When "Better" is actually worse

[Artemus]

You said in your first post

Status markers are of extreme quality and durability.

In many cases (such as Bentley and Rolex) they aren't. People buy them to show that they can afford to keep them running despite their poor durability when there are far cheaper and more reliable options available.

As I pointed out, perspective is everything. A Rolex is far superior to any $9 watch I've ever owned. I also pointed out, as did Bentley, that the original article was flawed because of the usage of only late model information. How about historically? Even the 2nd reference didn't address that.

If one's perspective is that the simple existence of sub-functional junk means that you must accept the marketing claims of from the manufacturers of ridiculously overpriced, marginally functional "luxury" items and repeatedly ignore the availability of reasonably price, more functional alternatives, I suppose it is indeed everything.

A few more links:
An earlier survey
A road review.
Owner's reviews.

 

[skepticalbip]

You said in your first post

Status markers are of extreme quality and durability.

In many cases (such as Bentley and Rolex) they aren't. People buy them to show that they can afford to keep them running despite their poor durability when there are far cheaper and more reliable options available.

As I pointed out, perspective is everything. A Rolex is far superior to any $9 watch I've ever owned. I also pointed out, as did Bentley, that the original article was flawed because of the usage of only late model information. How about historically? Even the 2nd reference didn't address that.

You would first have to define what you mean by superior. And would you say a Rolex is far superior to a $60 digital Timex?

Assume that superior means keeping better time, lower maintenance costs, and better
reliability - not better at impressing gold diggers in the local bar.

 

[bilby]

You said in your first post

Status markers are of extreme quality and durability.

In many cases (such as Bentley and Rolex) they aren't. People buy them to show that they can afford to keep them running despite their poor durability when there are far cheaper and more reliable options available.

As I pointed out, perspective is everything. A Rolex is far superior to any $9 watch I've ever owned. I also pointed out, as did Bentley, that the original article was flawed because of the usage of only late model information. How about historically? Even the 2nd reference didn't address that.

You would first have to define what you mean by superior. And would you say a Rolex is far superior to a $60 digital Timex?

Assume that superior means keeping better time, lower maintenance costs, and better
reliability - not better at impressing gold diggers in the local bar.

Why would you care about impressing these guys?



(Actually, I think this is Broken Hill, so they are probably silver, zinc or lead diggers; but gold diggers are much the same, surely?)

 

[gmbteach]

You said in your first post

Status markers are of extreme quality and durability.

In many cases (such as Bentley and Rolex) they aren't. People buy them to show that they can afford to keep them running despite their poor durability when there are far cheaper and more reliable options available.

As I pointed out, perspective is everything. A Rolex is far superior to any $9 watch I've ever owned. I also pointed out, as did Bentley, that the original article was flawed because of the usage of only late model information. How about historically? Even the 2nd reference didn't address that.

You would first have to define what you mean by superior. And would you say a Rolex is far superior to a $60 digital Timex?

Assume that superior means keeping better time, lower maintenance costs, and better
reliability - not better at impressing gold diggers in the local bar.

Why would you care about impressing these guys?

View attachment 6705

(Actually, I think this is Broken Hill, so they are probably silver, zinc or lead diggers; but gold diggers are much the same, surely?)

There was gold at Broken Hill as well, wasn't there.. or was that Ballarat?

 

[skepticalbip]

You said in your first post

Status markers are of extreme quality and durability.

In many cases (such as Bentley and Rolex) they aren't. People buy them to show that they can afford to keep them running despite their poor durability when there are far cheaper and more reliable options available.

As I pointed out, perspective is everything. A Rolex is far superior to any $9 watch I've ever owned. I also pointed out, as did Bentley, that the original article was flawed because of the usage of only late model information. How about historically? Even the 2nd reference didn't address that.

You would first have to define what you mean by superior. And would you say a Rolex is far superior to a $60 digital Timex?

Assume that superior means keeping better time, lower maintenance costs, and better
reliability - not better at impressing gold diggers in the local bar.

Why would you care about impressing these guys?

(Actually, I think this is Broken Hill, so they are probably silver, zinc or lead diggers; but gold diggers are much the same, surely?)

You hang out at the wrong bars. The gold diggers I mentioned are the ones who's goal is to hook up with the gold diggers you mention but only if they had been successful.

 

[RavenSky]

You said in your first post

Status markers are of extreme quality and durability.

In many cases (such as Bentley and Rolex) they aren't. People buy them to show that they can afford to keep them running despite their poor durability when there are far cheaper and more reliable options available.

As I pointed out, perspective is everything. A Rolex is far superior to any $9 watch I've ever owned. I also pointed out, as did Bentley, that the original article was flawed because of the usage of only late model information. How about historically? Even the 2nd reference didn't address that.

You would first have to define what you mean by superior. And would you say a Rolex is far superior to a $60 digital Timex?

Assume that superior means keeping better time, lower maintenance costs, and better
reliability - not better at impressing gold diggers in the local bar.

Are you suggesting that there are men who are only interested in a woman for her Rolex?

 

[skepticalbip]

Are you suggesting that there are men who are only interested in a woman for her Rolex?

Actually there are (or at least what they think the Rolex symbolizes). They are generally referred to as gigolos.

 

[RavenSky]

Are you suggesting that there are men who are only interested in a woman for her Rolex?

Actually there are (or at least what they think the Rolex symbolizes). They are generally referred to as gigolos.

Gigolos are paid male escorts

 

[skepticalbip]

Actually there are (or at least what they think the Rolex symbolizes). They are generally referred to as gigolos.

Gigolos are paid male escorts

Gigolo - a young man paid or financially supported by an older woman to be her escort or lover.

Which is what gold diggers are looking for. Same thing, different sex.

 

[RavenSky]

so you were referring to gigolos.

got it

 

[skepticalbip]

so you were referring to gigolos.

got it

Do you really find this that difficult?

Gold digger - Any woman whose primary interest in a relationship is material benefits. A woman who cares more about a man's bank account than she does about the man.

Gigolo - Any man whose primary interest in a relationship is material benefits. A man who cares more about a woman's bank account that he does about the woman.

 

[RavenSky]

so you were referring to gigolos.

got it

Do you really find this that difficult?

Gold digger - Any woman whose primary interest in a relationship is material benefits. A woman who cares more about a man's bank account than she does about the man.

Gigolo - Any man whose primary interest in a relationship is material benefits. A man who cares more about a woman's bank account that he does about the woman.

"Gold digger" is actually gender neutral, but do carry on

 

[Artemus]

Since no one provided an example of a gigolo who charged a premium fee but performed more poorly than a cheaper escort, I'll try to get this back on track:

Musical instruments. I learned of this a number of years back when I had to demonstrate to my daughter that no, she did not need a solid silver flute. Now, for flutes the more expensive metals do not give poorer performance, but for the rest of the woodwinds modern resins are superior to hardwoods for the instrument body due to better manufacturing control, no random imperfections, far less sensitivity to heat, humidity, or dryness. And musicians insist that wood sounds better despite all empirical and analytical evidence that it doesn't

And of course violins made by the 17th century masters such as Stradivarius easily justify their multi-million price tags when compared to modern examples. Well, except under controlled conditions where modern violins out-ranked the old ones.

 

[jonatha]

[ I just buy a litre bottle of the cheapest non-brand stuff they have for about 50c vs. €1.50 for a half liter of some brand like Ballygowan.

What a strange country, to waste a name like that on water rather than some decades-aged whiskey....