- Posts
- 34
- Likes
- 5
hc9090
·I'm saying: You're wrong. IN isolation it is subjective, in aggregate, it is not. There is a reason that a SS AP or a Patek are worth multiples of what a Rolex or Omega is worth. They aren't more expensive to make, or made of better materials, etc. It is because the market's taste, in aggregate, has determined that they are 'better', and thus there is an OBJECTIVE preference for them.
In the case of indices: The same is true. Stamped indices are a turn off to much of the market, and thus cause significantly less value to the watches, this is the market showing an OBJECTIVE superiority to applied indices.
I pointed out: This is so common that what you're doing above ("my opinion is my opinion, design is all subjective!") is a trope here. People come in all the time to defend their position on watch forums about things like this, then realize why they were wrong.
Almost like you got what you paid for! If ONLY you'd not thought that valuations were 'subjective and just as good!' you could have spent the money paying a real evaluation service!
You and I are talking about two different things though. Price is a vote tally, driven by brand, scarcity, condition, and fashion. Design preference is whether a layout appeals once it clears basic objectives like legibility and proportion. I am not claiming prices are random. I am saying popularity and allocation do not settle whether print or applied looks better.
Going back to my original question, I was never asking for a running commentary on whether this dial is ugly, but whether it is feasible to find something similar at sensible money within the next three weeks, and where to look.
