Phil's formula again.

Chris Hobson

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
A while ago I mentioned a piece of homespun philosophy from a work colleague called Phil. I'm not sure whether it was original to him but it was about balancing cheapness with quality.

"The real price of something is the original cost divided by how many times that you get to use it."

Here are some examples of people who took Phil's formula to extremes.


I have a microwave oven and a vacuum cleaner both over thirty years old. I also have a Leatherman pocket knife that cost £80 that I have had for only a couple of years, but I use it several times every single day. So I'm certainly trying.
 
A while ago I mentioned a piece of homespun philosophy from a work colleague called Phil. I'm not sure whether it was original to him but it was about balancing cheapness with quality.

"The real price of something is the original cost divided by how many times that you get to use it."

Here are some examples of people who took Phil's formula to extremes.


I have a microwave oven and a vacuum cleaner both over thirty years old. I also have a Leatherman pocket knife that cost £80 that I have had for only a couple of years, but I use it several times every single day. So I'm certainly trying.
There's a similar saying in relation to racing bikes: "You can choose any two from cheap, light and strong".
 
It is the philosophy I take with sunglasses.
I used to get cheapo ones, they would either break or I would lose them.
When I bought some Raybans, I looked after them better, still have them ten years later and wear them every opportunity.
They have probably worked out cheaper per wear than the cheapo ones.
 
One or two commenters have pointed out that many old electrical appliances are very inefficient and cost more to run than something more modern which I think is fair comment. Our ancient gas boiler cost much more to run than our new one and took up a lot more space.
 
A while ago I mentioned a piece of homespun philosophy from a work colleague called Phil. I'm not sure whether it was original to him but it was about balancing cheapness with quality.

"The real price of something is the original cost divided by how many times that you get to use it."

Here are some examples of people who took Phil's formula to extremes.


I have a microwave oven and a vacuum cleaner both over thirty years old. I also have a Leatherman pocket knife that cost £80 that I have had for only a couple of years, but I use it several times every single day. So I'm certainly trying.
You may like to take a look at Terry Pratchets Sam Vimes’s ‘Boots’ Theory of Socio-economic Unfairness
It's actually taken off - if you google 'vimes boot index' you'll find quite a lot of hits
 
I believe in buying quality, buy cheap, buy twice ( or more). I’ve been married since 1980 and I have a Wedgewood casserole I still use, Ravenglass trifle bowl, which I don’t use much, but it came with 8 small dessert bowls which we use all the time for loads of things, they go in the dishwasher too. I still have, and use daily a set of three genuine Tupperware biscuit tubs, the lids are emerald green as my first kitchen in my present home had green curtains, white and green checked Lino and Kingfisher washable wallpaper! Remember those? I have lived here 38 years. We’re such a throw away society these days. If you can, always buy the best, never mind my Tupperware tubs don’t match my present kitchen which is a more subtle shade of green!
 
We still have a stainless steel mixing bowl bought as a wedding present over 45 years ago. Still in great condition. Much better quality than any I have looked at in the 10 years or so. I wanted to buy a slightly smaller size but all the bowls now seem flimsy by comparison.
 
Buying good quality stuff that will last is normally justified by the formula. There are often exceptions though, cheap stuff that actually turns out to be really good. A guy who blogs about, among other things, motorcycles got himself into a bit of bother with his readership when he slagged off the humble MZ motorbike. The MZ was a product of cold war East Germany. Motorcycles from the communist block tended to be not that good but they were cheap. The Russian bikes were very poorly made, poorly finished and tended to fall apart as soon as you tried to use them. The Czechoslovakian CZ and Jawa bikes were pretty indestructible but crude and slow. The East German MZ was an exception. The styling of the bikes wasn't to everyone's taste, they were rather odd looking things, but they were very well made, reliable and easy to fix if they did go wrong. They were very thoughtfully designed and practical. I had owned several and was keen to leap to their defence.
 
Buying good quality stuff that will last is normally justified by the formula. There are often exceptions though, cheap stuff that actually turns out to be really good. A guy who blogs about, among other things, motorcycles got himself into a bit of bother with his readership when he slagged off the humble MZ motorbike. The MZ was a product of cold war East Germany. Motorcycles from the communist block tended to be not that good but they were cheap. The Russian bikes were very poorly made, poorly finished and tended to fall apart as soon as you tried to use them. The Czechoslovakian CZ and Jawa bikes were pretty indestructible but crude and slow. The East German MZ was an exception. The styling of the bikes wasn't to everyone's taste, they were rather odd looking things, but they were very well made, reliable and easy to fix if they did go wrong. They were very thoughtfully designed and practical. I had owned several and was keen to leap to their defence.
I remember riding one of those as a combination: I felt like I was in a James Bond film 😎.
 
Buying good quality stuff that will last is normally justified by the formula. There are often exceptions though, cheap stuff that actually turns out to be really good. A guy who blogs about, among other things, motorcycles got himself into a bit of bother with his readership when he slagged off the humble MZ motorbike. The MZ was a product of cold war East Germany. Motorcycles from the communist block tended to be not that good but they were cheap. The Russian bikes were very poorly made, poorly finished and tended to fall apart as soon as you tried to use them. The Czechoslovakian CZ and Jawa bikes were pretty indestructible but crude and slow. The East German MZ was an exception. The styling of the bikes wasn't to everyone's taste, they were rather odd looking things, but they were very well made, reliable and easy to fix if they did go wrong. They were very thoughtfully designed and practical. I had owned several and was keen to leap to their defence.
Similarly, Soviet-built cars were sometimes imported into the UK and were very cheap. They were poorly made by UK standards but were designed to be used in Soviet countries and so were ideally suited for those conditions.
 
The Lada was a usable car, the Mosovic was awful, a brand new one would be worthless in a couple of years.
I remember being in former Soviet countries though where the Moskvich and Zaporozhets were able to cope with the conditions (especially the low octane fuel!) in a way that Western cars simply wouldn't have ben able to.
 
Back
Top