UKC

Earlier this evening, I watched one the best tv adverts I've ever seen. I was in the kitchen making dinner and after a while, the music alone drew me through to see what was on. It had me standing there, pot in hand, watching the remainder of what turned out to be a Cartier advert.

Some will no doubt think it's rubbish, but I found it quite mesmerising and really classy!

This is the ad:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Cartier?v=yaBNjTtCxd4

In reply to Fraser:

Yeah, great stuff, isn't it? It was made by Bruno Aveillan, who makes works of art masquerading them and selling them as commercials. Some of his works are here http://www.quad.fr/directors/bruno-aveillan/

The animation was done by this guys, http://www.digital-district.fr/#/project/SHOWREEL2012*NEW* It took a big team of them the best part of 2 years to create those 3 minutes.

In reply to Fraser: Stunning. Thx

In reply to Fraser: fantastic advert, kept me watching even though I knew I couldn't afford the product.

In reply to Fraser: Yeah thanks. That is a beautiful piece of work. Pity I cannot afford the jewels but it makes me aspire and admire. A piece of work from people who know beauty.

In reply to Fraser:

Wow! Beautifully crafted.

In reply to Fraser:
Brilliant,
I have also always loved this.

In reply to Mr Lopez:
Fantastic link, thanks for that. The Shangri-La Hotels one pretty much brought a tear to my eye, he really touches on the emotions. Still working my way through the others, but why haven't I heard of this guy before? His (their?) work is amazing. Love the scores too.



I'll check out next, cheers.

F

In reply to Fraser:

utter pish.

Visual masterbation. You can't afford the products because you're paying for the marketing.

In reply to Fraser: adverts like this in this social and economical climate only serve to highlight the difference between the 99% and the 1%. Missplaced and misstimed

In reply to The Big Man:

Quelle surprise - too bad.

In reply to Fraser: nice piece of animation. But crap advert. Just because I'm discussing it, doesn't make it good. So please don't

In reply to The Big Man:

Agree - very weak compared to some of his other work, without a good plot the visual excellence falls down because we see great CGI all the time now. But it is a commercial for jewellery so hardly going to be edgy.

D

In reply to Fraser:

I found it a bit distasteful. And a bit boring.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I suppose that's the good thing about 'art', in whatever form that may be, we each have our own preferences. I liked it - a lot.

In reply to Fraser:

I saw this the other day in France, I think they have two versions, a long and a short one, at least the first time I saw it it seemed to go on for ever. The thing that puzzled me was why is this advertisement being shown now? It's not Christmas or mother's day or such like so why show such an expensive ad just now?

PS - I found it quite impressive too.

In reply to Fraser:

My kids have been revisiting The Golden Compass recently, in fact they watched it again this morning, some of this is very visually similar, the dust at the beginning, the snow covered landscapes, the panther (Lord Asriel's daemon is a snow leopard), steampunk undertones.

The Golden Compass won an Oscar and BAFTA for Best Visual Effects. Just sayin'.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
It's Mother's Day next Sunday

In reply to Fraser: as i said interesting piece of film. But crap advert. It actually makes me not want to touch cartier. A bit like the way i wouldn't wear burbarry due to its unintentionally acquired image.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I wondered how long it was actually running in the background before I came through and watched it, but it did seem unusually long - even longer than those Coke commercials at Christmas - and must have cost a fortune, even on Channel 4 as it was. (I hadn't twigged about the Mother's Day timing either, so that must be it.)



In reply to winhill:

I haven't seen The Golden Compass, (maybe Digital-District were involved in that too?) but I did half-recognise the 'palace on the elephant back' image from somewhere. There are probably several allusions in the overall piece: I'd wondered about the sleigh on the river scene being slightly Dr Zhivago-esque.



In reply to tbm:

I thought it was a good advert, not just for the cinematic quality of it, but in terms of the memorable (for me at least) quality. The singular word in the whole piece was the voice-over brand statement at the very end "Cartier". There are thousands of other ads I've watched over the years, very few of which I'd remember past the next ad-break.

This one will stick with me but perhaps, based on your UKC profile, you're not their target market.

In reply to Fraser: don't be such a condescending knob. You demonstrate how little you know by claiming how much you know about others. You asked for opinion about an advert. You got it! Because you don't agree with others doesn't give you the right to put others down by implication!

If i'm not the target market, who do you think is, people where the ratio of money to sense is misplaced to the advantage of money and the lack of sense?

I worked as an advertising consultant for a multinational blue chip company for many years, i designed many advertisements that you probably have seen and been influenced by. This advertisement is simply brand reinforcement.

Good advertising strategies, should in general get a return and follow a profile, i'm sure the 'target' market are aware of the brand.

Perhaps they are trying to follow the strategy of other fashion houses like CK such as reinforcing high end products so as to add 'value' to lower value products (which is actually where most of the profit comes from) such as pants in the case of calvin klein and caps in the case of burbarry.

I think you'll find that it makes muppets like you and me the target market!

In reply to The Big Man:

Woooah, chill there. All I said was 'you may not be their target market'.

Given your last post, I stand by that comment.

In reply to The Big Man:

It's Burberry ffs.

E

In reply to Enty: wouldn't know don't wear it. I also have Poor spelling read my profile. Or is it a typo. All posts sent from phone

In reply to Enty: if the only input you have to a thread is spelling. I suggest you get a life!

In reply to steelbru:

Ok, sorry, it's not the same day where I live!

In reply to Fraser:

Thanks for the compliment

In reply to The Big Man:

i hope you are neither

In reply to The Big Man:

Got one - and very nice it is too.
Work bloody hard for it so one day, maybe not a Carter but a Rolex bad taste?

It just wound me up seeing it twice. Sorry.

E

In reply to The Big Man:

Peace And for the record, I quite like their watches, but am not really into jewellery.

In reply to Enty:

Doh!

In reply to Fraser:

Aye a Jimmy Carter watch ))) Not heard of them.

Cartier's are a bit too dressy.

E

In reply to Enty:

the get a life comment i humbly take back. Get a bit pissed at typo critics on ukc. Sorry too

In reply to The Big Man:

Cool.

E

In reply to Fraser:

Fair enough. I lost my taste for advertising, especially stimulative styles, something about pushing products to a market that neither wants or Needs them. Couldn't stomach it, i promoted waste and environmental damage, in a round about way. I'm sure you guys would understand why advertising gets my back up

In reply to Fraser:

In fact a lot of the images are based on the Cartier iconography (if that's a word?), the panther is a famous watch, the reference to old aeroplanes also is to a model of watch, the intertwined rings is one of their oldest references, as are the rings with screw-heads. The Russian and Indian references are too I think, but I'm not sure what exactly.

I'm not Cartier's target market either but I did some translations for them years ago and my wife worked there until a month ago... They put a lot of importance on "brand" and reinforcing their historical references. When you buy any of these famous makes you are paying a lot for the brand - probably nearly as much as for some climbing gear

In reply to Enty:


If you get an electric Swatch you don't even have to wind it up.

In reply to Fraser: for the record, it aint that hard to get the 80% to buy a pile of overpriced pish. And sometimes just as easy to get the 20% to make a rebellious purchase just to prove the're "different"

In reply to Bruce Hooker: all your swiss quartz movements in watches are essentially the same. Including Cartier tag etc.

Swatch was formed as a way of selling swiss watched without de-valuing the higher end products but still capturing part of the lower demographic market.

This is observed everyday in places such as supermarket's own brand beans.

In reply to Enty:

not bad taste at all, but come on do you expect me to bite at your typo, nice try amigo

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Digi?

In reply to The Big Man:


But the pricey ones tend to be mechanical, don't they? Whatever, I always lose watches so I just look at my telephone these days.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

That would make them wind up or automatic.

In reply to Fraser:

It may be "good" art but what I found distasteful about it was the amount of talent and money which has clearly gone into producing an advert for something as shallow, pointless and materialistic as status symbol jewellery. I get the same feeling with all those watch adverts in Zermatt - makes me even more glad to escape to the mountains.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I guess most things are utterly pointless once you get past the basics of survival, including climbing mountains, but we have the luxury of being able to appreciate the beauty of nature, art and a a multitude of other things.

I have just seen the advert and didn't think that much of it, but that doesn't really matter. I do own and expensive chronograph, which tells the time, but more importantly for me, it is a thing of beauty that gives me great pleasure, it is worth more than my car, but cars don't come with a 2403 mechanism.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Would you say then you're more of the Homer Simpson-targeted school of advertising, appealing to their target with a big, basic "DRINK BEER" sign as an advert? Does what it says on the tin - cheap as chips, no frills, artistry or emotion.

They're not going to advertise an expensive range of products by commissioning cheap, tacky, unimaginative adverts are they?

You cant buy class, and the've clearly tried to. It's all of the above, it just looks like the've paid a lot for the privilege. I mean, it's on TV, not quite the realm for the likes of Rolex or Rolls Royce, or even Tag. Kind of makes you wonder who the target market is, purchasers of posh pants?


I'll say it again, interesting animation, crap advert, unless of course its remit was to promote debate about how pish, whether intentional or not, it was at advertising its brand, which I'd doubt, as Cartier wouldn't want links to un-reliability or similar lack of trustworthy.

In reply to Fraser:

Advertising is at best a necessary evil and as such I can appreciate humour in it to nsugar the pill, but I find this pretentious crap from Cartier completely unnecessary - as unnecesary, in fact, as their product.

In reply to The New NickB:


Don't feel you have to defend owning a nice watch, the post was about the advert. I'd be surprised if any posters don't desire things of beauty, we like to believe we just require something to get from A to B, but that's seldom the case.

Nearly all our purchases are driven by emotion rather than need. We just feel the need to justify those purchases with "facts".

Me, i'd like a Submariner, just steel coloured.

Still think it's a weak advert that tries too hard in many ways.

If you ever fancy a smile or even a wee chuckle, listen to Tom Waits, "Step Right Up" a song of add slogans, ingenious!

In reply to The New NickB:

I am really, really struggling to get my head round the idea that someone can love the mouintains (presumably in a similar way to myself) could also be so materialistic (I'm afraid I can't find a better word) as to see fit to spend more on a watch than a car.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It isn't materialistic, it is appreciating something of beauty. I have a very cheap car.

In reply to The Big Man:

I wasn't defending owning a nice watch. I was just trying to make the point that we all spend money on things that give us pleasure and there is nothing inherently wrong in that.

In reply to The New NickB:

I have £100,000 which I could either spend of helping people stay alive or on a bauble for my tree. I choose the bauble and think fvck the losers and let them die.

Is that really ok?

In reply to The New NickB:

No. I just think it is sad that you have been duped into getting so much pleasure from a watch.

In reply to The New NickB:

Cheap watch, status symbol car. Cheap car, status symbol watch. Same difference.

In reply to Robert Durran:

No it is a wonderful piece of engineering, it makes me think of Harrison and the sheer craft and skill it takes to make such a device. If you think it is about status you are very sadly wrong.

In reply to Talius Brute:

I assume you spend all the money you earn on helping people stay alive and don't waste any of it on climbing or anything else that gives you pleasure beyond the absolute basics of survival.

In reply to The New NickB:

I am sure it is, but why not spend your money on some wonderful engineering which is actually necessary for its functionality (a cheap digital watch would do the job just as well).

As for the beauty thing, don't kid yourself that it has been lovingly produced for its beauty like a work of art; it has been produced to be sold through clever marketing as a lifestyle status symbol for profit

In reply to The New NickB:

Oh, and why are people who buy £425 goretex jackets fools?

In reply to Robert Durran:

There is more to life than functionality!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Because they are not better functionally than cheaper products, in certain circumstances they are actually worse, but unlike the expensive chronograph people fool themselves into thinking they are getting something functionally superior.

In reply to The New NickB:

So they have been duped into buying something which they believe wrongly to be superior, while you have been duped into buying something despite knowing it is not superior? I see.

In reply to Robert Durran:

If you want to see it that way, you do that. I think most people can understand the point I am making.

In reply to The New NickB: it's why we have advertising. To prompt us consider non essential purchases. Our economy, a one word oxymoron if i ever heard one (its true meaning implies conservation), is based on growth, hence waste, and requires advertising to convince us that we need these things more than the planet offer a break.

We are all guilty of it, equally (the common factor being we spend as our means allow), it's why companies talk about market share, that spend remains the same. If it didn't, and everyone bought product A to the extent that no more customers existed, and hence sales, then profit fell. Then BINGO, advertise product B, back in business, or if you're really switched on (most are). Build a need of B into A, whether it be redundancy or aftet sales add on.

Worth noting, since profit generally has to be a certain level to survive. It is fair to say that higher volume goods don't require as much of a mark up as lower volume, high end goods. Taking into account various world wide labour and shipping rates.

Some say this process is essential for progress, perhaps that depends on you want to progress to?

In reply to The Big Man:

How does that work with a new market, say for example, mobile phones? (Btw, this is a genuine qu. to someone who's been involved in the advertising world, not a challenge to your statement) Surely the market there is expanding?


In reply to Robert Durran:

Let me guess: you're involved in 'the sciences' on a day to day basis, not the arts?!

In reply to Robert Durran:


What's wrong with being materialistic? The alternative is being religious or believing in fairies and so on, so I really can't see how having a materialistic view of things is incompatible with appreciating mountains. I think you are adopting the peculiarly British, puritanical, "if it's nice it must be evil" attitude that comes from an anglican, sack cloth and ashes upbringing.

You can be materialistic without being hedonistic, or thinking that wearing an expensive watch is important... It's possible to appreciate craftsmanship without worshipping it.

In reply to Talius Brute:

So every spare penny I don't need for essential items, whether it be a tenner, ten grand or a hundred grand I should give away?

Meanwhile back in the real world...........

E

In reply to Robert Durran:

I am really struggling to get my head round how other people spending their OWN money can wind someone up.

Hold on a minute......it pisses me off when someone wins the lottery and they stay in their council house and go back to work - they should have the money taken from them

E

In reply to Fraser:
back on topic....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXOQpwkuKVA&feature=fvwrel

In reply to Fraser: amazing how many wankers come out of the woodwork. Pretty impressive that it degenerated to an argument about materialism when the op simply stated it was a good film/advert

In reply to Graham T:

very poor response, it's the nature of threads on forums that their follow up posts can divert onto related topics.

I'm sure the op was not shallow enough to simply look for multiple posts that just agreed with his original statement.

It strikes me that the degeneration is coming from yourself.

Think about what you just said.

In reply to The Big Man:

Mispelled too.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I beg to differ from these two assertions: 1. 'Advertising is evil'. Is it really? It seems an important part of commerce to me. 2. 'Cartier is completely unnecessary'. Why? More so than any other luxury item - or are all luxury items completely unnecessary?

Thank you for your attention. (I'm trying to stay civil, this thread is rather uncivilized in places).

In reply to Graham T:


Poor form that Graham.
How many public arguments have you butted into and called someone you've never met before a wanker to their face?

E

In reply to Fraser:

I turned it off after 30s, I couldn't get any further knowing it is a fecking advert for some shit I don't need or want.

In reply to Enty:




+1

In reply to lowersharpnose:

Ahem, it *did* say in the OP it was for Cartier, so I'm surprised you waited that long if you knew it was for such a company/products. I realised it wouldn't be to everyone's taste, but I did enjoy it, but perhaps more for the cinematic element than actually wanting to buy a bauble from them. I can see the elegance in their products without wanting one myself.

In reply to The Big Man:

Ok fair point, however why not critique the video rather than start an argument about commercialisation and want?

In reply to Fraser:
You'd think that climbers would be able to compartmentalize their brains a bit better (fear of death in one bit, focus on the problem at hand in another...). I've absolutely no desire to buy any Cartier products, but can, on the other hand, recognize that their products could be considered beautiful and possibly, by some, desirable. And this is a nice little film which tugs at the "desire" strings rather effectively and artistically.
I don't choose to respond to them, not least because (a) I can't afford the product and (b) don't feel the need for multiple watches (they do make watches, right?)!

Also, the people who make these sorts of things for the most part can't afford them, but they give them a living and in all likelihood, a sense of accomplishment. So would one take that away and convert the world to a grey, formless, 1984-ish sort of place.

I suspect the UKC jealousy strings are also being pulled quite effectively by this ad!

In reply to The New NickB:

I understand it too. I just find it hard to come to terms with. It is an interesting discussion.

In reply to Fraser:


I'm a maths teacher. I have no problem at all with the arts - I thought I made that clear in an earlier post. Rampant materialistic consumerism masquerading as art is another matter.

In reply to Fraser: the cartier advert is ok, nothing great imo.
these adverts are very pleasing,I am not interested in their products etc..
youtube.com/watch?v=ykXkmVURI-w&
youtube.com/watch?v=GiJ4T3E-NM8&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVHcqjjjnFY&feature=results_main&pla...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

With such a blantly moronic opening statement, it is unlikely to be worth reading further, but I will, just for a laugh......


Anything but. What a bizarre conclusion to come to.


Probably. Not sure what point you are making or answering here.


Yes.

In reply to Fraser:

You are right and I was daft for posting.

Still not watching it.

In reply to Enty:

I'm not wound up (not by Nick anyway), just struggling to get my head rouind it.

In reply to abseil:

I said "necessary evil". Perhaps "unfortunate necessity" would have bben more measured.


Beyond a certain degree of luxury, probably yes.


My pleasure.

In reply to Robert Durran:

If you understood what I was saying with reference to the expensive waterproofs, you wouldn't have written what you did.

In reply to Graham T:



If you reread my posts, you'll realise you're talking pants, i gave my views and explained why.

It's perfectly acceptable to use commercialism to critique an advert, after all what's an advertisements purpose.

In reply to all:

Anyone watch Topgear? Did you see Chris Evans' beautiful 5.6 million quid vintage Ferrari? Amazing!

E

In reply to Robert Durran:

Perhaps you should ask your Mum or Dad what "materialist" means?

In reply to The New NickB:


Ok. correct me if I am wrong, but as I understood you, you said that people buy expensive waterproofs in the erroneous belief that they will function better than cheaper ones, whereas you bought an expensive watch knowing that it would not function better than a cheap one.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

If, as I suspect, you are taking materialist to mean that we live in a "material" universe governed by the laws of physics, then it is obvious to anyone of any intelligence at all that this is not the meaning being used in the context of this thread.

In reply to thin bob:

Not too shabby But is it sad that at 1:31 mins. I thought..."Wait, I've climbed at that crag in the background"?!

In reply to gd303uk:

I thought the first of those was going to be for Cadbury's Milk Flake!

I've seen the second one before but even now, having just watched it again 30 minutes ago, can't remember what the product/company being advertised was.

3rd one wouldn't play on my phone or PC.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Almost, the important distinction being that with the waterproof function is everything, whereas with something like an expensive chronograph function isn't everyone. You don't buy an expensive watch because you think it will be more accurate than a cheap digital, but people do buy expensive waterproofs because they think they will keep them drier and more comfortable and let's face it because they think they will climb better.

In reply to Fraser:
"Wait, I've climbed at that crag in the background"?!

It's the only thing I noticed too. What crag is it. Worth a visit?

In reply to The New NickB:

Actually, I suspect a lot of people buy Arcteryx jackets for the same reason I suspect most people buy expensive watches - to be seen wearing them; a status symbol. Also, I suspect they do perform better, though admittedly not significantly so in the conditions the duped people are likely to be wearing them.

So, it turns out I did pretty much undrerstand you correctly and I did write what I wrote.

In reply to Enty:


Anyone out climbing today? Did you see the beautiful hills for free? Amazing!

In reply to Robert Durran: What has enjoying the finer things in life (or in your opinion, enjoying materialistic things) got to do with not being able to appreciate the simple beauty of the mountains FFS.

I live in a beautiful house, own 2 flash cars, pay more than a fiver for a bottle of wine, travel first class on a plane whenever I can, and wear a relatively expensive watch.

Why, because i've spent many years working my arse off, and now i'm enjoying the rewards of that hard work. Yet I appreciate the beauty of the mountains just as much as you Robert - the two are not mutually exclusive!

Asa usual, your comments display a staggering level of self indulgent arrogance.

In reply to Robert Durran:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crag.php?id=3281

La Turbie, above Monaco. Definitely worth visiting, but some of it is getting very polished these days.

Don't say I'm not good to you. And try watching that advert again really closely this time, there's more to it than rock!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sadly, it was Ratho for us today, so only beautiful plastic. (Your absence was noted.) Somewhere nice were you?

In reply to Fraser:
And try watching that advert again really closely this time, there's more to it than rock!

There was a rather shoddy looking sea cliff near the start (sadly partially blocked out by some woman tarting hereself up), and later a limestone outcrop which a motorbike went past frustratingly too fast to allow it to be checked out properly.

In reply to Fraser:

Northumberland in the sun!

In reply to Goucho:

You have badly missed the point.


And yours show your usual staggering lack of intelligence.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sadly I couldn't climb today because I was racing. I actually won too - on my 5 grand bike.
Actually I'm lying - it was too windy for my best bike with it's deep section 1500 quid wheels so I rode my hack bike and still won. Each lap (22 laps) I got a view of Mont Ventoux and the actual chateau at Chateauneuf de Pape.
Does life get any better? - it would if the prize was a Submariner, unfortunatley I had to make do with 4 bottles of wine and a bunch of flowers for Mrs. Ent.

True story ^^^^^



E

In reply to Enty:

I'm sure its functionality was worth every penny.


Nothing wrong with the finer things in life!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Again, very much a negative Robert. Goodnight!

In reply to goucho


Many people, including children in 3rd world countries, work their butts off, and their only payment is delay in death by starvation.

In reply to The Big Man:

Does your point go any deeper than "meat or vegetables" (rich v poor)?

In reply to lowersharpnose: yes it does. You'll only see what your intellect allows you to see.

In case you need explaining, read the rest of the post!

In reply to lowersharpnose: i'd respect your opinion more if you didn't ridicule international woman's day with your stereotypical sexist comments

In reply to The Big Man:

That's me told.

In reply to Fraser:

You mean this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5wz_OLl1U&feature=related

I can't believe we can have a serious discussion about artistic commercials without considering the flake advert. Who needs snow leopards and elephants??

In reply to Robert Durran:

Hey Robert, I wear a 50th anniversary Submariner (green bezel), bought it 6 years ago after being on a waiting list for 8 months, paid £3k, could sell tomorrow of over £5k. As a maths teacher you should see the "intelligence" of that transaction.
Bought wife a date just for Xmas, she loves it. Never go out of fashion and will make nice heirlooms for the kids.

Oh, and we holiday in the Lakes each year to enjoy the hills.

(but I hated maths at school)

Cartier watches are too feminine for my tastes, I like Rolex and Panerai, obviously AP/Hublot and Patek Philipe...but they go out of my price range

Need to get a higher paying job

In reply to Game of Conkers:

Only if you sell it for a profit; I am all for the explotation if silly vain people who buy watches as a status symbol - they desereve all they get. If that is your plan, then congratulations. If you plan to keep it however......

In reply to Robert Durran: Lol...there is a reason it's gone up in value, it's rare.

I do have some sympathy to your argument when it comes to cars however. I love cars but have a real problem spending big money on something that depreciates so much. All the Evoques driving around at the moment, in the time it takes to pass you along the road it has probably lost £50.

Having said that,classic cars are a different story in my experience... my mate bought a Mercedes 280SL Pagoda (1970) and that has increased from £32k (what he paid) to closer to £60k in less than a decade.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

And, of course, because there are silly vain people around prepared to pay for its rarity (a quality cleverly and artificially controlled, of course, by the manipulative strategy of the manufacturers).

Incidentally, why do you wear it? Presumably, if your aim is to exploit a purchaser at a later date, it would be better to keep it in pristine condition in a safe.

In reply to Fraser: i love the fact i watched this advert hypnotised by the music youtube.com/watch?v=HGjZuY2ej3Y& and the objects flying, and still didn't know what it was advertising, even when i looked it up still non the clearer
the third one is another Gucci ad directed by David Lynch, the first by Cunningham, both beautiful imo.

agree the flake advert is a classic, beautiful woman, slightly sexually suggestive, we are easily exploited by these adverts but i like it

In reply to Robert Durran:


I don't wear a watch as I've lost too many in the past, nor do I wear jewels, rings or "designer" clothes, but I don't get all uptight if others do... you seem incredibly excessive on the subject? Why not let people do as they want, even if it may well seem foolish to you? Or me for that matter.

Especially as you post on a forum where people often spend ages discussing totally useless titanium walking poles, paying guides a small fortune or taking expensive courses and organised climbing holidays (called "expeditions"!) etc etc. Consumerism is as present here as it is elsewhere. By all means criticize but try to keep reasonable!

Coming back to the subject, this film is a work or art, but like any other work of art there is the need to earn money behind it - pretty well all painters, musicians, or whatever art form you can think of have or had a financial motive for the artists concerned - does this imply totally rejecting all forms of art?

BTW, Cartier finances a huge modern art centre in Paris - again all advertising but it keeps a few artists' bread buttered.

http://fondation.cartier.com/en/

In reply to Fraser:

Adverts are evil

In reply to Robert Durran:

Well the the reason I wear it is because I believe it to be the best looking watch ever made. It is a design classic, it has barely changed over the last 50 years. Sure, you can spend thousands more on other watches, but for simple aesthetics, I think the Submariner is the ultimate sports watch (run closely by the Daytona)

Of course a limeted edition is by their very admission controlled rarity, I have no problem with that, and as for keeping it pristine, it can be sent back to Rolex for a service and polish (at cost mind you) to bring back to as new condition.

When I go on holiday it gets thrown in the safe and I wear my casio pro trek. That keeps better time than the sub !

In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King:


not sure about the actual adverts, perhaps the companies that commission them?

In reply to The Big Man:

I'll rephrase that, the people that work for them.

In reply to The Big Man:

Nope, try again, the owners of the company

In reply to The Big Man: The owners of companies who advertise are evil? Cor!

In reply to The Big Man:

ah, got it, the controllers of currency, that's national banks, for demanding continuing growth to maintain an economy at the expense of the environment.

We are preprogrammed as animals to decorate ourselveswirh trinkets, it's our tail feathers to attract mates.

I just thought that as evolved intelligent creatures we would be civilised to see through that and work towards common goals. It seems like we're not as civilised as we think.

In reply to Fraser: what i have found is that we all like trinkets, one way or another, and perhaps jealousy exists against those who, on the outside, appear to have a taste and purchase trinkets that others cant afford.

Time a lot of ukcers started being a bit more honest with themselves, i'm writing this from A&E waiting for an xray on my ankle (and i kind of wish it was bupa, nhs is a joke, but not funny haha) and realise that we are all pretty much guilty of consumerism, no exceptions!

In reply to The Big Man:

Absolutely right. Expensive watches are poeacock tails: metaphorical penis extensions.


Nail on head again. Humans have quite fortuitously evolved big enough brains to think ahead and agree culturally to outlaw and attempt to overcome many of the more base instincts which are wasteful or not to the common or indeed individual's good (We do, for instance, have laws against rape). Wearers of expensive watches just have a little cerebral catching up to do.

In reply to Robert Durran: Surely wearing an expensive watch is worse than rape? It must only be done by people with small brains.

In reply to Robert Durran: our brains are programmed to mate and have our small family as our goal. When we started farming this family grew bigger as our goal became a common goal or our increasingly growing group. We have grown our society at such a rate that our brains have still to catch up and perhaps evolve to have the goal of society as a whole as our main driving force. We are constantly being tempted by short term personal gain at the expense of long term benefits for society as a whole. At the same time multinationals and governments are encouraging up to be ecofriendly and think of society as a whole (not being selfish if you want) at our own expense, whilst they shaft us and the planet at the same time for their own personal gains. Let your guard down for one minute and you play right into the hands of these devils. We are all guilty of it to one extent or another, myself included!

It'll take a global change of attitude to change this system.

However i don't think those with the least, that's the workers, or the 99%, or probably everyone on this forum should make the first or biggest sacrifice, as they ain't the ones with all the wealth.

There is enough food in the world to feed everyone, just not enough money to buy it!

In reply to Sir Chasm:

On balance, I would say that rape is worse than wearing an expensive watch. However, there is so much cultural pressure against rape that there really is no excuse for it, however stupid. People need to work out more for themselves why wearing an expensive watch is vain, silly and wasteful (though I am here to help!). So yes, I suspect that wearers of expensive watches generally have very small brains.

In reply to Robert Durran:

When actually it's the opposite.

How do you get to point where you can afford a 5k watch when you only have a small brain?

E

In reply to Robert Durran:

Well if that analysis is correct, and expensive watches actually increase mating success in the same way as a peacock tail, then from a purely logical and scientific perspective that would make them an excellent way to spend money. The question is are women actually impressed by big watches.

In reply to Robert Durran: Unfortunatley I found my wife before I was earning good money, so the expensive watch has not been very useful for meeting a mate.

But my small brain has helped me in my career which is amazing when you think about it. If I had had a large brain, maybe I could have made it as a maths teacher.

Nothing wrong in owning a nice watch. What do you have to say about all your students with iphones? You must be so bitter lol

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

In the case of mine, which is a very plain low key watch, I am not sure that a woman has ever noticed the fact that is Swiss and cost several thousand quid. In fact, in two years only two people have commented on it, which is the way I like it. It really isn't the sort of watch which gets attention, but contrary to Robert's assertion, I didn't buy it for reasons of vanity, as I spent too much time explaining to him last night.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I imagine some women might be. Others might not.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Just as we have moved on culturally, and only stupid, vain men wear expensive watches, I suspect only stupid, vain women are impressed by them. Hopefully the monstrous ceraebral vacuousness of their offspring will lead to their rapid elimination from the gene pool.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: "The question is are women actually impressed by big watches."

no, mens watches appeal to men far more than women.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

I remember my older brother talking about this a while back. We were at a party and there were some pretty wealthy people there; my brother was pointing out the watches some of them were wearing and how they wanted to subtly show off those watches. I was impressed by his observational skills.

In reply to Robert Durran: #

Robert, you can get cheap fakes in Bangkok you know...it may help with the therapy...there are ladies there that can help as well...but be careful, some may look like ladies ...

In reply to The New NickB:

Ok, I accept that you bought it in good faith as an admirer of precision engineering. I still think you have been duped and effectively robbed by the devious marketing strategy of the manufacture though.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

What a waste of money then.

Are yopu a banker by any chance?


Only if it was particularly large.


Why would I be bitter about other people wastng money? In the end it's their problem.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

What a waste of money then.

Are you a banker by any chance?


Only if it was particularly large.


Why would I be bitter about other people wastng money? In the end it's their problem.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Given the marketing budget, retail markup, high cost of labour in the country of manufacture and the high skill level of the craftsmen, I think I got something of a bargain.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Absolutely, a chap I sit near wears a Harry Winston midnight watch, barely anybody would know what it is, but it's a nice watch and looks great. Stealth wealth rather than conspicuous or ostentatious.

There is something intriguing about horology and the race for complications, it really can be an art....but clearly goes over some peoples heads

In reply to Game of Conkers:

I have no wish to attract stupid, vain women, even on the cheap.

In reply to Robert Durran:

To change the subject a little, any thoughts on people who buy very expensive cameras? What about expensive jewellery? Carbon road bikes?

In reply to The New NickB:

On the contrary you got ripped off by the marketing budget, retail markup, high cost of labour in the country of manufacture and the high skill level of the craftsmen.

In reply to Robert Durran:

How is it possible to get 'ripped off by the... high skill level of the craftsmen'?

In reply to Tall Clare:

There may be some vanity involved, but I would have thought most people buy expensive cameras to get better picture quality (expensive Swiss watches do not keep better time than cheap digital ones)


Probably all about vain men trying to attract vain women again


No idea. Are they more efficient?

In reply to Tall Clare:

Because it adds nothing to the time keeping qualities of the watch compared with a cheap digital one.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Robert, please tell us what you spend your money on. Your sanctimonious critisism of anyone buying something you deem too expensive suggests you either trawl charity shops, or are just a bitter soul who is depressed with his teachers salary.

In reply to Robert Durran:

You're only comparing like for like inasmuch as they both tell the time. It's like comparing a cheap digi point and shoot with a manual Hasselblad.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Thunderbird will get you drunk, but surely you can appreciate a nice bottle of wine?

In reply to Tall Clare:

A big watch has got to hurt. I remember the old joke about the woman screaming "take your ring off it's catching on me and it hurts" to which the reply was "that's no ma ring, that's ma watch"
sorry for the poor taste TC.


Only marginally better than suggesting that wearing an expensive watch is worse than rape, shame on you RD

In reply to Robert Durran:

Go on you miserable sod, you know yo got da Flave in ya

http://www.sohh.com/img/flavor-flav-300x300-2009-01-26.jpg

In reply to The Big Man:

No I didn't!

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Apologies Robert. I'd read your reply to a post. I humbly stand corrected.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Perhaps you could stand outside the factory gates at Bentley or Jaguar Land Rover, and tell all the workers they are wankers.

It's jobs innit?

In reply to Robert Durran: apologies robert i'd read someones quote in your post, i humbly take it back and stand corrected

In reply to John Rushby:

Bastard bloody skilled craftsmen, doing something really well and expecting commensurate payment. Skill, schmill.

Machines, that's what we want. Automated manufacturing. Children losing limbs to looms. Cheap products. Planned obsolescence.

We'll call it the Industrial Revolution. It'll be grand.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

Not bitter or depressed at all.
I spend my money on food and clothes from whichever supermarket is convenient or cheapest and on climbing trips (including running a functional car) and on the most functional climbing gear I can afford (and that doesn't mean I wear prana shorts for climbing - mine are from Asda). Obviously there are other things, but that is the gist of it.

And, contrary to what you have probably concluded, I don't mind paying a little bit extra for decent wine (not the label, the wine).

Actually I do my best to avoid the sort of grasping consumerism which I genuinely believe is poisoning society and just creating jealousy, bitterness and depression.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Forgive me for saying this but I speak as someone who doesn't have two brass farthings to rub together at the moment - despite your best efforts, you *are* coming across as rather jealous and bitter in this thread.

In reply to John Rushby:

No I wouldn't. Why would I?


Yes. I just wish we lived in a society which created more worthwhile jobs.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Actually, I take your point to a degree.

It amazes me to listen or read about how a £50,000 can be justified, or a pair of shoes for £5,000.

My Nepal tops are made by hand, take a skilled craftsman a fortnight to complete and cost me £200, so how can a pair of Manolo Blankets which comprise four bits of cow scrotum cost 10 times more? they don't even take B2 crampons!

but, if people want to buy that sort of thing then fair enough

In reply to Tall Clare: Robert's mind is closed, he can't see past the price and his prejudices mean he knows the cost of everything, and the value of nothing, which leads him to make sweeping assumptions about anyone that "appears" to be wealthier than him.

But he's quite funny. I think he meets clever, humble ladies by showing off how many decimal points he can recite pi to

In reply to Robert Durran: "I genuinely believe is poisoning society and just creating jealousy, bitterness and depression. "

Fine, but you sound the most jealous, bitter and depressed on this thread.....just saying

In reply to Tall Clare:

I am genuinely very puzzled why you think that. I can assure you that I am in no way jealous or bitter.

In reply to Robert Durran: "And, contrary to what you have probably concluded, I don't mind paying a little bit extra for decent wine (not the label, the wine)."

Not.At.All

I knew you would have double standards

In reply to John Rushby:

We all have our temptations though - even if I had the money I couldn't imagine spending £35k on a car, but I might understand spending a lot of money on a digi Hasselblad. I don't understand spending £450 on a pair of uncomfortable shoes but I understand why the satchel sitting next to me cost over £200.

Robert might save his money to pay for flights to Kuala Lumpur whilst someone else might be happy in Wales. As long as we've got more than we *need*, everyone will be tempted by *something*, I reckon.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It depends on worthwhile job?

Bentley, Lamborghini whatever all require experienced engineers and the development of their product also provides engineering jobs at the more mainstream automotive producers and their supply chain. Like in F1, which without the wanky aspirational advertising would be fat lads on quad bikes in an old quarry near Tamworth.

I think this idea of worhtwhile jobs is fine, but tends to pickle the old manufacturing industry in aspic, when it was in reality hard work, shit money and crap conditions.

Now, where we do go wrong in this country is that we fail to recognise engineering excellence, and laud other professions in a very ill advised way.

That's why in Germany to be an engineer is akin to being a Dr, and that's why VW Audi group (and their supplyiers) are repaing the benefits.

Over here, we give gongs to career civil servants, workaday actors and middling artistic types.

In reply to John Rushby:

Because the clever marketing allows the manufacturer to massively rip people off, "creating" a fictitious value completely unjustified by their function orvc manufacture.

In reply to John Rushby:

And! The skills developed at the top end, i.e. in developing Bugatti Veyrons and formula 1 cars and all that, end up filtering down to improve engine quality and efficiency in more day-to-day cars, which in turn is better for the environment, and so on... If people don't invest in the top then we all end up driving Ladas.

In reply to Tall Clare:

you would, if it was your office and you spent more time with it (or in it fnarr) than all your previous partners combined

but I might understand spending a lot of money on a digi Hasselblad. I don't understand spending £450 on a pair of uncomfortable shoes but I understand why the satchel sitting next to me cost over £200.

Same - but I have a point and shoot and a carrier bag.

In reply to John Rushby:

But you see my point, right? We all have priorities and things we consider desirable/relevant/necessary, and they're not the same for everyone.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

Not double standards at all - that's why I emphasised that I pay for the quality of the wine, not the status symbol of a label.

In reply to Robert Durran:

So on that note, how do you feel about the biggest scam out there, the rise in house prices over the last few years?

In reply to Game of Conkers:

I would have thouight this applied far more to the owners of expensive watches.


No. They are not necessarily wealthier. I could afford a status symbol watch or possibly even a flashy car if I chose to prioritise my spending very differently.


If only..... actually, the ability to ingeniously prove tricky theorems is generally considered far more attractive than a mere memeory feat.

In reply to Robert Durran:
>>

Know what you mean - my "Particle Physics Gives Me A Hadron" T shirt has been getting a bit of attention lately........

In reply to Robert Durran:

I assume you simply eat the cheapest food that meets your bodies nutritional requirements, with no consideration of taste.

In reply to Tall Clare:

It is very bad. Unfortunately we all need somewhere to live (whereas no one needs an expensive watch). It is a scam with innocent victims, rather than just stupid ones.

In reply to Robert Durran:

So do I, you will also notice that I have not mention the label on my watch. The point is you are going beyond function, so by your own definition being ripped off.

In reply to The New NickB:

Not quite. Cheap food can be very tasty. A better analogy would be avoiding expensive restaurants where there is a massive mark up on price just for the status of being there at all.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Many people live quite happily without cars, without climbing holidays, without sea kayaks. None of these things are needed. We are lucky to live in a society where most people, including yourself can buy a few things they don't need, but have because in some way it brings them pleasure.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Why do you think everything is about status?

In reply to The New NickB:

I have already accepted that you may have bought your watch in good faith out of a love of precision engineering rather than vanity, but then you are not a target of the actual status symbol orientated thrust of the marketing.


I have no problem with going beyond function to aesthetics. The point is that, because there is more money to be made out of marketing status symbols (which by their nature have to be beyond the financual reach of the masses), prices are inflated, ripping off anyone who actually wants to buy something for its aesthetics.

In reply to The New NickB:

It's not. But we are talking here about the marketing of expensive Swiss watches - look at the advertising and marketing; you would have to be blind not to realise it is all about status.

In reply to Fraser: this thread has turned into one where everyone tries to use logic to justify emotional purchases. I just wish we lived in a world where all the resources were equally shared and we "worked" together for a common goal for the benefit of mankind. Rather than the profit of currency controllers. It aint a witch hunt! I'd rather we all worked a 3 day week. Never went hungry and had the time and means to choose something productive for our "free time"

In reply to The New NickB:

Indeed. Very lucky. And we can have more of these things if we are not the victims of scams to mark up prices.

In reply to The Big Man:

It aint a witch hunt!

Quite right, the advert is more of a watch search.

In reply to Robert Durran: "No. They are not necessarily wealthier. I could afford a status symbol watch or possibly even a flashy car if I chose to prioritise my spending very differently."

You see, I would have to disagree with you here. If you have to prioritise your spending very differently, then you cannot afford it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

How is someone who buys a watch they can afford, for the pleasure of owning a piece of fine craftsmanship, that supports an industry that values human skill and design rather than machines in South East Asia...stupid?

I think you are talking about something you know very little about. You just make the assumption that anyone who appreciates a Swiss time piece must be a wannabe premiership footballer/pop stars which is not the case.

I think you spend too much time around kids who watch the X factor

In reply to Game of Conkers:

So are you now admitting that buying something like an expensive watch is fundamentally different from what I choose to spend my disposable income on (climbing trips)? If so, what? Or would you say the same to someone who would have to give up an expensive watch to pay for a climbing trip. You seem to be saying that only people with "more money than sense" should buy an expensive watch. Or are you just muddled?

In reply to Robert Durran:

I've never been able to get my head around people who spend more than £20 on a watch. I've my little Casio for 3 years now and it cost me a tenner. Keeps the time, wakes me up in the morning, tells me the date and it even has a light on it.

But thats just me. I can't bear the thought of spending more then £30 on a pair of trainers, or more than £5 on a t-shirt.

Other people can, and do. Viva la difference. Their money, their choice.

Can we move onto something less contentious please. Something along the lines of "which god is the right one".

In reply to Game of Conkers:

Not all (Nick for example apparently). No I think it is more footballers/popstarts being wannabe aristocrats.

If there is such a big market for the craftmanship for its own sake, why is the marketing so baltantly orientated towards the atatus symbol market with the inflated prices which by definition have to go with it?


Now that really is evil.

In reply to Robert Durran: No, what I am saying is you cannot afford the watch. You can afford it when you can buy it and it doesn't effect your day to day life and hobbies.

I have not sacrificed any climbing trips/holidays/childrens toys and clothes/car/house...or such like to buy a watch. Its a luxury that is bought with surplus cash, rather like your fine bottle of wine.

So I enjoy it as much as the things listed above, particularly as it's a bit of a hobby of mine.

What's muddled is assuming stupidity on said purchasers of watches because you assume they would have to sacrifice something else to buy the watch like you would.

In reply to Game of Conkers: The good thing about Robert, is that he is evenly balanced - he has chips on both shoulders!

In reply to Game of Conkers:

I'm not assuming they are stupid because they are sacrificing something else. I think they are stupid because I think they are victims of a marketing scam and could have spent their money on a luxury which is fairly priced for it's quality or genuine rarity.

In reply to Goucho:

I've absolutely no idea at all why you think I have a chip (or two) on my shoulder. Presumably you have decided to project this onto me to feed the unsavoury image you seem to want to have of me because of past disagreements on here. I am in no way at all jealous of people with expensive watches. If anything I pity them as victims.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Dude, you lost this argument by saying people who spend lots of money on something they don't really need are stupid - you couldn't be further from the truth.

Honest question - is there anything in your possesion which you totally don't need which is on the plus side of expensive?

Our house is full of shit that we don't need but gives us great pleasure.

E

In reply to Robert Durran:


Who decides what's "fair" though, the general public or the prospective purchaser? Or even the seller?!

In reply to Enty:

No, I have not said that. If you can be bothered, go back and read what I have said.


Yes. I'm not sure what your point is.


So is mine. Again I don't know what your point is.

In reply to Fraser:

If we are talking about something manufactured primarily for profit (such as these watches), then I think it is a matter of reaching a concensus on what percentage profit is reasonable. I don't see why this should be different for Swiss watches than it is for cheap digital ones. Of course the market will bear a bigger mark up for the Swiss ones because of the duping of prospective buyers with clever marketing exploiting the status symbol culture.

In reply to Fraser:

This seems to be at the core of Robert's argument, it also appears that his judgement of it is entirely based on his prejudices. I find his comparison with 'rip off' restaurants quite telling, clearly it is more expensive to eat in a restaurant, but we do it because we enjoy it, 99.9% of restaurant eating is not about status. Now Robert thinks that restaurants rip us off, well a small minority might as will any purchase, but given the incredibly high failure rate of new restaurants, it in not on the whole a business model that is really that good at ripping us off.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Nearly everything is manufactured primarily for profit. I don't know what the mark up is in comparison to a cheap digital, but whilst products made in lower volumes usually have a higher mark up to reflect higher overheads, I would interested to see a comparison in percentage terms.

In reply to The New NickB:

No. It is about manipulating the market. Most manufacturers do not produce items deliberately in small enough quantities to create a waiting list and an aura of exclusivity which in turn creates more demand from people taken in by this tactic, allowing them to get away with inflating the price further. Berghaus don't do it with nice jackets for instance - they would just try to satisfy the demand. It is clever and not illegal obviously, but not really cricket.



Nor are 99.9% of watch purchases.

In reply to Robert Durran:

It is not something I buy into either, the vast majority of expensive watches are not Limited Edition and are available to anyone prepared to pay the price the seller wants. Limited Edition selling is not that unusual in the outdoor market, look at Salomon and their SLab stuff like the fell cross, pretty of other examples as well. Volume is limited by a hand made process and a limited market, Salomon don't have that excuse. The market in second hand watches is healthy, because if they are looked after they last a lifetime, this also limits the market in new watches.

In reply to Robert Durran: Don't pity people who can comfortably afford the finer things in life if they so choose. Pity the ones who can't.

Now go and have a nice brown rice and lentil soup, poured into a nice paper bowl, and eaten with a plastic spoon, while reading the Morning Star by paraffin lamp.

And pity me tomorrow morning, when I have my breakfast on my patio overlooking the Med, before jumping into my 911, and driving down to Entibes, to buy a rather delightful T-Shirt I've seen - a snip at 150 Euro's. There's also a rather nice Patak Phillipe Chronograph in the window of the shop next door too....

God I do so hate being a victim, it makes my life so miserable.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Ok as i have been biting all through this thread, no point in stopping now

I would like you to tell me where you have seen an advert for say...Panerai or Audermars Piquet?

These firms that prey on the weak and vunerable must have adverts everywhere no?

Berghaus? Don't they sponsor Leo Holding? What a bunch of conniving , scheming money grabbing capitalists...I mean, they have tried to convince you that if it's good enough and premium enough for Leo, it's good enough for you

In reply to The New NickB:

Well that's skiing for you, an industry largely driven by fashion and money. Long may climbing not go the same way (I have my fears).

In reply to The New NickB: and there was me thinking you had a stainless steel white faced daytona

In reply to Robert Durran:

True, but of course in your analogy buying an expensive Swiss watch was like eating in a restaurant and a cheap watch was like eating cheaply at home.

I feel sorry for you, if need help, ever, let me know i'll take the 911 off your hands, purely out of sympathy.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Fell running actually, you would think a sport not at all influenced by fashion or money.

In reply to pneame:

Damn right. I now desire a snow leopard and a house on the back of a giant elephant.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

Never heard of them. Please enlighten me.


I would like to think that the vast majority of climbers would see through any real bullshit.

In reply to Robert Durran: The last time I was in Outside, all I saw was rows and rows of outdoor fashion clothing, at very premium prices, bouldering mats covered in logos etc. You're more naive than I thought...you're really in fire tonight!

In reply to Robert Durran: Yes, but you have paid for Leo Holdings sponsorship with the price you paid for your jacket. This is just another of your "double standards" that your postings are increasingly littered with, or did you see straight through this BS ?

In reply to Goucho:

I won't. I would rather pity the duped people who buy this stuff when they can ill afford it. Does it really make them any happier? You are clearly so loaded that it is just small change to you, so no I don't pity you. You are most welcome to your life of luxury. I am not jealous at all. Anyway, I would soon get bored by the lack of quality trad in the south of France.

In reply to Robert Durran:
>

but they still buy climbing products that are marketed, some on this very website in fact.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

Maybe this tide of shit has not yet reached Scotland. It no doubt will. All is lost. How very depressing.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

Are there any manufacturers that don't have sponsored climbers? I think it is probably impossible to avoid. I'll have to settle for avoiding the ones which refer to them as "athletes".....

In reply to Robert Durran: "Never heard of them. Please enlighten me."

When was the last time you saw an advert for a Ferrari on TV?

According to you these companies prey on the thick and stupid with crafty advertising, yet you have never seen an advert...you still sound muddled.

I think it best if we agree to disagree, you enjoy spending your money and try to not begrudge people spending theirs, because it makes you sound like a holier than thou, bitter, jealous maths teacher. and nobody likes one of them.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

Never. Maybe Ferrari is such a well known brand that advertising is no longer necessary - just further adding to the mystique.


I'm not sure what it's got to do with being a maths teacher!
I am very sorry if I come over like that (it is certainly not how I feel or intend to come over). I just think it is an interesting debate to have had. Anyway, I don't think I begrudge anyone spending their money how they want; I just think that some of them have been manipulated.

In reply to Game of Conkers:

Not a fan, which is good because they are a bit pricey for me. To be honest, I am not a fan of probably 95% of high end watches. I love a simple watch with a good movement.

I have got one of these.

http://www.omegawatches.com/spirit/hall-of-fame/watches/the-omega-railmaste...

In reply to The New NickB:

Now that really is depressing.

In reply to The New NickB: Very nice!

In reply to Game of Conkers: prob costs more to service than my f1

In reply to Robert Durran: It's got nothing to do with being a maths teacher I'm sure you're a lovely chap, I just won't give you a call if i ever decide to sell my watch

In reply to Fraser: just wondering Robert. How you would you feel if you were given an expensive watch as a present from someone close

In reply to The Big Man:

Tricky. Probably wear it occasionally for appearances then sell it at a later date when I could get away with it.