what does the term "entry level" mean to you?

[Dancing Fire]

a guy on the watch forum posted his $15k watch and then another member replied by saying...nice "entry level" watch,so my Q is...isn't that like putting the guy down saying that he can only afford the least expensive model?

if you posted a $5k Hermas handbag on the purse forun then another member replied...nice "entry level" purse...how would you feel?

 

[AprilBaby]

Thats like saying nice "cheap" watch to start out with, now get a nice one.

 

[sonnyjane]

It can definitely have a negative connotation. That said, I see it in the same light as a "starter home"... it's something that is a good first purchase, but you will outgrow it and want something bigger and/or better when you can eventually afford it. In other words, it's a respectable buy for a first-timer, but you'll almost certainly want to upgrade.

 

[packrat]

Sounds smarmy to me. But then..I bought a $70 Fossil watch over 20 years ago, when I was 15 and I thought that was soooo expensive, let alone a *15k* watch.

 

[ChloeTheGreat]

Obviously I know nothing about luxury watches...but $15k sounds like a lot to me...?
Definitely sounds like a put-down.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Rude is what it was. Someone who is insecure and has to put down others to make themselves feel superior would say that. A $15k watch just isn't "entry level". Oh, so 15k is entry and $50k is medium level, I suppose. That is ridiculous.

 

[Circe]

I like to think I have my feet sufficiently on the ground that if somebody said my 15K piece of jewelry - be it e-ring, watch, or solid-diamond back-scratcher - was "entry level," I'd feel like they were a douche ... but I wouldn't take it as a slight on my very nice new thing-a-ma-bob. But, yeah, that's a put-down and not a compliment.

 

[Enerchi]

I'm with the group - that was a put down, totally! I am also with diamondseeker in thinking this person who made the comment, is trying to make himself feel superior to someone. Karma is a B**CH sometimes and what goes around... comes around.

I hope the original poster enjoys his $15K watch and it gives him years of pleasure, every time he looks at it

 

[missy]

Rude is what it was. Someone who is insecure and has to put down others to make themselves feel superior would say that. A $15k watch just isn't "entry level". Oh, so 15k is entry and $50k is medium level, I suppose. That is ridiculous.

I second DS's assessment.
Rude rude rude.
(and pretentious too).

 

[MissGotRocks]

Rude is what it was. Someone who is insecure and has to put down others to make themselves feel superior would say that. A $15k watch just isn't "entry level". Oh, so 15k is entry and $50k is medium level, I suppose. That is ridiculous.

I second DS's assessment.
Rude rude rude.
(and pretentious too).

Absolutely agree. Completely out of line.

 

[TimMD]

I feel that is someone taking the term "watch snob" to an extreme and it being completely arrogant and pretentious. Possibly those words are even too big for him and he is just a jerk. So because the watch is only a 15k watch and not a 50k watch, it is "entry level"? So a BMW 700 series, Mercedes CLS, or Audi A8 are entry level cars because they aren't a Bentley Continental GT? Simply, it is an ignorant statement.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Haha, great car analogy, Tim!!!

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

Regardless of how it is defined or what it means to me, this response was very unkind. That person had a choice, and behaved with no regard to anothers feelings.

At the very least, insufferable manners.

DF, did you respond?

cheers--Sharon

 

[Miss Sparkly]

I disagree with all of the posts. To me entry level is the bottom of pack. It could be anything from an entry level basic Lexus, to an entry level job, etc. I would read it as this is the basic watch and there are other watches in this line that have more features/cost more. The dollar amount has nothing to do with what level it is on. Comparing his watch to my Fossil is like apples to oranges so to speak.

 

[Imdanny]

Um, yes. And that's the kind of obnoxious comment that never would have happened in the old days. Shameful.

 

[ame]

Rude is what it was. Someone who is insecure and has to put down others to make themselves feel superior would say that. A $15k watch just isn't "entry level". Oh, so 15k is entry and $50k is medium level, I suppose. That is ridiculous.

I second DS's assessment.
Rude rude rude.
(and pretentious too).

Absolutely agree. Completely out of line.

+1. If someone said that in person I'd have to say something wildly inappropriate in reply.

 

[Dancing Fire]

HI:

Regardless of how it is defined or what it means to me, this response was very unkind. That person had a choice, and behaved with no regard to anothers feelings.

At the very least, insufferable manners.

DF, did you respond?

cheers--Sharon

no i didn't.

 

[TristanC]

I think it matters how the original poster shared about the watch. If he crowed about it and so on and so forth, and the watch was from a maker where 15K was just the first step into the pond, then the "rudeness" might just have been a reminder not to lord it over the rest of the forum. Basically a 'Know Your Place' kind of post, or "learn some modesty".

But if he was just being a donkey's rear end, then obviously he deserves scorn.

15K for a watch is not entry level. I think entry level to fine watches is in the 3-5K range.

 

[swimmer]

I like to think I have my feet sufficiently on the ground that if somebody said my 15K piece of jewelry - be it e-ring, watch, or solid-diamond back-scratcher - was "entry level," I'd feel like they were a douche ... but I wouldn't take it as a slight on my very nice new thing-a-ma-bob. But, yeah, that's a put-down and not a compliment.

Photos please! you can't just mention a solid-diamond back-scratcher without including glamour shots!
Or is it merely an entry level solid-diamond back-scratcher?

 

[mary poppins]

Left handed compliment in the situation described.

 

[Imdanny]

No not with watches. You would never insult someone by saying a watch needed more complications. Just like if it was a stainless steel watch you would never say one word about it not being rose gold. You just don't ever assume that a watch needs to be "upgraded." For an example, if you look at JLC's Master Control series, each one is unique. You don't "upgrade" watches. You might sell one to get one that's more expensive but it's not because the watch needs to be "upgraded." In fact, some of the most respected watches are not necessarily the most expensive. The watch forums have become about showing off, and as Tim said, about acting like a show off. Very true.

 

[Hera]

Well, in considering that a watch forum probably has some VERY expensive watches, perhaps that is entry level for such a forum. Regardless, it's still incredibly rude to state as much.

 

[Imdanny]

I spent 7 years on the watch forums and never heard the term "entry level" or "upgrade" (still not said at a watch forum to date as far as I know) until I opened this thread. I thought it was about cars or jobs.

 

[VRBeauty]

In the context of a forum devoted to luxury watches, the "entry level" comment probably was intended as a backhanded comment (AKA a put-down).

In the real world however, "entry level" merely acknowledges the fact that not all of us have the same amount of money to invest/play with/throw around, and that most of us have to start somewhere less than where we aspire to be. The term probably originated in real estate and reflects that fact that it used to be possible to buy a low-cost home, and eventually use the appreciation in that home to move up to larger house, "better" neighborhood, etc. It was part of the reality most people faced and part of a smart strategy most people used to trade their way up to a home that was somehow more than entry level. Unfortunately that world and those assumptions have kind of been turned upside-down in the past few years. From an investment standpoint it still makes more sense than, for example, the luxury watch world and comparable milieus, however!

 

[zoebartlett]

It can definitely have a negative connotation. That said, I see it in the same light as a "starter home"... it's something that is a good first purchase, but you will outgrow it and want something bigger and/or better when you can eventually afford it. In other words, it's a respectable buy for a first-timer, but you'll almost certainly want to upgrade.

That's how I took it to mean, too.

I definitely thought it was a rude comment. $15K isn't exactly a drop in the bucket. That's a LOT of money, and I'd be ticked if someone called something I worked hard to buy "entry level."

 

[mrswahs]

It can definitely have a negative connotation. That said, I see it in the same light as a "starter home"... it's something that is a good first purchase, but you will outgrow it and want something bigger and/or better when you can eventually afford it. In other words, it's a respectable buy for a first-timer, but you'll almost certainly want to upgrade.

See, even that comment bothers me. We just bought our first home, with every intention of it being our forever home. It's got a 3/4 acre lot, 4 BRs, 2 bath. It's smallish, but it's cute and right for us. Most of the people who saw it talked about how amazing it was and how lucky we were to have such a beautiful home as our first home. When we showed our parents the house the day we offered on it, my dad said if we weren't going to offer on it, he would. Anyway, one couple said it was a great 'starter home.' They have a starter home that they bought a few years ago, but that's not what this is. We have every intention of staying in this house as long as we continue to have work in this area.

I find that comment just as offensive as 'entry-level' being said to a $15k watch.

 

[partgypsy]

I don't understand why people can't just say, that's a nice 4 bedroom, or in our case that is a nice 3 bedroom house, and leave it at that.

Yeah I guess it's all about context. When we got our house over 10 years ago, one of the real estate people used the term it being a good "starter home" and my husband said "I don't believe in starter homes".
If we wanted we could have move to a bigger home. As most couples we know have changed houses it's not like we haven't considered it. But all things considering we like 95% of the things about our house, have a low fixed mortgage, and will have it paid off earlier than the traditional 30 year mortgage.

Another thing annoying is that the real estate guy kept joking we were "upper class", and I was saying no, we are middle class, look up the definition. It's like they want to butter you up so you buy a bigger house than you need.

 

[SneakyBF]

Not sure what brand and what not but knowing that watches can easily hit 6 figures it may actually be an entry level watch for a manufacturer.

Its still a crappy way to talk to someone though.

 

[Haven]

It can definitely have a negative connotation. That said, I see it in the same light as a "starter home"... it's something that is a good first purchase, but you will outgrow it and want something bigger and/or better when you can eventually afford it. In other words, it's a respectable buy for a first-timer, but you'll almost certainly want to upgrade.

See, even that comment bothers me. We just bought our first home, with every intention of it being our forever home. It's got a 3/4 acre lot, 4 BRs, 2 bath. It's smallish, but it's cute and right for us. Most of the people who saw it talked about how amazing it was and how lucky we were to have such a beautiful home as our first home. When we showed our parents the house the day we offered on it, my dad said if we weren't going to offer on it, he would. Anyway, one couple said it was a great 'starter home.' They have a starter home that they bought a few years ago, but that's not what this is. We have every intention of staying in this house as long as we continue to have work in this area.

I find that comment just as offensive as 'entry-level' being said to a $15k watch.

I definitely agree with SonnyJane and MrsWahs.

It's a rude thing to say, regardless of the intention. Some people just don't know any better, and some people wear their insecurities like a banner across the chest.

Nearly everyone we know called our home a "great starter home" when they first saw it. It's a small ranch home and we love it. Our beliefs about the space required to raise a family are different than most of the people in our circle. That's okay. Their comments about our "starter home" didn't bother me, they just made me chuckle. We both grew up in small homes and plan to raise our future kids in our small home. I'm happy with the decision we made, and I think that makes me immune to rude comments about it.

Thinly veiled insults on Internet forums are particularly interesting to me, now that I think of it. Nobody *really* knows who you are or where you come from or how you live, so it's always fascinating to see which details are important for people to share about themselves, and what's more, HOW they share them can be so telling. I've learned a lot about myself from rereading old posts on PS. It's not always easy to go back and read them, but it is always telling!

 

[Guilty Pleasure]

Maybe it is a starter watch. I don't have the details, so I can't know if it's a snotty comment or a truthful compliment. Here are a few cases where this 15k watch could be considered a "starter watch":

1. If it's the least expensive watch in a particular manufacturer's line ( I still wouldn't call it a starter watch to the guy's face). By comparison, I considere a 3 series BMW a starter BMW, even it is more expensive than a lot of other cars.
2. If the poster has stated that he intends to collect watches, and this is his first large purchase. (He is starting his collection, and this is a great choice for his first luxury watch.)
3. If the average consumer on this forum owns much nicer or more expensive watches, then perhaps a 15k watch is a starter watch in this community.


"Entry-level" does not have to be an insult. I have just purchased an entry-level dslr camera, and even though the price tage is HUGE to me at 5 times what my normal nice point and shoot would cost (after getting a nice lens), I don't find it offensive at all that this camera is considered entry-level in the realm of dslr. $1000+ may be a lot to pay for a camera when compared to all the options out there, but it's pretty inexpensive compared to the pros!