Horological Meandering

nickd
1591

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Shouldn't equate luxury and perfection

Nice can of twisted worms to open   A pseudo-philosopher's field day!

I think that equating "luxury" and "perfection" creates confusion.  It feels as though they should be intimately linked in a self-evident way, but I'm not sure that's the case.

I think several definitions of perfection are being mixed up:

1 perfection=ultimately suited to its purpose.  Think Toyota.  The Shortt clocks were close to perfection in terms of timekeeping. 

2 perfection=the execution couldn't be better.  Dufour's and Voutilainen's watches are the obvious example.

3 perfection=high quality (measurable quality, such as reliability).

4 pefection=an ineffable, but attainable, je ne sais quoi that assumes the preceeding three are already attained.

5 perfection=The unattainable, based on a deep psychological problem and need to find fault and problems everywhere.  By definition, nothing will ever meet meet these unwritten ideals/fantasies.

Luxury is even more interesting to try to define:

1 Luxury items are expensive, but expensive things aren't necessarily luxuries.

2 Luxury items are exclusive, but exclusive things aren't necesarily luxuries.

3 Luxury items are perfect, but perfect things aren't necesarily luxuries.

4 Luxury items are status symbols.  Perhaps, perhaps not.

5 etc etc etc

To me, this suggests that perfection is a (quantifiable) attribute of the object, but that luxury is a very subjective attribute of the objects' worth and the values and wealth of those buying it and of society itself.  I don't think luxury is an attribute of the object itself.  Status symbol is certainly an attribute of societies perceptions of the object.

Do most people go out to buy a luxury car?  Don't they buy big cars, fast cars, status symbols, reliable cars, cheap cars or specific models ("Can I help you sir?"  "I'd like to buy a car"  "What sort of car?"  "A luxury car" - that's pure Monty Python)?  Do people buy things because they're a luxury item or do the things they buy turn out to be categorised as luxury items because of their price, quality or exclusivity?

Is something a luxury item just because of its high price?  Isn't "high price" relative?  A limited edition AP may be a luxury to me because of its price, but just a status symbol for someone mega-rich.  Is the attention you pay to an object, and the emotion with which you evaluate it, relative to what it's worth to you?  For most people I'd guess that the more you've had to pay relative to your spending power, the more you want to have bought "the best".  I don't care that the $20 Timex I bought for fun at a flea market doesn't work well, but I sure as hell care about the condition of the new $50000 watch I buy.  But if $50000 is an irrelevant drop in the ocean of your spending power, do you attach the same value to the $50000 watch as I do?  One man's unattainable luxury is anothers quickly forgotten impulse buy.

How about the idea that luxury goods are expensive because you're paying for perfect execution: is this really true?  This may be the case with many AHCI watches, but outside of these rare cases isn't the reality that the maker uses "perfection" to justify the (excessive) price, even if the quality of the execution or suitability to purpose are far from perfect.  And how often does the the buyer use some aspect of "perfection" (timekeeping or finish) to justify their expensive, unnecessary purchase to themself or their spouse?

I think that "luxury" is too subjective and open to interpretation term to add to the mix.  And even if there is a formal definition from economists, analysts or whatever, it's still too loaded a term to be used usefully.

The trouble is that the high-end watch world is selling goods and using the first three defintions of quality as selling points.   And even if they don't explicitly state them, they're still implied.  When they don't meet those basics, people quite rightly complain.  

I think Thomas is saying that the creme de la creme of the industry are not delivering on making themselves extra special (certainly given the current prices compared to say a decade ago).  If they delivered on their promise of "ultimately suited to purpose" plus "the execution couldn't be better" plus "high quality", then to truly differentiate themselves and move that step higher they would have to go the extra, ineffable, mile.  The same extra mile that turns a great performance into a magical one, or a painting into a work of art.  If they can't even get the basics consistently right, then how can they even pretend to go the extra mile? 

But, if the high-end industry is now just churning out high-margin status symbols for the nouveau riche, do they really give a stuff about this sort of rambling or the grouchings of people like us?

nick