Free from Addiction Or Enslaved More Than Before?

 

 

My watch addiction, starting about 6 years ago, quickly latched onto oversized blingy TV brands, an addiction I tired to purge over the last year or so. Part of it is age (I'm 52) and I no longer glom on to a flashy singles watch.

But watches are powerful, iconic and symbolic of something either platonic or as absurd as wanting to looking like a movie action hero, so while not relying on them to spread my peacock feathers, I wonder if my obsession for tool divers is even worse than my bling phase.

For example, I'll watch Modern Family and see the character Phil Dunphy wearing a diver watch and I won't be able to focus on the jokes as I try to get a closer look at Dunphy's diver. The same thing happened when I saw Brad Pitt's watch in World War Z.

Another downside is price. The diver tools I like start at $500 like the Seiko Solar FieldMaster shown above. A "low-end" luxury watch is the Orient Saturation Diver, a tad under $1,400.

So am I really free? Maybe from cheap peacock feathers, but that's about it.

The peacock feathers are just more rarified. Perhaps when Raffi sizes a bracelet on one of my divers, he should add to his watch service by taking several wrist shots of me in his store and then emailing me the jpegs so I can post the wrist shots on my blog so that my "watch experience" can be shared by fellow watch obsessives.

Which leads to another question about watch addiction: If I were a farmer in Pigknuckle USA, would I obsess over watches? Does the obsession require that I live in a metropolitan environment with a potential audience? Can my obsession be reduced to such abject vanity?

I doubt it. There is a theme of impoverishment through substitution and the chimera expertly rendered in an essay by Donald Antrum called "I Bought a Bed" in which the author tries to find a perfect bed to give him the unconditional love and security of the ideal mother. Speaking of mothers and obsessions, I watched a show, Strange Addictions, about a young man who had a "relationship" with his car. I think he kissed it and everything. At one point, he told his father about the "relationship," upon which the father said, "This is about me divorcing your mother, isn't it."

Anyway, I digress.

Back to the chimera of the perfect watch. As Ed said a few years ago when I was looking for the perfect radio, obsessions often come back to Citizen Kane's Rosebud.

Related articles

Buying My Grail Compelled Me to Sell a Huge Part of My Collection

Does the Holy Grail of Watches Keep Changing?

Ultimate Manly Watch for 2013

Comments

[Gary]

I wouldn't be happy owning almost exclusively dive tool watches. There are so many other cool styles of watches available. Why get hung up on just one style?

[herculodge]

Gary, there are some non tool divers that I like such as the Orient RetroFuture series and some new dressy Seikos like the Grand Seiko and the Rado D Star XL.

[Angelo]

Gary: I don't judge others for what they collect/how they collect----but that said, I will tell you that I'm with you on variety. My watches range in price from a few dollars up to around $500.00 for one Movado (I think it was $495.00 about 10 years ago.). Styles range from cheap digitals to entry level luxury watches----small diameter dress watches that are small by today's standards----small even by current ladies watch trends, to 52MM/18MM thick Tauchmeisters that look like submarine portals. Metal bracelets, leather bands, rubber/plastic. Stainless steel, rose gold, yellow gold. Variety of face colors, etc. Eclectic would be an understatement. But I also see how this sort of random collection would be a turn-off to some people too----who believe in focusing on what they like best and not wasting time/space with cheap stuff in their cases. I get that. I sometimes wish I had the discipline to do what Jeff did recently----sell off watches he didn't feel were up to his standard----simplify----focus. I feel that way about my radios too. But I take comfort in being surrounded by radios, swimming in watches.

[Gary]

Angelo,

People can collect what they want, but I'm more on board with your method that includes lots of variety.

Having just one basic style of watch would be boring to me. There are so many impressive styles of watches out there. A couple of examples are those that look like the Omega Speedmaster or the Panerai Luminor (I say "look like" because the originals are quite expensive).

[jonnybardo]

Jeff, I can tell you that I live in the boondocks and my main "audience" are teenagers, whose opinions of my "mancessories" I don't care at all about. My watch obsession is pretty much a solo affair - meaning, I don't do it out of how others might perceive my watches. I really don't care, although I prefer if my watches aren't so audacious that people notice. But my enjoyment is entirely about my own aesthetic preference, so I'm guessing it wouldn't make a difference if I lived in an urban area.

Gary and Angelo, I can appreciate different styles although not necessarily all styles. For instance, I"m not a huge fan of dress watches and/or really small watches.

So diversity is relative. It is the "x-axis." But there's a "y-axis," and that's depth or quality. To focus only on diversity is another variation on quantity over quality. Both are important, at least for me.

[herculodge]

I wear my watches for my aesthetic but my environment has to be some factor however slight.