[DP63]

I think it depends on the buyer/owner and their financial status, and is obviously down to the terminology used.

If you are a blue collar guy who doesnt do investments, in the true sense of the word, stock/share portfolios etc, who treats yourself on occasion, the difference between buying a car and it steadily going down in value compared to buying a watch that at the very least (today) holds value over 10 years and could potentially give you some quick cash in an emergency is what they would regard as an investment. I have a friend who justified his Sub purchase by stating it would never be worth less than he paid for it ... the fact that £5k 10 years ago is worth less than £5k today does not come in to the equation for him ... its still £5k and had he left that money in the bank 10 years ago, it would be fractionally more than £5k today. At present though, he would make money on his initial purchase price, hence why he calls it an investment.

Its the word "investment" itself that causes the disagreements and discussions in my opinion.

I buy my watches to enjoy, the fact that in todays market they dont lose money (not even the VAT) is simply an additional positive of ownership for me. I'm fully aware that things change as I've been around long enough to have lived through some serious changes in my life, and thats the key element for me, being aware. If its going to give me my money back and I've enjoyed ownership over the time I've owned them, great, if I make some money on them, even better, and if not (?), then it is what it is and there is nothing I could have done to change that, it wasnt the reason for purchasing in the first place .... I lost £33k on a pension portfolio during the financial crash .... nothing I could have done would have prevented that, smarter people than me never saw it coming, at least with the watches there is something in it for me over the period of ownership if my £6k watch is worth £500 at the end of the day, so be it.