Yes but has nothing to do with the purpose of a watch.
Of course it's a valid analogy, the extra cost is for the intangibles not the core function of an item in any case involving a basic need or quality. A $5 burger will fill you as well as a $50 one, a $1,000 watch won't tell you when noon is any better than a $10 one, a $50,000 car won't get you to work any faster than a $10,000 one, and a $1,000 cue won't help you make balls any better if used with the same shaft as a $100 one.
If people want to buy fancier stuff all fine by me, but don't pretend it due to some "need" or "function", it's all to show that one can afford to buy it and for the prestige and art factor of the item. I have a few nice cues, and a Movado watch, but I don't pretend any of my cues or watch is owned because they perform better. I just always liked the Movado design and bought one to have, I am just not silly enough to say that this $600 watch is any better as a watch than any $100 one you can buy at JC Penny. People just fake themselves into trying to justify things, like the pool hustlers that cheat some poor guy because he thought he could win and use the excuse or "well he wanted to take money from me so was greedy and now it's OK to lie about how good I play to take his". Someone dumps 10k on a watch and of course they need to say it's for something useful vs just the ability to spend the money on it when others can't or they are just a rich dope LOL Now they are a "collector" or a "connoisseur" instead of a sucker.
