oyster case
2653
I think what bothers people regarding watches as opposed to art is, one can visit a public museum to view and, more precisely, experience art. The Tate Museum in London for example...
May 31, 2021,01:21 AM
you can simply breeze in and sit and experience Turner's masterpieces. No one needs to own a Picasso if they live in Barcelona. One can visit local galleries and engage in artistic circles without ever owning anything. Owning art is simply not necessary to experience and be enriched by it.
A watch is an object that is worn. The wearing is part and parcel of the experience of it. Seeing it, trying it on, is not really enough. Of course, manufacturers have museums but aren't they more to capture history, to show a context of development and progression? Owning a watch is perhaps critical to a full experience of it. Certainly none of what I've said is black and white. Some collectors get a lot out of meeting up and sharing various pieces. But even they must ask themselves, these meetings, is their purpose to ultimately fuel their own acquisitions?
So, not being able, not having the financial means, to acquire a watch really limits any collectors enjoyment. The investor won't mind, they'll simply make their plays within their means. Acrimony towards investors by collectors will inevitably result.
Ultimately a sense of humour is the only recourse for the aggrieved but perhaps that is more critical to enjoying life than owning any watch.