Watches

0 readers

1 users here now

A community for watch & horology discussion.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

communick@style.land

[Collectors] Rule of Thumb (alien.top)

submitted 11 months ago by FreeMadoff@alien.top to c/watches@style.land

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Obviously we all have our own circumstances, so I’m generally wondering: there is a difference between the watches we dream of and the watches we wear.

When I wear mine, I need to be not too flashy for clients while keeping it professional. I earn $105k as a middle manager in wealth management (MCOL), and the nicest watch I own is an Omega Seamaster ($5.9k).

Affordability aside, I’m weighing how much “nicer” of a watch can I get without “out-wearing my wage”.

I’d love to hear how others have approached this intangible; I can make my own decisions just looking for anecdotes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FreeMadoff@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I manage money for high net worth people. The self-made ones generally don’t like to see expensive jewelry or clothing on their advisor. The investment fees from the client’s accounts literally pay our salaries.

MCS exists but this is not it.

[–] milkshaakes@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

It seems like the rule of thumb in that case would be 'loudness' of watch rather than actual cost. So blingy, high polished pieces, two-tone, attention-drawing pieces, and of course Rolex.

E.g. I don't think they'd bat an eye at a moonwatch on leather or a reverso. Or my favorite, on an Erika's originals