Ares Watch Company

[RevolverRob]

I dont believe that was the issue being raised.

I'm honestly not sure what the issue being raised is anymore.

Some folks are up in arms about the watch not being 'Merican made (no watch is, we lack the infrastructure to do that on anything but a small custom scale).

Then some folks noted that you pay more for a brand. Sometimes higher price comes with higher quality, sometimes it doesn't.

And I really hate to tell people this but Rolexes are just watches. Just like Porsches are just cars. Whether there is some type of extrinsic sociocultural value is a matter for discussion, but there is nothing intrinsically better between two watches that both keep accurate time. Even if one costs $50,000 and one cost $5. Functionally, the two are identical, their functionally intended purpose is to keep time, if they both do that, they are equivalent. If you want other things...like social awareness or status gain, one does that better, but that is extrinsic to the watch, not intrinsic.

Folks are getting bent out of shape, because Ares is marketing their watches the way they want to and people are buying them. Man, that's how Ferrari has stayed in business for decades now. They build a shit car that needs constant service, but they market them correctly. You can't even buy the highest end Ferraris, because you aren't in the club. If you want to be in the club, pay the membership fee. That's the exact same argument for a Rolex. You want to be in the club? Pay the dues.

If you want to argue about whether or not Ares can "be in the club of cool watch kids" - that's fine. It seems to me that they made their own club and said fuck you (the general form of you). I can respect that. If the watch keeps time, looks decent, and doesn't cost me my left testicle - I might well buy it. The fact that it seems to piss some folks off kind of appeals to me, but I'm just an asshole that way.

[RevolverRob]

I don’t think that is the issue, but rather one of saying (via implied unqualified claims) that it’s Made in USA (“HANDCRAFTED. AMERICAN. GUARANTEED.”, “The $695 DIVER-1 is an American Mission Timer”, “WE’RE BRINGING AMERICAN WATCHMAKING BACK, ONE STEP AT A TIME.”, etc.) without meeting the criteria set out by the FTC to say such things. But I’m not a lawyer or customer (or even potential customer since I’ve no interest in fairly low end watches) — so basically I don’t particularly care one way or...

Yea, I get that some folks are a little cheesed off by the ad copy. I've felt the same way about Springfield Armory for years, particularly because they had the "made in Brazil" or "made in Croatia" labels on the underside of the dust cover. And claim to be America's oldest gun maker.

But I can draw a distinction between Springfield and Ares, because it's possible to make a 1911 out of entirely U.S. sourced parts. As far as I can tell, it is not possible to do that with a watch, unless you custom machine every bit and piece of it. I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of any true U.S. made watch movements, for instance.

To be fair to Ares - they edited the ad copy and provide this statement right on the front page,

Designed, assembled, tested, and guaranteed for life in Seattle, Washington.

Which while it may not be perfectly "transparent", I think it pretty clear. If people don't know how to read between the lines of "assembled in USA" vs. "Made in USA" at this point, then we're all kind of screwed, because those folks are reproducing.

another (why am I posting? mostly likely because I’m stupid) and I could be completely wrong.

Site Supporters here suck?

Believe it or not, I've missed having you around. It's not quite the same since @LittleLebowski took over, his reign of tyranny is...different. I don't want to say bad, he is a benevolent dictator, but it's different. Kind of like...you had Fidel Castro for years and now you have Raul and it's just not the same, you know?

[BehindBlueI's]

And I really hate to tell people this but Rolexes are just watches. Just like Porsches are just cars. Whether there is some type of extrinsic sociocultural value is a matter for discussion, but there is nothing intrinsically better between two watches that both keep accurate time. Even if one costs $50,000 and one cost $5. Functionally, the two are identical, their functionally intended purpose is to keep time, if they both do that, they are equivalent. If you want other things...like social awareness or status gain, one does that better, but that is extrinsic to the watch, not intrinsic.

They are equivalent in utility. As you note, there is a lot more to value then mere utility. Arguing that two options are identical because the utility it's identical is demonstrably false, both academically and with real world observation.

Your main error is the assumption that only the utility of telling time matters to the purchaser, and that's the sole reason to purchase a watch.

[RevolverRob]

They are equivalent in utility. As you note, there is a lot more to value then mere utility. Arguing that two options are identical because the utility it's identical is demonstrably false, both academically and with real world observation.

Your main error is the assumption that only the utility of telling time matters to the purchaser, and that's the sole reason to purchase a watch.

I sort of disagree here. I drew a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic properties of the object in question. Intrinsically, they have identical function and are largely identical. I concur that they are not absolutely identical, because they may achieve that function in distinct ways. However, I argued that neither is intrinsically better than the other as long as they both achieve the same overall goal. In this case the goal is to tell time.

But let's paint it a different way - intrinsically there is very little difference between you and me. I don't mean philosophically, I mean physiologically. We are both adult human males. Functionally, we both walk on two legs (well sometimes I knuckle drag...), we both have spouses, we both can reproduce, etc. There isn't a lot intrinsically different about us physiologically. But we can argue that one of us is actually biologically better than the other, because one of us has fulfilled the basic biological premise of our species, to reproduce, and one of us has not.

If the overarching goal is to tell time, two objects that do that, regardless of how they achieve that purpose are equivalent. It is when one of the two do not achieve that overarching goal that one is superior to the other.

However, if the overarching goal is to utilize the object to achieve other things, like display social status, attract a mate, etc. Then there may be extrinsic properties that are superior, but those properties have no bearing on the materials that the object is made of or its function, rather they are contextually dependent and as a result are representative of sociocultural values.

Thus, my point was that trying to draw a distinct between Ares and a Rolex is both an exercise in futility and frivolity. One can argue that they are intrinsically identical, ergo neither is superior to the other. While another individual can argue that they are extrinsically different and therefore one is superior to the other. And simultaneously, both individuals are correct.

[Seven_Sicks_Two]

<snip>Duluth, a company I really don't know much about overall, except they never use fucking photos in their catalog <snip>.

Pardon the thread drift... but this drives me crazy. Sometimes, I want to know what the actual thing looks like.

Y'all can go back to arguing about watches, intrinsic value, and the FTC now.

[BehindBlueI's]

I sort of disagree here. I drew a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic properties of the object in question.

And I gave you credit for that "As you note, there is a lot more to value..."

However your argument remains flawed. Intrinsic value =/= utility. Nor does simply telling time sum up the totality of the utility of the various watches. They are identical in one narrow sense, the one you've used to form your argument that it's "just a watch". It isn't, any more then a painting is just the sum of its paint and canvas. Under no theory of ecomomics or any real world observation outside of that narrow way you've framed it would it be "just a watch".

Intrinsically, they have identical function and are largely identical.

Where you are wrong is that people buy these watches simply for the utility of telling time. They don't. You are assuming telling time is their sole function. It isn't. They buy them for how much satisfaction owning the item brings them (utility in the economics sense). They buy them for the social impact. They buy them as speculation. You've noted much of that yourself yet still skip over every other type of utility other than "tell time" to arrive at "just a watch".

[RevolverRob]

Under no theory of ecomomics or any real world observation outside of that narrow way you've framed it would it be "just a watch".

That is demonstrably not true. There are millions, perhaps billions, of real world observations that simply view it as "just a watch", i.e., most humans. There are ~8 billion people in the world and the vast majority of them do not care about the social distinction between a Rolex and a Timex - they are just watches. They are just tools. One tool may be fancier than another, but that doesn't change the base-level of what they are.

I'd argue that the reverse of this point is true, that far fewer people buy watches for the following utilities:

Where you are wrong is that people buy these watches simply for the utility of telling time. They don't. You are assuming telling time is their sole function. It isn't. They buy them for how much satisfaction owning the item brings them (utility in the economics sense). They buy them for the social impact. They buy them as speculation. You've noted much of that yourself yet still skip over every other type of utility other than "tell time" to arrive at "just a watch".

That may be true in a limited sociocultural context, but it is contextually dependent, i.e., it may be true for people who are purchasing Rolex watches. That does not, however, make it true for all circumstances or even the majority of circumstances.

___

Regardless, we are talking past each other on this matter, because we are approaching it from distinct perspectives over which values are more important. In a broad sense neither set of values is particularly important, when most humans do not even bother to own a watch. Either as a social emblem or to tell time.

[BehindBlueI's]

That is demonstrably not true. There are millions, perhaps billions, of real world observations that simply view it as "just a watch", i.e., most humans. There are ~8 billion people in the world and the vast majority of them do not care about the social distinction between a Rolex and a Timex - they are just watches.

You're still trying to box in the definition of utility to fit your goals, but let's play with that one. If that were true and you took a random sample of those folks, offered them free use of a watch for the next year and told them to pick one, 50% would pick the Timex. Those 8 billion would have no preference since they don't value social distinction and there's no economic incentive in either direction. If you want to argue different cultures may value different things, that's true but irrelevant. Yes, utility varies. As it's often put, you can't drink gold yet under normal circumstances few of us would trade a kilogram of it for a gallon of water.

Like I said, Rolexes aren't my thing. Expensive watches period aren't my thing. The fact I don't value them enough to purchase one doesn't undercut the fact it's not 'just a watch.' To argue it is while simultaneously talking about intrinsic and extrensic value isn't even logically consistent. It is just a watch in one small sliver of utility, it's totality is much more.

[UNK]

If you go back to post 52 and read everything posted by #BigD and #HoptonBrown that will identify what is truly at issue.
Further if you go back to the OP and do a google search of the watch maker mentioned in the quote I think you will see they are following the same business model.

[HopetonBrown]

Yea, I get that some folks are a little cheesed off by the ad copy.

To be fair to Ares - they edited the ad copy and provide this statement right on the front page,

Which while it may not be perfectly "transparent", I think it pretty clear. If people don't know how to read between the lines of "assembled in USA" vs. "Made in USA" at this point, then we're all kind of screwed, because those folks are reproducing.

Except the website *did* say "made in the USA", see post #9 for a screenshot.

It does still say "American made" and "manufactured in the US".

They must have been made aware of this thread