View Single Post
      07-09-2014, 06:21 PM   #322
grimlock
Colonel
716
Rep
2,003
Posts

Drives: F10 N52B30@255PS
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hong Kong

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NemesisX View Post
What's the threshold between a watch offering a "misrepresentation" of an individual and a watch offering a proper representation of that individual, and who or what decides that threshold?

To wit, I can conceive of a situation with a single individual making the median U.S. personal income ($26,989) financing and eventually owning a $10k Rolex submariner. I don't want to make this about your personal feelings on what constitutes financial imprudence. Such an individual may have a generally low discretionary income and/or low (and possibly negative) net worth, but nonetheless I can imagine a scenario where he's physically able to make payments for and eventually own a $10k watch.

The question is, are people implicitly obliged to have a certain social status or income or net worth when sporting a watch that costs $x. We can go even further - does the manner in which they come to obtain the funds necessary to pay for an $x watch matter? Person A is a self-made multi-millionaire CEO. Person B is a trust fund baby. Person C is a fast food worker who won the lottery. Person D is the hypothetical individual mentioned above - a hard working and otherwise frugal individual who perhaps spread himself thin buying a $10k watch while making $26k/year. What is 'x' and what is that threshold?
I don't know, but my point was that as Tony pointed out below, those who care probably have their reasons to, and the person who should be buying the expensive watch probably wouldn't care about fakes - he might even be flattered.
The manufacturers know this, these are aspirational items.. for every real one purchased ten fake ones are - and maybe 0.001 of them will buy the real one some day.. but the primary effect of permitting fakes is to increase desirability even more.. so that this might even outweight the portion of potential buyers that are put off by the easy immitability.

It depends what target audience they are going after.. say a lower-middle priced watch might suffer more from fakes as middle-class buyers do not want something that can be had for much cheaper and to whom it is a legitimate signalling item, like a BMW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post

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.)
Lol I read that book recently.. but I'm not sure I understand the specific reference here.. like "don't pretend you're a nice guy, when you're actually a pu**y?"
Appreciate 0