You see this? This is called a “smart phone.” Not only will this tell me the time like your watch, but it can also do a bunch of other things. I can look at pictures of raccoons wearing silly hats or I can use it to insult someone on the other side of the planet. It also cost a fraction of what your watch cost. I’m sorry to tell you this, but I think it should go and get your money back. It sounds like you’ve been scammed. As a matter of fact, let me give you my friend’s phone number. He’s an accountant, and I think he’ll be able to help stop you from making stupid purchases in the future.
Prove me wrong: Fine art is a money laundering scheme.
You get some guy who went to art school to slosh some house paint on a sheet. You then hire a white woman who dresses like Malian royalty to come describe it in contradictory adjectives “It’s subtle, yet bold” while her gay sidekick in a turtleneck flamboyantly slaps his face and gasps. Sell $20 worth of cotton and $30 worth of Valspar for $3.247 million, and you’ve just successfully covered up the sale of 94 more brown women.
Prove me wrong: Fine art is a money laundering scheme.
Why would I try when it is a fact? I would caveat that fine art “can be” a money laundering scheme (quite easily). It isn’t always a money laundering scheme.
You see this? This is called a “smart phone.” Not only will this tell me the time like your watch, but it can also do a bunch of other things. I can look at pictures of raccoons wearing silly hats or I can use it to insult someone on the other side of the planet. It also cost a fraction of what your watch cost. I’m sorry to tell you this, but I think it should go and get your money back. It sounds like you’ve been scammed. As a matter of fact, let me give you my friend’s phone number. He’s an accountant, and I think he’ll be able to help stop you from making stupid purchases in the future.
No. A cheap $100 phone is way more reliable than the most expensive Rolex thanks to NTP.
If you’re an astute collector, fine watches are (like art) a solid form of investment.
Prove me wrong: Fine art is a money laundering scheme.
You get some guy who went to art school to slosh some house paint on a sheet. You then hire a white woman who dresses like Malian royalty to come describe it in contradictory adjectives “It’s subtle, yet bold” while her gay sidekick in a turtleneck flamboyantly slaps his face and gasps. Sell $20 worth of cotton and $30 worth of Valspar for $3.247 million, and you’ve just successfully covered up the sale of 94 more brown women.
Why would I try when it is a fact? I would caveat that fine art “can be” a money laundering scheme (quite easily). It isn’t always a money laundering scheme.