# Wearing a watch that is comensurate to your suit



## Rick Diesel (Mar 11, 2009)

I would consider myself more of a watch (timepiece) person than I would consider myself a style enthusiast. In other words, I would not have an issue spending $1000-$2000 on a suit, but when we start hitting the $2000, $3,000 and $4,000, I find myself wondering what other type of watch I can buy myself.

I don't know if there is a rule or standard on how close your watch should match your suit. I have seen people wear Timex rubber band watches with a $2000+ watch. My rule for myself is that the watch should not be anywhere less than $1000 from the suit. This not a rule that I have heard from anyone, this is one that I use as a guidline. 

When it come to the watch costing more than your suit, I find that perfectly suitable. There a lot of people out there who wear $6000-$8000 Rolex watches with a medium priced suit.
'
Any thoughts out there on this issue?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

You talk almost exclusively in dollar bills. If you're actually interested in style and appearance, who cares how _little _something costs? I don't think I like this topic.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Rick Diesel said:


> I would consider myself more of a watch (timepiece) person than I would consider myself a style enthusiast. In other words, I would not have an issue spending $1000-$2000 on a suit, but when we start hitting the $2000, $3,000 and $4,000, I find myself wondering what other type of watch I can buy myself.
> 
> I don't know if there is a rule or standard on how close your watch should match your suit. I have seen people wear Timex rubber band watches with a $2000+ watch. My rule for myself is that the watch should not be anywhere less than $1000 from the suit. This not a rule that I have heard from anyone, this is one that I use as a guidline.
> 
> ...




....Men's warehouse/Sears suit. Some folks are into watches and suits, some are into one and not the other, and some neither. I've never heard of any guideline on the subject nor do I think there should be one. I have a couple of 5-8K Omegas and the cost in relation to anything other than my savings/income seems quite irrelevant. I bought what I liked. There are some great looking $100 watches out there that probably look better than mine.

We had a long thread on this awhile ago including thoughts around matching straps with belts, sports watches and suits, etc., and it was a very painful and argumentative thread. 3 contributors were shot and one is still missing (or perhaps cruising:icon_hailthee.​


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

Brings to mind the fellow I saw step out of a beat-up and filthy Chevy dually in downtown Dallas, in 1984. He was about sixty, gray-haired, wearing worn denim, worn cowboy boots, a sweat-stained gray Stetson, a silver ranger buckle set, and a Rolex President with a diamond bezel. He looked absolutely perfect, but then, it was Texas, and it was Dallas. Situational aesthetics. Given the building he was walking into, he was probably going to see his banker, or maybe he owned the building. His presentation must have left an impression on me, since I can picture him twenty-six years later.

My most expensive suits are OTR Hickey Freeman and Canali, so I guess my watches cost more than my suits every time I put a suit on. My own rules for watches with suits are pretty simple: tasteful, non-sport watches, less than 38mm in diameter, with dark leather bands. One of my Air-Kings has a simple gold bezel -- that's about as flashy as I get when I'm in business dress.* There are very attractive Seikos that fit the bill, and that I wouldn't be embarrassed to wear in a business meeting. I wouldn't be seen wearing that cowboy's watch, but he was making his ensemble work just fine. The more I think about that memory, the more appropriately and perfectly dressed he seems to me.** 

Do good taste or aesthetics have a place in your analysis? 

*Ironically, I am capable of wearing relatively flamboyant ties.
** "Mister, you gotta be awfully rich to dress that way in town." -- Steinbeck, "Travels with Charley"


----------



## A world beyond fleece (Feb 20, 2008)

Strikes me as a preposterous and tacky question. It's a matter of design.
In fact, Timex and Swatch offer some very classic designs. One want to upgrade to mor interesting bands but the watches look good. Unless one is a snob and driven by fancy brand names.


----------



## Wes IV (May 10, 2011)

I have several nice watches and my favorite watch is a very thin gold Seiko I received as a gift in 1984 from my parents. It has a duck in flight on the face of it because I used to duck hunt more than I attended classes in college during those days. (That could be a whole other thread.) I have it on a dark brown alligator band. I don't wear it everyday, however I have worn it to work, weddings, and charity dinners, etc., over the years. Amazing how many conversations it has started up with complete strangers who noticed it. I think "good taste" rules what watch to wear with your suits. A watch should look nice and compliment your suit, but never be brash or gaudy. A Presidential Rolex is not my style, not that there's anything wrong with it.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Rick Diesel said:


> I would consider myself more of a watch (timepiece) person than I would consider myself a style enthusiast. In other words, I would not have an issue spending $1000-$2000 on a suit, but when we start hitting the $2000, $3,000 and $4,000, I find myself wondering what other type of watch I can buy myself.
> 
> I don't know if there is a rule or standard on how close your watch should match your suit. I have seen people wear Timex rubber band watches with a $2000+ watch. My rule for myself is that the watch should not be anywhere less than $1000 from the suit. This not a rule that I have heard from anyone, this is one that I use as a guidline.
> 
> ...


Yes. What's the price of a watch got to do with it? It's what the thing looks like and how well it goes with the suit.

I mean there are some obscenely expensive watches which are just downright ugly, e.g. Rolexs with aftermarket diamond bezels and dials, and some reasonably priced timepieces which are perfect for wearing with a suit, e.g. Seiko, Citizen and Timex.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

I think the issue as I view it is being consistent. Some care others do not. Some put cheap tires on expensive cars. 
A man in a cheap suit and a high end watch , one questions whether the watch is legitimate.
Some could care less.

Would one include an average receiver with high end speakers ? some would others would not.
A well dressed man , driving a high end car and wearing a high end watch well it all comes together.
Many could care less. High end items cost more and are usually better designed and has 
long term possibilities.

There was a time in audio that the weakest link determined the quality of the audio system.
Is clothing any different ? Are cars any different ? A high end watch goes well with a high end suit, shoes , shirt , cuff links , and if you can add to that a high end watch , it works.
I wonder why James Bond did not wear a Timex ?


----------



## defygravity (May 4, 2011)

Probably due to the fact that James Bond is a fictional character, and he ends up wearing whatever the writers say he should wear. Very ironic that my avatar happens to be Mr. Connery himself.


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

Rick Diesel said:


> My rule for myself is that the watch should not be anywhere less than $1000 from the suit.


 What a delightfully arbitrary rule.

Do you similarly hold that your haircut should never cost less than 20% as much as your eyeglass frames? How about your socks always costing at least 10% as much as your shoes? Your necktie never costing less than $10 less than the shirt with which it's worn?

If I wear a 48 year old Omega Seamaster, do we go by what it cost when purchased in Switzerland in 1963? And, if so, is it proper to use the 1963 exchange rate, or the current exchange rate? For that matter, if I have a bespoke suit purchased in 9 years ago, using Italian lira, what do I do after next year, when I will no longer be able to convert lira to Euros at the Bank of Italy? Should I play it safe at that point, and simply carry around a cell phone for the time?
-- 
Michael


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> I think the issue as I view it is being consistent. Some care others do not. Some put cheap tires on expensive cars.


That actually might be unlawful, invalidate type approvals or be just plain impossible to do. Many expensive cars e.g. Porsches and similar require specialised high performance tyres of a certain size and specification. By their very nature such tyres are just not cheap. IMO the tyres on cars analogy does not work.



silverporsche said:


> A man in a cheap suit and a high end watch , one questions whether the watch is legitimate.
> Some could care less.
> 
> Would one include an average receiver with high end speakers ?


I think the audio equipment analogy doesn't really work either. Put cheap speakers on an expensive amplifier and it's going to sound like crap or even go bang!! It's always been generally accepted and good practise that one should try and match the quality of audio components together. One would never put Amstrad speakers on a Linn.



silverporsche said:


> some would others would not.
> A well dressed man , driving a high end car and wearing a high end watch well it all comes together.
> Many could care less. High end items cost more and are usually better designed and has
> long term possibilities.
> ...


But James Bond did wear a Seiko though for a while in the late '70s early 80s. AFAIK James Bond's watches have always been paid product placements and are usually an essential prop in the films, it's NOT a reflection of the real world.

Myself, I wear a fairly expensive watch, a Rado, because it's what I like and has nothing to do with cost. But I never have expensive clothes.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

MikeDT said:


> That actually might be unlawful, invalidate type approvals or be just plain impossible to do. Many expensive cars e.g. Porsches and similar require specialised high performance tyres of a certain size and specification. By their very nature such tyres are just not cheap. IMO the tyres on cars analogy does not work.
> 
> I think the audio equipment analogy doesn't really work either. Put cheap speakers on an expensive amplifier and it's going to sound like crap or even go bang!! It's always been generally accepted and good practise that one should try and match the quality of audio components together.
> 
> But James Bond did wear a Seiko though for a while in the late '70s early 80s. AFAIK James Bond's watches have always been paid product placements, and NOT a reflection of the real world.


In America cheap tires are put on high end cars. It is not illegal.
Audio , it happens in America all the time cheap receivers very good speakers. Many audiophiles might suggest never using a receiver with high end speakers , only a pre amp and power amp.

Would the proper Englishman wear a Seiko ? that's why the Bond character changed to Rolex and Omega.
One should be consistent.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> In America cheap tires are put on high end cars. It is not illegal.


It may not be illegal, but it could be difficult and actually dangerous to do so. As I wrote earlier many expensive cars require tyres to be of a certain size and performance rating. e.g low profile, high speed rated tyres used for some performance sports cars by their very nature are expensive, and are just NOT cheap.



silverporsche said:


> Audio , it happens in America all the time cheap receivers very good speakers. Many audiophiles might suggest never using a receiver with high end speakers , only a pre amp and power amp.
> 
> Would the proper Englishman wear a Seiko ? that's why the Bond character changed to Rolex and Omega.


Because Seiko stopped paying for product placement. Rolex was and now Omega Seamaster is the official James Bond watch. If Seiko wanted and paid money to the movie's producers, James Bond could be wearing a Seiko again in a future movie. Anyway James Bond is fiction, and is not a reflection of the real world.



silverporsche said:


> One should be consistent.


Well I'm in China, where there are many inconsistencies. A guy may drive a Lexus or a Mercedes, but wears a polyester suit and fake Rolex.


----------



## hsc89 (Oct 14, 2009)

Actually, Rolex was never an "official" Bond watch, at least not in the same way Omega is currently. I believe I read somewhere (WatchTime?) that Ian Fleming likely put a Rolex on Bond's wrist as he was fond of the 1016 Explorer he wore himself. He apparently liked to have the literary Bond use/enjoy products he (Fleming) used/enjoyed and there are many other examples of this sprinkled throughout the books. "Legend" has it that Connery sported a Rolex in "Dr. No" simply by chance. The Submariner belonged to someone on the set who was kind enough to offer its use when they started shooting a scene where the presence of a watch on Bond's wrist was called for in the script but wasn't among the props brought to the location.

As for the OP's "rule," more power to you if you can keep track of that! Like many others have stated, however, I agree that it should be more about aesthetics than price. If it doesn't look totally out of place (i.e. 47mm Panerai on ammo strap with dinner jacket) and YOU like it, you should wear it regardless of price differential with one (just bugs the heck- out-of-me) exception. I think U.S. Presidents (or candidates for same) should be forbidden from ever again wearing a Timex Ironman with any suit !!!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Since most of the time no one can tell how much a watch is worth, the appearance is more important by far. A dressy Seiko 5 will go with a $2k suit really well, far better than a number of watches that cost much more than $2k. It's the style of the watch and strap, not the pedigree.

My watch cost a little bit more than the suit I'm wearing now (both cost under $500). What makes the watch look nice with the suit is simply the look of it. I also know and love the otherwise obscure brand, which gives me some pleasure, but I also know that it's highly unlikely anyone I meet will have any idea what kind of watch I'm wearing....or care.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

tocqueville said:


> Since most of the time no one can tell how much a watch is worth, the appearance is more important by far. A dressy Seiko 5 will go with a $2k suit really well, far better than a number of watches that cost much more than $2k. It's the style of the watch and strap, not the pedigree.
> 
> My watch cost a little bit more than the suit I'm wearing now (both cost under $500). What makes the watch look nice with the suit is simply the look of it. I also know and love the otherwise obscure brand, which gives me some pleasure, but I also know that it's highly unlikely anyone I meet will have any idea what kind of watch I'm wearing....or care.


The market determines what an item is worth. Volkswagen no matter how great the engineering is cannot sell a car for $80,000 , Seiko also has it's price range due to market
forces. Few would pay $ 10,000 for a Seiko , but they would for a Rolex !

Would one pay the same for a Cadillac as a S series Mercedes ? no it's been tried.
Image is everything , As for as wearing a watch , people will recognize the make whether they care depends on the value that person might place on a well designed high end watch.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

hsc89 said:


> Actually, Rolex was never an "official" Bond watch, at least not in the same way Omega is currently. I believe I read somewhere (WatchTime?) that Ian Fleming likely put a Rolex on Bond's wrist as he was fond of the 1016 Explorer he wore himself. He apparently liked to have the literary Bond use/enjoy products he (Fleming) used/enjoyed and there are many other examples of this sprinkled throughout the books. "Legend" has it that Connery sported a Rolex in "Dr. No" simply by chance. The Submariner belonged to someone on the set who was kind enough to offer its use when they started shooting a scene where the presence of a watch on Bond's wrist was called for in the script but wasn't among the props brought to the location.
> 
> As for the OP's "rule," more power to you if you can keep track of that! Like many others have stated, however, I agree that it should be more about aesthetics than price. If it doesn't look totally out of place (i.e. 47mm Panerai on ammo strap with dinner jacket) and YOU like it, you should wear it regardless of price differential with one (just bugs the heck- out-of-me) exception. I think U.S. Presidents (or candidates for same) should be forbidden from ever again wearing a Timex Ironman with any suit !!!


Aesthetics ? no image , reputation why than are there $10,000 watches ?, certainly 
they don't keep any better time than a $200.00 watch. pride of ownership , but mostly having something that most can't afford.

Rewarding one self for life's achievements in material things , it happens all over the world.
A fine car , home , yacht , jet , watches , clothing foods wines etc,. etc. 
In the western culture one is rewarded with money for achievements , it works the British 
started it in the 19th century and never looked back.

America carried it a step further , success followed by the Japanese and now the Indians and the Chinese. A Rolex is an image of success ! So is a Bentley. 
If to some things are not important , than a Rolex or Bentley is not for them.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

12345Michael54321 said:


> What a delightfully arbitrary rule. Do you similarly hold that your haircut should never cost less than 20% as much as your eyeglass frames?...If I wear a 48 year old Omega Seamaster, do we go by what it cost when purchased in Switzerland in 1963? And, if so, is it proper to use the 1963 exchange rate, or the current exchange rate?.../QUOTE]
> 
> An exceptionally entertaining - and trenchant - response, Michael!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

A gentleman is not supposed to be noting the expense of anothers' possessions, nor to be preoccupied with his own. _Quality_ may be noted, as may aesthetics and style, but to make judgments based on cost is gauche.

Manners aside, the rule suggested by the OP is completely unworkable. What "cost" is the reference point? What the watch cost new at retail? What the person actually paid? What it would fetch on the open market today?

What if a man finds an excellent watch available for an astonishingly good price... should he insist on paying more so that he can wear it with his A&S bespoke suit? The young man who inherits his father's Patek Phillipe is just out of luck, is he? I got a good deal on an old Zenith several years ago that is now my daily wear watch... I guess I should throw it out. Or, if current market price is what governs, what if the watch is an old family Hamilton... because those can be had for a couple hundred bucks, is that not good enough for wear with an Oxxford? Should that be traded in for an 1980's-era Swatch watch that hipsters will pay preposterous amounts to buy now?


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> Image is everything .


Hmmn.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

In regard to the original question related to the cost of a watch, let me ask this:

How about if a watch is cheap, but has huge sentimental value?

What if it's a watch that wasn't too expensive when new, but now is a pricey, highly collectable vintage piece, like the Hamilton Ventura?

What would go better with a Kiton suit, a 6,000 Rolex explorer, or a sleek $400 Movado Museum?

I've noticed that politicians and some men who earn good money serving others wear more inexpensive watches. They wear good shoes and good suits, but inexpensive watches that were either given to them, or that didn't cost them too much. I know there's a reason for this. Most people would be able to identify a $10,000 Rolex. However, most wouldn't know a $1,000 BB suit from an $8,000 Oxxford.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

triklops55 said:


> In regard to the original question related to the cost of a watch, let me ask this:
> 
> How about if a watch is cheap, but has huge sentimental value?
> 
> ...


You are correct most would not identify a well tailored suit. They would a Rolex but not a Patek Philippe watch. Those who owns a Patek watch or Oxxford suit is not appealing to most , but the few who appreciates what they are wearing.

Politicians dress to get elected ! A multi-millionaire such as Bush or Kerry dress to win votes.
Why would one wear a $6000.00 suit with a cheap Movado watch ? Why not a pair of shoes purchased at Macy's and a shirt from Men's Warehouse.

The well dressed man is not dressing to appeal to most , but to the few who appreciates 
quality and fine tailoring the same applies to his watch.
Most people are average , if one wishes to be average than one wears and values what the average wears and values. 
That is why there is a large selections of items. and that is why there exist an Ask Andy to 
help those who would like to move above average in men's dress.


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> The well dressed man is not dressing to appeal to most , but to the few who appreciates quality and fine tailoring the same applies to his watch.


Sir, I beg to differ. I dress to please myself, and out of courtesy to those around me.

But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

12345Michael54321 said:


> What a delightfully arbitrary rule.
> 
> Do you similarly hold that your haircut should never cost less than 20% as much as your eyeglass frames? How about your socks always costing at least 10% as much as your shoes? Your necktie never costing less than $10 less than the shirt with which it's worn?
> 
> ...


If you think your head is spinning now, just wait until they throw the PIIGS out of the Euro. :icon_headagainstwal


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

triklops55 said:


> In regard to the original question related to the cost of a watch, let me ask this:
> 
> How about if a watch is cheap, but has huge sentimental value?
> 
> ...


It was always said that George W. Bush (43) wore a Timex watch.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

I think of the watch much like I think of I think of the scope on a rifle. A great watch on a great suit, is amazing. A bad watch on a bad suit, is just that. A mixed set will get you mixed results.

Just a quick edit. $$$ doesn't make it a good or bad watch. Some of the best watches out there are in the $100 price range, and some of the gaudiest are more expensive than a house.


----------



## Finian McLonergan (Sep 23, 2009)

blue suede shoes said:


> It was always said that George W. Bush (43) wore a Timex watch.


For a politician seeking to appeal to the ordinary American, this was an intelligent move. It's an example of manipulative status-lowering which many will see as evidence that "he's a regular sort of guy, I can identify with him". No mention, of course, that he's worth well over $100 million.

Former Treasury Secretary Paulson used the same technique - he wore a Timex Ironman during his controversial testimony to Congress on the bailouts.

Most will not even be aware of the strategy, it usually operates at a subliminal level. For leaders who don't want to appear too remote from their followers, it makes a lot of sense.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Finian McLonergan said:


> Former Treasury Secretary Paulson used the same technique - he wore a Timex Ironman during his controversial testimony to Congress on the bailouts.


With Paulson it was not a technique. I read an article some time ago that stated he had always worn a cheap digital including during his days as boss at Sachs. He eschewed the expensive suits and watches as he was not interested in them. His passion is birds so I suspect his binoculars are a different kettle of fish.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Some may disdain the OP, but this is obviously an interesting topic. Most of us who think about it at all probably follow the general practice of adjusting the style of watch toward simplicity as the formality of attire increases. This may be without reference to the price of anything. When price is considered, I realize that I often wear what many would consider an expensive watch, a Rolex, with informal, inexpensive clothing - business casual or (gasp!) jeans. Even with Bills, a Paul Stuart polo and Alden shoes, the cost of an outfit would hardly approach the price of a Rolex band. But, until reading this thread, I had not thought about financial aspects of pairing.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

godan said:


> Some may disdain the OP, but this is obviously an interesting topic. Most of us who think about it at all probably follow the general practice of adjusting the style of watch toward simplicity as the formality of attire increases. This may be without reference to the price of anything. When price is considered, I realize that I often wear what many would consider an expensive watch, a Rolex, with informal, inexpensive clothing - business casual or (gasp!) jeans. Even with Bills, a Paul Stuart polo and Alden shoes, the cost of an outfit would hardly approach the price of a Rolex band. But, until reading this thread, I had not thought about financial aspects of pairing.


The same can be said with sports watches though. Look at a decent Suunto ($200-500), or Timex Ironman ($100-300), and they outprice what I wear with them normally; running shorts, technical t-shirt, high performance socks, good shoes, and sun glasses. It's not until I add "snivel gear" that the pricing equals out.

I don't think cost of items is really a primary factor. I think it is a related factor, but it's just something that happens. My day to day watch is about $200, which is more than my day to day outfit minus my shoes (unless I'm wearing a suit) in most cases. It's not that I'm cheap, it's just that men don't put on a whole lot of items (shirt, pants, socks, undies, belt), and the average cost two of them are relatively low.

As you get into higher end (and more expensive) watches or more expensive clothing, depending on your point of view, it's impossible to maintain a steady ratio.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

What many fail to understand is why are there high end items many can't afford ?
These items are position in the market place generally for the above average person.
Rolex , Patek Philippe , and Jaeger- LeCoultre watches are not marketed at the average 
person. Kiton .Borelli , Brioni , and John Lobb they to were not market at the average
person. Cars Porsche's, Bentley's , S Series Mercedes and 7 series BMW or not market for the average person.

Most people in the world are average to below average and there is really no need for one to justify why one is not consistent in one's dress. It all has to do with in my opinion where
one's values are. One's income and environment .

To maintain a study ratio has a lot to do with image , what type of image one wishes are can afford to convey.
Here there is no right or wrong but class and image. What image did Cary Grant conway ?
Fred Astaire , Russell Simmons , Ralph Lauren ?

Politicians understand this that is why multi-millionaire politicians wear cheap watches , average suits and average shoes ! They even drive average cars. Thank of the flak if a Presidential candidate drove a Bentley , which he most likely could afford. 

Cost is an important factor because it says to the average person I can afford this item and you can't.
Finally in one of the richest countries in the world Monaco ,yachts makes a statement even 
in the land of the rich , how big , cost and speed determines your position. Would one drive anything less than a Ferrari or wear anything less than a Piaget watch ? 
Image ! A lion roars , a gorilla beats his chest , humans use other means to show they 
are at or near the top. Let the average take note !


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> What many fail to understand


I think you're the one who is failing to understand. You have a opinion on this matter. That's all it is -- your opinion. Others have different opinions. It's a pretty safe bet that my opinion isn't going to change your opinion, and the other way around.



silverporsche said:


> Finally in one of the richest countries in the world Monaco ,yachts makes a statement even in the land of the rich , how big , cost and speed determines your position. Would one drive anything less than a Ferrari or wear anything less than a Piaget watch ? Image ! A lion roars , a gorilla beats his chest , humans use other means to show they
> are at or near the top. Let the average take note !


Another pretty safe bet: I bet there are more rich folks in Monaco than there are yachts, Ferraris, or Piagets. In other words, some people need to flash, others don't. In my experience, most folks who need to show off are somewhere in the middle, wishing they were "at or near the top". Whatever the "top" might be. The toppest folks I know fly under the radar.

Since you refer to practices in Monaco, are there any special ways that humans in your particular region make the average take note, and do you participate in those regional practices?


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

PTB in San Diego said:


> I think you're the one who is failing to understand. You have a opinion on this matter. That's all it is -- your opinion. Others have different opinions. It's a pretty safe bet that my opinion isn't going to change your opinion, and the other way around.
> 
> Another pretty safe bet: I bet there are more rich folks in Monaco than there are yachts, Ferraris, or Piagets. In other words, some people need to flash, others don't. In my experience, most folks who need to show off are somewhere in the middle, wishing they were "at or near the top". Whatever the "top" might be. The toppest folks I know fly under the radar.
> 
> Since you refer to practices in Monaco, are there any special ways that humans in your particular region make the average take note, and do you participate in those regional practices?


What is this business about changing any one's opinion , this is forum , forums are not personal ! 
I made my point now if others wish to they may offer a counterpoint.

Monaco is a wonderful place to visit , Ferrari's and Aston Martin's are the norm. I would imagine most people living in Monte Carlo has a yacht of some type , after all a one
bedroom apartment with a poor view cost over a $1,000,000 ! A large villa like house 
with an excellent view goes for over $60,000,000 ! 2005 prices.

In 2005 there was 8 billionaires living in Monte Carlo. The issue as I View it is consistence
why wear a $5,000 suit with a Seiko ? No one may identify the suit but they will the watch. That is why there are watches that list from $3,000 to $5.000,000 !
Watches now make a statement. 
Like expensive cars , expensive watches are not for everyone.


----------



## TheBarbaron (Oct 8, 2010)

12345Michael54321 said:


> What a delightfully arbitrary rule.
> 
> Do you similarly hold that your haircut should never cost less than 20% as much as your eyeglass frames? How about your socks always costing at least 10% as much as your shoes? Your necktie never costing less than $10 less than the shirt with which it's worn?
> 
> If I wear a 48 year old Omega Seamaster, do we go by what it cost when purchased in Switzerland in 1963? And, if so, is it proper to use the 1963 exchange rate, or the current exchange rate? For that matter, if I have a bespoke suit purchased in 9 years ago, using Italian lira, what do I do after next year, when I will no longer be able to convert lira to Euros at the Bank of Italy? Should I play it safe at that point, and simply carry around a cell phone for the time?


+1 for making me laugh uncontrollably.



CuffDaddy said:


> A gentleman is not supposed to be noting the expense of anothers' possessions, nor to be preoccupied with his own. _Quality_ may be noted, as may aesthetics and style, but to make judgments based on cost is gauche.
> ...
> What if a man finds an excellent watch available for an astonishingly good price... should he insist on paying more so that he can wear it with his A&S bespoke suit? The young man who inherits his father's Patek Phillipe is just out of luck, is he? I got a good deal on an old Zenith several years ago that is now my daily wear watch... I guess I should throw it out. Or, if current market price is what governs, what if the watch is an old family Hamilton... because those can be had for a couple hundred bucks, is that not good enough for wear with an Oxxford? Should that be traded in for an 1980's-era Swatch watch that hipsters will pay preposterous amounts to buy now?


+1 for bringing the discussion back around to the difference between quality, style, value, and simple retail price.

For the sake of disclosure, so that the average may take note, I wear medium price RTW suits, am now graced with a medium price watch (a Hamilton which my lady was magnanimous enough to give me, and which I adore), and just to confuse my seriousness to money spent ratio further, horribly cheap sunglasses.

Seriously though, my sunglasses are from Wal-Mart. They're knockoff tortoise Wayfarers that read _China_ in script on the side instead of _Ray-Ban_. They cost $5.96, which means that if there's some sort of price matching rule, I'm going to be stuck wearing denim shorts and a single flipflop for as long as I own them. For special occasions, I might be able to strap a cardboard sundial to my wrist, and put on a terrycloth bathrobe, provided I don't show off the sunglasses.

I'm not sure why I try to find reasonable quality in everything else I wear (at least as much as I can easily afford), but never in eyewear. I'm not that bad about losing or breaking sunglasses anymore, so mere cost/benefit analysis shouldn't explain it. Most of my peers and coworkers seem driven to purchase brand name shades. Anyone else got a take on that?


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

TheBarbaron said:


> +1 for making me laugh uncontrollably.
> 
> +1 for bringing the discussion back around to the difference between quality, style, value, and simple retail price.
> 
> ...


In today's world of over 6 billion people image is important , image separate one self from the masses. There are those who care to do that and there are those who couldn't care less.
There are items one can buy that makes a statement as to one's financial worth , awareness or one might say sophistication.

Watches , cars , homes , some clothing , jewelry etc., is meant to separate the exceptional
from the average. A pair of expensive driving sun glasses makes a statement about the one wearing them as does an expensive car or watch. One may not identify a suit but many will 
identify a Burberry raincoat as high end style.

Fountain pens has even become statements. I was surprised when in North Africa in a desert village several of the residents reconized my pair of Porsche Aviator sunglasses !
They were all aware of my Rolex watch !
The people living there were very poor.
It's a small world and growing smaller each day.

Like it or not we are judged by what we wear , drive or where we live , that's the real world.
Again wearing an expensive suit and an inexpensive watch says a lot about that person. 
The village was in Mauritania.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

silverporsche said:


> What many fail to understand is why are there high end items many can't afford ?
> These items are position in the market place generally for the above average person.
> Rolex , Patek Philippe , and Jaeger- LeCoultre watches are not marketed at the average
> person. Kiton .Borelli , Brioni , and John Lobb they to were not market at the average
> ...


Can someone please translate this for me?


----------



## mdh (May 10, 2011)

TheBarbaron said:


> Seriously though, my sunglasses are from Wal-Mart. They're knockoff tortoise Wayfarers that read _China_ in script on the side instead of _Ray-Ban_. They cost $5.96, which means that if there's some sort of price matching rule, I'm going to be stuck wearing denim shorts and a single flipflop for as long as I own them. For special occasions, I might be able to strap a cardboard sundial to my wrist, and put on a terrycloth bathrobe, provided I don't show off the sunglasses.


ROTFL 



> I'm not sure why I try to find reasonable quality in everything else I wear (at least as much as I can easily afford), but never in eyewear. I'm not that bad about losing or breaking sunglasses anymore, so mere cost/benefit analysis shouldn't explain it. Most of my peers and coworkers seem driven to purchase brand name shades. Anyone else got a take on that?


I left the most expensive brand-name shades I ever had (and they weren't that expensive, or that great a brand) on top of a vending machine in a train station in Germany after maybe a month's service. So now I always go for the cheap ones.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Here in China, it's cars and cigarettes which determine if a person appears rich or poor, rather than watches. Probably because of so many knock-offs.

One may drive a Bentley but one is smoking Shuangxi. Well that's just not right, one should be smoking Zhonghua.



TheBarbaron said:


> Seriously though, my sunglasses are from Wal-Mart. They're knockoff tortoise Wayfarers that read _China_ in script on the side instead of _Ray-Ban_. They cost $5.96, which means that if there's some sort of price matching rule, I'm going to be stuck wearing denim shorts and a single flipflop for as long as I own them. For special occasions, I might be able to strap a cardboard sundial to my wrist, and put on a terrycloth bathrobe, provided I don't show off the sunglasses.


:biggrin2:

Now that's the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks for making me laugh.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

silverporsche said:


> Most people in the world are average to below average and there is really no need for one to justify why one is not consistent in one's dress. It all has to do with in my opinion where one's values are. One's income and environment .


What in hell are you talking about? Would somebody pls move this to the interchange so I, a screaming liberal, can go off on this guy whose posts here are making me sick.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> What in hell are you talking about? Would somebody pls move this to the interchange so I, a screaming liberal, can go off on this guy whose posts here are making me sick.


You must learn to respect another opinion regarding dress. The subject was not mine.
This subject is not about being liberal or conservative but wearing an
expensive suit with an expensive watch. 
Why not address the subject instead of the member.

Environment , values , and attitudes plays a major part as to how one selects clothing.
That is neither liberal nor conservative. Especially how one coordinates one clothing.
You will notice in the content that you removed , I said in my opinion ! THE TREAD ASK FOR OPINIONS !


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> What in hell are you talking about? Would somebody pls move this to the interchange so I, a screaming liberal, can go off on this guy whose posts here are making me sick.


I couldn't have said it better myself. Liberal or conservative, his posts are always senseless and irrational.


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

This definitely ranks on the "totally bonkers threads about watches" spectrum somewhere near the one about effectively being naked unless you're wearing a mechanical watch, and seems to be yet another casualty of the "I have to have rules or I can't get out of bed, let alone dress myself" mentality.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

DocD said:


> I couldn't have said it better myself. Liberal or conservative, his posts are always senseless and irrational.


Than why read senseless and irrational posts. There are many post on this site that might
interest you. It appears that some wish to censor those they either don't agree with or lack the depth to discuss post that may have more depth !


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Salieri said:


> This definitely ranks on the "totally bonkers threads about watches" spectrum somewhere near the one about effectively being naked unless you're wearing a mechanical watch, and seems to be yet another casualty of the "I have to have rules or I can't get out of bed, let alone dress myself" mentality.


As humans we do have rules, otherwise there would be anarchy. In clothing there are standards of dress. Some may or may not agree with those standards. Such as wearing 
training shoes with a suit considered in bad taste by many excepted by some.

Here we agree to disagree if a man should wear an expensive suit with a cheap watch. 
We know by today's standards watches now makes a statement , Rolex is one of the most 
recognized brands in the world and to further prove that point one of the most imitated
and copied brands.

The question asked in the tread is " Wearing a watch that is comensurate with a suit "
An excellent question in my opinion , to others it may not be. 
The opinions expressed are by those who take part in this forum. Here again we can agree to disagree on the subject.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Is English your first language?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

I visit these forums in order to help me (and others) make better clothing decisions based on aesthetics and value. Well-adjusted adults do not purchase items in order to flaunt their brand appeal. That is pathetic.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

DocD said:


> Is English your first language?


The tread is not about you or me " Wearing a watch that is comensurate to a suit " I did not summit the thread , I was under the impression that one should give their opinions on the subject not do an analysis of it's members. 
To counter opinions not attact the opinion givers ! Maybe there has been a change.


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> As humans we do have rules, otherwise there would be anarchy. In clothing there are standards of dress. Some may or may not agree with those standards. Such as wearing
> training shoes with a suit considered in bad taste by many excepted by some.
> 
> Here we agree to disagree if a man should wear an expensive suit with a cheap watch.
> ...


While I definitely do agree that I disagree with you, I take great offence at you implying that we "agree to disagree" before I have had a chance to do so. While there is definitely a point to be made about wearing a watch that is _com*m*ensurate_ with a suit, the topic was derailed instantly by the OP talking about price. Why would one even bother comparing the prices of two completely different things? I use a top-brand mobile phone, but I drive a slightly tired vintage motor car, nevertheless, OMG MY CAR COST IN EXCESS OF £1000 MORE THAN MY PHONE! Obviously my phone is of low, plebian quality; best put me to work on the plantations.

To be perfectly honest I think 95% of expensive watches are a ridiculuos waste of money. I would consider picking a watch that goes with a suit more a case of not wearing a diving watch unless my suit were of the neoprene variety, and not wearing a pilot's watch unless I were in a peaked cap and epaulettes.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> I visit these forums in order to help me (and others) make better clothing decisions based on aesthetics and value. Well-adjusted adults do not purchase items in order to flaunt their brand appeal. That is pathetic.


 I don't know if what you post is true in many cases. Otherwise why would we identify many items by brand names and why is there such a price difference in many clothing items.

Flaunting is a part of the human experience isn't it ? The star on the Mercedes , The striped lining on a Burberry scarf or the interior of a Burberry trench coat , the polo player on a shirt , the brand name of a company on the outside of a purse or luggage set. It makes a statement some find appealing.

Value is subjective , making a buying decision is also subjective . Many myself included 
visit Ask Andy to learn more about men's clothing. To flaunt or not to flaunt is an individual
decision we should all respect.
Pathetic , well should we go that far?


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> A lion roars , a gorilla beats his chest , humans use other means to show they
> are at or near the top. Let the average take note !


Has it occurred to you that you are distinctly below average in your written communication? Does this mean that you're not using a sufficiently expensive computer?


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

Salieri said:


> Has it occurred to you that you are distinctly below average in your written communication? Does this mean that you're not using a sufficiently expensive computer?


It took me a long time to figure it out, but I believe that our friend Mr. Porsche has actually been wittily and successfully baiting us, with his fantastic irony. I, for one, took it hook, line, and sinker. Moth ---> flame.

OTOH, I wonder if it could be true that sunglasses and a watch are all one needs to be one BAMF if one finds oneself in small, impoverished village in Mauritania, and in that context, I'm going to bet that knock-offs will probably do the trick. Note to self in case of need of career change.

Which reminds me -- I have got to watch Pulp Fiction again. Haven't seen it since it originally came out.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

^^^ Saleri is not referencing the OP, whose crassness pales next to the (deleted) he is referencing: Silverporche.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> Pathetic , well should we go that far?


I didn't in the last thread that had your very off-base posts, but the time has come. Yes, pathetic is the proper term here. 'Flaunting' is a distinctly negative term. If you are here to learn, spend more time reading and less time posting; I have yet to see a post of yours that has positively contributed to this community, and for fact, I know I am not alone in this sentiment.

The wisest man I ever met never said a word.

Another proverb from Mr. Twain: It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

You, sir, leave me with no doubt.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> I know I am not alone in this sentiment.


And you didn't even ask me; telepathy must really work.


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> ^^^ Saleri is not referencing the OP, whose crassness pales next to the (deleted) he is referencing: Silverporche.


Thanks for pointing that out. Post has been corrected. Wasn't this fun? Now, on to the next issue of burning import. Stripes and pollka dots in the same ensemble. Discuss.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Bottom line is, price or cost should have little to do with your decision to purchase a watch, or to wear it with a certain outfit.

I own several watches costing from a few thousand to just a few bucks. When selecting which watch to wear on a certain day, I don't think: "Hmm, my outfit costs $XXX so the watch I wear today should cost $XXX."

Mostly, I base my decision on what watch I feel like wearing that day, which is more appropriate for the activities of the day, or which one will look best with my outfit. It might be my $5,000 datejust, or the vintage Elgin I bought at a flea market for $5.

Who cares about cost in anything anyway (except Silverporche)? I buy stuff based on what I like. If money was absolutely no object, I would still buy what I liked, not based on what it cost. I like Budweiser beer, so that's what I buy. If I was filthy rich, I wouldn't switch to a more expensive beer just to pay more. That's plain ridiculous.

If you like Seikos, have owned Seikos and are loyal to them, then rock them with that Kiton suit. Why not?


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> I didn't in the last thread that had your very off-base posts, but the time has come. Yes, pathetic is the proper term here. 'Flaunting' is a distinctly negative term. If you are here to learn, spend more time reading and less time posting; I have yet to see a post of yours that has positively contributed to this community, and for fact, I know I am not alone in this sentiment.
> 
> The wisest man I ever met never said a word.
> 
> ...


I remember having read that some attack the messenger when they are unable to attack the message ! Why not a counterpoint to the opinions expressed on the subject. Why the gossip ? I am not the subject if you would please read sir.

If one thing is proven it shows the inability to reply to the thread in depth and an ability to simply gossip. 
Most of you can do better than gossip ! There are those who do offer counterpoints to different opinions , some do not !
Again the subject is listed above.


----------



## jblaze (Oct 6, 2009)

*Like others, my reply*

is that $ bills don't matter on a watch very much. You can have a great looking dress watch for as low as $300 to $400, no problem.

I think suits, you can get BB suit all in for like $500.

Would a $10K Rolex look nice with a $500 suit, I think so. Would a $500 Tissot look perfect with a $4K bespoke suit, I think so.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Salieri said:


> Has it occurred to you that you are distinctly below average in your written communication? Does this mean that you're not using a *sufficiently expensive computer?*


I wonder, does one's PC or laptop have to be commensurate with one's suit, watch, shoes, car, sunglasses and cigarettes?

Quoting SilverPorsche here _"One should be consistent."_


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Perhaps it would be more constructive and helpful for forum readers to start a thread consisting of recommendations for sub-$500 watches that most of us would feel comfortable wearing with an expensive suit?


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

MikeDT said:


> I wonder, does one's PC or laptop have to be commensurate with one's suit, watch, shoes, car, sunglasses and cigarettes?
> 
> Quoting SilverPorsche here _"One should be consistent."_


Good question , the PC or computer is usually in the home , clothing on the other hand says a lot about the wearer outside of the home.
Cigarettes has become unpopular. What one drinks can speak mountains about the person. 
Type of wine the quality , type of liquor

Why not be consistent ? fine cars , dress, drinks , home , music , art etc, etc.
Here we discuss excellent clothing , suits , shirts , shoes , ties , and other clothing accessories.
Why would one ruin a perfectly outstanding MTM suit with a cheap watch ?


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

silverporsche said:


> I remember having read that some attack the messenger when they are unable to attack the message ! Why not a counterpoint to the opinions expressed on the subject. Why the gossip ? I am not the subject if you would please read sir.
> 
> If one thing is proven it shows the inability to reply to the thread in depth and an ability to simply gossip.
> Most of you can do better than gossip ! There are those who do offer counterpoints to different opinions , some do not !
> Again the subject is listed above.


Once again, you consistently prove our point. Because in none of our posts has anyone engaged in "gossip", therefore the entire premise of your post is senseless.....as usual.


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> Good question


No... no it wasn't. If I'm correct, the very point of asking was that it wasn't a good question. I think one of the first steps along the road to becoming discerning in any field of taste is developing a sensitivity to subtleties.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

After much research, I have found the following portrait of Fancy Feast, which I think explains his posts:










(IOW, I think he's trolling.)


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> Good question , the PC or computer is usually in the home , clothing on the other hand says a lot about the wearer outside of the home.


A PC might stay at home, but laptops don't. One is wearing an expensive suit, one can't be seen using a cheap Acer or something, one must have an Apple or a Vaio.



silverporsche said:


> Cigarettes has become unpopular.


<grammar nazi>
Is your grammar commensurate with your name 'silverporsche'?, _Cigarettes have become unpopular._ As bad as one of my students.
</grammar nazi>

Maybe where you are, but where I am cigarettes are very much a status symbol. Which is why I made the earlier post about driving a Bentley and smoking a brand of cigarettes which is commensurate with the car.

Cigarettes in China can range from extremely cheap, maybe less than a dollar (USD) a packet, to over 20 bucks a packet, and then there are the special ones that only high-up government people have. I don't smoke of course, and this is probably something which is unique to Chinese culture.



silverporsche said:


> What one drinks can speak mountains about the person.
> Type of wine the quality , type of liquor
> 
> Why not be consistent ? fine cars , dress, drinks , home , music , art etc, etc.
> ...


Why ruin a superb bespoke suit with an ugly expensive timepiece? Just because a watch is expensive, doesn't necessarily mean it goes well with a suit.


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> Perhaps it would be more constructive and helpful for forum readers to start a thread consisting of recommendations for sub-$500 watches that most of us would feel comfortable wearing with an expensive suit?


This response will obviously reflect my own taste. See what you think if you Google "bauhaus watch".

I *think* Junghans has candidates that meet your parameters. A Junghans "Max Bill" is on my target list (and if I buy one, it will become the least expensive watch in my rotation.... darn ... what will people think???).

IMO, maybe the best candidate for a watch suitable for business dress is a 60's-70's Longines or Omega. This statement reflects my opinion, and my aesthetic. Your mileage may vary. Quiet self-confidence might be necessary.

Of course, I also think that leather bands are most appropriate for this category of dress. This statement reflects my opinion, and my aesthetic. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

MikeDT said:


> A PC might stay at home, but laptops don't. One is wearing an expensive suit, one can't be seen using a cheap Acer or something, one must have an Apple or a Vaio.
> 
> <grammar nazi>
> Is your grammar commensurate with your name 'silverporsche'?, Cigarettes have become unpopular. As bad as one of my students.
> ...


Apple an expensive computer ? Why not choose an expensive watch that goes well with a 
bespoke suit. Wouldn't one choose an expensive shirt as well to go with so fine a suit ?

Cigarettes are not popular in the west , some cars are no longer equipped with ash trays.
Even in Formula one motor racing cigarette advertising is banned.
I have not seen Bentley advertised with cigarettes in America but Breitling sells a Breitling Bentley watch also there is a line of Girard Perreguax watches associated with Ferrari. 'Tribute to Ferrari " 
As for as grammar we all make mistakes , sometimes it happens on the BBC !
Laptops ? we have our iPhones and iPads now.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

PTB in San Diego said:


> This response will obviously reflect my own taste. See what you think if you Google "bauhaus watch".
> 
> I *think* Junghans has candidates that meet your parameters. A Junghans "Max Bill" is on my target list (and if I buy one, it will become the least expensive watch in my rotation.... darn ... what will people think???).
> 
> ...


A beautiful watch , can be worn with a fine suit , the only difference is the watch does not make a statement about it's owner " success , power , status " same as would an expensive European luxury car.
A very handsome watch, good taste.


----------



## DownByTheRiverSide (Oct 25, 2009)

*Some have no need ....*



silverporsche said:


> A beautiful watch , can be worn with a fine suit , the only difference is the watch does not make a statement about it's owner " success , power , status " same as would an expensive European luxury car.
> A very handsome watch, good taste.


Perhaps the wearer of such a watch feels that his intelligence and education as shown through his conversation and grammar are all the 'statement' he wishes to make, and therefore feels no need for expensive 'props'. This man might well possess such things as fine cars, etc, but he is not compelled to accumulate them in order to contrive an "image.'


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

You really do incorporate a lot of BS into your postings, silverporshe. I've never read or heard a greater collection of elitist nonsense and shallow materialism streaming from one persons keyboard or pouring from their mouth in my experience...guess I've been lucky. We live in a nice neighborhood. You remind me of one of our neighbors...I didn't care much for them either! They owned one of the nicest and larger homes on the street; they had three of the newest most expensive cars parked in their driveway; they owned a cabin Cruiser that he talked about, every time I was unable to avoid an encounter and he wore one of the biggest, gaudiest Rolex watches that I can recall ever having seen. I used the past tense in describing my former neighbor's possessions because not too long ago, they lost their home. It seems they had been financing a lot of the status symbols you cite with past equity increases in the value of their home and when the real estate bubble burst, their house of cards tumbled...my former neighbor doesn't come off as very "successful, powerful or of elevated status at this point in his life! Quite frankly, I feel very little sympathy for him but do feel badly for his children and to a lesser degree for his wife.


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

Finian McLonergan said:


> Former Treasury Secretary Paulson used the same technique - he wore a Timex Ironman during his controversial testimony to Congress on the bailouts.
> 
> Most will not even be aware of the strategy, it usually operates at a subliminal level. For leaders who don't want to appear too remote from their followers, it makes a lot of sense.


It's not just a technique; it's actually something of a Wall Street fashion these days. Lots of bankers are wearing Timex. You could say it's just a response to troubled times, and that they all see themselves as ambassadors of their industry on some level, but the guys I've spoken to about it said that they just got genuinely sick of the watch game, particularly as the more and more budget brands start producing really beautiful timepieces.



silverporsche said:


> I remember having read that some attack the messenger when they are unable to attack the message ! Why not a counterpoint to the opinions expressed on the subject. Why the gossip ? I am not the subject if you would please read sir.
> 
> If one thing is proven it shows the inability to reply to the thread in depth and an ability to simply gossip.
> Most of you can do better than gossip ! There are those who do offer counterpoints to different opinions , some do not !
> Again the subject is listed above.


People aren't responding because your "argument" is composed largely of bald normative assertions or unsubstantiated claims about how image is perceived.

Not being a sociologist or inclined to do any research on the topic at the moment, I will merely say that in my circles (both social and professional), someone who has the best of everything is viewed as most likely nouveau and insecure.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> You really do incorporate a lot of BS into your postings, silverpaunch.


Yeah, but he takes a lickin' and he keeps on tickin'. (That's a joke, son, a joke, I tell you.)

Isn't it ironic that a person so concerned with image cares so little about what people think of him?

Which brings us back to my earlier point: virtually all of the stuff we discuss on this forum, we do each for his own pleasure, not for any external reason. Whether or not he grasps it, the same applies to sliverporch.


----------



## Lord Byron (Nov 23, 2005)

The fact that you're trying to be consistent in the elements of your style is admirable. What you might aspire now to be a little more articulate in your thinking. One way to do this is to examine the _quality_ of something first, and its _price_ second. You might then find yourself thinking, I want to make sure that I'm wearing a watch and suit of comparable quality. Note: it's much more important that your shoes and suit be of comparable quality. The shoes will be noticed more than the watch by those who matter.

https://lordbyronsrevenge.blogspot.com/


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

This thread has some genuine wisdom in it and a good deal of BS. Aren't we interested in clothing that looks, feels, and wears well, yet doesn't make one stand out? i.e. Beau Brummell insisted that a gentleman should never be noticed for the singularity of his dress. 
In regards to accessories, most would suggest that a mans wedding band be simple and plain. According to some of the logic presented in this thread one should get a new band to show power, better yet get Sauron's ring.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> You really do incorporate a lot of BS into your postings, silverporshe. I've never read or heard a greater collection of elitist nonsense and shallow materialism streaming from one persons keyboard or pouring from their mouth in my experience...guess I've been lucky. We live in a nice neighborhood. You remind me of one of our neighbors...I didn't care much for them either! They owned one of the nicest and larger homes on the street; they had three of the newest most expensive cars parked in their driveway; they owned a cabin Cruiser that he talked about, every time I was unable to avoid an encounter and he wore one of the biggest, gaudiest Rolex watches that I can recall ever having seen. I used the past tense in describing my former neighbor's possessions because not too long ago, they lost their home. It seems they had been financing a lot of the status symbols you cite with past equity increases in the value of their home and when the real estate bubble burst, their house of cards tumbled...my former neighbor doesn't come off as very "successful, powerful or of elevated status at this point in his life! Quite frankly, I feel very little sympathy for him but do feel badly for his children and to a lesser degree for his wife.


I believe we should purchase silverporsche a silver shovel, so he can keep digging himself a deeper hole. It's extremely obvious that despite all the comments in this thread and many prior threads, he REALLY doesn't "get it".


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

PTB in San Diego said:


> It took me a long time to figure it out, but I believe that our friend Mr. Porsche has actually been wittily and successfully baiting us, with his fantastic irony. I, for one, took it hook, line, and sinker. Moth ---> flame.


Ha, beat you to that speculation some weeks ago, but the more I read him, the more I think he's serious...which is both more interesting and depressing


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

DocD said:


> I believe we should purchase silverporsche a silver shovel, so he can keep digging himself a deeper hole. It's extremely obvious that despite all the comments in this thread and many prior threads, he REALLY doesn't "get it".


I must say his posts are pretty entertaining.
In honor of how Silverporsche has amused us during the duration of this thread, we should all change our names to vehicles we own ... from now on, you can call me 85fordescort.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

triklops55 said:


> I must say his posts are pretty entertaining.
> In honor of how Silverporsche has amused us during the duration of this thread, we should all change our names to vehicles we own ... from now on, you can call me 85fordescort.


Inspired idea. I claim browndodgedart.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

I will oblige.

76yellowamcpacer.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Great Idea and henceforth I shall be known as 2001 Estate Green, Ford Sport Trac!



PTB in San Diego said:


> Yeah, but he takes a lickin' and he keeps on tickin'. (That's a joke, son, a joke, I tell you.)
> 
> Isn't it ironic that a person so concerned with image cares so little about what people think of him?
> ......


PTB, you are clearly correct on both counts but (LOL), alas, I think you just committed a disservice against Timex, the manufacturer of the Easy Reader model, an arguably excellent timepiece for wear with a fine suit!


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

https://www.overstock.com/Jewelry-W...tml?AID=10654383&PID=4169865&SID=71rzk6hat5uj


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> Inspired idea. I claim browndodgedart.


I claim 1978SkodaEstelle in honour of my first car, or FlyingPigeonBicycle in honour of my current set of wheels, and is commensurate with my lifestyle.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Mr. Knightly said:


> It's not just a technique; it's actually something of a Wall Street fashion these days. Lots of bankers are wearing Timex. You could say it's just a response to troubled times, and that they all see themselves as ambassadors of their industry on some level, but the guys I've spoken to about it said that they just got genuinely sick of the watch game, particularly as the more and more budget brands start producing really beautiful timepieces.
> 
> People aren't responding because your "argument" is composed largely of bald normative assertions or unsubstantiated claims about how image is perceived.
> 
> ...


Gossip , gossip , gossip and more gossip ! Is that the best you can do ? why not try discussing the subject. The subject is " Wearing a watch that is comensurate to your watch "


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

mrp said:


> This thread has some genuine wisdom in it and a good deal of BS. Aren't we interested in clothing that looks, feels, and wears well, yet doesn't make one stand out? i.e. Beau Brummell insisted that a gentleman should never be noticed for the singularity of his dress.
> In regards to accessories, most would suggest that a mans wedding band be simple and plain. According to some of the logic presented in this thread one should get a new band to show power, better yet get Sauron's ring.


Beau Brummell died before the industrial revolution , which greatly changed the way men dressed. The increased affluence of the average worker put them in conflict with the Beau Brummell's. Few men could afford decent clothing in Mr. Brummell's era.

The signatures of success has changed many times since the death of Mr. Brummell.
Clothing that does not stand out can be expensive , but unnoticed. Why do men today spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for cars but to stand out. Why do men spend
thousands for watches but to stand out.

In Beau Brummel's era men spent tidy sums for horses , carriages , castles , estates and accessories so they could stand out. Any different today ?

It all depends on in my opinion , one's values and income. Should we all not respect the values of others , there is little we can do about their incomes without a class uprising.
Tell me sir why would a man spend a million dollars for a car ? if not to stand out ?
Maybe only a few hundred thousand dollars if only to stand out. 
Oh there is a waiting list for cars that cost in-excess of two hundred thousand dollars !

I have noted many times times that if one feels uncomfortable paying for or wearing a very expensive item , than it is not for them !!


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> You really do incorporate a lot of BS into your postings, silverporshe. I've never read or heard a greater collection of elitist nonsense and shallow materialism streaming from one persons keyboard or pouring from their mouth in my experience...guess I've been lucky. We live in a nice neighborhood. You remind me of one of our neighbors...I didn't care much for them either! They owned one of the nicest and larger homes on the street; they had three of the newest most expensive cars parked in their driveway; they owned a cabin Cruiser that he talked about, every time I was unable to avoid an encounter and he wore one of the biggest, gaudiest Rolex watches that I can recall ever having seen. I used the past tense in describing my former neighbor's possessions because not too long ago, they lost their home. It seems they had been financing a lot of the status symbols you cite with past equity increases in the value of their home and when the real estate bubble burst, their house of cards tumbled...my former neighbor doesn't come off as very "successful, powerful or of elevated status at this point in his life! Quite frankly, I feel very little sympathy for him but do feel badly for his children and to a lesser degree for his wife.


As a moderator I would think you would not support the attack on another member , but ask that members discuss the subject. You more than anyone would not engage in 
not respecting the opinions of members you may disagree with 
I have expressed my opinion and has ignored most of the personal attacks , I would think you would be supportive of that.

Should my opinions cross a line I would expect a warning. I would like to ask you the Moderator has my opinions are positions on any issue crossed any line ? At anytime have I engaged in any post that was in bad taste if so please inform me.

It is unfortunate that many today find it hard to agree to disagree ! left with what it appears the inability to offer counterpoints some choose to not respect others points !!!!
I respect your post Mr. Moderator although I do not agree with it. Should you not do the same ? Or should I spend the time on this forum in a personal analysis of a person I don't know and will never meet ?
Can we not agree to disagree without personal analysis ?

Silverporsche


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> Beau Brummell died before the industrial revolution , which greatly changed the way men dressed. The increased affluence of the average worker put them in conflict with the Beau Brummell's. Few men could afford decent clothing in Mr. Brummell's era.
> 
> The signatures of success has changed many times since the death of Mr. Brummell.
> Clothing that does not stand out can be expensive , but unnoticed. Why do men today spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for cars but to stand out. Why do men spend
> ...


I don't think anybody is arguing that people don't spend vast sums of money on possessions in order to stand out, but the general consensus of this thread seems to be not only that taking your viewpoint is shallow and morally bankrupt, but also that the people who spend the most money don't always end up looking the best. The fact is that there are tons of people who, magpie-like, waste fortunes on overpriced luxury goods, and the vast majority of those who do only stand out for being crass and injudicious.

If you have a problem with moderators failing to stick up for you, perhaps you should reconsider your totally reprehensible conduct and world-view. Just a suggestion. You could start by reconsidering exactly by what measure people who don't blow money in the way that you suggest are "average or below average". If you are on a high income and consider yourself above average for that reason, you might in future want to describe yourself as 'above average income' in case people start thinking that there is anything else about you to commend you to the world.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> As a moderator I would think you would not support the attack on another member , but ask that members discuss the subject. You more than anyone would not engage in
> not respecting the opinions of members you may disagree with
> I have expressed my opinion and has ignored most of the personal attacks , I would think you would be supportive of that.
> 
> ...


Silverporsche: With your typical arrogance, you have incorporated two self-serving and also erroneous assumptions in your response to my earlier post. First, I am a member of these fora as well as a moderator and I do actively participate in a fairly good number of the threads to be found herein. Even though I may have agreed to serve as a moderator, I remain free to express my opinions, within the parameters established by the AAAC forums rules of use. I am pretty certain my post violates none of those rules. I have not attacked you or any other member, nor have I supported any such attacks. You regularly express some arguably arrogant, somewhat bizarre perspectives on the vestment of personal character/qualities equated with some of the more flashy trappings of wealth displayed by individuals. I, and apparently quite a few others, disagree with your conclusions and my post makes that clear, to the point of including an example of the error of your logic as illustrated by an example taken from my own experience. My comments are focused on your assertions and not directed against you personally.

Quite frankly, should you truly believe the nonsense you post herein, I actually feel sorry for you. Personally, I have lived a very blessed life and am very grateful for that. While we are financially comfortable, we (my family) are not flashy. I drive an 11 year old pick-up truck, my wife drives a year old Honda CRV. The most expensive watch, I've chosen to buy....well hopefully you get the picture. We pay cash for everything and we have money in the bank, that gets added to each month. We do not live high on the hog but, I suspect that over time we give more to others than you paid for those fancy cars/watches you so love to hold up for all to see. These days, because I am retired and get antsy if I don't have enough to do, I volunteer a fair amount of time as a case manager at a local homeless men's shelter. Privacy Act restrictions do not allow me to provide personal details regarding my clientèle but, I will tell you that those men, not a one of whom has an exotic car to drive, a flashy watch to display, have a hell of a lot more class and personal dignity than I sense that those of your ilk can lay claim to!


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Salieri said:


> I don't think anybody is arguing that people don't spend vast sums of money on possessions in order to stand out, but the general consensus of this thread seems to be not only that taking your viewpoint is shallow and morally bankrupt, but also that the people who spend the most money don't always end up looking the best. The fact is that there are tons of people who, magpie-like, waste fortunes on overpriced luxury goods, and the vast majority of those who do only stand out for being crass and injudicious.
> 
> If you have a problem with moderators failing to stick up for you, perhaps you should reconsider your totally reprehensible conduct and world-view. Just a suggestion. You could start by reconsidering exactly by what measure people who don't blow money in the way that you suggest are "average or below average". If you are on a high income and consider yourself above average for that reason, you might in future want to describe yourself as 'above average income' in case people start thinking that there is anything else about you to commend you to the world.


Is there a general consensus or those who have little respect for opposing views ? Example 
I don't agree with your post but should I call it shallow and morally brankrupt ? or should I offer a counterpoint ? I do not feel this forum is about me , this thread had to do with a suit and a watch.

It appears that you are more interested in me than the subject. What people spend their personal wealth on is their business. If a person wishes to buy a three hundred thousand 
dollar car wonderful , spend twenty thousand dollars for a watch wonderful and ten thousand dollars for a suit again wonderful.

Class envy is not something I engage in. If someone decides to spend much less for a car , watch or suit wonderful. I have no interest in attacking either person. I respect their decisions.
It appears that there are many on Ask Andy that has little respect for the opinions of others. There are those who sit on the side lines and attack other members.
If you read my post the words , shallow , bankrupt , BS , elitist , nonsense , foolish , etc, etc has never been used in any of my post ! I think that kind of language has no place in a forum of different ideas and opinion ! I have used the term gossup.

ASK ANDY IS AN EXCELLENT SITE FOR THE DISCUSSION OF MEN'S CLOTHING ! 
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THOSE WHO WOULD RATHER ATTACK OTHERS THAN OFFER 
COUNTERING OPINIONS. THANK GOODNESS THESE PEOPLE ARE IN THE MINORITY.


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

Sorry, I thought that the counterpoint was self-evident: that one should wear what looks good and feels good to the wearer and not judge things purely on the basis of price. That point has been made. If you want, you can call _me_ morally bankrupt, but I think my counterpoint to that would probably have something to do with intellectual bankruptcy. The problem here is that you're reading past what people are saying and complaining that those who disagree with you are simply criticising _ad hominem_ and not adressing your argument. I'm very sorry if I haven't made my point clearly enough: I find what you have said (not you in particular because - phew - I don't know you) to be not only totally nuts but also a little offensive.


----------



## DcJeff (May 23, 2011)

Do yuo live in a fantsy mantion?



silverporsche said:


> You must learn to respect another opinion regarding dress. The subject was not mine.
> This subject is not about being liberal or conservative but wearing an
> expensive suit with an expensive watch.
> Why not address the subject instead of the member.
> ...


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)




----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Salieri said:


> Sorry, I thought that the counterpoint was self-evident: that one should wear what looks good and feels good to the wearer and not judge things purely on the basis of price. That point has been made. If you want, you can call _me_ morally bankrupt, but I think my counterpoint to that would probably have something to do with intellectual bankruptcy. The problem here is that you're reading past what people are saying and complaining that those who disagree with you are simply criticising _ad hominem_ and not adressing your argument. I'm very sorry if I haven't made my point clearly enough: I find what you have said *(not you in particular because - phew - I don't know you)* to be not only totally nuts but also a little offensive.


This thread had been rife with comments similar in nature to the one I have noted above, and they can not be taken in any way other than as a personal attack. The subject forumite and I also share quite different philosophies in this matter but I don't see this as the type of forum where we attack the man for it. There are many threads on AAAC that contain posts sharing philosophies or actions that I find troubling or at least detailing a less than admirable behavior, but we don't generally attack the individuals involved. However, since we have done so here, I will join in and say that I believe the lack of intervention by moderators regarding these personal attacks is unbecoming of this site, and the comments by a moderator in the same vein in his last post are even more reprehensible and make one question the choice of moderators for what I like to think is a forum for decent people who share an interest, not philosophies. This thread has become what it is because of poor moderation.

Blair


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Silverporsche, I almost never respond to you because I don't think you really believe any of the over the top nonsense you post. I doubt that your protest is anything more than something you are doing to see what kind of a reaction you will get. 

If you are real, which I doubt, you are a pathetically shallow person. In fact, so pathetically shallow, that I wonder who you really are, but really don't care. If fishing for responses on the internet floats your boat, as long as you don't push it too hard, oh well. You say a lot more about yourself and how you get your jollies than you do about the people and values you pretend to attack.

Eagle has more decency and integrity (yes I've met him and know him in real life) than you can ever hope to have. I suggest you drop this ridiculous posturing right now. Maybe you can come out and play again when things die down. You have brought Eagle's moderator status into this and are violating rules by publicly disrespecting him. 

Stop it, or I'll stop it for you.

I would not post any reply in this thread if I were you. If you cross a line, you WILL be on vacation from this forum for awhile.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

blairrob said:


> This thread had been rife with comments similar in nature to the one I have noted above, and they can not be taken in any way other than as a personal attack. The subject forumites and I also share quite different philosophies in this matter but I don't see this as the type of forum where we attack the man for it. There are many threads on AAAC that contain posts sharing philosophies or actions that I find troubling or at least detailing a less than admirable behavior but we don't generally attack the individuals involved. However, since we have done so here, I will join in and say that I believe the lack of intervention by moderators regarding the personal attacks is unbecoming of this site, and the comments by a moderator in the same vein are even more reprehensible and make one question the choice of moderators. This thread has become what it is because of poor moderation.
> 
> Blair


If you disagree with the moderation of this site, please do so in private. Silverporsche has a long history here and has earned everything he has gotten.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Silverporsche, I'll do this for you.

Everyone needs to drop this now!!!


----------

