Sherwin: What watch-related trend, brand, and/or hype that you hate? And if you were forced to, how would you defend it?”
Chris: I’m not sure this is something I could deliver. I find most watch content contrived, and appreciate the irony considering that I do bother to talk shop. I have nothing but disdain for most content and trends in reporting or social media, I do not believe I would want to defend it. Watch content is the kindling to the fires that will eventually destroy the watch industry. Apologies, I think there are some excellent contributors out there (especially our platform), but individual voices are constantly drowned out by the screams of the horde, and as we see the industry suffer a huge downturn I believe you reap what you sow.
Sorry.
I was always a stepping stone for better contributors, and you attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
Sherwin: Too bad, Chris. I was looking forward in particular to what you would have come up with.
Greg: I just read the most pretentious post that perhaps I have ever seen on <platform name redacted>. Someone is going to narrate their process in refining their tastes watch by watch. Watch by excruciating watch.
We all do that a little bit. That is the game when you are writing about something as intrinsically boring and meaningless as collecting anything. We tell little personal story; we tell a little about a watch; and then we try to connect the two in a non-boring way. But this is my collection and my internal justification for each “timepiece”? No, no, no.
How much navel gazing is too much?
Chris: That was a hideous post. I wouldn’t mind, if it was engaging from the start.
I think the worst post I’ve seen is the “tell me the worst watch you’ve bought and how much” with an $18.5k Hublot kicking off the proceedings. The irony of the username was not lost on me either. The watch is hideous, not surprising he has had difficulty selling it in. Where do we really go from here? Certain platforms scraped through the base of the barrel a long time ago but ho hum-
Greg: None of us are that annoying at our most “navel gaziest”.
Chris: True – it’s a word salad at best, and it’s not the greatest read. Devoid of any character. I imagine watch one will extoll the virtues of the retention of value, prop up the most fragile facade of masculinity, and probably argue for why Tudor is the genuine successor to Rolex. Or it might be a Bond SMP. You know… the usual crap. If it wasn’t so predictable it would be genuinely tragic.
Watch content, when it is not trying to be educational or genuinely informative, is pretty desperate. I have noted that many personalities have shifted their focus back to the budget market, or Casio and Citizen, because of the issues with high-end not selling and the downturn in the market. The best watch for under “x” dollars… stop. Just stop. At under $100 I think we should just be grateful if it does anything other than tell the time, and that is fine. You are looking at copious amounts of landfill. If we want to consider budget watch collecting then maybe we should all start considering the environmental impact of the habit. No-one really thinks about how much impact 3 million F91W a year has on the planet. It is all about accumulation, rather than appreciation. I also have not failed to notice the sudden adoration of Citizen again. Is “Citizen better than Seiko”? Is a donkey better than a mule, both transport goods along mountain paths efficiently but one might kick more than the other, and it all depends on the cuteness of the face anyway. I like prettier horses more than ugly ones, I don’t understand why.
I think the boom-time of 2020+ has actually been bad for watch fans subconsciously, whether we are aware or not. We seem obsessed with the collecting, but I think we are losing the enjoyment side of it. I’m guilty of it a little, but I have also tried very hard to not purchase as much this year (I have failed). Chrono24 and other platforms still do not help, and neither does the constant stream of limited editions rather than genuine new lines from major trendsetters. The second-hand market has normalised a lot, so gone are the mad days of 2022 where we can expect profit on vanilla DateJusts and OPs. Tudor is also being found out to be what it always was, not the maker of cheap magic-money making machines, just a boring Rolex sister brand.
I want a narrative change, reflective of genuine concerns and future issues – whilst it seems that we can still gawp at shinies like dopamine-addicted magpies, I think we need to introduce a number of sensible elements into the watch narrative. Environmental impact, commercial transparency, genuine customer satisfaction, and longer term warranty and servicing are probably more of interest (or at least should be). Very little is talked about carbon footprint (it’s the sapphire crystal that demands a sizeable chunk of energy to make, I learned very recently) and I think the shift away from gluttony and avarice that drives current watch media would allow for more sensible discussions (including re-use, repurposing, etc…). Too many microbrands offer a standard 2-year warranty, which screams to me mass produced movements and cases, and I want to know what goes into a service, or how a brand intends to maintain a longer warranty period when offered. I want to know which brands are limiting supplies to watchmakers and repairers. I want to know the ins and outs of the price being charged because it’s gone up and there is little to show for what that is giving me. My SUF is infinitely cheaper than others with worse specs – who is taking the piss? Watches used to be for life – what changed? (Money – I’m not stupid, but we need to follow the money and ask uncomfortable questions).
Greg: Chris, you should work that mini-rant into a post of its own [Ed – he did]. Just to spray a little lighter fluid on the fire: the Spongebob Spinnakers are the nadir of the collection process. These are limited edition watches designed to hit the nostalgia nerve of a set of younger collectors who are finally able to pay their own bills. It is as cynical as it gets, and the watches are ugly juvenile things. I am embarrassed for all of us.
Chris: Spinnaker can, politely, do one. They want to charge over $600 for a Miyota powered skin diver, and they seem to think that limited drops are the way to go. All of these are mass-produced, low quality control, novelties (but what’s the joke, the fact you have to wear it?). Dartmouth Group though, they are a large umbrella with a lot of “microbrands”, people don’t realise this.
It is pretty dire atm. The irony is that I don’t think people know what constitutes a good watch, and as such, has allowed for the propagation of multiple nonsenses in the microbrand scene.
Ryan: I’ve been finding myself growing more and more frustrated at the way watch content and the hobby is going. It’s all so conformist and predictable. I really, really fancy what Chris has brought up about environmental impact, because, as a watchmaker, I’m all for repairing instead of replacing, but so much mis/disinformation is passed around that the everyman isn’t bothered anymore.
Look at the ETA 2824 and its derivatives offered in so many watches. That design is ancient. My Bucherer from the ’70s has the same movement, bar one or two tiny changes. Despite this, the prices keep climbing. This is why I haven’t been intrigued by a new watch in probably over a year. I’m pretty frugal, well, as frugal as a collector of anything can be, but I can’t help but feel abused being charged an arm and a leg for a watch that uses ancient parts and basic design elements. There are far too many watches that match that description.
Sherwin: <back on topic> “What watch-related trend, brand, and/or hype that you hate? And if you were forced to, how would you defend it?”
For me, it’s the MoonSwatch, Blancpain X Swatch, Kith Heuer, and other such over-hyped toy-like watches. First, why do I hate this trend? I hate that these things exist because they are just no good. I don’t need to own one to know that they are not worth the asking price. There had been reports of crowns falling off, colors bleeding, etc. They cater to the less serious of watch wearers and they get all the press when more deserving brands and models could benefit from the publicity they get.
That said, I think the hate for these watches is unjustified. They are fun and the community could use the levity. The way the community looks at watches with reverence like they’re sacrosanct artifacts is such a turn-off to me. Nihil est sanctum, I hope I got that right. Yes, people line up for these plastic toys. So? That’s such a fun thing to do. Maybe not for everyone but I can see the appeal. I once lined up for eight hours to get an autograph from a famous writer. I didn’t do it by myself. I had friends with me. We made it into an event. The camaraderie, the inside jokes, the embarrassment coming off of more sane people as they look at us with disgust are worth the eight hours in line. I’ve seen videos of Star Wars fans camping out for the latest movie (this was during the prequel trilogy. I don’t know if they line up for Star Wars anymore). I don’t think they were miserable at all. Fun is fun.
These watches also just pop. You don’t have to be an expert to spot a MoonSwatch. They’re the anti-Rolex. They stand out because they are kitsch, not because they’re classy. I must admit that I don’t feel hatred when I see them in other people’s wrists, I get excited, like seeing a child learning how to ride a bike for the first time. I hope that doesn’t sound condescending. I just mean that kids learning how to ride a bike have this glow of discovery, they’re just so happy.
With these plastic things, I’m seeing people wear watches for the joy of wearing watches. Maybe I’m wrong and they’re just flexing. And maybe what they’re flexing is their watch ignorance. I think that’s just dandy.
There’s the elephant in the room though, the price. Are they worth what they’re selling for? No. Absolutely not. I like saying that I don’t know enough to know any better but, in this case, I know enough about watch prices to know I don’t like those numbers. If I ever find one with a price that I find acceptable, I could see myself getting one, especially the Blancpain X Swatch. Like I said, probably the only way I’ll ever own a watch with Blancpain on the dial.
Greg: This intellectual exercise requires me to “hate” a current trend. As you know, my old school Stoicism does not allow me such trivialities as true hatred of watch trends. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that there are certain trends that I love less.
Let me defend integrated bracelets.
We are so used to today’s large variety of choices in straps, bands, and bracelets. No matter what strap a watch may come with we have the ability to swap it to fit our own idiosyncratic style. That may seem like freedom. However, just look at your watch box. If you are like me, you will see certain patterns repeated over and over. Apparently, my default style is a light brown (with orange hues) leather in a lizard pattern. I seem to default to this style, even when I think that I am being slightly transgressive. I have trapped myself in a prison of lizard. It is my reaction to having too many choices. (Back in 2004 when it was still a real magazine, Scientific American called this source of unhappiness the “Tyranny of Choice”.) By taking choice from me, the watch also takes regret. I can’t have made the wrong decision.
Architects and designers have always been frustrated that their work is not used as it was intended by their customers. Sleek modern chairs are re-upholstered in dainty floral patterns. Craftsmen wood elements are painted to “lighten them up.” Here the watch designer, Genta or his equivalent, has managed to keep his vision for his design complete and intact. The limitations of replacement choices mean that it is difficult to put my lizard patterns onto an integrated bracelet watch. I must preserve the artistic vision of the designer. My contribution would just ruin it.
Whatever the drawbacks of integrated bracelets, they should increase the happiness of consumers and designers.
Chris: The term “strap monster”. It’s puerile.
I believe the correct term is “versatile”. This watch is “versatile” because you can wear it with a different variety of straps. Being versatile does not warrant being called a monster.
I suppose the only real defence is at least it does not discriminate against anything, other than good taste.
Sherwin; Anyone else wants in on this round table?
I don’t think it’ll work with just Greg and me. That’s not a round table, more like a two-character play.
Greg: Well, Chris’ is just pithy. We can do a three-legged table.
It would be a shame to waste this sophistry.
Chris: It might be pithy, but it is an awful phrase.
If you wanted me to dig deeper, then there a variety of trends that do wind me up (still) – pun intended. I’m also going to be brief…
Tool watch fetishisation. The days of a watch as a genuine tool are past, this is actually a fashion trope. Bubble-bursting time, watches are fashion. I’m happy for many to think their watch is hardcore, and rugged, and hell – let it rule your wardrobe. It’s harmless, but it is a little sad. Perhaps I should let this one slide, I’m happy for them.
Spec blindness. The “I wont wear anything less that 200m WR as I can’t wash my hands”. The “why is a RO only 30m WR rated”? The specs are technically meaningless, as much as they are misunderstood. It also does not mean a pretty watch is no longer pretty. Perhaps I should applaud those who genuinely want the best bang for their buck, but not at the cost of common sense and appreciation. My dress watch doesn’t need to go diving, I’m not James Bond (who is a terrible male role model, but let’s unpack that at a later date). I’m also not shaking their hands.
Size issues. When a brand releases a 36mm watch it isn’t the second coming of Watch Jesus. At the same time, the number of folks who moan with equal fervour when the diameter dips below 40mm is equally worrying. We have all been conditioned to believe that big is better, but again, that’s fashion. Dirty word alert.
Fashion.
Run for the hills.
28-34mm is acceptable for a gentleman, they went to war on this.
The irony is that the acceptance of the wristwatch for a gentleman took decades, because wearing a pocket watch on a wristlet was only the folly of a military officer or a stylish lady. Groupthink, with a gun figuratively to our heads during WWI, is how we all succumbed to this fashion choice, and you want to query the diameter? Perhaps we are all comfortable with ill-fitting watches? I want a watch that slides under my sleeve despite my 7.5” wrist, but that doesn’t require me to ostracise myself from the group. Divers with suits is a bad look, sorry.
Greg: How else will the rubes self-identify except through the use of phrases such as “this strap monster is the right tool for the job”? We might momentarily take them seriously otherwise.
The size discussions just show what sheep the average male watch consumer is. I try to lead by example. I use gentle humor to try to cajole them into understanding. Then two hours later another rube wonders if a Cartier will make people confuse him for his wife.
Chris: The watch doesn’t make the wearer – it’s harsh, but it’s fair.
Ali’s tank, Gable’s Rolex, or Sir Douglas Bader’s Timor ATP spring to mind… The size or price of your watch is not proportional to your achievements either.
I do my best thinking without a watch on.
I know a watch is seen as a status symbol, and that is destructive, it fuels a lot of the issues we see. I’m also annoyed when people feel they need to defend their choices: you don’t. The number of times I bought a watch on a whim because it looked alright, and was there, in a junk shop, outnumbers all the times I’ve been on a dedicated hunt for a certain model. I like watches for what they are, and yet, I hate watches for what they’ve become and represent.
Sherwin: Hah. I once wore a dive watch with a suit to shake the hand of a president of a nation. In my defense, I’ve only been fascinated by watches for a few weeks then and only had the one watch. Also, the president wasn’t even one of the better ones. My only decent photo of the watch exposed during the event was me and others waiting for the helicopter to land.
I do miss the time when I was ignorant of the rules. “I was happier then with no mindset” — the Shins.
Chris: With a shirt sleeve, it is ideal for the watch to slide under the cuff. If the cut of the suit or shirt allows for the wrist to be exposed at times, it would be best if the exposed watch is not the size of landmine. Any watch that is thicker, or larger, will flare the cuff, or deform it. A slimmer, understated watch, without a large diameter, would pair better.
A tool watch is just that (although not) – I wouldn’t keep a hammer in my suit jacket pocket, or get a Geiger counter out at a function. Read the room.
You can wear a dress watch for casual, but not a casual watch from dress.
Anyway, can I add this thing to the overall discussion as well – wtf does a watch like that need a tachymeter for? What are you tracking with that central seconds dreamcatcher?
I’m all for pushing the boundaries, but this is just absurd. It’s a basic quartz, you cannot track anything other than “60”, and even then, I’d be reluctant to rely on that.
Bad design, and then with an advertising copy about how your watch should be unique as you are (or dense), and how it’s a conversation starter (because it’s unfit for purpose?).
Bless.
Perhaps ineffective watches should be the trend now… we’ve run out of real ideas (unless we want to keep robbing Genta’s tomb) so let’s just go full Dada.
<Chris realises he is the only one left at the table>
The Escapement Room 