« How Will the Country-Wide Pay Cuts Affect Your Spending? | Main | Jim Rome Moves to 1090 AM in Los Angeles »

January 02, 2013


Tom Welch

Be thankful for what you have Jeff, you could be on dialysis and living on less than 25K a year like me. Sell your watch collection and put your money in assets that actually make money. You have a lot going against you since your in your 50s and have 2 small girls you're responsible for.


No, you didn't misrepresent yourself. A true "trustafarian" wouldn't balk at buying an $870 Benarus. The thing about watch collecting is that if you're willing to sell watches you don't love anymore, you can partially pay for future purchases.

The spending is deceptive. I've bought (and kept) eleven watches in the last four months, but also sold eleven watches, ending up spending only a few hundred over what I made back. In other words, over the last four months I haven't spent over $2000 on watches (11 x ~$200), but more like $300. Now of course I did spend that $2000 and more previously, so there was an initial investment (and for me it happened relatively quickly in a short span of time).

Now obviously this approach of "Buy two, sell three" won't last forever and there is a kind of law of diminishing returns, but my point is that the spending isn't as much as it seems. You seem in a similar boat.

As for taxes and such, I agree you just have to see your first pay check. I don't know how much you make, but it sounds like it might be anywhere between a Black Monster ($200) and Velatura ($350) less a month. Bummer, but it is also relative.

This won't effect me as much because A) My wife only works part time, B) I don't make six figures and C) a lot of my salary is tied into benefits like on-campus housing and such, so my taxable take home pay isn't huge (nor are my expensives, which gives me a bit of cash to play with). So it might be more like an Invicta Python a month ($100).

It might also be time to start thinking about taking on more of a minimalist lifestyle, like one of your readers spoke about. Maybe it is my interest in Zen Buddhism, but that really appeals to me. We don't live opulently or have a ton of expensive possessions, but we do have a lot of "random stuff," much of it unnecessary. I love my books - I own about 3000 (I'm guessing) - but if and when we make our next move, possibly back to the Best Coast, I plan on getting rid of two-thirds of them, and a lot of other stuff besides.

I've decided that 20 watches is a good size collection for me. Anything more and watches start getting lost i the mix. Much less and I don't have the diversity I like, although could see going as low as about a dozen.

So imagine that - a watch collection of 12 or so - watches that you really like and would actually wear. Imagine even having $5,000 to put together a 12-watch collection. What would you keep, sell and buy? Hmmm...that could be a fun post for my blog.

Gordon C

A college english teacher married to a (k12?) teacher with two kids. What am I missing? It is possible to live modestly and invest in passion(s).

It is possible to live immodestly and invest in passion(s) too, just not for as long a time (unless you own a printing press and special plates for which the Secret Service has a keen interest).

I would have two dozen radios and am being converted to manly watches - albeit slowly - but for the enforced passion modesty of marriage and children.

In the meantime, pictures over at Jay Allen's site will do for the radios I would like to own....


All of us misrepresent ourselves in some way. What would life be without trying to convince our classmates at the reunion that we're better of than they are? But you DID misrperesent Mr. Howell, who is by no means a trustfund baby. Howell built that empire brick by brick----the oil business, commodities, high risk and high rewards----a driven business man who still loves his teddy bear and has a great marriage. Before the days of pre-nups, Howell realized that divorce is expensive----and chose the devoted Lovie to be his lifemate---a great marriage. If you ask me, Thurston Howell III would have been a much better candidate for President than Romney was----Howell presented a much warmer side of venture capitalism.



"He didn't build that."



I think you're being tounge-in-cheek, Tom, in your rail against Jeff, but trust me, I know Jeff and I can assure you he's not living large on a trust fund here in beautiful downtown Torrance... In fact, few of us are! Otherwise, we'd be living in Palos Verdes. Now that's toney.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Advertisements


  • Advertisements


  • Advertisements
My Photo


  • Advertisements


  • Advertisements


  • Advertisements

August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Blog powered by Typepad


Companion Website: Breakthrough Writer

My Photo

Become a Fan