He buys the second cheapest. His reasoning: the cheapest is, well the cheapest. It will be of the lowest quality. The second cheapest will be of a higher quality. And in this day and age, many products are not built to last, so why buy the so-called best.
His example at the time was a jacket he had purchased. He did a bunch of research online and looked at many jackets. He decided on one near the bottom of the cost scale, but not at the very bottom. At the time, he had that jacket for at least five years I believe. He knew any jackets of a lower cost, would mean much lower quality. He surmised those cheaper jackets may not even last a whole year. Now he did not expect the jacket he bought to last as long as it had already, but it showed no signs of failing. In fact, I thought it was new.
Why does James generally avoid top shelf items? His logic was that you cannot improve quality beyond a certain point. When you get to the top line items, you are often paying for just a name or style. Plus, he said he was a cheapskate. Being a cheapskate myself, I was intrigued.
Having been in the military and now the Scouting movement and trying to be as much of an outdoors person I can be, I have come across a lot of outdoor gear. Much of it is absolute crap. Much of it is overpriced. Much of it is both. Some of it is well made and very expensive. Less is well made and reasonably priced.
As a result, there is gear out there I want, but priced out of my budget. Also, if it is priced affordably, it is often poorly made.
So, using James' method, I started looking at outdoor equipment differently. It also helped that at one time I was into stereo equipment and was always seeking that real-life sound quality. Fortunately, for me, I never could really afford that type of equipment. Having been in the military and using various firearms and also very loud artillery pieces, my appreciation for that type of sound can no longer be met.
Upon reflection and remembering what other stereo-heads discussed about sound quality, I remember our general conclusion was that at the time, in the 1980s, after about $2000-$3000, you are just throwing money at the idea of better sound. For one, unless you are in a totally enclosed environment, you will always have outside factors affecting your sound quality. Also, the quality of the tracks you are playing will affect your quality and so many other factors.
As a result, I went the way of the all-in-one stereo system. For a couple of hundred bucks I could listen to my tunes and make mixed tapes and not worry about my speaker cones absorbing moisture, or my cable contact points oxidising, or dust on the heads or needles, or if the CD was AAD or DDD. Who cares, I can still listen to what I like and enjoy it. Sure, maybe I cannot sit in a sofa-chair and be blown away, but music is music.
Now, back to outdoor gear. I have been searching for near on three decades for a waterproof, windproof, breathable jacket. Most of the ones I have come across over the years are several hundred dollars. The cheapest I ever found was $300, most are about $500 or more. My problem is that I want a jacket with a lot of pockets, a removable or stowable hood, and not in some crazy-assed bright colour or black. For years I was satisfied with old military coats and ponchos, but it can be awkward if you are very active while wearing a poncho.
So, all the jackets I have come across have never met all the requirements, except a couple of times. However, I am not paying $600 for a jacket to wear in the woods. My tuxedo did not cost that much. Then, one day, I was in an outdoor store in Ottawa and came a cross a jacket that was very much like the one I bought for the boy a couple of years previously.
It was waterproof, windproof, breathable (which after a certain point of exertion, no longer happens), an earth-tone green colour, and the hood was stowable. The downside, only two pockets. The upside, it was on sale for about sixty smackers - discontinued, old stock. I could hear James in my ear saying, "Buy the second cheapest jacket you can find. Time for compromise." In a voice like Obi-Wan Kenobi.
I realised I may never find the jacket I want without paying a bomb. So, using James' "First Theory Of Cheapskatedness", I bought the jacket. I usually layer my clothes when outdoors, giving me extra pockets and I usually have some kind of pack, satchel, or pouch on me too. I decided extra pockets on the jacket were superfluous. I am also coming back around to the concept of ponchos. Next time I am in the States, I am going to seek out a US military poncho. Ponchos worked in the past, and I am sure they will work again. I am not running a steeplechase or fighting zombies while wearing one. If a poncho is good enough for John D. McCann, it is good enough for Mrs. Kaminski's little boy too.
Plus, I have a couple of ponchos in my gear from over twenty years ago that were packed for emergencies. One I used to make a Johnny Rambo costume. Being a cheapskate, I will pull them out and do some field tests.
how i went for hallowe'en one year
except for his dark hair, we could be brothers
(courtesy heritage auctions)
One more example. I like sporks for camping. You can eat anything with a spoon, but a spork makes some dining tasks easier. I once ate a steak out of a canteen cup with a spoon and my field knife. I had a plastic spork for years in my lunch bucket when I worked construction, but it finally gave up the ghost. I could not find another one. However, there are all kinds of metal ones. Many are poorly designed, many of low quality material, and many are expensive. Some are all three. So, I tracked down one that fit the bill. It is made by Sea To Summit and it is a copy of the Optimus Long Titanium Spoon. All they did was modify the end to include tines and made it out of aluminium instead.
It cost about $10 taxes in. Expensive you say. Well, there are many poorly designed ones that cost upwards of thirty bones that are made by companies with respectable names in the outdoor gear world. So, a bit of an extravagant item perhaps, but a very handy one in the bush, especially when eating out of ration packs. Again, I did not buy the most expensive, nor did I buy the cheapest.
It is amazing how often I apply James' theorem in my daily life. I use it especially for books I want to purchase. However, I have modified James' dictum somewhat. I have applied something I read in one of John McCann's books, Build the Perfect Survival Kit. He states that he " always felt that you should spend as much as you can afford on components..." and that you should "determine a budget for your kit." Mr. McCann is referring to survival gear specifically, but this applies to everything really.
I have added one more modification. Just because something is from a reputable company, does not mean the product itself will be reliable. I commented on this in an earlier post, sometimes good companies go bad. They often design, build, and market products for mass consumption without concern for the purpose it is supposed to be intended for. Do not buy it for looks or reputation. Buy it for the task it is intended for.
Just as I do not buy $200 hiking boots for the boy as they will fit him for no longer than a year, I help him choose something that should last at least until he outgrows them and be of adequate quality to not fall apart on the trail.
1) Do not buy the most expensive product, as you are often buying perceived improvements over the competition.
2) Do not buy the cheapest product, as well it is the cheapest and it is almost always reflected in the quality.
3) Set a budget and buy the best product that you can afford.
4) Know what you are buying, do not blindly follow a brand because it met your expectations in the past.
5) Finally, buy the product to fulfil the task it is intended for.
Oh, by the way. That jacket I bought? I have had it for over three years now and it still looks new.
No comments:
Post a Comment