Could have been $100, just as good and look the same.
Comment on True love
Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 3 days ago
Just for reference, thats like a $200K watch. Patek Nautilus, ref 5980.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 3 days ago
Money doesn’t buy taste
feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 2 days ago
How silly.
Gilles_D@feddit.org 3 days ago
More like 100k. Maybe he’ll get the next watch with a moon phase complication… 🐺
underwire212@lemm.ee 2 days ago
I see why she included it in the picture
Pilon23@feddit.dk 3 days ago
Damn that’s amazing. What can it do?
CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Tell the time, the date, and act as a stop watch according to the manufacturers website. My $250 watch does all that and it looks better.
I can totally understand buying a nice/expensive watch, they look nice, the feel nice, they’re accurate, they can do cool stuff. I don’t understand buying a watch that costs more than most cars cost, especially if it only does the most basic watch features.
jdeath@lemm.ee 2 days ago
you would understand it, if only you had millions of dollars to waste and zero ethical things to do with the money!
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
The funny thing is, a cheap quartz crystal based clock is more accurate than the best mechanical clock
Fancy clocks being more accurate than cheap clocks is literally just marketing.
VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
The point is that it’s a cool, complicated little machine. But you can get that for a lot less than 200k.
eager_eagle@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Instantly reduce your net worth when stolen
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Probably has a garrote wire and laser cutter.
eager_eagle@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Patek 47