Best men's watches?

[Bruinguy]

I researched a "nice" watch for myself for a special milestone a while back.  I started with a ''budget" of about $2,500, but ultimately I didn't see the value in spending that much.  When I boiled it down, what I wanted was an automatic watch (self-winding, no batteries), with a window to watch the gears go (why have an automatic if you can't see them work!), and something with a saphire chrystal face (stronger glass that resists scratching more). 

I ended up with a Hamilton Jazzmaster watch for under $500.

This isn't it, but it has the attributes I mention:  http://www.amazon.com/Hamilton-H36515555-Cushion-Silver-Watch/dp/B004RA00CM/ref=sr_1_13?s=watches&ie=UTF8&qid=1380692288&sr=1-13&keywords=hamilton

For me, it was nice enough that I could see keeping it forever and something that I could see making a point of handing down to one of my kids or grandkids.

Good luck with the search, and congrats!

[NumberJohnny5]

I researched a "nice" watch for myself for a special milestone a while back.  I started with a ''budget" of about $2,500, but ultimately I didn't see the value in spending that much.  When I boiled it down, what I wanted was an automatic watch (self-winding, no batteries), with a window to watch the gears go (why have an automatic if you can't see them work!), and something with a saphire chrystal face (stronger glass that resists scratching more). 
....
For me, it was nice enough that I could see keeping it forever and something that I could see making a point of handing down to one of my kids or grandkids.

I've got a question. Let's say you decided to buy a nice watch for your first kid, something that could be passed down. You're not uber-extravagant, but you're a loooong way from actual frugality. You get a well-known brand (partially due to the fact that surely, surely 50 years down the road there'll be plenty still out there and someone will know how to service them). And let's say the price is around $4k-$5k. Oh, first kid is the same sex as you, so it's you who'll be wearing the watch for them.

Few years later, second kid. This kid is the same sex as your partner. You're just beginning to see the light frugal-wise, but just barely. However, any attempts at getting your partner to buy a less inexpensive watch...let's just say that you know better. Plus there's the whole "kids will be jealous if they're not treated equally", but they'll probably move out at some point; your partner will (hopefully) be living with you for much longer. If you're a guy and your partner is female, the term "Happy wife happy life" comes to mind. So...another watch of the same brand and similar cost.

Fast forward some more years. Thinking about having a third kid. You're in full frugal mode now. Both you and your spouse have a nice fancy watch, everything's equal in that regards. Whoever gets to wear watch #3 wouldn't (shouldn't) be seen as having that much more than their partner (unless they do something silly, like wear a watch on each wrist). So, the concern would be mainly on child #3's feelings.

So for child #3, should you try to keep things equal? Same type of watch, or same budget (note, the same type of watch is probably $2k more now)? Cheaper watch and hope they understand? Cheaper watch and dump the rest in an investment account for them? Last one sounds like a good idea BUT...now everyone has the chance to feel slighted. Older kids because they'd like a nice watch plus a huge investment account that could buy five more. Younger kid because you didn't get as fancy of a watch to pass down to them. You because...argh, kids!

I think I'd lean toward keeping things equal (though whether in same type watch or dollars spent I'm not sure), or just saying "buy what you'd like, and explain to each child that at that point in your life this watch is what best aligned with your values." I mean, they're all going to bitch and moan about how they're not treated fairly, so why try? :)

[clutchy]

I would like to have a Tag Hauer, but I don't want to pay for one.

The reasonable alternative is a Citizen eco-drive.

that being said I don't actually own a watch at present nor do I really have any interest in having one.

[livetogive]

I really like my swatch. 

In an office/industry where people wear rolexes from the 1950s I think it's the ultimate F* You to consumerism when I take my sport coat off at a meeting and you see a big teal swatch.

[dragoncar]

I researched a "nice" watch for myself for a special milestone a while back.  I started with a ''budget" of about $2,500, but ultimately I didn't see the value in spending that much.  When I boiled it down, what I wanted was an automatic watch (self-winding, no batteries), with a window to watch the gears go (why have an automatic if you can't see them work!), and something with a saphire chrystal face (stronger glass that resists scratching more). 

I ended up with a Hamilton Jazzmaster watch for under $500.

This isn't it, but it has the attributes I mention:  http://www.amazon.com/Hamilton-H36515555-Cushion-Silver-Watch/dp/B004RA00CM/ref=sr_1_13?s=watches&ie=UTF8&qid=1380692288&sr=1-13&keywords=hamilton

For me, it was nice enough that I could see keeping it forever and something that I could see making a point of handing down to one of my kids or grandkids.

Good luck with the search, and congrats!

That's a great choice!

[Bruinguy]

I researched a "nice" watch for myself for a special milestone a while back.  I started with a ''budget" of about $2,500, but ultimately I didn't see the value in spending that much.  When I boiled it down, what I wanted was an automatic watch (self-winding, no batteries), with a window to watch the gears go (why have an automatic if you can't see them work!), and something with a saphire chrystal face (stronger glass that resists scratching more). 
....
For me, it was nice enough that I could see keeping it forever and something that I could see making a point of handing down to one of my kids or grandkids.

I've got a question. Let's say you decided to buy a nice watch for your first kid, something that could be passed down. You're not uber-extravagant, but you're a loooong way from actual frugality. You get a well-known brand (partially due to the fact that surely, surely 50 years down the road there'll be plenty still out there and someone will know how to service them). And let's say the price is around $4k-$5k. Oh, first kid is the same sex as you, so it's you who'll be wearing the watch for them.

Few years later, second kid. This kid is the same sex as your partner. You're just beginning to see the light frugal-wise, but just barely. However, any attempts at getting your partner to buy a less inexpensive watch...let's just say that you know better. Plus there's the whole "kids will be jealous if they're not treated equally", but they'll probably move out at some point; your partner will (hopefully) be living with you for much longer. If you're a guy and your partner is female, the term "Happy wife happy life" comes to mind. So...another watch of the same brand and similar cost.

Fast forward some more years. Thinking about having a third kid. You're in full frugal mode now. Both you and your spouse have a nice fancy watch, everything's equal in that regards. Whoever gets to wear watch #3 wouldn't (shouldn't) be seen as having that much more than their partner (unless they do something silly, like wear a watch on each wrist). So, the concern would be mainly on child #3's feelings.

So for child #3, should you try to keep things equal? Same type of watch, or same budget (note, the same type of watch is probably $2k more now)? Cheaper watch and hope they understand? Cheaper watch and dump the rest in an investment account for them? Last one sounds like a good idea BUT...now everyone has the chance to feel slighted. Older kids because they'd like a nice watch plus a huge investment account that could buy five more. Younger kid because you didn't get as fancy of a watch to pass down to them. You because...argh, kids!

I think I'd lean toward keeping things equal (though whether in same type watch or dollars spent I'm not sure), or just saying "buy what you'd like, and explain to each child that at that point in your life this watch is what best aligned with your values." I mean, they're all going to bitch and moan about how they're not treated fairly, so why try? :)

For me, I would look at the watches as a gift for me or my wife first, and for the kids as a nice bonus, if it works out.  So, I wouldn't be too worried about the third kid.  I would probably wait a while to do anything, since kid no. 3 wouldn't get it for a while anyways (hopefully).  Maybe after retirement, I would buy something as a gift for me or my wife to use that was roughly equivalent to watches 1 and 2, using some post-retirement income.

However, if I (or my wife) wouldn't wear it or use it because of our changed perspectives on life, I'd have to think real hard about getting it at all.
 

[Dicey]

Seriously, what is wrong with someone wanting to give her husband-to-be a quality gift that could become a family heirloom?

I love how stocially libraryjoy has accepted y'all's criticism and stood her own (slightly modified) ground.

Honestly, if some of these commenters were in charge, no one would be allowed to wear matching clothes, let alone own anything "nice".

Yes, there are a few red-ish flags here, but given that a wedding gift is a once-in-a-lifetime (hopefully) purchase, you guys are being way too harsh. Yes, facepunches can be useful and productive, but not just for the sport of facepunching.

Before my now-DH proposed, he wondered aloud what kind of ring I'd like. I asked him to just go to Costco and buy a simple band with some little diamonds on it. Well, he bought a simple band, but the diamonds are not small. It was not inexpensive IMHO, but it was totally within our zone of affordability, and I LOVE it! It reminds me every single time I see it how special he is to me and vice versa. Worth every penny. (Yes, we have achieved FIRE, but we are much older than libraryjoy and her man.) Some occasions are simply worth marking. It's not like she's planning on going into debt to buy this watch or doing this on an annual basis, so lighten up, people!

[NumberJohnny5]

For me, I would look at the watches as a gift for me or my wife first, and for the kids as a nice bonus, if it works out.  So, I wouldn't be too worried about the third kid.  I would probably wait a while to do anything, since kid no. 3 wouldn't get it for a while anyways (hopefully).  Maybe after retirement, I would buy something as a gift for me or my wife to use that was roughly equivalent to watches 1 and 2, using some post-retirement income.

Should have added, the watch was bought specifically to pass down to the child at some point after reaching adulthood. Also, the other two watches were given as Christmas gifts on their first Christmas (child tears open wrapping, sees present, parent then puts it on). To uphold tradition, it'd need to be bought in time for baby's first Christmas.

Personally, I was happy with watches that cost less that a single servicing.

However, if I (or my wife) wouldn't wear it or use it because of our changed perspectives on life, I'd have to think real hard about getting it at all.

A good point. That's why I don't just go "ooh, shiny" and immediately buy something. I have to know I'll be willing to wear it for a long time. Well, kid #1 and #2 have watches that can be worn on a daily basis (in the past seven years, I've gone about seven days without wearing mine; hopefully it'll be ready to pick up tomorrow). I suppose kid #3 could get a dressier watch; wearing less often + wearing for more special occasions = somewhat equal?

I think that might make for a good topic; talking about treating children differently as we become more frugal, and how that can affect them. When it's best to talk with them about why they're being treated differently (i.e. child #1 got a brand new car, but child #2 is having to buy their own), and when it's best to just pony up the extra cash.

[GuitarStv]

I researched a "nice" watch for myself for a special milestone a while back.  I started with a ''budget" of about $2,500, but ultimately I didn't see the value in spending that much.  When I boiled it down, what I wanted was an automatic watch (self-winding, no batteries), with a window to watch the gears go (why have an automatic if you can't see them work!), and something with a saphire chrystal face (stronger glass that resists scratching more). 
....
For me, it was nice enough that I could see keeping it forever and something that I could see making a point of handing down to one of my kids or grandkids.

I've got a question. Let's say you decided to buy a nice watch for your first kid, something that could be passed down. You're not uber-extravagant, but you're a loooong way from actual frugality. You get a well-known brand (partially due to the fact that surely, surely 50 years down the road there'll be plenty still out there and someone will know how to service them). And let's say the price is around $4k-$5k. Oh, first kid is the same sex as you, so it's you who'll be wearing the watch for them.

Few years later, second kid. This kid is the same sex as your partner. You're just beginning to see the light frugal-wise, but just barely. However, any attempts at getting your partner to buy a less inexpensive watch...let's just say that you know better. Plus there's the whole "kids will be jealous if they're not treated equally", but they'll probably move out at some point; your partner will (hopefully) be living with you for much longer. If you're a guy and your partner is female, the term "Happy wife happy life" comes to mind. So...another watch of the same brand and similar cost.

Fast forward some more years. Thinking about having a third kid. You're in full frugal mode now. Both you and your spouse have a nice fancy watch, everything's equal in that regards. Whoever gets to wear watch #3 wouldn't (shouldn't) be seen as having that much more than their partner (unless they do something silly, like wear a watch on each wrist). So, the concern would be mainly on child #3's feelings.

So for child #3, should you try to keep things equal? Same type of watch, or same budget (note, the same type of watch is probably $2k more now)? Cheaper watch and hope they understand? Cheaper watch and dump the rest in an investment account for them? Last one sounds like a good idea BUT...now everyone has the chance to feel slighted. Older kids because they'd like a nice watch plus a huge investment account that could buy five more. Younger kid because you didn't get as fancy of a watch to pass down to them. You because...argh, kids!

I think I'd lean toward keeping things equal (though whether in same type watch or dollars spent I'm not sure), or just saying "buy what you'd like, and explain to each child that at that point in your life this watch is what best aligned with your values." I mean, they're all going to bitch and moan about how they're not treated fairly, so why try? :)

Well, since you're being frugal now and not spendy pants, what you do is sell both watches and punch yourself in the face a couple times saying "Never again will I blow money on stupid shit."  Invest the money from the watches . . . this can be passed on to your kids and is a damned sight better than a useless watch.

Everyone's equal.  No stupid watches.  Kids get to see the parent own up to a mistake rather than digging the hole ever deeper, so it's a good life lesson.

[lifejoy]

I researched a "nice" watch for myself for a special milestone a while back.  I started with a ''budget" of about $2,500, but ultimately I didn't see the value in spending that much.  When I boiled it down, what I wanted was an automatic watch (self-winding, no batteries), with a window to watch the gears go (why have an automatic if you can't see them work!), and something with a saphire chrystal face (stronger glass that resists scratching more). 
....
For me, it was nice enough that I could see keeping it forever and something that I could see making a point of handing down to one of my kids or grandkids.

I've got a question. Let's say you decided to buy a nice watch for your first kid, something that could be passed down. You're not uber-extravagant, but you're a loooong way from actual frugality. You get a well-known brand (partially due to the fact that surely, surely 50 years down the road there'll be plenty still out there and someone will know how to service them). And let's say the price is around $4k-$5k. Oh, first kid is the same sex as you, so it's you who'll be wearing the watch for them.

Few years later, second kid. This kid is the same sex as your partner. You're just beginning to see the light frugal-wise, but just barely. However, any attempts at getting your partner to buy a less inexpensive watch...let's just say that you know better. Plus there's the whole "kids will be jealous if they're not treated equally", but they'll probably move out at some point; your partner will (hopefully) be living with you for much longer. If you're a guy and your partner is female, the term "Happy wife happy life" comes to mind. So...another watch of the same brand and similar cost.

Fast forward some more years. Thinking about having a third kid. You're in full frugal mode now. Both you and your spouse have a nice fancy watch, everything's equal in that regards. Whoever gets to wear watch #3 wouldn't (shouldn't) be seen as having that much more than their partner (unless they do something silly, like wear a watch on each wrist). So, the concern would be mainly on child #3's feelings.

So for child #3, should you try to keep things equal? Same type of watch, or same budget (note, the same type of watch is probably $2k more now)? Cheaper watch and hope they understand? Cheaper watch and dump the rest in an investment account for them? Last one sounds like a good idea BUT...now everyone has the chance to feel slighted. Older kids because they'd like a nice watch plus a huge investment account that could buy five more. Younger kid because you didn't get as fancy of a watch to pass down to them. You because...argh, kids!

I think I'd lean toward keeping things equal (though whether in same type watch or dollars spent I'm not sure), or just saying "buy what you'd like, and explain to each child that at that point in your life this watch is what best aligned with your values." I mean, they're all going to bitch and moan about how they're not treated fairly, so why try? :)

Well, since you're being frugal now and not spendy pants, what you do is sell both watches and punch yourself in the face a couple times saying "Never again will I blow money on stupid shit."  Invest the money from the watches . . . this can be passed on to your kids and is a damned sight better than a useless watch.

Everyone's equal.  No stupid watches.  Kids get to see the parent own up to a mistake rather than digging the hole ever deeper, so it's a good life lesson.

As a kid, I would kind of lean towards this. I would have a looooot of resentment if I had two older siblings that got watches and my parents were "too smart" to get me one, too. I realize you're in a difficult situation, and it's good to keep in mind the phrase my dad would submit: "It will never be exactly the same for you two, but it will always be fair". Which hit the message home that while I might not get the same thing as my sister, my parents were always trying to keep it fair.

Why not sell watch number one and two and buy three reasonably priced options to give to them later? Are they young enough that they won't know what they're missing? I think you said you gave it to them as a baby but then you wore it... maybe they'll forget all about it being theirs one day? You could hang on to the watches for yourself (because it sounds like you're enjoying them), get yourself a dress watch like you want, and let the kids fight over them one day when you pass? ;)

Fifty years from now watches might be a novelty heirloom. Like, will future generations wear watches? Or will it be like rotary dial telephones? Who knows!

Good luck with this :)

[Bruinguy]

Well, since you're being frugal now and not spendy pants, what you do is sell both watches and punch yourself in the face a couple times saying "Never again will I blow money on stupid shit."  Invest the money from the watches . . . this can be passed on to your kids and is a damned sight better than a useless watch.

Everyone's equal.  No stupid watches.  Kids get to see the parent own up to a mistake rather than digging the hole ever deeper, so it's a good life lesson.

This is the MMM answer. 

There are probably alternatives, but I would find it hard to pick one that resulted in a current $4-5K purchase of a new watch.  No need to earn any new face punches, right? 

[NumberJohnny5]

Well, since you're being frugal now and not spendy pants, what you do is sell both watches and punch yourself in the face a couple times saying "Never again will I blow money on stupid shit."  Invest the money from the watches . . . this can be passed on to your kids and is a damned sight better than a useless watch.

Everyone's equal.  No stupid watches.  Kids get to see the parent own up to a mistake rather than digging the hole ever deeper, so it's a good life lesson.

*Sigh*

Just because it's stupid to one person, doesn't mean it is for everyone. Nor does it make it immediately useless (as we wear ours every day to...you know...tell time). And don't point out that my mobile phone has a clock; I don't always have my mobile phone with me.

That said...me rephrasing your post to get the basic meaning (Just because you bought two watches doesn't automatically mean you should buy a third, have you even THOUGHT about the possibility of selling the other two, thus keeping up with the whole "fairness" thing?), it is good advice. We probably won't do it, but I'll think of a good way to broach the subject with my wife, and get her thoughts on it. I've always advocated keeping an open mind and to think of ALL the options available; sometimes I forget to do this myself.

[NumberJohnny5]

As a kid, I would kind of lean towards this. I would have a looooot of resentment if I had two older siblings that got watches and my parents were "too smart" to get me one, too. I realize you're in a difficult situation, and it's good to keep in mind the phrase my dad would submit: "It will never be exactly the same for you two, but it will always be fair". Which hit the message home that while I might not get the same thing as my sister, my parents were always trying to keep it fair.

Yup, trying to keep things fair. I know it'll be impossible, even if things are completely fair they'll not see it as such.

Why not sell watch number one and two and buy three reasonably priced options to give to them later? Are they young enough that they won't know what they're missing? I think you said you gave it to them as a baby but then you wore it... maybe they'll forget all about it being theirs one day? You could hang on to the watches for yourself (because it sounds like you're enjoying them), get yourself a dress watch like you want, and let the kids fight over them one day when you pass? ;)

A very reasonable suggestion. We've tried to avoid telling them (now that they understand english, and don't just drool all over the place), so it'd be somewhat of a nice surprise when they get "their" watch back. So as of today, I could easily sell them and pretend the whole thing never happened (what? no...sell the watches, not the kids!). Though if/when one of us started to shop for another watch, we'd likely explain to our 7yr old why, and then the jig would be up. Either way, now's a good time to be having a conversation with the missus regarding altering the tradition (and if not, should we keep mum about the reason for buying watch #3, and hope our 7yr old doesn't piece the clues together?).

[NumberJohnny5]

I ran into a snag. Got as far as talking to my wife, mulling it over for the day, then bringing it back up tonight. She asked what we'd get instead of the watches...said we wouldn't HAVE to get anything. If we'd told the kids about their watches, then the jig is up...we couldn't just give them away. But since we hadn't told them yet....

Then it hit me. Is it ok to take the watches away from the kids, just because they don't remember getting them as Christmas gifts? I try to be a man of my word, even if think of a better solution (case in point, told my son we'd go back to America to visit next April; later realized that going later in the year would mean we'd hit all the holidays which would be awesome...but since I promised him, I left the decision to him, and looks like we'll be going in April as originally planned).

Anyways, since we actually gave the watches to the kids (wrapped up with their name on the tag), I don't see an easy way out. If we'd bought them for ourselves, thinking we might eventually pass them on...easy peasy. But we gave them to the kids, and we're just holding on to them in the meantime.

Please tell me if you think I missed something. I do want to make a fully informed decision, whether it's a popular one or not.

[GuitarStv]

So . . . the watches for the 'kids' have never been worn by the kids, and the kids probably don't remember getting them as gifts?  . . . And you and your wife have been wearing the watches every day since giving them to the kids?  :P

Does this remind anyone else of the Simpsons episode where Homer gives a bowling ball to Marge with his own name engraved on it?





Expensive things are effectively losses on your balance sheet.  By buying these watches for your 'children', you have already lost money that could have been made by investing the cash.  If your kids are too young to remember getting the watches, then it would make sense to sell them and invest now (cut your losses).  In the future, your kids can use that money to do anything (pay tuition, down-payment on a house, cash purchase of a car, go on the trip of a lifetime . . . . Even buy themselves a watch should they want one).

If your kids are old enough to talk about this with, maybe explain the situation and get some input from them.  Tell them that you made a mistake, and that the watch will constantly lose value . . . while investments will grow and can be used for important things in the future.  Then cross your fingers that they make the right decision.

For the third kid you should invest an equivalent amount of money, no questions asked.

[dragoncar]

So . . . the watches for the 'kids' have never been worn by the kids, and the kids probably don't remember getting them as gifts?  . . . And you and your wife have been wearing the watches every day since giving them to the kids?  :P

Does this remind anyone else of the Simpsons episode where Homer gives a bowling ball to Marge with his own name engraved on it?





Expensive things are effectively losses on your balance sheet.  By buying these watches for your 'children', you have already lost money that could have been made by investing the cash.  If your kids are too young to remember getting the watches, then it would make sense to sell them and invest now (cut your losses).  In the future, your kids can use that money to do anything (pay tuition, down-payment on a house, cash purchase of a car, go on the trip of a lifetime . . . . Even buy themselves a watch should they want one).

If your kids are old enough to talk about this with, maybe explain the situation and get some input from them.  Tell them that you made a mistake, and that the watch will constantly lose value . . . while investments will grow and can be used for important things in the future.  Then cross your fingers that they make the right decision.

For the third kid you should invest an equivalent amount of money, no questions asked.

Why is 'children' in quotes?

[GuitarStv]

So . . . the watches for the 'kids' have never been worn by the kids, and the kids probably don't remember getting them as gifts?  . . . And you and your wife have been wearing the watches every day since giving them to the kids?  :P

Does this remind anyone else of the Simpsons episode where Homer gives a bowling ball to Marge with his own name engraved on it?





Expensive things are effectively losses on your balance sheet.  By buying these watches for your 'children', you have already lost money that could have been made by investing the cash.  If your kids are too young to remember getting the watches, then it would make sense to sell them and invest now (cut your losses).  In the future, your kids can use that money to do anything (pay tuition, down-payment on a house, cash purchase of a car, go on the trip of a lifetime . . . . Even buy themselves a watch should they want one).

If your kids are old enough to talk about this with, maybe explain the situation and get some input from them.  Tell them that you made a mistake, and that the watch will constantly lose value . . . while investments will grow and can be used for important things in the future.  Then cross your fingers that they make the right decision.

For the third kid you should invest an equivalent amount of money, no questions asked.

Why is 'children' in quotes?

Good question.

[daverobev]

Seriously, what is wrong with someone wanting to give her husband-to-be a quality gift that could become a family heirloom?

I love how stocially libraryjoy has accepted y'all's criticism and stood her own (slightly modified) ground.

Nothing made today in the $1k-$5k bracket is, IMHO, going to be an heirloom. It's a watch. It tells you what time it is and, if you're lucky, what day it is. 'Luxury' is.. a con. Luxury cars are a con. Burberry is a con.

Fine craftsmanship - like, real, hand carved furniture? Not a con. Equivalent functionality from something 1/5th the price or even better, used, beats it hands down though.

Debt is more important than luxury. Spending $30k on a wedding when you're in student loan debt - bad, right? So how is spending 1-2k on a device that tells you what time it is, can be lost damaged broken stolen, not bad?

Luxury is a marketing trick. Take 10% more expensive materials and sell for 5x the price. Unless you're talking *real* luxury, hand crafted.

IMHO.

Again - OP can spend her money on whatever she wants. But a mass-market watch as an heirloom? No.

[daverobev]

So . . . the watches for the 'kids' have never been worn by the kids, and the kids probably don't remember getting them as gifts?  . . . And you and your wife have been wearing the watches every day since giving them to the kids?  :P

Does this remind anyone else of the Simpsons episode where Homer gives a bowling ball to Marge with his own name engraved on it?





Expensive things are effectively losses on your balance sheet.  By buying these watches for your 'children', you have already lost money that could have been made by investing the cash.  If your kids are too young to remember getting the watches, then it would make sense to sell them and invest now (cut your losses).  In the future, your kids can use that money to do anything (pay tuition, down-payment on a house, cash purchase of a car, go on the trip of a lifetime . . . . Even buy themselves a watch should they want one).

If your kids are old enough to talk about this with, maybe explain the situation and get some input from them.  Tell them that you made a mistake, and that the watch will constantly lose value . . . while investments will grow and can be used for important things in the future.  Then cross your fingers that they make the right decision.

For the third kid you should invest an equivalent amount of money, no questions asked.

Why is 'children' in quotes?

'Good question.'

FTFY ;)

[GuitarStv]

'F'TFY ;)

:P

[TrulyStashin]

By contrast to this thread, when MMM went on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Eucador, he was tempted to buy a really cool carved-head wooden flask for $10.

Ten.  Dollars.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/09/20/wealth-advice-that-should-be-obvious/  See Rules number 3 & 4.

He didn't do it because buying shit is not the Mustachian way.  Doing fun, free stuff together in nature is the Mustachian way.  Always.  If MMM were posting here, he'd tell you to plan a wonderful hike with a picnic as a great surprise for your man.

Sheesh. 

[GuitarStv]

By contrast to this thread, when MMM went on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Eucador, he was tempted to buy a really cool carved-head wooden flask for $10.

Ten.  Dollars.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/09/20/wealth-advice-that-should-be-obvious/  See Rules number 3 & 4.

He didn't do it because buying shit is not the Mustachian way.  Doing fun, free stuff together in nature is the Mustachian way.  Always.  If MMM were posting here, he'd tell you to plan a wonderful hike with a picnic as a great surprise for your man.

Sheesh.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/letsgo/familyfun/Make_Your_Own_Sundial.html

^ I'm just sayin' . . .

[AJDZee]

This is the best thread I've read in a long time!

GuitarStv, you are one funny dude.  haha every comment made me lol

I saw this exact ridiculous tradition 2 weeks ago at an engagement party - The bride bought her husband a motorcycle as a gift because he bought her an expensive ring (obviously). It's serves as a really great excuse for couples to form a spending truce and throw money away so they can express their love.

This watch has about a 1% chance of becoming a family heirloom, so just call a spade a spade. You want to spend a lot of money on a watch. Because you know he's spending a lot on you, and you want to make it equal. There's no chance of not spending a lot of money on a ring and engagement gifts, because that's not how people picture getting married.

And saying 'he's spending a lot on me because he's not very mustachian'........... I hope to god, if tomorrow he woke up and said he was going to return the ring and spend $20 on a non-precious metal symbol of your love instead, you'd still be just a stoked to get married.

[swick]

I saw this exact ridiculous tradition 2 weeks ago at an engagement party - The bride bought her husband a motorcycle as a gift because he bought her an expensive ring (obviously). It's serves as a really great excuse for couples to form a spending truce and throw money away so they can express their love.

whoa...wait a minute...this is like a legit tradition? Apparently I missed out on some good ones...like my hubby's co worker asking when we got back from our wedding, how much he had to give me in gold so I would marry him.

We got a couple of titanium bands off of Etsy and have been quite happy. At the end of all of this, it is the OP's choice what she spends her money on, I just hope they spend as much time planning their financial future as ring/watch shopping.

[Dicey]

Seriously, what is wrong with someone wanting to give her husband-to-be a quality gift that could become a family heirloom?

I love how stocially libraryjoy has accepted y'all's criticism and stood her own (slightly modified) ground.

You have a point, daverobev. I think a better choice of words might have been "keepsake" instead of "heirloom".

[lifejoy]

If MMM were posting here, he'd tell you to plan a wonderful hike with a picnic as a great surprise for your man.

Great idea, but I've been there, done that! Not that it couldn't be done again. I guess what it comes down to is that I want to give him a watch. I want him to look at something that he owns and forever think of the day that he mustered up the chutzpah to ask me to be his wife :)

It is very true that this watch does not need to cost big money to be special! And materialistic desires will be my undoing, but I can only tackle so many demons at once ;)

I will be buying the $250 hommage watch rather than the $1100 Max Bill watch. Thanks to the Affordable Forum at watchuseek.com! Good resource.

To me, mustachianism is being able to afford to buy the things that give you happiness. Being a conscious consumer. Realizing that some purchases might deserve facepunches, but that you want them anyways. And that that's ok, IF you can afford it. IF you're willing to work x amount of days longer to afford it. Anyways, that's just my take on it.

I hope to god, if tomorrow he woke up and said he was going to return the ring and spend $20 on a non-precious metal symbol of your love instead, you'd still be just a stoked to get married.

This made me smile :) I like your attitude! I have told my boyfriend that I do not need an engagement ring, but if HE needs an engagement ring (i.e. needs to get me one because of some dream of his that one day he would buy his bride a ring) then fine, I can live with that. I pointed him to moissanite (1/10th the cost of diamonds) because I don't want him to go all cray cray. I know we have some savvy shoppers here, but the rest of the world has been brainwashed by DeBeers and that's just the way things are right now. So to finally answer your implicit question, I would marry him with no ring. I would marry him with no wedding. I love this guy, he balances me out, and I also happen to love jewelry. So I won't be convincing him to not get me a ring ;) But it's definitely not necessary.

Lalala I'm feeling stoked. Thanks for everyone's help! I'm on a "payment plan" with myself to save up for the watch :D It involves taking money out of my spending budget over the next two months. I'm out of debt in less than a month. Things are good! We all have our on style, this is what's workin' for me, and I appreciate everyone that took the time to give their $0.02.

[HappierAtHome]

This is a little off topic, and I'm late to this thread, but: I would be really, really careful about the precedent you set for expensive presents.

When we'd been dating for six months, the BF bought me a very pretty fossil watch. My first birthday after we got together, it was a tiffany's pendant. Our first anniversary, a pearl necklace and earring set. I love them and wear them all on a regular basis, but we've found it really difficult to adjust our present-buying expectations and limits as we've become more frugal. If I had my way again I might go back and choose not to have such a high standard set for spendy presents. I can't say that 100%, because I love my jewellery and every piece was a beautiful, thoughtful gift. I just wish that it wasn't seen as normal, now, to get each other $300 gifts. We'd finally agreed to get each other "very small" ($20-$30) birthday presents, and because the BF was away for work on my birthday, he splurged on $300+ concert tickets for me instead.

[GuitarStv]

To me, mustachianism is being able to afford to buy the things that give you happiness. Being a Hehe, yeah.  It's L6X4M6 in xas you need that too 😊conscious consumer. Realizing that some purchases might deserve facepunches, but that you want them anyways. And that that's ok, IF you can afford it. IF you're willing to work x amount of days longer to afford it. Anyways, that's just my take on it.

It sounds like you're making the best decision for you.  I hope that the watch works out and is much loved by your fiancé!

[lifejoy]

This is a little off topic, and I'm late to this thread, but: I would be really, really careful about the precedent you set for expensive presents.

When we'd been dating for six months, the BF bought me a very pretty fossil watch. My first birthday after we got together, it was a tiffany's pendant. Our first anniversary, a pearl necklace and earring set. I love them and wear them all on a regular basis, but we've found it really difficult to adjust our present-buying expectations and limits as we've become more frugal. If I had my way again I might go back and choose not to have such a high standard set for spendy presents. I can't say that 100%, because I love my jewellery and every piece was a beautiful, thoughtful gift. I just wish that it wasn't seen as normal, now, to get each other $300 gifts. We'd finally agreed to get each other "very small" ($20-$30) birthday presents, and because the BF was away for work on my birthday, he splurged on $300+ concert tickets for me instead.

That is a very good point. If this was a birthday gift, I'd be more wary. But I don't mind setting a precedent for engagement gifts, as I don't plan on getting engaged too often ;)

But I have soooooooo gone off the deep end with bday gifts in the past. My bf got me a book for our first xmas, and that was awesome but over time things have gotten a little out of hand. I'm going to try and reign myself in a little more often, and give time and effort instead of things!

[hybrid]

Oh, I think you are setting a precedent alright....  As someone who has dealt with more than his share of "special occasions" in a not-so-Mustachian past, I believe you are well on you way to the next "special occasion" excuse to spend money you don't have.  It all starts with the rationalizations needed to spend the money, and the rest takes care of itself.  Your decision to get married at a later date - which is all an engagement is - does not merit a superfluous piece of bling especially while you are still in debt.

From a Mustachian perspective this is an exceedingly poor financial decision.  Period.

[Dicey]

From a Mustachian perspective this is an exceedingly poor financial decision.  Period.

From this mustachian's perspective, I think this is an extremely harsh statement. I love the way libraryjoy has stood her ground, but modified her stance based on the feedback she's received here. I think she will do just fine in life.

[stevesteve]

This made me smile :) I like your attitude! I have told my boyfriend that I do not need an engagement ring, but if HE needs an engagement ring (i.e. needs to get me one because of some dream of his that one day he would buy his bride a ring) then fine, I can live with that. I pointed him to moissanite (1/10th the cost of diamonds) because I don't want him to go all cray cray. I know we have some savvy shoppers here, but the rest of the world has been brainwashed by DeBeers and that's just the way things are right now. So to finally answer your implicit question, I would marry him with no ring. I would marry him with no wedding. I love this guy, he balances me out, and I also happen to love jewelry. So I won't be convincing him to not get me a ring ;) But it's definitely not necessary.

I made my wife's engagement ring and we were both happy with it.  She was a lot happier that I was frugal with that and spent my money securing our financial future.  We did spend almost $500 combined for our wedding rings which I think we both (very mildly, monetarily) regret as we could have spent under $100 if we had done nickel or something as durable.  My friend bought a few $10 rings for his wedding rings.  He's set both on how cheap they were and if he ever loses one he'll have a replacement!

From a Mustachian perspective this is an exceedingly poor financial decision.  Period.

From this mustachian's perspective, I think this is an extremely harsh statement. I love the way libraryjoy has stood her ground, but modified her stance based on the feedback she's received here. I think she will do just fine in life.

She will do fine in life and so will anyone with a decent income who socks 15% away in retirement accounts and doesn't go into other debt besides a reasonable mortgage payment.  That doesn't make it Mustachian.  Buying an expensive watch is an exceedingly poor financial decision.  It might be a fine personal decision.  I think what makes this forum valuable is that we compare individual behavior to Mustachian ideas and call people out on it.  This is after all a forum on the site of the man who made up the 'facepunch'.  You can't post here and expect the reaction not to question your spending decisions.

[Riceman]

My wife and i have 100 dollars per month each as our spend on whatever money. We use those accounts for our presents, so any money we spend on each other directly equates to less we spend on ourselves. If you have to save up for 10 months to buy a 1000 dollar watch, that would have a lot of meaning.

But we personally spend very little on presents. My wife always forgets or doesn't know what to buy me, so she gets me nothing. That takes the pressure off me as well.

[ritchie70]

Ever care so much about someone that all rationality goes out the window sometimes? Well, I've been brought back down to Earth but I do like the idea of spoiling him. I'm thinking a nice Nixon or a Timex

It may just be me, but Timex will always be the cheap watches that the town drugstore sold, and nothing will ever convince me that they are fancy.

I have a number of watches. The two I wear are a $12 Casio and a Raymond Weil. The RW was, I suspect, more like $1200, a gift from my wife. It has some scratches, but it still looks quite good. Keep in mind that expensive watch crystals (? The clear part) are made of near indestructible stuff. The cheap ones are definitely not.

[Dicey]

From a Mustachian perspective this is an exceedingly poor financial decision.  Period.

From this mustachian's perspective, I think this is an extremely harsh statement. I love the way libraryjoy has stood her ground, but modified her stance based on the feedback she's received here. I think she will do just fine in life.

You can't post here and expect the reaction not to question your spending decisions.

You're absolutely right, stevesteve, but you missed the point. Hybrid's comment was unnecessarily harsh. Period.

Since libraryjoy is one MONTH away from being debt-free, and does not intend to go into debt to make this purchase, I suspect she is way ahead of a number of the naysayers who are slamming her decision. She also accepted feedback extremely gracefully and modified her plans accordingly.

[dragoncar]

Ever care so much about someone that all rationality goes out the window sometimes? Well, I've been brought back down to Earth but I do like the idea of spoiling him. I'm thinking a nice Nixon or a Timex

It may just be me, but Timex will always be the cheap watches that the town drugstore sold, and nothing will ever convince me that they are fancy.

I have a number of watches. The two I wear are a $12 Casio and a Raymond Weil. The RW was, I suspect, more like $1200, a gift from my wife. It has some scratches, but it still looks quite good. Keep in mind that expensive watch crystals (? The clear part) are made of near indestructible stuff. The cheap ones are definitely not.

Well Timex makes watches for Versace, Guess, Nautica, etc.  Those are "fancy" but I'm not saying that means they are good watches.

[Dicey]

I just checked in at the "Keith's Journal" thread and noticed that he has budgeted $1000-$1500 for "tattos and body art". Not one face punch or harsh comment. Buy the watch if it makes you happy, libraryjoy, at least you're not spending an exhorbitant amount of money on something that will cost you even more to remove later, should you regret your decision.

[hybrid]

From a Mustachian perspective this is an exceedingly poor financial decision.  Period.

From this mustachian's perspective, I think this is an extremely harsh statement. I love the way libraryjoy has stood her ground, but modified her stance based on the feedback she's received here. I think she will do just fine in life.

Yes Diane, it is harsh.  A person's bank account is equally unflinching.  Note where I added the bold above.  Financially speaking, it's digging her hole a little deeper than it already is.  And for a couple just starting out, why would anyone on this forum wish them to be deeper in debt as a wedding present?

It boggles the mind that she is looking to get anything beyond a face punch on these forums for such an obviously extraneous purchase.  We aren't talking about the wedding ring here, it's a time piece to celebrate the mere decision to get married.  Say what???  To those who might argue "it's special" and this deserves an exception, I could argue there are a zillion things that are "special" as well.  At some point everyone draws a line and says "No, purchase X truly isn't all that special in the grand scheme, what I could really use is a better financial position."

This watch is the exact opposite.  I've had similar discussions with my family until I am blue in the face.  I'm tellin' ya', once the notion of "special" starts, it doesn't just stop.  The next hit of "special" is a birthday or holiday or vacation or celebration away.  If OP is truly Lovin' the Mustachian Life, then she will really love not adding to her debt just before she ties the knot.

[Watchmaker]

As you might be able to guess from my name, I have some opinions on high end watches.  Without going too far down a side track, watches can be a useful tool, but if you're spending more than $50-100, you are not buying it as a tool.  To me, the best watches are a combination of engineering, science, craftmanship, and art.  I challenge anyone to look at a Ulysse Nardin Freak, or RGM's PS801,  or a Roger W Smith watch in person and not be impressed.  It's art.

But...

It's art I can't afford.  And it's likely art the OP can't afford either.

So the OP is left spending more than is needed for a tool to get something that is an imitation of something else.  Like buying an art print (or a cheaper painting) when what you love is the van Gogh.

Why, by the way, do so many people here give a pass on spending money on an engagement ring or wedding band?  To me, this seems to be one of the most obvious and pernicious "traditions" of consumerism.   

[hybrid]

As you might be able to guess from my name, I have some opinions on high end watches.  Without going too far down a side track, watches can be a useful tool, but if you're spending more than $50-100, you are not buying it as a tool.  To me, the best watches are a combination of engineering, science, craftmanship, and art.  I challenge anyone to look at a Ulysse Nardin Freak, or RGM's PS801,  or a Roger W Smith watch in person and not be impressed.  It's art.

But...

It's art I can't afford.  And it's likely art the OP can't afford either.

So the OP is left spending more than is needed for a tool to get something that is an imitation of something else.  Like buying an art print (or a cheaper painting) when what you love is the van Gogh.

Why, by the way, do so many people here give a pass on spending money on an engagement ring or wedding band?  To me, this seems to be one of the most obvious and pernicious "traditions" of consumerism.   

One quick reason off the top of the head would be that people are treated differently when a wedding band is visible.  Wedding bands are a way of announcing to the world "spoken for".  So in that sense they serve an actual purpose.

[Will]

As you might be able to guess from my name, I have some opinions on high end watches.  Without going too far down a side track, watches can be a useful tool, but if you're spending more than $50-100, you are not buying it as a tool.  To me, the best watches are a combination of engineering, science, craftmanship, and art.  I challenge anyone to look at a Ulysse Nardin Freak, or RGM's PS801,  or a Roger W Smith watch in person and not be impressed.  It's art.

But...

It's art I can't afford.  And it's likely art the OP can't afford either.

So the OP is left spending more than is needed for a tool to get something that is an imitation of something else.  Like buying an art print (or a cheaper painting) when what you love is the van Gogh.

Why, by the way, do so many people here give a pass on spending money on an engagement ring or wedding band?  To me, this seems to be one of the most obvious and pernicious "traditions" of consumerism.   

One quick reason off the top of the head would be that people are treated differently when a wedding band is visible.  Wedding bands are a way of announcing to the world "spoken for".  So in that sense they serve an actual purpose.

Maybe the question really was "why do so many people give a pass on spending outrageous sums of money on an engagement ring or wedding band?"

[gimp]

I have a $25 timex. Waterproof, fairly shockproof... pretty much indestructible. I tend to lose them, hence the cheap watch, but this one has now lasted for five years (on a single battery, no less). But I think I'll upgrade in a year or so. What's a watch (or brand) of similar characteristics, and a reasonable price, that doesn't look plastic and cheap? I don't need anything that stands up to close scrutiny, but want something that doesn't look silly in formal attire. But still relatively indestructible and cheap. Does such a thing even exist? I believe it does.

Maybe the question really was "why do so many people give a pass on spending outrageous sums of money on an engagement ring or wedding band?"

Titanium is the new thing for men. $40 isn't terrible. The more awesome folks make their own bands from meteorites for $25 in materials.

[Watchmaker]

Will is right, I should have been clearer I was questioned spending a loton wedding rings, not the whole idea of purchasing them. 

[NumberJohnny5]

It may just be me, but Timex will always be the cheap watches that the town drugstore sold, and nothing will ever convince me that they are fancy.

I see that as a possible plus. I've been looking at a "fancy" Seiko. Believe it or not, one of the qualities I look for in a watch is non-flashy. As in, I don't mind a fancy watch, but I don't want everyone in a thirty foot radius to go "hey, that guy's wearing an expensive watch." Anyone who gets close enough to you to read the name on the watch will know it's a Seiko. Most people will assume it's on the cheaper end. Well, maybe expensive, but still a cheaper name. Definitely not going to scream "I paid way more than MMM would ever approve of on this man-jewelry!"

I have a number of watches. The two I wear are a $12 Casio and a Raymond Weil. The RW was, I suspect, more like $1200, a gift from my wife. It has some scratches, but it still looks quite good. Keep in mind that expensive watch crystals (? The clear part) are made of near indestructible stuff. The cheap ones are definitely not.

Yes, they're called crystals. A crystal made of mineral glass is pretty good. Sapphire is generally what's most desired; practically scratch proof but more prone to shattering. I've seen watches in the low hundreds have a sapphire crystal, so it's not something reserved for the uber-expensive watches.

[NumberJohnny5]

Why, by the way, do so many people here give a pass on spending money on an engagement ring or wedding band?  To me, this seems to be one of the most obvious and pernicious "traditions" of consumerism.   

Agreed. It depends on what you consider an "enormous" amount of money. I'm guessing many here wouldn't balk at a $500 ring, though a $20 one would serve the same basic function (ok, if you're super allergic to all common metals, maybe $50). If it's ok to spend $500 on a ring that'll last a long time and serve a basic purpose (announce to the world that you're taken), why not $500 on a watch that'll last a long time and serve a basic purpose (let you know what time it is)?

If you're against wedding rings on principle, or spending more than $10-$20 on them...then I'll give you a free pass on thinking watches are just as frivolous.

[chicagomeg]

Why, by the way, do so many people here give a pass on spending money on an engagement ring or wedding band?  To me, this seems to be one of the most obvious and pernicious "traditions" of consumerism.   

Agreed. It depends on what you consider an "enormous" amount of money. I'm guessing many here wouldn't balk at a $500 ring, though a $20 one would serve the same basic function (ok, if you're super allergic to all common metals, maybe $50). If it's ok to spend $500 on a ring that'll last a long time and serve a basic purpose (announce to the world that you're taken), why not $500 on a watch that'll last a long time and serve a basic purpose (let you know what time it is)?

If you're against wedding rings on principle, or spending more than $10-$20 on them...then I'll give you a free pass on thinking watches are just as frivolous.

There was a post on engagement/wedding rings (or maybe several) recently. As I recall, most people had no ring at all, or one that was quite inexpensive. I was in the distinct minority for having a wedding band that cost $600.

[lifejoy]

This thread is full of lots of food for thought.

I'd like to clarify two things, if I may (at risk of making this thread go on for WAY too long):

1) I am not purchasing a watch until I am out of debt, at which point I would be purchasing the watch with money I have earned that I do not owe anyone else. This works for me, and is not "digging myself deeper into debt". I'm a planner! I'm planning, people! I don't want to make an impulsive decision :) Whew. Ok, that's off my chest.

2) Does Mustachianism = extreme frugality forever? It's an honest question. I think I'm confused about what it really means to subscribe to the mustachian way of life. And hey - maybe it's not for me! Maybe I've confused it with some less extreme way of living. But in my mind, it was always a way to maximize your happiness and be efficient with your money and way of living. There are so many things in life that I could technically live without - but, is that how I want to live? Heck, no. MMM himself describes his current house as bigger than he needs. MMM drinks alcohol (I almost never do). We all have the things that bring us pleasure, and we pay for them when we can't get them for free. Isn't it ok to be Mustachian and budget for things? Get out of debt, and then spend your money where you want while maintaining a very high savings rate?

I hope this doesn't come across as super rant-y. And I do appreciate the diversity of opinions in these forums, and I realize the MMM way of life might not be the same for everyone. I believe the common goal of being out of debt and having options in life is a worthy one, and I'm happy to be in such company! :)

[grantmeaname]

2) Does Mustachianism = extreme frugality forever? It's an honest question. I think I'm confused about what it really means to subscribe to the mustachian way of life. And hey - maybe it's not for me! Maybe I've confused it with some less extreme way of living. But in my mind, it was always a way to maximize your happiness and be efficient with your money and way of living. There are so many things in life that I could technically live without - but, is that how I want to live? Heck, no. MMM himself describes his current house as bigger than he needs. MMM drinks alcohol (I almost never do). We all have the things that bring us pleasure, and we pay for them when we can't get them for free. Isn't it ok to be Mustachian and budget for things? Get out of debt, and then spend your money where you want while maintaining a very high savings rate?

No, I think you've got the spirit of the thing just about right. An awful lot of people have chosen this hill to die on, though. Peculiar.

[NumberJohnny5]

1) I am not purchasing a watch until I am out of debt, at which point I would be purchasing the watch with money I have earned that I do not owe anyone else. This works for me, and is not "digging myself deeper into debt". I'm a planner! I'm planning, people! I don't want to make an impulsive decision :) Whew. Ok, that's off my chest.

I do see several people are getting hung up on the fact you're still in debt. If I were them, and wanted to scream about how "stupid" this is, I'd say "WHAT??!! You're almost out of debt and are about to make a crazy expensive purchase??!!" But that doesn't sound near as good as "OMG! You're in debt and wanting to buy a crazy expensive watch??!!" I dunno if they just missed that part, or if they just wanted to scream a bit louder. My advice regarding that would be "Don't be tempted if you see a great deal pop up; stay the course, get out of debt, and don't get back in!"

2) Does Mustachianism = extreme frugality forever? It's an honest question. I think I'm confused about what it really means to subscribe to the mustachian way of life. And hey - maybe it's not for me! Maybe I've confused it with some less extreme way of living. But in my mind, it was always a way to maximize your happiness and be efficient with your money and way of living. There are so many things in life that I could technically live without - but, is that how I want to live? Heck, no. MMM himself describes his current house as bigger than he needs. MMM drinks alcohol (I almost never do). We all have the things that bring us pleasure, and we pay for them when we can't get them for free. Isn't it ok to be Mustachian and budget for things? Get out of debt, and then spend your money where you want while maintaining a very high savings rate?

I think there's three main camps.

#1, Do as MMM does, don't stray even a tiny bit, you must be a carbon copy (might be a bit hard for you, as I "think" it'd be hard for you to be a male with a mustache). If he doesn't spend money on a certain "luxury," then neither can you.

#2, Be extremely frugal. All extra money must go for retirement. No spending on luxuries at all. Do note, that anything they spend money on, is deemed to not be a luxury. But if you're spending on something that they don't, that's a luxury and you need to be called out on it. Case in point, I think most here would think nothing of dropping $1k or possibly more on an international trip, because that's something they value. But if that $1k is going toward a watch, OMG you better watch out!!

#3, Debt = bad. You MIGHT get a pass on a mortgage, especially if the interest is lower than you can expect to make in the stock market. They're more about optimizing your overall life. Want to spend $X on Y? Well, sit down and look at all the options, and how they each affect you. If spending $X on a watch/vacation/car/Dalek is important to you, and you're willing to give up 6months retirement/newer car/daily latte/etc., then feel free to do so, as long as you're NOT IN DEBT! And try to spend as frugally as possible; if a $250 watch will suit your purposes as well as a $1k one...get the $250 one, that's a no brainer.

I guess I should add a #4, Debt = good, spendy lifestyle = good, I want it all now and you guys suck for saying I can't! If you come here, you can't expect someone to say "Yeah, that car loan is fine...credit card debt is only $10k at 15% interest so that's not too bad, you'll never retire at this rate; looks good to me!"

[Watchmaker]

(My opinion is) the larger point of all this is to question your assumptions and critically analyze your decisions.  We are here on this forum to help each other with that.

Anytime anyone asks if they should buy something here (and I realize that's not exactly what you asked, and that you've been taking this all with good humor), I don't do you any good if I just say "Sure, sounds fine to me."  I try to challenge the assumptions you've made and the conclusions you've reached.

If, after all of the feedback, you still believe it's the right move, then you can walk away knowing that you decision has faced scrutiny.  It's not a guarantee that you are taking the right action, but it helps.  That's what I look for here, anyway.

Back on topic, I know many of the people over at watchuseek, and it is the best place on the internet for advice on watches.