• azertyfun@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Like you said, 99.9 % of people wouldn’t recognize a Patek Philippe if it hit them upside the head. By definition it’s not ostentatious. Rolexes are ostentatious (it’s the only luxury brand most people know), but also incredibly cheap as far as mechanical watches go.

    A Patek Philippe is a status symbol, but only to those very select few already in-the-know. And that is not mutually exclusive with those movements being incredible art. Is a Van Gogh ugly or evil just because some asshole bought the painting for $100.000.000? Art doesn’t have to be collateral damage to your class consciousness just because rich people have more access to it.

    • Zerush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Same with an van Gogh, I like to see his paintings in a Museum, where everybody can enjoy the work of great artists. I like to see the art of an Patek Philipp, but same as any other work which combine ingeniering with art. But I never would buy it, even if I had the money for it. Even if it made with wood instead of platin or gold with diamonds.

      https://viewtube.io/watch?v=WEbmYp5VVcw

    • skulkingaround
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Rolex isn’t incredibly cheap lmao. It’s mid to high price for luxury watches. The cheapest thing they sell is like $3k. Incredibly cheap for mechanical watches would be around the $100 mark for a Seiko 5 series or something.