Accumulators of modern Rolexes - doesn’t it drive you crazy….

[Phil8352]

…having a watch box at home with 5- to 6- figures worth of watches sitting in it not getting worn?

I’m a one-watch man (for now) and will probably expand my “collection” but if I’m being completely honest with myself, I think I will always have FOMO for whatever watch I own that isn’t currently on my wrist. Does this drive anybody else crazy that owns multiple amazing timepieces?

When you think about what these things cost and amortize that amount over a lifetime of wearing them only occasionally, it’s sort of depressing (and expensive!).

TO BE CLEAR -- THIS POST IS NOT ABOUT THE SUNK COST OF A WATCH COLLECTION. Its about the simple fact that you can only wear one watch at a time -- doesn't it drive collectors crazy having a bunch of "Ferraris parked in the garage at home".

(((post inspired by the guy who just scored his dream BLRO yesterday and already wants a new watch)))

[Carguy87]

I have a much more modest collection than many here but I get what you’re saying. Sometimes I wonder if it’s smart to have spent this much money (with plans to spend more) on generally depreciating items.

Then I remember we all die someday and you can’t take the money with you, so enjoy some of it

[REQUIEMnJADED4U]

I personally enjoy the variety and having different watches for different occasions. I rotate as much as I can and don't buy watches just to have.

I don't stress over the value or cost of what is or isn't currently on my wrist. I just focus on the enjoyment of the hobby and wearing them.

[slide13]

I don't know, if you figure someone has 5 watches at say $10k each, and they rotate them equally, they would wear each watch 73 times a year. Over the course of 10 years that's 730 times. $10k/730=$13.70 per day.

So yeah, it's not nothing, but I could also think of plenty worse ways to spend $13.70 per day.

And at the end of it, you still have 5 Rolex watches that are likely now worth more than the $10k that was spent on them years ago, or at least still worth around that. While watches should never be looked at as an investment, they're not a terrible store of a value either.

Now I'm pretty much a one watch guy, I have two currently but only because I've been too lazy to get around to selling my BB58 since I got my Sub Date. But it's not the value aspect of things that keeps me to one watch, more just a general preference to find the one and wear it every day.

[B2 Stealth]

Love the idea of a one and done Rolex and respect those who can pull it off. But my 4 serve its each unique purpose in my collection depending on what I'm doing that day. I may sell one and have 3 which check all the boxes for my lifestyle. Can't imagine going lower than that. It's taken years to acquire the watches I have.

[TheDogHouse]

It’s all sunk cost. When I think about the money I’ve spent in my life on things like rent, partying and dumb crap, it puts things into perspective. At least I can continue to enjoy my watches for the rest of my life. The rest of it is water under the bridge.

[HHIslander]

I don’t have nearly the collection that many other posters have, but I would imagine those who have lots of money in watches have no problems with it or they wouldn’t do it. The value of my collection doesn’t bother me. I sense this thread may not end well.

[dwjez14]

I bought my collection to pass down to my
2 boys

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by slide13

I don't know, if you figure someone has 5 watches at say $10k each, and they rotate them equally, they would wear each watch 73 times a year. Over the course of 10 years that's 730 times. $10k/730=$13.70 per day...

I can’t tell you how many things I’ve justified this way

[brandrea]

OP, I get where you’re coming from.

I whittled my modest collection of 5 nice watches, down to 3 recently, largely along the overall theme of your post.

I don’t think I could ever be a one watch guy, but 2 or 3 seems about right.

Now don’t get me started on jackets, and denim …

[dlddrrr]

To be honest, no. I have 4 Rolexes and I pretty much only wear my LV sub. The other ones I bought because I had an itch to scratch (wanted a DD, a GMT, etc.) and I’ll wear from time to time but really if given the option from the AD I would buy 5 more.

[Mystro]

Many can enjoy a watch without actually having to wear it all the time. Think of it as a collection of an expensive wardrobe. You can’t wear all your clothes every day. The same logic might hold true with women and handbags or shoes.

[Phil8352]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Many can enjoy a watch without actually having to wear it all the time. Think of it as a collection of an expensive wardrobe. You can’t wear all your clothes every day. The same logic might hold true with women and handbags or shoes.

An interesting analogy -- thanks for the insight.

I also wonder if you could walk into an AD and buy whatever you wanted, whether "collecting" modern and neo-vintage pieces would be as big. Probably not.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Mystro

Many can enjoy a watch without actually having to wear it all the time. Think of it as a collection of an expensive wardrobe. You can’t wear all your clothes every day…

Great just great …. I didn’t need further justification for my denim/jacket fettish

[Krash]

I have five watches. Each only gets worn about 20% of the time over the course of the year. It is sort of a shame.

Honestly, I never planned on owning a fifth watch until my AD called and said she had 126710BLNR, and it's mine if I want it. I couldn't refuse.

I think two or three watches are all anyone needs, but one is not enough (at least for me, it's not enough).

[amh]

OP you're right. Usually in these "How many is enough" threads we get a set of results:
- 1 is enough
- 2 is better
- 3 is perfect
- 4 is a weird number
- 5 is the max
- But 6....

And it ends up being a personal decision based on usage and thickness of wallet. I'm at 4 and even that's too much. If I were to get offered another I'd sell something. Some here have dozens of watches. Look at videos of "Mr Wonderful" (from Shark tank), he probably has a room in his house dedicated to watches.

Originally Posted by TheDogHouse

It’s all sunk cost. When I think about the money I’ve spent in my life on things like rent, partying and dumb crap, it puts things into perspective. At least I can continue to enjoy my watches for the rest of my life. The rest of it is water under the bridge.

Quite true. Vehicles are the biggest money pit. I've spend hundreds of thousands during my lifetime and driven enough to circle the earth probably 20 times. What do I have to show for it? Memories.

[Giovannibravo]

I am all about minimizing excessive purchases. I know multiple watches can sound excessive; however, 3-5 watches are the perfect size. Some of my watches hold extreme sentimental value. I have a 124060 given to me by my parents for my university degree. My parents gifted me my Tudor during the pandemic. My DJ is to celebrate my PhD.

Looking forward, getting watches to celebrate certain milestones is always best, perhaps when I get married or retire. Will see. Man, do I love the 126619LB.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by amh

…

Quite true. Vehicles are the biggest money pit. I've spend hundreds of thousands during my lifetime and driven enough to circle the earth probably 20 times. What do I have to show for it? Memories.

Some of my best car memories were parked in the back seat

[Rebel]

I have 3 wristwatches. A Tudor Submariner for daily wear. A Citizen Eco-Drive dress watch gifted to me by my wife. A Casio Illuminator for yard-work, etc. I enjoy each one as they meet my need of having a watch on my wrist for all occasions. I don't fault anyone for having more or less than my perfect for me 3. Just my thoughts.

[BraveBold]

If someone has a net worth of say $100M then fretting over $100k tied up in watches is pretty dumb. Waste of mental energy as asset prices fluctuate daily far more than that.

If someone has a net worth of $1M and $100k tied up in watches… different story, perhaps.

So context matters and there is no catch-all. What’s expensive or irrational to one person may be immaterial to another.

[Phil8352]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

If someone has a net worth of say $100M then fretting over $100k tied up in watches is pretty dumb. Waste of mental energy as asset prices fluctuate daily far more than that.

If someone has a net worth of $1M and $100k tied up in watches… different story, perhaps.

So context matters and there is no catch-all. What’s expensive or irrational to one person may be immaterial to another.

Good call -- context definitely matters as far as the question of sunk cost. That's not the point of the thread, though.

[wesdaniel]

I struggle with this as my collection is way, way, way too large (~30 watches that are in semi-regular use). But, the watches that I would want to get rid of have lost so much value that it doesn't make sense. If I paid $5K for a watch that, today, I can get maybe $3K for or still wear once every couple of months, I'd rather just keep it and pass it down eventually.

What I ended up doing is dividing my watch collection into "tiers" - I have my first tier (8 watches) which are my grail watches and each one gets worn every other week (this includes my Patek, VC, AP, SkyDweller, DD, OF, perpetual calendar, and Sub). My second tier watches are ones that I "love" but, if they were gone, I'd be pretty okay with it (DJ 41, birth year DJ, Grand Seikos, Explorer II, M.A.D. 1, etc.). The third tier are watches that, if I were able to get rid of them with a 20% - 30% loss, I'd let them go tomorrow.

Today, in order for me to buy another watch, it has to push one of the first tier down to being a second tier. So, for the moment, that means that I have to love it more than either the Sub or the OF as they're kind of at the bottom of that tier.

It's actually helped me avoid many impulse purchases in the last year or so. For example, I was recently on vacation and had a chance to buy the Tudor BB pepsi with opaline dial. Beautiful watch and it felt good on the wrist. But, realistically, it would probably fit somewhere towards the bottom of the second tier and, in light of that, would be $5K for a watch that I wouldn't "love," so I passed.

Buying watches is like an addiction. We just have to find ways to control our addictions.

[Driver8]

TBH nowadays nobody really NEEDS even one watch.

I've got a collection of a few watches because...... I just like watches! I don't try to rationalise them in terms of "covering bases" - i.e. all this "land, sea and air" stuff. Basically I buy and own pieces I like and all the time I enjoy wearing them (even if it's just a couple of times every few months) then they stay. If I have no desire to wear something for a few months, then it usually goes.

Then again, my collection isn't all 4 and 5 figure watches. A lot of the time I enjoy wearing much cheaper pieces by micro-brands, as for me it's not all about the brand name or the value: it's about my enjoyment of a piece irrespective of the brand or the cost.

[Phil8352]

Originally Posted by wesdaniel

I struggle with this as my collection is way, way, way too large (~30 watches that are in semi-regular use). But, the watches that I would want to get rid of have lost so much value that it doesn't make sense. If I paid $5K for a watch that, today, I can get maybe $3K for or still wear once every couple of months, I'd rather just keep it and pass it down eventually.

What I ended up doing is dividing my watch collection into "tiers" - I have my first tier (8 watches) which are my grail watches and each one gets worn every other week (this includes my Patek, VC, AP, SkyDweller, DD, OF, perpetual calendar, and Sub). My second tier watches are ones that I "love" but, if they were gone, I'd be pretty okay with it (DJ 41, birth year DJ, Grand Seikos, Explorer II, M.A.D. 1, etc.). The third tier are watches that, if I were able to get rid of them with a 20% - 30% loss, I'd let them go tomorrow.

Today, in order for me to buy another watch, it has to push one of the first tier down to being a second tier. So, for the moment, that means that I have to love it more than either the Sub or the OF as they're kind of at the bottom of that tier.

It's actually helped me avoid many impulse purchases in the last year or so. For example, I was recently on vacation and had a chance to buy the Tudor BB pepsi with opaline dial. Beautiful watch and it felt good on the wrist. But, realistically, it would probably fit somewhere towards the bottom of the second tier and, in light of that, would be $5K for a watch that I wouldn't "love," so I passed.

Buying watches is like an addiction. We just have to find ways to control our addictions.

This is such an excellent reply from an obvious collector, getting to the heart of my question. Thanks for laying out your rationale. Its making me rethink a) how many watches I even want to have, and b) what watches those should be.

[ArtNouveau]

OP, I bought my first nice watch in 1984, a SS Datejust with blue dial, fluted bezel, and jubilee bracelet. Until the late 90’s it was one watch in, one watch out aside from a couple of cheaper “work” watches. Things came to a head in the early 2000’s when as you describe I had a safe full of watches I rarely wore and probably way more money sunk versus my salary at the time. I went back to the old formula for 15 years or so but the watch box has filled back up since around 2017.
I’m now in a different chapter of life, comfortably retired but still very active, but really need to think about why I purchase something new. More is not always better.

[wesdaniel]

Originally Posted by Phil8352

This is such an excellent reply from an obvious collector, getting to the heart of my question. Thanks for laying out your rationale. Its making me rethink a) how many watches I even want to have, and b) what watches those should be.

Awesome. Glad I could help! My journey started when I bought my first DJ in 2003 (and really couldn't afford it). Over the years, I bought and sold and bought and sold. Then I ended up buying and buying.

I think the one suggestion is to figure out your grails. For me, it was one each of the trinity (didn't specifically have references in mind, but, ended up with 2 out of the 3 of mine being the "ones"), a DD, and a perpetual calendar. The SkyDweller, Sub, and OF only ended up being in the first tier because of how much I loved them after I got them.

Once you know your grails, focus on those and forget everything else. Buying non-grail watches is like eating popcorn before a dinner of Kobe beef.

Enjoy! And, share pics of your collection sometime!

[szabo_martin]

I agree.. not in a snob way but its hard to wear a tudor when you already have a few Rolex. I luckily by chance bought a piece that worked best as a daily.. a YM42. Its PM versatile and still a Rolex. My special watches like my pateks,AP,etc. get case time but im ok with it since they're nice to own and just special. Its like my cars.. I have 2 Ferraris I didnt even get a chance to drive last year but they are special cars and having them makes me happy. Its hard to quantify and justify watch purchases and uses. lots of times I see some cool special edition watch for 2-3k and think why not but also know they would never be worn.

[Torshalla]

Well you have 2 arms and 2 legs :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dukie748]

When wifey stops buying handbags, I'll stop buying watches.

[airchitect]

I have 3 majors right now, with my rose BBN being the daily wear for the past 7mths. Both gmts have been lying in a drawer. I miss them but right now, I’m sort of in monk mode and now digging the flash. Someday I’ll get back to them.


Sent using Tapatalk