I believe there must be a logical fallacy to describe a situation in which ownership of related items or paraphernalia ascribes (but only in the owner's mind) value, ability, or knowledge to said owner. The owner positions themselves as something of an expert on or using the thing(s) they own despite evidence to the contrary that is readily visible to everyone else.
Here are a few examples:
- Owning a high-powered computer causes the owner to believe they are the best programmer (despite extensive peer-reviewed samples to the contrary)
- Owning an expensive car causes the owner to believe they are a good driver (despite their driving record)
- Owning numerous workshop tools causes the owner to believe they are good at wood working (despite their inability to create anything)
- Owning a large library of books causes the owner to believe they're well-read (despite not having read most of the books they own)
This fallacy(?), when I've experienced it, seems to also come with a belief that others should agree about the expertise of the owner because "I think I know a little more about driving than you do. Have you seen my car?"
My best guess is from Wikipedia:
An argumentum ad crumenam argument, also known as an argument to the purse, is the informal fallacy of concluding that a statement is correct because the speaker is rich.
However, I'm not sure if the definition of "rich" could be applied in the way I've used it.