Aristocracy of Taste v/s Democracy of Acquisitions (Reflections)

I came across this quote in the week-end on a YouTube channel which is supposedly attributed to Jack Forrester from Hodinkee, but I can’t trace the reference back. If anyone has an article where Jack Forrester mentioned this quote, it would be great if you can share it.

My understanding of the quote is that “Aristocracy of Taste” is when you have educated yourself enough to appreciate things (watches) that are not mainstream. “Democracy of Acquisitions” is that in a capitalist world, what stand between you and your next watch is money or financial power. If my understanding is not right, I am open for correction. On the OF I feel there are more people that strive toward “Aristocracy of Taste” whereas on YouTube I feel they strive toward “Democracy of Acquisitions” and are mainly focus on the value retention of a watch. Recently there has been a quote by John P that “Rolex is not for watch enthusiasts” which maybe goes into the direction that what stand between a person and the next modern Rolex is financial power and John P is more interested in educating himself and understanding watches (although he is a dealer). If you look at Archie Luxury, he is really focus on the value of the watches and there are a number of YouTubers who goes in that direction (just to be clear, i am not arguing this is not right).

Are there two school of thoughts in this hobby? And are they, both right?

I would just like to provoke some thoughts and it would be interesting to hear from the experienced collectors on the forum.

This is a topic I was considering posting right after asking which is better, Rolex or Omega. You beat me to it 😁

Sorry 😀 but it is an interesting topic. 👍

I interpret it as a collector who has reached the stage of holding a few special examples, rather than an accumulator buying many lesser examples.
It doesn't have to be different people, but different stages of appreciation in the same person's journey through time.

The aristocracy of married life?

That is another complication that I haven’t taken into account 😉

Wow... this is deep for a Sunday afternoon.

When I first started collecting watches back in the 1970s, it was not about the brand, the financial power, or even status. It was all about the mechanical movement, the case, the hands, and the dial. I bought what I could afford, and I bought what I liked. My decisions had nothing to do with what was trendy or what would appreciate in value. Yes, I can not deny that society and capitalism influenced me as mass marketing is all around us at all times. How else could I have heard of Rolex or Omega? But, just as when I was growing up as a kid, I had never heard of a BMW, a Cadillac was the luxury car; I had never heard of Patek Philippe, Breguet, IWC, Audemars Piguet and Vacheron Constantin. I learned of these brands thru education, and from other collectors. I admired them not because they were expensive luxury watches, but because of the expertise, tradition, quality, innovation and craftsmanship that went into each and every one of these brands. They were works of art, and works of beauty.

Whenever I have purchased a watch, past or present, I was never concerned about value retention or appreciation. It was simply that I liked the watch for whatever the reason may have been at the time I bought the watch. Have I benefited from substantial appreciation in value of some of my watches, most definitely, have I sold any of those watches... for the most part...no. I must admit, however, that at times money stood between myself and my next acquisition, as it does for so many of us, especially when you have other more important financial obligations. I have never bought a watch just to have it recognized on my wrist, probably one of the reasons I don't wear bracelets which are often more recognizable then the watch. I don't even like today's modern Rolex watches and would not entertain the thought of buying a modern day Rolex.

I consider myself to be very lucky to be able to enjoy a hobby which others may consider foolish. It all goes back to the beginning... a love and wonder of the mechanical movements, the intricacies and the sheer beauty and art of watches.

Back to reading "Moonwatch Only" less then 50 pages to go.

When I hear the word "aristocracy" the first think I think of is "off with their heads."

Unless anyone shows up to say the expression was devised by Dr Johnson/ST Coleridge/Mark Twain/GB Shaw, I think maybe it's a little contrived, and doesn't really stand more than short scrutiny. Although we do sort-of know what is meant.
No.
I guess a lot of collecting activities are as follows. Think of a Venn diagram with a lot of circles, and a lot of overlaps. There are hoarders, traders, speculators, "investors" 🤦, heirloom-makers, braggarts, playboys, scholars, completists, horologists, engineers, aesthetes... you get the picture. Most of us have been a few of these over time, and at any one time. Some folks satisfy whatever objective with many pieces, some with few; sometimes, only the best will do, sometimes OK is all you want. Some just want to wear their wealth, literally, and that's OK - but maybe watches aren't really their hobby...
End of sermon - the great thing is, you get to choose. 👍

Thank you this is very true and an interesting perspective.

There's something profound and interesting here. Without the full quote, it's hard to know if I'm interpreting it correctly, but Jack is an erudite man, and I think what he means is a bit more nuanced than the often discussed differences between those who buy for status versus those who buy for value, or appreciation of watches.

The key word is "taste", a loaded term if there ever was one. It's a term pregnant with the power to divide on nearly every sociological fault line in the human experience. Let's discuss "aristocracy" first though. An aristocracy is something you can't be part of unless you're born into it, or close enough to it that you can discover its inner workings and earn your entree through effort and flattery. "Aristocracy of Taste", then, means you can't have taste unless you're born into taste, or close to it. Like aristocracy, taste isn't learned, it's instilled in you from the previous generation, or earned through close association with and careful study of those who were so lucky.

In the watch world, taste isn't quite so inaccessible, but it does take time to cultivate, understand and collect, and you'll never acquire it unless you fraternize with those who already have it (OF is a good place to undertake this task). Good taste is what dictates that a simple tool watch, renowned for its ruggedness and understated simplicity, is in better taste than a piece designed to attract attention and look expensive. It's completely separate from value: A Paul Newman Daytona is not a good value, but it is in good taste. It is also separate from horological value: A Jacob & Co. Astronomia is a horological wonder, but does not represent good taste.

Of course you don't have to be Pierre Bourdieu to realize, then, that good taste is out of the reach of most people. Money, alone, won't get you there. You need money and time to cultivate taste. More importantly, you need association with and careful study of those who have it, and to have that you need to be able to recognize it, and most people - even many rich people - don't have that privilege.

Good taste, then, can only be had with privilege, or close association with privilege (itself, a sort of meta-privilege). There's nothing wrong with having privilege, but one must be sensitive with it, because by its nature, we don't all enter this world with equal chances of attaining it. When having taste switches to judging people based on taste, it becomes exclusionary, prejudiced and unfair, because it's judging people based not on who they are, but on the sensibilities they've been exposed to. When the discussion turns to who has taste and who doesn't, it can even become racist. Thankfully, I've rarely seen this type of biased judgement here on OF. Many of us have privilege, but we don't knock those who don't by knocking their bad taste (usually). I also don't think Jack is biased for expounding on the nature of taste, even if expounding on it leads one to the conclusion that it is exclusionary (he seems like a good man, despite being a Rolex lover).

Of course the realization that taste is exclusionary is enough for anyone who is excluded to hate it. And rightfully so. I can't blame anyone who sees the nature of taste and concludes - like arturo7 - "Off with their heads". The world is less fair if taste requires privilege, because not everyone can have it. Perhaps, then, we can conclude a meta-truth, painful to some of us though it may be: having good taste is bad taste. That's actually not such a sacrifice though. I don't see many people mourning the death of the Aristocracy.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/hodinkee-radio-episode-54-jack-forster at 56:50

Thanks! Just listened to it, and it's not quite what I guessed it meant. It's not clear to me if the Aristocracy of Taste he mentions is the producers who create the watches, or the consumers and media who have the cachet to judge which watches are tasteful or not. His "Democracy of Acquisition" is also something different from what I guessed, but I'd have to write another essay to cover that.

There are some thoughtful and (thankfully) irreverent posts here.

I haven’t listened to the podcast but I have to depart from some of the comments made.
Taste is entirely subjective - and more importantly what is applauded as ‘good taste’ changes all the time.
Let’s not forget that the Paul Newman referred to didn’t sell because nobody liked it at the time.
Picasso and his fellow artists gave their paintings away in return for a meal and the patrons lambasted the landlord for wasting his good food on rubbish.
Architecture has cycled through many styles (and back again) over multiple centuries, according to the prevailing zeitgeist.

You don’t need money, birthright or education to have ‘good taste’ because there is no such thing, except that which self-appointed arbiters of what is currently fashionable say it is.

-and wouldn’t it be really boring if we all liked the same thing......

And... it would be really expensive.