Are watches meant to be worn?

[DirtyDozen12]

Yes, of course.

People often express this sentiment when others are unsure about whether or not to use a given watch. Sometimes, people try to illustrate the point by drawing a comparison with cars. What's the point of having a car if you don't drive it?

The simple answer to these questions is that using an object for its intended purpose is not the only way to enjoy it. While I would want to drive my Ferrari 250 GTO, others might derive more satisfaction from admiring it in a garage. Is it a shame that no one will be able to hear the V12 bark? Arguably, yes. But this apparent loss does not negate the enjoyment that such a "garage queen" might bring to its owner.

To digress, I would contend that cars and watches are significantly different in at least one major way: driving a car requires almost constant action, whereas wearing a watch is predominantly passive. The difference in experience between looking at a static car, and driving it, is massive. On the other hand, the difference in experience between holding a watch, and wearing it for the day, is much smaller. While it is true that some watches require or afford more active engagement (e.g., manual wind movements, chronographs, alarms, repeaters), the comparison with cars still seems to be a stretch.

An additional question for the "intended purpose" line of argumentation is, to what degree must one use an object for its intended purpose? Should every Rolex Sea-Dweller regularly descend hundreds of feet under water? Should all Longines Lindbergh watches be used for air navigation? This seems to be an arbitrarily high bar that entirely misses the reason why most people buy watches in the 21st century: because they like them.

At scale, watches are no longer a functional necessity in order to keep track of the time and date. Instead, they are worn voluntarily by people who like them. The explanations that people offer for enjoying watches are diverse, and I think that it should come as no surprise that such diverse explanations will result in a diversity of practices.

Rant over.

 

[redpcar]

 

[M'Bob]

DirtyDozen12

Yes, of course.

People often express this sentiment when others are unsure about whether or not to use a given watch. Sometimes, people try to illustrate the point by drawing a comparison with cars. What's the point of having a car if you don't drive it?

The simple answer to these questions is that using an object for its intended purpose is not the only way to enjoy it. While I would want to drive my Ferrari 250 GTO, others might derive more satisfaction from admiring it in a garage. Is it a shame that no one will be able to hear the V12 bark? Arguably, yes. But this apparent loss does not negate the enjoyment that such a "garage queen" might bring to its owner.

To digress, I would contend that cars and watches are significantly different in at least one major way: driving a car requires almost constant action, whereas wearing a watch is predominantly passive. The difference in experience between looking at a static car, and driving it, is massive. On the other hand, the difference in experience between holding a watch, and wearing it for the day, is much smaller. While it is true that some watches require or afford more active engagement (e.g., manual wind movements, chronographs, alarms, repeaters), the comparison with cars still seems to be a stretch.

An additional question for the "intended purpose" line of argumentation is, to what degree must one use an object for its intended purpose? Should every Rolex Sea-Dweller regularly descend hundreds of feet under water? Should all Longines Lindbergh watches be used for air navigation? This seems to be an arbitrarily high bar that entirely misses the reason why most people buy watches in the 21st century: because they like them.

At scale, watches are no longer a functional necessity in order to keep track of the time and date. Instead, they are worn voluntarily by people who like them. The explanations that people offer for enjoying watches are diverse, and I think that it should come as no surprise that such diverse explanations will result in a diversity of practices.

Rant over.

Totally agree, and nicely stated. I have some I wear a lot; some I wear occasionally; some I never wear and take a gander at; and some I know I have, and never visit.

Your money, your hobby, your call. The judgment of others is completely irrelevant.

 

[blufinz52]

DirtyDozen12

At scale, watches are no longer a functional necessity in order to keep track of the time and date. Instead, they are worn voluntarily by people who like them. The explanations that people offer for enjoying watches are diverse, and I think that it should come as no surprise that such diverse explanations will result in a diversity of practices.

This

 

[p4ul]

…..not when mowing, snow blowing or submerging.

 

[Dan S]

Great post, and hopefully this will help some people to be more tolerant of collectors. It's fine to me if some people choose to limit their watches to a group that they wear regularly. If you're not a collector, that's fine. But that's not my choice, and I don't appreciate the not-so-subtle negativity towards collectors on this forum, often using the exact phrase in the title of your post in a mocking way.

 

[pdxleaf]

Stop trying to distract me with your logic!

Edit: if you're not going to drive your 250, you should at least share pictures.

Edited: Mar 3, 2024

 

[mydeafcat]

M'Bob

Your money, your hobby, your call. The judgment of others is completely irrelevant.

This. 100%.

 

[blufinz52]

Dan S

Great post, and hopefully this will help some people to be more tolerant of collectors. It's fine to me if some people choose to limit their watches to a group that they wear regularly. If you're not a collector, that's fine. But that's not my choice, and I don't appreciate the not-so-subtle negativity towards collectors on this forum, often using the exact phrase in the title of your post in a mocking way.

Dan, I'm not a collector, so maybe I don't pick up on negativity, but I assumed most here are collectors. I don't see mocking in the title of this post, but again, maybe because collecting is not my thing. I applaud those who have a passion for collecting watches. Some of the collections are amazing.

 

[Scooterino36]

Dan S

Great post, and hopefully this will help some people to be more tolerant of collectors. It's fine to me if some people choose to limit their watches to a group that they wear regularly. If you're not a collector, that's fine. But that's not my choice, and I don't appreciate the not-so-subtle negativity towards collectors on this forum, often using the exact phrase in the title of your post in a mocking way.

I'm still a relatively young collector, and I am slowly seeing myself shifting from the obsession of having a perfectly utilized and well worn collection (which is all a bit of cosplay, if we are being honest with ourselves), to something more or a wider collection which may include watches I only admire or wear sparingly.

It's ultimately supposed to be good fun, right?

 

[noelekal]

Is this topic akin to saving a trophy wife?

 

[GuiltyGear]

I think it puts it more into perspective if we compare watch collecting to coin collecting. You're not going to use those rare and valuable coins in every day trading just to get some satisfaction out of it. Watches or many other collecting hobbies aren't any different.

I like to wear my watches, but I don't have pieces that I would consider worth putting in a display stand. When and if I'll have any, I'll be treating them like gold coins.

 

[Dan S]

blufinz52

Dan, I'm not a collector, so maybe I don't pick up on negativity, but I assumed most here are collectors. I don't see mocking in the title of this post, but again, maybe because collecting is not my thing. I applaud those who have a passion for collecting watches. Some of the collections are amazing.

Not the OP, but other people will often say "watches are meant to be worn" as a way to mock collectors.

 

[pdxleaf]

Dan S

Not the OP, but other people will often say "watches are meant to be worn" as a way to mock collectors.

I know I have said that. I don't think I consciously intended to mock collectors, but I certainly understand why that would be received as mockery. I apologize to everyone who felt belittled or mocked. It's definitely insensitive, intended or not.

There's a tendency to apply an individual's beliefs to a wider community, which is wrong. Reminds me of a recent comment I read: "your religion says what you cannot do; it doesn't say what I cannot do." Applies to watches too.

I have also said 'watches are meant to be worn' as a rationalization for selling a watch that I would like to keep but need to free up finds to buy a new shiny object. Makes me feel less poor.

 

[MrFriday*]

I am relatively new to the hobby and yes - my intention buying the first watch(es) was to wear them regularly. I also like some marks of use as these show me that the watches „lived“ with me.

On the other hand I would also like to own some more precious pieces (precious to me; e.g. Constellation Deluxe, Centenary) that would be worn more sparingly/for special occasions to keep them in a nice condition. It also gives me a lot of joy to sit on the couch and just handle watches and see the hands moving - so I guess I could also get to the point of having pieces that are there to be looked at. That is why I find a JLC Atmos appealing

 

[Canuck]

Having a watch collection is the closest you can come to having you cake, and eating it, too!

 

[Dsloan]

I definitely have several watches that I don't really wear but I just think are neat - for historical significance, for sentimental reasons, because I like the design, etc.

 

[ErichPryde]

Dan S

Not the OP, but other people will often say "watches are meant to be worn" as a way to mock collectors.

I agree with @pdxleaf. There's a framing error at work, and it's something I've seen both sides do (and I've been guilty of it as well). People who buy watches may find it strange that someone has a case full of pristine watches just to look at, and people who collect cases full of watches may find it strange that someone would be willing to wear an expensive, collectible watch doing activities that could result in scratches. Both sides often criticize the other as a result of this framing error.

I started as a "watches are meant to be worn" kinda guy, but perhaps I'm steering away from that a bit. Some are meant to be worn more than others, and that's ok, too.

 

[Dan S]

pdxleaf

I know I have said that. I don't think I consciously intended to mock collectors, but I certainly understand why that would be received as mockery. I apologize to everyone who felt belittled or mocked. It's definitely insensitive, intended or not.

There's a tendency to apply an individual's beliefs to a wider community, which is wrong. Reminds me of a recent comment I read: "your religion says what you cannot do; it doesn't say what I cannot do." Applies to watches too.

I have also said 'watches are meant to be worn' as a rationalization for selling a watch that I would like to keep but need to free up finds to buy a new shiny object. Makes me feel less poor.

I didn't mean for it to sound like that phrase is always meant to mock collectors. I can absolutely see that you may be thinking of your own watches when making that comment.

But it is a funny phrase to use in the context of any sort of collecting. Almost every object has a nominal purpose, but the nature of collecting is generally to possess objects beyond the level of simple utility.

 

[Waltesefalcon]

DirtyDozen12

At scale, watches are no longer a functional necessity in order to keep track of the time and date. Instead, they are worn voluntarily by people who like them. The explanations that people offer for enjoying watches are diverse, and I think that it should come as no surprise that such diverse explanations will result in a diversity of practices.

The only reason I started wearing wrist watches was for work. I needed to be able to keep up with the time while lecturing.