That's partly why I stopped fussing with Leica digital rangefinder cameras. The long-time fans are usually pretty mellow, but as retail prices soared, the brand started attracting some pretty brash individuals. And I had the sense that some really had been "poisoned" by stuff they could not actually afford, but which they'd do anything to possess.
Yes, same with me, even though I never really fussed with Leica cameras at all because the prices were always too high. And I'm not a huge fan of rangefinders, preferring ground-glass viewing. If I was a war photographer in WWII or Korea, I'd want the quick handling of a Leica. But even by Vietnam, war photographers had switched to Nikon F's, and Leicas had lost their unique utility. For the professional work that I did in the 70's, format was king and I was much more likely to use the Mamiya C3 for which I'd paid a hundred bucks than my Canon F-1 which cost three times that. Or, I was using sheet film in a view camera.
I have purchased watches new that cost well under a hundred. The cheapest mechanical watch I bought new was a little over twice that, a Seiko Black Monster dive watch. (Actually, I paid less for a Swatch Sistem51, but not that much less.) Seiko 5's are much less than that, and are completely competent watches, but I'm a collector so my purchases go through some mental curation process and the Seiko 5 daily-wear watches didn't fill any gaps. But a person who wants a watch that doesn't have to be recharged, or stored in sunlight, or have the battery replaced every several years, can buy a Seiko 5 and get a competent, serviceable, all-metal watch for less than the cheapest Apple watch and not much more than the run-of-the-mill plastic Casio G-shock. Both of which are also competent at what they do, of course, but that fulfill a different set of requirements and impose a different set of constraints.
But snobbery can go both ways, and I see quite frequently those who out-of-hand judge owners of expensive watches as being snobbish, foolish, or both. I see that even on watch enthusiast forums, though the threshold is perhaps a bit higher (read: slightly higher than the price of the watch worn by the person making the comment). A Seiko 5 is competent but it in no way expresses the art of fine watchmaking. There is no decoration on the movement at all, and the positional accuracy is modest at best (though any minimally competent watch can be regulated to provide good-enough timing for most purposes). The dial and hands are stamped with no fine finishing, and the case shows nothing of the faceted high jewel-like polish that, say, Grand Seiko is known for.
It seems to me that those who make it an exercise in snobbery or anti-snobbery focus on the price, judged by their own (often unstated and unrealized) standards of value that others may or may not share, and that others are not morally or socially bound to share in any case.
Rick "no stranger to commentary on watches at all price levels" Denney
)
