A Year Trapped in the Escapement Room: Heritage, History–and since We’re Alliterating–Hyping Horology

It’s been exactly a year since I first started writing for the Escapement Room. I used to do a post every week or so. But eventually that died down to maybe once a month. I’m a relatively new collector. I don’t have a lot to say about watches. Mostly I wrote about my preferences and the milestones of my very young watch collecting life, which aren’t that many. I think I ran out of things to say around August.

My watch collecting “journey” is not the typical enthusiast template. I didn’t start out with Seiko or Casio. Nor did my grandfather leave an heirloom piece that got the ball rolling. Instead, I saw an opportunity to buy an Omega Seamaster Professional 300M in 2022 from a desperate relative so I took it. The rest, as they say, is history. I don’t have that SMP anymore.

When I got into vintage watches, the initial plan was to buy one piece per decade from the 1930s to the present. I thought back then, that’s ten pieces. That’s plenty. Pretty good theme for a collection. And it would take a long time to put together. Like a lot of new collectors, I went on a buying frenzy. I achieved that one-per-decade goal in three months or so. While I’m still into vintage, I don’t have many of those pieces anymore. Things change. What I perceived to be the type of collector I wanted to be a year ago is so different from the type I am today, which is different from what I want to be in the future. There doesn’t seem to be a plateau in this hobby. It’s always in flux.

The pieces that I bought that I thought I would keep are no longer with me as well. Over the past few months, I purged quite aggressively. You’d be surprised. No longer in the collection are pieces that I thought I would never part, namely, the 1970s Cartier Tank, which went to my brother’s partner.

The 1997 Omega Speedmaster Automatic is also gone. Also gifted to someone.

There are other watches that came and went. Breitling, Rolex, Jaeger-LeCoultre, I even bought a Seiko or two. Tastes are not writ in stone.

In the year that I’ve written for the Escapement Room, I have not changed my general opinions about watch collecting.

I am still me.

My opinion on heritage, for instance, remains. There are those in the watch community that don’t buy into heritage, history, and hype. To them, watch heritage is an irrelevant variable. Or at least it should be. After all, what is a watch if not a device that tells time? Therefore, shouldn’t a watch be judged solely on its ability to get the job done? Value should be derived from specifications — what kind of movement is in it, what are the complications, water resist rating, finishing, type of crystal, and a slew of other features. Who cares about prestige? They could very well be right. In fact, I think those people who value specs above all else are doing it right.

I’d rather do it wrong.

I am that other kind of watch enthusiast, the person who prioritizes heritage, history, horology over specifications or features. I could care less what the water resist rating of a watch might be. I mean, once you’re into vintage anyway, water resistance is a joke. There’s no way any of my pieces will see a splash of water due to their age.

The idea that I pay more for heritage or brand seems like a dumb ass way to buy, well, anything really. But we’ve crossed that line after the second watch purchase. You don’t need two watches, let alone an entire collection. Also, think about it this way: if a certain watch has the right specs, once you get that watch, what’s the raison d’etre for another piece? From this perspective, to focus on specs feels like tomfoolery. Why buy multiple watches at all, if not for anything else than the stories they tell. I refuse to justify my purchases by whether or not they are better timepieces than the ones I already own. The way they look is a great reason. But that will only get you so far. Because, ultimately, every luxury watch has its affordable equivalence. The Timex Expedition looks as good and might function just as well as a Hamilton Khaki. No reason to get the more expensive brand. But people do buy the Hamilton Khaki and if I were in the market for a field watch, the Hamilton is the gold standard. Surely, there has to be more to it than looking decent and great specs?

I don’t understand why so many watch enthusiasts refuse to see watches as fashion accessories. Because they are. They have no use otherwise, except tell inaccurate time. As fashion accessories, they provide so much value. It’s not just the brand that you wear shows off your financial status, it shows your particular taste and your style. Are you the type who wears a G-Shock with a suit, for instance? Perhaps you also complement your sandals with socks. No judgment. Well, maybe some judgment. Not important you say? Who cares what others think, you shout at the sky? You be you. Me, I’m comfortable with watches signaling intangible qualities and values. Because–and you know this in your heart-of-hearts–watches aren’t about accurate time. They’re nice to look at and they make you look nice to look at. Some of them anyway.

Nonetheless, the whole “different occasions demand different watches” spiel falls flat to me. You want something tough and can handle a fall from a five-storey building, get a G-Shock, yes. That’s all you need. Going to an event in a suit and tie but only have that one G-Shock? Easy. Don’t wear a watch. You don’t need a hundred watches to cover all situations. You can’t. It’s impossible. Maybe one watch can’t do it all but it’s my preferred number.

Over the past couple of months I have been weaning myself out of a large collection. Variety is the catchword collectors use. “I want variety in my collection.” I see this comment and I involuntarily scratch my head. Variety could be applied to a three-watch collection–a daily beater, a sports watch, a dress watch. Variety. There. But calling a hundred watches variety is like… uhm, Kurt Vonnegut has this guide for writing: “Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.” Having a large collection for the sake of variety is a bit like that. You’re trying to please the many voices in your head. But having too many watches dilute your own personal experience. None of the watches will mean the way you hope they would. You only have one wrist, you can only enjoy one watch at a time, one watch–if it’s the right watch–is enough.

Over the past two years, I have purchased over sixty watches. Less than twenty are still in the collection. Attitudes change and preferences evolve. What can I tell you? I want a small collection. I wrote in detail here at the Escapement Room my desire for a one-watch collection June last year. I have not changed there at least. I still want to be a one-watch person.

Anyway, a year at the Escapement Room. It’s been interesting. No one’s picked up on the “Help Me” subliminal messages I’ve been sending out so, apparently, no rescue is imminent. I think I’m sticking around. I really wish I wrote more. But I don’t want to tread familiar ground. I have ideas on what to do next with the hobby. I hope it’s worth it.