NW-Bound
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 35,712
Which is totally cool but I guess what I have a problem with is this "air of superiority" we here project about what we spend our money on. Just the fact of this thread, 'bling=bad" when the reality is we all spend money on our own choice of "bling". Be it travel, guitars, vacation homes or bags. Why should Martha carry a 50k bag if she so desires, she most definitely can afford one.
So in reality if the definition of "bling" was extended, a whole lot of these no responses would have to change. One man's bling is another man's necessity.
I am thinking about the last statement. Most of us have a regular home, and I wonder if tiny home dwellers think of our homes as blings.
I think a bling must have at least the following attributes. First, it must be expensive and uncommon. Two, it must be visible, readily identified and associated with the owner or bearer.
I want to say that the owner of a bling would require the above attributes before buying it, but I cannot read people's mind to assert that about any random person. It may very well be that someone who buys a $50K handbag does so because she loves the beauty of the bag, even if she does not use it in the public or to take it to a ballroom. She might just keep it for private admiration and contemplation.
I have heard stories of billionaires who buy rare paintings for their own enjoyment, and at most share the viewing with their close friends over an after-meal drink and cigars. Are these collectibles bling?
I do not have excess money to acquire any such treasure, so I do not know if I would buy something like that if I were sufficiently rich. But if I would buy something as a collection item, I would not think of it as bling.
Last edited: