I think most including me agree that mechanical watches nowadays are essentially toys for the wealthy per your definition.

My point is I suspect most individuals whom are rich according to your definition (which likely applies to most of us on this forum) do not find it financially sensible to spend money at the RM price point. They can enjoy their watch “toys” at a lower price point and still have enough to spend on other toys or investments.

 

Like 100k on a car when a Toyota Camry will do the same.

 

Not quite an apples to apples comparison. Nowadays mechanical watches are generally purchased for pleasure whether it’s a Seiko or a RM. Most cars on the hand are purchased even by the rich for the utilitarian purpose of traveling from point A to B.

 

Sorry it’s apples and apples in my book. A Camry will travel from point A to B


Or in this case

 

People who can have fun wearing (and buying) RM watches still have plenty to spend elsewhere, including charities for what we know. I get why that this is (very) irritating, it is a symptom of the glaring and widening inequality in our supposedly advanced societies.

But seriously, can we justify spending 10k on an old speedmaster? 1.5k on stamped steel n6 endlinks? 20k on a UG chrono? the street price of a BLRO? For me this is ludicrous too, I certainly do not find this sensible and nobody I personally know is either; the price point is lower, that's all. Still the same inequality symptom.

 

So revised from offensive to financially sensible...good call...

 

It's called hyperbole to convey my point...

RM takes the exclusionary tactic of luxury mechanical watches to an extreme to communicate one has an absurd level of discretionary income relative to other watch aficionados.

 

Your hyperbole does not convey your point. It's all a matter of degrees. You've chosen your threshold of absurdity, but that doesn't make it superior to or more correct than where others choose to draw their line.

 

I don t really have an opinion about the price or how people spend their money; it is none of my buisness, the only reason I would not buy it, is because I don t like the look of it.

 

They're fun, but I'd be surprised to see them fetch decent prices at auction in 90 years.

 

I'd be surprised if we're around to confirm this.

 

Did you see what a Willy Wonka gobstopper went for....

 

Fair point

Risky google

 

Just put pawn stars in front of it

That sounds even worse

 

I consider these type of watches to be ludicrous, given their price points. But, then again, I feel the same way about the works of certain modern and contemporary artists whose paintings brings millions, or tens of millions of dollars.

Would I expect them to hold their values as well as high-class, classically designed watches? No. But even if that were to prove true, those who can afford to buy them aren't worried about resale values, at least at the time of purchase.

 

They just make me hungry for candy

 

As do many other brands. The fact that people react more to this brand is simply because of the styling not being to their liking. Rather than hyperbole, it’s hypocrisy.

 

There are plenty of aesthetically objectionable watches that aren’t as controversial likely because they don’t cost a small fortune.

 

The taffy (or marshmallow) model in particular strikes me as absolutely brilliant. Not something I would ever wear, but I bet it looks spectacular on the arm of a slinky well-tanned model or billionaire heiress with a quirky sense of style.

The fact that it’s literally “wrist candy”... RM knows exactly what they’re doing here and it’s a sweet bit of satire.

 

For me it looks like Swatch 4.0
but of course, mecanically RM is top notch