3 Ludicrously Expensive Things That Actually Look Terrible
As we get older and more accomplished, it’s normal to find enjoyment in the “finer” things.
A nice bottle of wine.
A good steak.
A long time ago, when my wife and I had first moved in together, I had just started making some normal money. Not a lot, mind you, because I was only 25, but enough where my financial anxiety was eased for the first time in my adult life.
I remember, at one point, staring at the open fridge in awe and thinking, “I can buy whatever kind of beer I want now.”
When you go from only being able to afford the cheapest options available to being able to afford the…not-as-cheap options, you might get sucked into thinking that if something is more expensive it’s automatically better.
I examined this a while back in my “Quality vs. Value” article. My Red Wing Iron Rangers are of higher quality (and price) than my made-in-China work boots from L.L.Bean. But they’re not as comfortable, therefore they don’t get worn much, and therefore do not provide nearly as much value as my cheapy work boots.
Not everything that’s of high quality will provide you with adequate value.
Ok, so you’ve reached adulthood or early middle-age and have grown accustomed to nicer things that actually DO provide you with appropriate value. The more expensive bottle of wine actually does taste better than the boxed stuff.
This may condition you to thinking that the more expensive you go, the better the product will be, especially when that item is ludicrously expensive.
It’s not wrong, as you become more successful in life, to desire the trappings of success, namely, nice stuff.
A big house. Nice clothes. Jewelry for your wife.
After all, we all work hard. What’s the point of making money if you don’t actually use it and enjoy it?
Sometimes, we even look at the stuff of the 0.1% and fantasize about how cool it would be if we could afford things like a stupidly expensive watch or a luxury vehicle.
But then I actually LOOK at some of that stuff and think, “Wait a second. Is it just me…or… does this stuff look like crap?”
I’ll glance to my right and left and see that, seemingly, everyone universally loves and covets these absurdly expensive things. And I’m left feeling like I must be missing something.
Now, I know that my disdain for these products might just be because I’m a dirty, ignorant, prole, but here are three examples of eye-poppingly expensive things, that appear to be universally loved, that actually look terrible.
#1 – Patek Philippe Aquanaut in green
Watches are kind of low-hanging fruit when it comes to pointing out things that are expensive, but ugly.
I purposely didn’t include watch brands like Richard Mille since those are kind-of-sort-of purposely ugly. The craziness of the design is part of that watch’s appeal.
Patek, on the other hand, while still in the upper echelon of watches, makes watches that people could actually wear to an office or in their daily life, not just when taking Instagram wrist-selfies.
Patek makes some of the most beautiful watches ever. Which is why it strikes me as so odd that they offer such an, in my view, objectively unattractive piece as the green Aquanaut.
Now, Patek is not immune to criticism. There are plenty of designs of theirs that have caused some dropped monocles over the years. “Asphalt” dials or blackjack color schemes, anyone?
But the Aquanaut always seems immune from that same scorn, which I think is nuts.
I mean, look at this thing…
If your $50,000 watch invokes thoughts of pea soup, or barf, then there’s a problem.
How can a watch company that makes this…
…also make that awful green Aquanaut?
It’s like when there are two siblings and one is really attractive, and the other isn’t and you think, “Wait a second. How is that possible? Don’t they share the exact same genetic material?”
Beyond the hideous color, the dial and the strap push this into “wow, they didn’t even try” territory.
It looks as if the design team was at a loss for what to put on the dial and then just said “F*ck it, draw a pineapple.”
As for the strap, it’s puke green, but at least it’s scaly! I also think that any watch that costs more than $50 shouldn’t have a rubber strap.
And don’t try to tell me that it’s not really rubber!
I know, I know. It’s SPECIAL rubber. MAGIC rubber! Patek calls it a “composite material”, whatever that’s supposed to mean.
I think the hands and the numerals look nice, but that’s really it.
The overall design of the case I could take or leave. I don’t particularly like the it’s-neither-round-nor-octagonal shape, but I can at least understand why someone would find it appealing.
It’s one of those luxury products that I look at and go, “I wouldn’t wear that if they paid me.”
“They won’t.”
#2 – Togo Sofa
A what?
This thing…
Yeah, I didn’t know what they were called either until I sat down to write this article.
I tried Googling “Sofa that looks like a maggot”, but that didn’t turn up anything useful.
I always see these sofas, couches, chairs, and loveseats in expertly crafted photographs of libraries, studies, or home offices. You know the ones. The pictures almost always have the same handful of stock “retro manly” items.
Record player. Bar cart. Coffee table books artfully spread over the mid-century modern coffee table. Clearly these people don’t have kids.
Lastly, there’s always either a Chesterfield couch, an Eames lounge chair, or this strange, wrinkly thing.
There are most definitely crumbs in those folds.
I have to clean my bulldog’s wrinkles. I don’t want to have to do the same for my couch.
It’s as if an interior designer said, “Want to know what would look great in that corner? Jabba the Hutt.”
It’s a couch Buffalo Bill would have constructed if he had any surplus material on hand.
These chairs are actually cheaper than I thought they were, starting at around $3,000 for the smallest single-seaters but costing a few times that for the larger couches.
The description of these chairs always includes how they are great “conversation starters”, although that’s not always a good thing.
#3 – Porsche 911
Aaaannndd…. I’ve lost you.
It’s ok. I get it. I know I am in the minority here.
I am aware that the Porsche 911 is considered one of the best automobile designs of all time.
My issue with this car, and many similar-looking sportscars, is that it just looks…girly. There’s really no better way for me to describe it.
Now, full disclosure, I am not a “car guy” so I have never truly gotten the appeal of cars. I don’t have a “dream car”. I drive an eleven-year-old SUV and a five-year-old pickup truck.
To me, cars are just a means of conveyance. They get me from here to there and, beyond that, I don’t care too much about them.
But whenever I see a Porsche 911, I think of this…
A Porsche 911 looks like something a teenage girl would drive. There’s a reason it was chosen for the role of Sally in Pixar’s Cars. It’s because the car is little and curvy and “cute”.
They even give her a tramp stamp, for goodness sake.
I much more understand the appeal of a 60’s Corvette. Or a Mustang. Or a Challenger. Or an MG or Rolls Royce.
A 2023 Porsche 911 will cost you about $100,000. There are plenty of other things I would buy with that money.
I know some will say that I “just don’t get it” when it comes to these things.
You’re right. I don’t get it. I don’t have the money to wear a Patek or drive a Porsche. Perhaps my opinions would be different if I could actually experience these things firsthand. Maybe I would fall in love with how the Aquanaut feels on my wrist. Maybe I would get a thrill of revving the engine on the Porsche.
But maybe not.
I think that my dislike for their appearance would hinder my enjoyment of experiencing them.
But I’m also not talking about experience. I’m going solely off looks. And I have seen enough watches, couches, and cars in my life to know what I like and what I don’t.
Just because something is expensive doesn’t mean it’s automatically good.
It also doesn’t mean it automatically looks good.
*Credit for article main photo goes to Hodinkee.com
