Since I launched the site I have wanted to do watch reviews. I have tried a few times and each time has ended in failure. Watches are much more complicated than knives and flashlights. Their long history and technical sophistication make it difficult to penetrate watch jargon and speak with confidence when evaluating watches. But there are a few other issues that watches present that make it hard for me to review them. In essence, the problem is this--watches are fashion items. As handy as they are, watches aren't tools and I review tools. I like pretty tools as much as the next dude, but watches aren't tools first and foremost (or at least the watches people find interesting aren't). Here is how you know they aren't tools--the more expensive watches do not perform their designated function better than less expensive watches. That is, a quartz watch keeps better time than a Rolex. And when price is wholly detached from performance, you are not looking at tool you are looking at something else.

Complications

Watches do a lot of different things--tell time, tell the day and date, act as a stopwatch--there are myriad functions of some watches (called complications). And the guts of a watch are literal engineering masterpieces. Coiled springs and escapements and the like all make watch evaluation complex. Its like reviewing a computer or a AVR--the more functions and the more complex something is the hard it is to fully evaluate. Watches are the EDC equivalent of the massive $4,000 Denon receiver--there is just a lot going on in that little case. All of these extras bring up an issue fundamental to consumerism--feature creep. How many of these doodads matter? Do you REALLY need to know the phase of the moon? They are complicated and, in many was, unnecessarily so.

Jewelry

Let's face facts--alot of what we carry we carry because it looks nice. It is, as Andrew put it, pocket frosting. The knife, the light, the OPMT, they all have functions, but if it were strictly about performance we'd all have Dragonfly IIs in ZDP-189. Its not and we like ornamentation (I don't really, but even I have a Damascus bladed knife). But unless you have a collection of William Henry knives, a knife is, first and foremost, a tool. Its looks are secondary. And we know this because increased cost is linked to increased performance. Of course, at the top end, marginal performance improvements come at a very high cost, but that is the way all goods function. But comparing the top and the bottom of the market is illustrative--a San Ren Mu 605 does not out perform a Spyderco Dragonfly II or a Jon Graham Midtech Stubby Razel. But with watches, the same is not true at all. A $12 quartz keeps better time than a $12,000 Rolex. And because that is true, watches are not tools, first and foremost. Your money is paying for things other than performance. Its paying for looks, for jewels on the watch face (another hint that watches are jewelry), and it is paying for some mythical quality called "exclusivity". You know what things that cost more solely because of exclusivity are called? Veblen Goods. High end watches, to a large degree, are Veblen goods. The sole purpose of a high price tag is to make the good seem exclusive.

There are a few good ways to ferret out BS in the watch market. Many movements are made by ETA. Search for a given movement and then look at the prices of the watches with that movement. Next, look to see if the watches have exotic materials that could otherwise justifiy the cost difference. If not, then the cost difference is based on some mystical "brand exclusivity." In many ways this strikes me as stupid as things like "premium vodka." The legal definition of vodka is that it is a tasteless and odorless spirit. How can their be PREMIUM vodkas when they are required to be the same and not just the same thing, but similarly devoid of distinguishing characteristics?

I was looking at a Sinn watch and a Hamilton. They had similar materials--steel, sapphire crystal, leather band--and they had an identical ETA movement. But they were $1000 apart, with the Sinn being more expensive. This particular Sinn did not have the "tegimented" steel or the inert gas interior. It was the 556.

The Hamilton was the HML-H70455533.

What's the difference between the two watches other than looks and "brand exclusivity"? Nothing. They have the exact same movements.

And that is one reason why watches are hard to evaluate. The differences are stylistic and brand based and not, well, reality based. I appreciate good looking tools, but evaluating them solely on that basis is something I am neither good at nor interested in. Frankly, many premium watches are jewelry and that is fine, but I am not interested in jewelry. Skull rings or dinner plate sized five figure watches just don't interest me.

Out of Step

The last reason I am struggling with watch reviews has to do with my tastes. While this is a gear blog and gear are tools, I am a person that appreciates style. The problem is, the style I like in watches--quiet, muted, and durable, is not the style that is in right now. We went from 38mm up to 46mm and larger faces. The problem is only Randy Jackson can get away with wearing 50mm watches. The rest of us look silly. But increasingly that is all there is.

I am also not a huge fan of the dive watch look. If it was about function, that would be one thing, but the dive watch look is worn by divers about .01% of the time and posers the rest of the time. The Humvee look is just something that blinds my mind's eye and offends my sense of style (what little I have). I like the aesthetic some of the time, but is WAY over done, especially when combined with the other trend I don't like--big watches. I don't want to wear a dinner plate on my wrist, even if it does have dominos on it so I can tell time.

Finally, there is the distinct lack of minimalism. I get that complications show of a watch maker's prowess, but I buy gear to use not to show off (and yes, I begrudingly do Instagram...frankly I hate it, but so many gear folks are there, I figure I have to participate). And so faces like this one:

just about kill me. A quick glance at the face of the watch and you can find about 15 mortal design sins, things that would never fly in my favorite design book--Design of Everyday Things. But here is the issue--watch design is not about telling time, it is about jewelry, and there, in the end, is the rub.

Conclusion

I wear one piece of jewelry--my wedding band. I got married to my wife on my grandparent's 50th wedding anniversary. As their gift they gave us their bands when they upgraded theirs. The sentimental value is huge and so I make one exception and wear exactly one item of jewelry. No Rolex, Patek Phillippe, or Breitling will ever be as meaningful and so I am not going to break the rule for them.

In the end I am going to review watches, and maybe I will work my way up to the Rolexes of the world, but I just don't have the heart to do it right now. I hate paying for a brand. I hate paying for exclusivity. These two burnings hatreds were the fuel that made me start this blog. And now that I have come to watches I am saddened to realize that most of what makes them what they are are things I disdain. The watch industry is bent on selling an image, and I get that most things are doing that, but in the watch business it seems like it is 99% image and 1% thing on your wrist. Unlike what the ads tell you watches don't make you interesting. Being interesting does that. Watches won't make you wealthy, having wealth does that (and in fact, given the meteoric rise in prices of Swiss made watches they seem to do the opposite). And watches certainly won't make you a person of distinction, doing the right thing will do that. So take the celebrity photos, Bond movie product placements, bathyscape stuns, and other watch marketing bullshit and shove it.

I will probably end up reviewing a few $100-$1000 watches, but beyond that, I am not sure what I am paying for, and when that happens, you have left the realm of rational purchases and entered a bizarro world where spending money results in poorer performance. Watches, after a certain point, are all style and no substance. My opinion is always subject to change (one smart man told me that a wise person is always one good argument away from changing their mind), but for now I can't wrap my head around pure luxury watches.

Tell me I am wrong. I really want to learn and thus far, after three years of on and off research, I have failed.