The law of Diminishing Returns

This is, of course, the correct attitude.

But you're missing two things.

1. If we're talking function, the point of comparison isn't a $300 San Martin or a $40 Casio. It's $0, because our phones do it better than any watch out there

2. People use value comparisons almost universally as self serving arguments to justify purchases or criticize other people's purchases. I have been guilty of this in the past...and it's just a way to win fake internet points.

I'm pretty convinced there is no real value in watches aside from the way that they make us feel. Value comparisons based on "objective"" facts are specious at best.

Yeah, people are illogical. Some more than others, but all to some degree.

I agree that it's not a perfect way to compare watches, but since most people don't have Elon Musk level of money, they need to weigh cost vs. "quality".

I don't think anybody honestly believes that cost and quality rise in a linear way. They use the comparison as a way of expressing that they think the diminishing returns above a certain price point aren't worth the cost in their eyes.

For example, a $10K Rolex is a better watch than a $1K CW, but for the extra $9K the improvements in quality aren't worth it to me. For others the line could be that the extra $700 for a CW isn't worth it over a $300 San Martin.

But the Tissot is better than the San Martin and isn't Chinese.

The world would be a better place if we're not all pedants. Context is quite crucial when trying to understand people. Sentences like "it's not twice as good for twice the price" is just a way for people to express how they don't think a certain something is worth it. I don't think even the most literal of literals actually mean "twice the quality" comments literally. At least I choose to believe people are smarter than that. And whenever statements like these do prop up, I'd like to think I'm smart enough to not take it literally as well.

But I do have lexical pet peeves as well so I'm not above it all. "In my opinion" or "in my honest opinion" is an example. I don't think it's necessary. I'm on the internet, I assume the default is that it's always someone's opinion. I prefer people state whether the information they're sharing is a fact (if they're going to use a disclaimer) so I can treat it differently from how I view majority of stuff I read on here. Also, do we really need disclaimers anyway? The case diameter is 40mm, fact. The case diameter is too small, opinion. Surely we can decipher which is which without being told? I'll shut up.

Diminishing returns is a reality, but that princip does normally NOT work - when we compare different brands... Or if you comapre Mechanic vs Quartz...

And when we talk about design, get it even more complicated - because many "fine brands" save (naturally) their finest designs to their most expensive models... While some - as Tissot, Fossil and Invicta use extra fine design, even in rather low cost models! Yes, I would also include Citizen, Seiko and Orient there - but they have not relased any budget watch with extra fine design, the last ten years - if you not are completely happy with a simple standard design!

Watch collecting is itself illogical, right? At least I think so.

But yes, I agree that there are diminishing returns, especially when you start getting up there in price. I own watches that cost $150, and they’re nice, but they’re not as nice as watches I own that cost significantly more than that. The finishing is far better. The movements are better. Everything about them is better, and I can clearly see why my $1,000-$2,000 watches cost more than my $200-$300 watches.

At a certain point, though, all that stuff that makes a nice watch worth the money goes out the window. I don’t see how a watch can warrant costing tens of thousands of dollars. Is the PP Nautilus a nice watch? Absolutely. Does it warrant the price tag? Absolutely not, and you’d sooner convince me that the oceans are filled with blood orange flavored San Pelligrino than get me to buy that any watch is actually worth what many of these makers charge. It’s asinine. That’s as clear a picture of diminishing returns as I have ever seen.

I mean, I still want a Roger W. Smith though. 🥂

It happens.

It depends on their derivative value. Taking your example for this demonstration I can easily prove that if the 600$ Tissot manage to make me incredibly attractive to to women, then it's easily twice as valuable to me than the 300$ San Martin.

It can be how you assign value to a watch. Humans do want to assign value based on our subjective experience that is victim to bias,ֶ personal values, socio-economic, status and environments. This can lead to objects having diminishing returns especially if your are taking the conservative experience to re-kindle the love of your first watch. You can get a shinny new one, but it will not match the joy of that first experience. Your watches maybe more accurate, have more complications, and cost more. However they will not share that same joy. A functionalist would argue getting a quartz or cell phone for time keeping because they are cheaper and you get more for the price (for example, can you say a gshock is less functional than omega when it comes to telling time?…probably not). Although from an aesthetic argument, the omega would hold more value that also fits the purpose.

Having thought a lot about and priced out the components of many watches out of curiosity (I'll probably make a post on this at some point), my conclusion is that the lower end of the market is generally pretty rational with higher price indicating greater quality / cost of components. That $500 watch probably has components that is 25% greater in cost than a $400 watch.... let's say a sapphire crystal and/or slight improvement in movement.

However, the higher end of the market is where the brand value really starts to dominate the bulk of the value. People choosing between $400 versus $500 watches are not paying the brand premium (veblen goods pricing goes parabolic at some point as the entire purpose is to peacock to others). Brand is not just a meaningless nebulous concept though as it prices generalized perception of quality/servicing, recognition, value of marketing $s invested, resale value, history, scarcity of particular models...

The supposed irrational decreasing marginal return concept may actually be quite rational once taking into account the intangible premium.

Absolutely the universe doesn't work that way. What you will find, however, is when those, "Is that watch 2x better?" type comments are made, they invariably come from people who own the watch in the equation that's half the price. Funny that. Either trying to be smug with people who own the more expensive watch, or just trying to justify why they wear an obscure AliExpress brand, or maybe for some other reason, it's pretty much where those kind of comments come from. Personally I pay them no mind, and move on.

• “Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance” by Robert Pirsig would give most people a run for their money on the meaning of the definition of “Quality” siting the philosophical writings of Pheadrus ?! ( now who’s spouting sh*t lol 😂)

Mine’s a Roger Dubois 🙂

Law of diminishing return is a penny pincher’s term for justification on settling. Mind you I have zero watches over $1,000 dollars. I still think buy what floats your boat and enjoy. 🤙

Thanks, bud!

"In my opinion" or "in my honest opinion" is an example. I don't think it's necessary. I'm on the internet, I assume the default is that it's always someone's opinion.

Bless you and I agree it SHOULD be like this; but in my experience, that's not how the internet works. Adding "IMO" or it's variants to my comments has allowed me to be able to have civil discussions where excluding it more often than not leads to heated arguments.

You are so very right on this. Certain statements should make the context obvious, but many people tend to react before they think. Few think first then react second. Especially on internet forums where comments are all written, no one can easily ascertain the tone of someone's comment without a written qualifier.

I read some advice, and fully agree with it, saying most fights in a marriage happen simply because of the tone of voice used. If I ask my wife a question, her reactions are quite different depending on my tone. Again, this should be obvious, but when you get used to living with someone you don't watch your tone as much and you also tend to react immediately when being spoken to. Now try doing this over texts!

I maintain what you pay for a watch has nothing to do with what it's physically worth or quality (objective or subjective) at all. You should simply ask yourself "will this really make me happy?" and if the answer is "yes" then there is no price for that. You're only limited by your buying power really.

In other words, I think the diminishing returns are not so much in the watch itself, but in the enjoyment of it. For example, going into severe debt over a watch will likely impact your enjoyment of it. Buying something you can manage/self-justify fiscally will not stress you out and hence you will likely get more enjoyment out of that than the more expensive watch IMHO.

I don't know how many times I've read ZAMM, and I'm overdue to read it again. One of the most important books I've ever read and there's always something new to discover with another reading.

I want to thank everyone who's participated in this thread, whether you agreed or disagreed with my premise. I just like to stimulate meaningful conversation and to better understand why I, and others, participate in the frivolous hobby. I've learned a lot from all of you from this one.

The law of diminishing returns applies in many areas, but it is a mix of quantifiable and subjective issues. A side issue is that a higher price is no quality guarantee, but the idea behind this law is that it should enable us to get a better product. The idiots among us are free to purchase a £150000 Carl F Bucherer watch from AliExpress (they exist), as this is highly likely a fake and worse than a £50 watch from Lorus. But it is questionable whether the law is even true in this limited sense: once you get to £500000 you cat get any horology function you desire, in precious metals, etc and yet there are modern watches costing three times as much and you cannot convince me that there was any room for improvement left at that point.

One way the law of diminishing returns comes in when you try convince someone that watch X is better than watch Y. How much explaining do you have to do to convince the other person that this is true, and how likely is it that you fail in this endavour?

We can start with some basic things that make a huge difference: does the watch actually run? If so, is the accuracy terrible? Does the back of the watch come loose? Does your skin react allergically to the material in case and/or band? Does the clasp of the watchband give you physical pain? Watches failing these criteria are generally in the bottom of the price range. As in below £10.

By making the failings of watches less blatant and objective and introducing more subtle and subjective criteria you move up the price ladder. But not very far. Once you reach, say, £500, you have reached the point where you can get spec-monsters, at least in China.

At this point you are slowly entering what we Germans call Erkärungsnot. There are still some objective criteria mentionable, like antimagnetic properties (hello Omega), some aesthetic/functional mishaps like messing up date windows (hello Longines), but very quickly it becomes solely subjective. Why is brand A better than brand B? Is an in-house movement even a good thing?

You can still articulate at a higher price point to your communication partner what particular quality you cherish in watch X over watch Y, but when the question comes back why that quality is in any shape important you may struggle.

I think the problem with applying "value" to a watch beyond anything concrete (MSRP for example) is that everyone has different opinions on what is truly valuable.

For example, I value quality over heritage and market demand. I would rather have a $350 Orient than a $350 Moonswatch. This is nothing against Moonswatches (I think they're pretty dope to be honest) but that watch doesn't align with what I value.

At the same time, I probably spent too much on a 60th anniversary SEGA Seiko because I've been a SEGA fan my whole life. That holds value to me as silly as it may sound to others.

The same could be applied to all traits such as market value, heritage, brand, county of manufacturing, who wore it, what movie it was in, case material, rarity, accuracy, movement type, and even the warranty. That makes it impossible to determine a definite "twice as good."

That's all I have to say, thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

So you’ve read ZAMM ?

I disagree with 1.

Casio atomic solar (or any atomic solar) especially the g-shock line is better than our smart phone. Casio atomic solar watches are zero maintenance.

Yes multiple times. Very important book to me

That would be an interesting post! I would love to read it.

I think of the law of diminishing returns applies to the manufacture.

As the consumer, a watch is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Eg I wouldn’t pay $300 for a BB58 replica. But I would pay $3000 for the Tudor.

Both tell the time & look similar, but status or quality or desire or something else makes me pay 10x more. Watches are like motorcycles. I don’t need them, but I’m attracted to them & will pay 💵💶💰if I really want it 😀

I mean, sure I guess. Most watches are "better" than a smartphone. But I guess what I'm saying is, most of us have a smartphone and it tells the time. But that time telling ability is completely incidental to why we carry smartphones. It's just there.

So that's why I consider the cost to beat zero. It's not that you can't get something better by spending some money (that's almost always the case) but for the core function of time telling, almost all of us carry something that does that already at zero incremental cost so spending more, by definition, is almost always superfluous.

I know where you're coming from. Smart phones are better at keeping time (atomic) than traditional mechanical watch with minimal maintenance (charging).

What I am trying to said some watches like Casio g-shock solar atomic have the same level of time keeping (atomic) but without the need to daily charge the phone.

Casio solar atomic watches are zero maintenance. They always works (for decades) and have atomic accuracy like smart phones. They are stress free watches.