Entitlement and Humblebragging in Watch Collecting

There are many types of people who collect high end watches. Recently, there has been a series of  heated discussions about those who buy something predominantly because of the need to show the world that they own something valuable. It is argued that there is no real horological understanding from this type of collector beyond the need to show-off and be seen with what others deem prestigious. It is seen as very important to own something that others view as desirable. Indeed, it is argued that one will often see this type of collector seek reassurance that their watch is seen as desirable.


Further, it is argued that this type of collector is usually a modern watch buyer, as targets can be achieved relatively simply by having the cash to walk in and buy one. Vintage, it is argued, is seen as requiring research and understanding.  Such research requires work that this type of collector sees as pointless. This type of collector will buy what he believes others will instantly recognise as a valuable and prestigious watch. The psychology here, I think, is that respect and admiration can, in some way, be bought.


The owner of the watch “accessory” is often a master of the “humblebrag”. The latter is a term I discovered this year. It is, I am told, the hallmark of the insecure.


“Oooh, if I buy that Minute Repeater, then I won’t have much left in my pocket book for a new Ferrari.”

“I must get myself a cheap Vacheron as using my standard Patek Philippe Tourbillon to go rock climbing just won’t do.”

“The cost of good staff for my homes in the Bahamas, London, New York and Paris these days is getting so high. How will I ever buy my next split second?”

“I only own 50 Audemars Piguet watches. I wish I was rich.”

“I just can’t remember where I left my Patek Sky Moon Tourbillon. I am sure it will turn upon at some point.”


You get the drift! Once you see one humblebrag, then they start to become quite obvious.


Now, imagine how the long-term collector views this? Imagine how the guy who has been collecting watches for 25 years views this development. Imagine someone who places great store on knowledge and understanding of watches and of research and intelligent discussion. Imagine the collector with a much more limited financial backdrop. Imagine a collector for who each watch purchase is a financial burden. How might he view this situation?


Obviously, I am creating not only one stereotype collector here but two, with attributing hypothetical traits. But recent debates on various forums have drawn attention to this issue and it seems to me worthy of discussion. A part of the issue is that far from buying respect and admiration, the humblebrag show-off approach actually attracts disdain. Certain collectors see it and find it so far-removed from their own approach as to be unacceptable for the forum.


Now, my question is this: is this type of hypothetical collector every bit as entitled to approach watch collecting as other collectors who have very different criteria for collecting? For example, I know of one collector who is extraordinarily specific in what he deems as acceptable criteria for watch collecting. Anal-retentive even. It is, in fact, so rarefied that virtually all watches fail his specific benchmark. Now, of course, that collector is entitled to their approach. That is what makes watch collecting so interesting. Yet, is that collector entitled to denigrate another collector’s view simply because it does not meet the benchmark set by him for his own collecting? How do we evaluate the former type of collector? Do they have AS MUCH entitlement to their approach and thoughts as everyone else? To me, it is a question for which I am not sure I have a clear answer.


This question needs to be set within some parameters. For example, the forum has a guideline for how members should behave that goes broadly along the lines of a requirement to behave with the type of manners and respect that one would show at a dinner or cocktail party where one may not know all the other guests. The guideline is, I think, broadly in this spirit.



This message has been edited by MTF on 2017-12-11 02:47:15