It’s the cuestion who needs a watch for $100.000 and why. Even for an billonair, even if he personally appreciate these technical marvels of a Pattek Phillipp (which the same craftsman who created it could never afford), everyone else doesn’t give a shit if the guy is wearing a $100,000 or $100 watch, if it’s not directly a plastic Casio. The status symbol continues to be a very ugly disease, teaching others: I am someone important, commoners. The same ones in those days with the first mobile phones, they stood in the middle of the road looking ostentatiously around while they communicated loudly so that everyone knew they could afford this luxury, with the prices that still had this bricks at that time. The evil of capitalism and savage consumerism.
Like you said, 99.9 % of people wouldn’t recognize a Patek Philippe if it hit them upside the head. By definition it’s not ostentatious. Rolexes are ostentatious (it’s the only luxury brand most people know), but also incredibly cheap as far as mechanical watches go.
A Patek Philippe is a status symbol, but only to those very select few already in-the-know. And that is not mutually exclusive with those movements being incredible art. Is a Van Gogh ugly or evil just because some asshole bought the painting for $100.000.000? Art doesn’t have to be collateral damage to your class consciousness just because rich people have more access to it.
Same with an van Gogh, I like to see his paintings in a Museum, where everybody can enjoy the work of great artists. I like to see the art of an Patek Philipp, but same as any other work which combine ingeniering with art. But I never would buy it, even if I had the money for it. Even if it made with wood instead of platin or gold with diamonds.
