The Trappings of Office. Do you affect them?

You've seen him here before.  W. Morgan Shuster, New York lawyer, 1914.

Reddit has an interesting subreddit called r/Lawyers.  It's a closed Reddit so only members can participate or even read it. All lawyers, therefore.

Recently a thread was posted there on "expensive items" that lawyers use in the course of their work, or adorn themselves with, etc.  It was very interesting.

Now, I'll note first of all that I would hardly regard a Reddit thread as a scientific survey or anything approaching one.  And there's no way to know whether the replies reflect the norm or not.  But what I will note is that my observation is that over the past quarter century, lawyers dress a lot less formally, at least around here, than they used to, and that preception is common for other places as well.

Now, I've posted on this topic before, but this isn't quite the same thing.  The thread included any expensive item for which a more routine example might suffice. Brief cases, watches, shoes, etc., you name it.  And if the replies are correct, quite a few lawyers in various places still wear expensive items daily or frequently, and own other things that meet these definitions.

Indeed, it made me downright self conscious.

Now, part of the reason that I'm posting this is that I just notice the other day myself a lawyer I know well who dresses down every day wearing a really nice modern Omega watch.  Omegas aren't cheap by any means and they have a near cult like following with some. They are, legitimately, a really good Swiss watch.  Everything else he was wearing was clean, etc., but the Omega is an exceptional item.

Now, I don't know the story behind that watch, but it occurred to me that I know a lot of lawyers and indeed non lawyers who dress casually everyday but who have a really expensive good watch.  The Rolex is of course the premier example of this, but it's not the only example.  And I've really wondered about that to some degree.

Not that I don't admire nice watches (although I think Rolex watches are gigantic and I don't particularly like the way they look.  I do like Omegas however, which are not nearly as gigantic.

Now, my father had an Omega, but then he'd bought it overseas during the Korean War.  By happenstance I've noticed that a lot of Korean War era servicemen had Omegas. They all bought them at PXs and BXs.  My father had a Zeiss camera as well that he also bought at a BX and he told me that these items were much cheaper at an overseas BX.  Indeed, they must have been as even when I was a National Guardsmen in the 1980s PXs remained associated with the concept that whatever they sold was nearly free which, at least by my semi casual observation at that time, was no longer true.

Be that as it may, since the 1950s these items have just skyrocketed in price and a modern Omega (which is the watch that James Bond wears in the newer films, I'd note) are really expensive. Far more expensive than I'd ever consider buying.  And Rolex's are off the charts. They aren't the only ones by any means.

Which made me think about the watches I wear (yes I have several).  None of them are off the map expensive by any means.  I like them, and some of them are pretty nice, but nobody would think "wow, he's wearing a Wenger field watch. . ."  No I don't think so.

But them I'm also pretty hard on watches.

Anyhow, this isn't about watches but on stuff, and what I found is that there are certain lawyers who maintain that not only do they affect such things as Rolex's, but they think doing so is mandatory.  Indeed, what I found is that the list of items that repeatedly reoccurs in this way are suits, shoes, watches, and apparently automobiles.

The thesis is that you have to present yourself as successful as a message to your clients and, most of all, your opponents.

Hmmm. . . I don't know that this would have occurred to me.

Now, let me say here that this post isn't an argument for "buy cheap stuff".  Cheap stuff is often cheap stuff as its cheap.  A person is definitely much better off buying quality, even when more expensive, in the "Buy It For Life" line of thought (another Reddit subreddit).  Indeed, high quality watches, although not necessarily the modern Rolex, might very well it into that mold. High quality items are often near term expensive and short term costs savings for that very reason.  And in some instances, such as boots for example, high quality items can help prevent injury where their cheap counterparts will not.

So I'm not speaking of that at all.

Rather, what I'm speaking of is the purchase of really expensive items to make a statement.

I wonder how common that is?

I've seen arguments printed arguing that very thing, usually in regards to bespoke suits or Rolex watches.  Indeed, I've seen it stated that a person in certain professions should buy a Rolex in order to make a statement.

And at least in one profession, real estate brokerage, presentation in this fashion is regarded as absolutely mandatory.  Real estate brokers, if you know them from the inside, will often complain about this as they have to have the best clothes and the best cars, they feel (and live in one of the best houses) as a form of advertising.  

Is that true for other professions?

Well, it is is, I've ignored it and so have most of the people that I've known in the profession that I'm in, except maybe in the case of watches (there are a lot of really nice watches out there).

Well. . . I'm not buying it.

Frankly, the only person I think who notices that expensive item routinely is another person who thinks it sends a message, in which case they realize it doesn't . . unless the display is so ostentatious that it has to be noticed. . .which sends some sort of message to everyone but not the right one to everyone.

Which is a good thing, because as a person in their mid 50s, I'm holding on to my vehicles in hopes of never having to buy another one and I'm too old to justify buying a Rolex.

But back to the caption. What's your view?

_________________________________________________________________________________

This post is part of a Labor Day 2018 series of posts, that also include posts from 1918.  We don't usually do an entire week of such posts, but in this case, it seemed warranted for various reasons, including the century long contrast.

Others posted, at the time of this Tuesday September 4 post, were:

Labor Day, 2018. A Query
Labor Day 2018. A Contemplation
Lex Anteinternet: Labor Day, 1918. The local news
Labor Day, 1918.