon finding out they could look just as good sartorially and have spent thousands less to do do, they feel foolish, at least if they are honest with themselves about why they bought the watch they do. No matter all the ranting about craftsmanship this and artistry that and pedigree/history the other, for damn near everyone, a watch is a fashion accessory first and a thing to be collected for some specific reason second, if at all.
In his book
The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success, Kevin Dutton captured the spirit of my reason for why it's their intelligence that's been assaulted by the fakes. "The problem with a lot of people is that what they think is a virtue is actually a vice in disguise. It's much easier to convince yourself that you're reasonable and civilised, than soft and weak, isn't it?" (No, "soft and weak" aren't the terms I'd use to describe this aspect of human nature, but I'm sure it won't take much imagination on one's part to choose apt terms and yet have the theme remain intact and accurate, so I left Mr. Dutton's statement as he created it.)
All the best.