36, 112 S.Ct. 1011, 1015, 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992); Hoffman v. Conn. Dept. of Income Maint., 492 U.S. 96, 104, 109 S.Ct. 2818, 2824, 106 L.Ed.2d 76 (1989). To completely ignore the value of the jewelry would be to ignore the limiting term “proper.” Without question, jewelry of an excessive value is more than “reasonably sufficient.” To deter mine what is “reasonably sufficient” or “of such ... value as to serve a need or purpose” and is, therefore, “proper,” we must consider whether an item’s value is more than the value of less expensive utilitarian items that would serve the same function. For example, “[a] watch is an item of everyday life, something worn by most people that could be considered a ‘minimum essential of daily life.’ ” In re Meyer, 211 B.R. 203, 215 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1997) (<HOLDING>). The Debtor’s Cartier watch (with a value of
holding that the debtors watch purchased for 30 served both a utilitarian and decorative purpose and could be exempted under virginias exemption for wearing apparel holding that a remand unless qualified or limited for a specific purpose is effective for the stated purpose and for consideration of any and all matters that the ij deems appropriate holding officers request to see both drivers and passengers licenses and questioning of both as to destination and purpose of trip not unreasonable holding that evidence of a defendants prior criminal convictions could be introduced for the purpose of sentence enhancement if the jury was instructed that the evidence could not be used for the purposes of determining guilt holding that denial of tax exemption for vacant lot held by church for no current purpose or any future exempt purpose did not violate first amendment