Re: Watch Movements. . . snobbery?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SRT Supply</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The difference is that the USO or the Hensoldt offer at least an order of magnitude superior performance over a BSA hunting scope. They will last longer, track better, provide superior clarity, and withstand far greater abuse. They also provide a greater degree of prestige, but that comes as an ancillary side effect of their fundamental quality.
In comparison, a $100 wristwatch is going to effectively provide exactly the same performance as a $10,000 mechanical watch. The extra money, to the best of my knowledge, isn't going to offer any additional tangible benefit to its wearer.
If someone suddenly invented a new form of sighting technology that provided the precision, durability, and effectiveness of a Schmidt & Bender, but cost $25 at Wal-Mart, I have no doubt that plenty of people would still be buying the S&B - but it would no longer be for the sake of performance downrange, but rather the performance upon the firing line. </div></div>
Point taken -- a tool, no matter the intended use, has a limited range where the cost/value ratio is even. Some folks work just fine with China tools, others are harder on tools and prefer a higher quality. On that point, a person looking to spend $5k on a watch could potentially purchase 2500 wal-mart watches costing $2 each, but there is an inferred value when a person is looking to spend a significant amount of money on a watch. I've known several folks who passed on both tools and watches with sentimental value -- the initial cost was significant, but the payoff was something of value to pass on. Nobody I know is planning on passing on a collection of Harbor Freight tools and a Timex.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SRT Supply</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The difference is that the USO or the Hensoldt offer at least an order of magnitude superior performance over a BSA hunting scope. They will last longer, track better, provide superior clarity, and withstand far greater abuse. They also provide a greater degree of prestige, but that comes as an ancillary side effect of their fundamental quality.
In comparison, a $100 wristwatch is going to effectively provide exactly the same performance as a $10,000 mechanical watch. The extra money, to the best of my knowledge, isn't going to offer any additional tangible benefit to its wearer.
If someone suddenly invented a new form of sighting technology that provided the precision, durability, and effectiveness of a Schmidt & Bender, but cost $25 at Wal-Mart, I have no doubt that plenty of people would still be buying the S&B - but it would no longer be for the sake of performance downrange, but rather the performance upon the firing line. </div></div>
Point taken -- a tool, no matter the intended use, has a limited range where the cost/value ratio is even. Some folks work just fine with China tools, others are harder on tools and prefer a higher quality. On that point, a person looking to spend $5k on a watch could potentially purchase 2500 wal-mart watches costing $2 each, but there is an inferred value when a person is looking to spend a significant amount of money on a watch. I've known several folks who passed on both tools and watches with sentimental value -- the initial cost was significant, but the payoff was something of value to pass on. Nobody I know is planning on passing on a collection of Harbor Freight tools and a Timex.
