Horological Meandering

ripwatch
865

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Perfection and luxury: thoughts prompted by Thomas's talk to the industry

A quote from Thomas’s talk to the watch industry: “true luxury seeks perfection as its own end. It is this never ending search for perfection that justifies the sometimes absurd premiums that can be commanded by the luxury industry.”

Very noble thoughts indeed, and very lofty goals.  Laudable, to be sure. 

But there’s this nagging little voice that’s pestering me: What exactly is “perfection” in the context of luxury items, and why do we use perfection as a big part of our definition of luxury?  I confess that this concept baffles me; we seem to be very selective in what we consider to be the characteristics of perfection.  Some examples of where my bafflement comes from, some from within watches, some not:

Virtually all watches that we would characterize as luxury items are mechanical, not quartz.  Though neither mechanicals nor quartz watches keep perfect time, quartz watches come much closer.  Why, then, do we largely exclude quartz watches from our quest for perfection in the context of luxury goods?  More broadly, do we exclude the quest for perfect accuracy from our definition of perfection?  And if so, on what grounds?

Luxury items tend to be hand-made; mass-market items tend to be mass-produced, often by machine.  Luxury brand buyers seem to far prefer hand-made products to mass-produced products. Most observers concede that mass-produced items have at least the potential to be, and in many cases actually are, more reliable than handmade items.   So by favoring hand-made items in the luxury arena, are we excluding reliability from our definition of perfection?  And if so, on what grounds? 

So:  why does the close to perfect driver/passenger experience of a Mercedes S-class constitute a luxury, but the close to perfect reliability of a Honda Accord not constitute a luxury?  The lack of fine leather, superb handling, comfort at 125 mph, and so forth clearly disqualifies the Honda from being considered a luxury item, but why does the woeful lack of reliability in the Mercedes electronics not disqualify it from luxury status as well, if “the search for perfection” is key to luxury?

Similarly, if perfection is the goal of luxury, then why do the marvelous feel of the pushers on a Lange Datograph, the superb finishing of the case and movement, and the flawless dial all clearly constitute luxury, but the accurate to a few seconds a month performance and utter unbreakability of a garden-variety digital watch not do so?  The bland styling, plastic case, and cheap stamped parts of the digital are clearly far from perfect and so disqualify it from luxury status, but why does the far lower, much “less perfect” accuracy of the Lange not disqualify it from luxury status as well?

And if someone were to put a radio-controlled quartz movement into a rose gold case made to the same design and assembly standards as the finest cases from Lange or Patek or even Dufour, then would that watch be able to command an ultra-high premium as an ultra-luxury item?  After all, it would come closer to perfection than anything else out there, wouldn’t it?

Or would it?

Yours in confusion,

-Rip

added to Editor's Pick