To monitor my heart rate or not to monitor my heart rate?

I have been thinking for a while that I need a good watch with GPS. And yesterday, I decided that I need one NOW. I have done some research, on the web and at City Sports and narrowed it down to a few. The best looking is the Nike+ watch, Nike's first watch with GPS.

This watch, unfortunately, has extremely mixed reviews and it seems that, being their first, Nike still has some kinks to work out. Though I do like the look and have fun tracking runs on nikeplus.com, I have leaned more towards Garmin, which is most highly-reputable in the industry. 

The Garmin Forerunner 405 (above) is  within my price range but also has good reviews and many capabilities. However, it is huge. According to some reviews, it's many capabilities are far beyond the needs of a not-so-serious runner like myself. The Garmin Forerunner 110 (below), one of their new watches released in the spring of 2010, is apparently perfect for beginning runners as it tracks pace, distance, time, laps, and average pace per lap. It may do some other stuff too that was beyond my comprehension. The one continuing complaint with the Forerunner 110 is that it doesn't show current pace. It shows average pace for the current mile and for each previous mile. I think that is all I need.

So I have pretty much settled on the 110. The big question now is to get the one above or the one below which comes with an added heart rate monitor and has the ability to display heart rate on the watch. It is about $50 more for the watch with heart-rate capabilities. This isn't something I use now but could I want it in the future? Is it an important thing for me to monitor if I'm going to take this seriously? Is it worth $50 just for the fact that the heart-rate watch is so much prettier?

I really want to order this thing asap but I'm at a standstill. I'm really not sure which one to get. Do any of you wear a Garmin 110? Or any Garmin that monitors your heart rate? If so, is it worth it?