What's the Perfect Number of Watches to Own?

Harry2 · 2016-09-01T03:11:49Z

Collectors debate the 'perfect' number of watches to own. Explore theories on collection size, sentimental value, and balancing passion with practicality.

Harry2

WPS member · Horological Meandering forum

53 replies11712 views1 photos

Harry2 sparks a lively debate on the 'perfect' number of watches to own, proposing two theories that blend practical considerations with humorous insights into collector psychology. His post delves into the balance between passion, utility, and spousal tolerance, inviting the community to share their personal philosophies on collection size. This article captures the diverse and often witty perspectives on this perennial collector's dilemma.

53 collectors discussing this on the WatchProSite forumJoin the Conversation →

Hi friends!

I'm on night shift and thinking about the perfect number of watches, and what opinions my fellow purists hold. I have two theories:

Theory 1: optimum number of watches can be expressed as

w=c + 1

Where 'w' is optimum number of watches, 'c' is current number owned. This can also be shown as

w=s - 1

Where 's' is the number of watches you'd have to buy for your spouse to leave you.

Theory 2 is five watches, plus one or two low cost watches for sports and scenarios where the watch needs to be removed such as being left in a gym bag. Or perhaps travel to an area or country where robbery is likely. And one haute horology watch. The heavy hitter in precious metal of the maximum cost one's means can bear. This system allows for a rotation of servicing the 5 fine watches, one per year. And well timed flipping to get new watches that will need a service in another approximately 5 years. Maintaining the low cost option is negligible and the haute horology piece is a consideration unto itself. And will be worn and wound far less than the other five pieces that are likely in steel.

What do you all think!

I have my Seiko on today, I prefer to wear something no one takes notice of at work. Plus, my two IWC's are in for service, the Rolex will be up for sale and I don't wear my Panerai to work.

Key Points from the Discussion

Many collectors find themselves continually acquiring more watches despite attempts to rationalize and reduce their collections, often joking that it's 'cheaper than going through multiple wives'.
The 'perfect' number is often fluid, with collectors constantly finding new 'must-have' pieces, leading to an ever-expanding collection until external factors intervene.
Some believe the ideal number is one, especially if it's a 'grail' watch like a Patek Philippe perpetual calendar chronograph or minute repeater, representing the pinnacle of watchmaking.
A practical approach suggests a core collection of around five fine watches for rotation and servicing, plus one or two inexpensive watches for risky situations, and a single haute horology piece.
The 'right' number of watches is achieved when one can truly enjoy and give sufficient wrist time to each piece in the collection.
One collector found 13 to be their 'right' number, allowing for one watch per month with a spare for servicing, a number approved by his spouse.
The concept of a 'perfect' number is often complicated by sentimental watches, which fall outside rational collection planning and contribute to an 'irrational' growth factor.

The Discussion

Baron - Mr Red

Sep 1, 2016

But the caveat here is that this number does not include sentimental watches. Y=X + A - (B)^c Where X (for me) is 33, B is the number of sentimental watches owned), c is the growth factor for future sentimental watches, and A is in irrational number that is somewhat correlated to impulse buying.

amanico

Sep 1, 2016

I did check, with your formula I find 666. Go figure why. [nt]

quatuor27

Sep 4, 2016

Hahaha....

Your equation seems about right! LOL The sentimental reasoning is so true.. After awhile, everything becomes sentimental!

Bounce781

Sep 1, 2016

7 more than the maximum number you think is reasonable.

But when you get to that reasonable number inevitably you find 2 others that you just MUST have. Then you find a couple more, so that you are +4 to previous reasonable number Then you reason, well I'll add just one more, so I'll only be 5 more than my previously maximum. That +5. And then, of course you find "a couple more you must have". So +7! Btw, that cycle repeats until you spouse leaves you, or you have no more possessions to sell or trade for watches

Harry2

Sep 1, 2016

You're not wrong! [nt]

xxn

Sep 1, 2016

Every mans wishful thinking

1 watch (highly unrealistic)

Continue the conversation

This thread is active on the Horological Meandering forum with 53 replies. Share your knowledge with fellow collectors.

Join the Discussion →