They say he used to wear a plastic watch.
I'm not sure why this point was really made - but of course, any man with billions of dollars would be expected to wear only the best. Right?
I've had a Casio watch for years. I've replaced the wristband 3 times, and it's in need of a new one again - has been for a few years now, and I have no idea when and if I'll bother to get a new one since the replacements clearly aren't as durable as the original was. I've actually gotten quite used to using my cellphone as my timepiece.
However, I like my Casio watch. It's been good to me. And if I were to end up with even a few million dollars tomorrow from winning the lottery (my chances are unfortunately hampered by my ineligibility), chances are, I'd still wear my Casio watch. I might buy something dressier for special occasions, but I wouldn't need to wear it all the time. My plastic watch would still be my watch of choice.
My point is, maybe he wore a plastic watch because he wanted to. Maybe they didn't make gold watches with digital faces back in the '90s when he "reportedly" wore this watch of implied frugality, and he can't be bothered to read an analog watch face. Maybe, just maybe (and this'll sound crazy), his choice of watch was completely independent of his wealth or lifestyle. There are tons of reasons why someone might choose one watch over the other, and it seems to me to be a desperate attempt to prove one's point by assuming such a quality as cheapness or frugality to be the reason behind such a trivial decision.
I guess it just feels to me like a petty assumption, one that I wouldn't expect from a respectable news outlet. I dunno. What do you think?