An Argument for Enjoying a Diversity of Watches Even in the Face of Wanting One Watch

Jonny writes:

I think perhaps the "one watch fantasy" acts as a kind of Platonic archetype that continually draws one to it, like a dynamic attractor. The fallacy is that there is one physical watch that will live up to the Platonic archetype, which it cannot possibly.

This is not unlike a man looking for the "perfect woman" (or vice versa), or why we seem so doomed to disappointment with whatever we accomplish. The reality can never live up to the Idea.

The "boyhood fantasy" is, I think, the early phase of the process. It is the beginning, the "Edenic phase" in a sense - before the agonizing desire for the Perfect Watch sets in. In other words, one starts by buying and collecting capriciously but then gradually begins to refine down towards the quest for the Perfect Watch. Although it also seems that some never leave "Eden" to go on the Quest.

I think a further stage is possible wherein one achieves a kind of epiphany that there is no singular Perfect Watch, but rather all watches are "expressions" of the Platonic Archetype and can be enjoyed as such. In a way this stage mirrors the earlier "boyhood" phase in that it is more playful, but it includes the developed palate and refinement of the questing phase. You could say it is a kind of higher order Play - a "Return to Eden" but on a higher octave, so to speak. Like T.S.Eliot's poem: "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."

That pretty much sums up the watch journey, the three phases I describe.

Comments

[Angelo]

In my opinion, Muhammad Ali was the greatest heavyweight champion "of all time" as he so modestly put it on a few occasions. No doubt in my mind---on average---on his best night vs. anyone else on their best night---he would stand a very good chance at winning. That said, he was not "the perfect" fighter. He didn't have one punch knock out power, ala Earnie Shavers. He wasn't a powerful finisher, like George Foreman. He came into some of his fights, particularly later in his career, in comparatively bad shape from not training seriously enough. The point is that "the best" doesn't have to be perfect and probably can't be. Another quick analogy: I view my watch passion as a team---and a team might have a best overall player or maybe, better said, a most valuable player. But the team still needs other things to be successful: Good starters at other positions and good depth on the bench. My watch collection needs more than one to succeed---to be relevant. It needs a much bigger roster for me to be happy and in fact---it goes beyond need----like a huge college football program, there are players who never get in the game, but they are dressed and on the sidelines.

[jonnybardo]

Nice one, Angelo, I like it.

[herculodge]

The team analogy works for me, Angelo. I guess the question is how big is my roster going to be.

[jonnybardo]

Not to mention where one draws the line in terms of what one owns. In Angelo's analogy the bench, minor leagues, and free agent pool could all be watches one doesn't actually own.

To put it another way, one doesn't need to own everything. Actual ownership could be only those watches one will wear, the "starting rotation." Actually, a 4-5 watch collection has a nice, clean aesthetic to it.

Anyhow, I think your approach works for you, Angelo, but you tend to have a "big umbrella" approach that doesn't work for everyone, certainly not me or Jeff. You take the "a different watch for every occasion and mood" approach, while I like a smaller collection in which watches cover more moods and occasions.

[Angelo]

Well, certainly that's a valid point. I remember those K-Tel albums from the 1970s. They would take a bunch of hits----sometimes 20 or more---shorten them (They were short to begin with, but K-Tel would take them from 3 minutes down to under 2 minutes to fit as many as possible on one album.). Anyway, if you bought a few of those----you could have hits from the top pop R&B acts, a couple country popular songs, rock hits----ballads, straight up pop----you'd have a cross section of the best selling songs over a couple year span in all genres. For the same money, you could buy a copy of The Beatles Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Stevie Wonder Songs In The Key Of Life----and maybe one other "perfect" album of the era. The K-Tel approach would give you lots more----a song for every mood---an edited song, but a song nonetheless. The other approach would give you tremendous quality----the top music---but limit you to 2 or 3 artists, and only some of their work, albeit their best work. I could see how some would go one way and others would opt for the other route.