Straight from the horse's mouth: "You never actually own a Patek Philippe. You merely take care of it for the next generation."
But yeah, having a fancy watch only matters if you have enough money to buy it AND for it to be expensive (the "Aspirationals 14%")
Bill Gates can go into a store and buy the most expensive Rolex, no problem. It's at most, as expensive to him as a PS4 for most mortals.
A ps4 is therefore 0.58% of net worth of the median American A 500k Rolex is 0.00006% of net worth of the median bill gates.
Ignoring the amount of percentage of income available as disposable income, a 500k Rolex is .003% of a ps4 (maths check anyone?)
By that proportion, the value of a 500k Rolex to Bill Gates is equivalent to the median net worth of an American is (drum roll): $0.42
Bill Gates has 1.1 Million times the median net worth.
The secondary market for luxury watches is huge, and a Patek is about the worst example you could find in terms of a watch that doesn't hold its value over time.
The nice thing is that a used luxury watch usually holds its value really well - you buy a used Rolex in good condition, for fair market price, and you are not going to lose money if you decided to sell it five years from now.
"There are people claiming that a Rolex is magnificent technology, coincidentally signalling their intelligence. There are people claiming that a Rolex is beautiful, inadvertently signalling their good taste. There are people claiming that a Rolex is reliable and an heirloom, accidentally signalling that they are respectable. And there are people claiming that a Rolex is good for business, purely by chance signalling that they are clever businessmen."
"Of course, none of this applies to me. I honestly love Van Gogh paintings, not because it signals good taste within my social circle, but because they're intrinsically beautiful. I'm certainly not trying to raise my social status, or signal anything whatsoever. Not me, no."