All mechanical watches are dress watches
There was a recent discussion about what watch to wear in what situation.
I had an epiphany: Watches (non-plastic, non-smartwatches) have made the transition to dress items. For example, the Reverso clearly made the transition from polo watch to dress watch. There is no question the Santos went from Pilot watch to dress watch as well.
People will debate it, but the Submariner, Fliegers, and Speedmasters are clearly on their way.
This makes sense. A dress item is often a thing that isn't utilitarian anymore, but may have been in the past. Neckties used to keep your neck warm, but don't do that job very well anymore. Dress shoes have a heel, but nobody wears them with stirrups. I doubt anyone wears a trench coat to storm a trench. The actual usefulness of these items is gone, so if you are wearing them, you are wearing them as dress(y) items.
Smartwatches and Garmins are useful tools, so they aren't dress items. But, if you are wearing a mechanical watch, you are sacrificing practicality for style. So, never mind the toolish history, you are wearing it to make a sartorial point. Whether you can pull it off is a different story.
But I guess I am saying, among mechanical watches, the floodgates are open; there are no hard rules anymore.
Interested in craftsmanship, design, technology, but especially what makes collectors tick
Completely agree. In a world where the vast majority wears no watch at all, and the most sold watch is the Apple "watch", any analog steel watch appears like an elevated dressy option by comparison.
It's no wonder that more and more people wear divers with suits. In the eyes of muggles, any "real" watch = fancy jewelry.
Pretty spot on 👍🏻👍🏻
Sadly you are correct though I will fight it till I die. O tempora, o mores!
If that masses are wearing smart watches with suits, I think just about any other watch will look better with that same suit.
Sadly, this might be true.
I disagree to a certain extent though. The Reverso and the Santos were sport watches in the days where sports were still played in relatively very dressy outfits. Both of them were designed in a time where almost every man had a suit and wore a suit regularly in town. I believed that the more formal culture back then influenced the design of the sports watches to still look coherent with the general outfits of the era. That, I believe, is why they work as dress watches today because a polo player of the 1930s would still dress more formally and more elegantly than an average person of the 2020s. Dress watches to me are primarily defined by their form and elegance, not by their antiquity or defunct utility. There will be a day where a Richard Mille would be considered a bonafide dress watch, but I dread for that day.
P.S. you can tell which side of "can you wear a dive watch with a suit" do I lean on, can't you? 😂
I might still use the my watches based on the appropriate occasion, but your essay is spot on.
Makes me feel less weird wearing my Timex Weekender on my wedding day, at least it’s not a smartwatch!
Not all watches are dress watches. In fact many “so-called” dress watches are better classified as casual or elegant. Dress is a distinct tier imo — precious metal, two hander, maybe a small seconds function. Took me a while to adopt that view and I feel my collecting approach is the better for it.
The fact that many of us believe we can wear sports / tool / casual watches in formal settings reflects modernity (and is cool) but that doesn’t make them “dress watches” at least to me.
Not all watches are dress watches. In fact many “so-called” dress watches are better classified as casual or elegant. Dress is a distinct tier imo — precious metal, two hander, maybe a small seconds function. Took me a while to adopt that view and I feel my collecting approach is the better for it.
The fact that many of us believe we can wear sports / tool / casual watches in formal settings reflects modernity (and is cool) but that doesn’t make them “dress watches” at least to me.
Good point, there always will be a definition of a “dress” watch. But the societal definition of dress may change.
Maybe a good analogy is the Sport coat. Originally worn when men wanted to get dirty. Now might you put one on to dine a a nice restaurant.
I think the bar has dropped on what you CAN wear and still be appropriate. But there will always be a other criteria for people who are trying to wear it well.
I might still use the my watches based on the appropriate occasion, but your essay is spot on.
Makes me feel less weird wearing my Timex Weekender on my wedding day, at least it’s not a smartwatch!
I wore a Timex Ironman (custom painted by me!) to marry my first wife. My second worst decision of the day. 🤓
Dress it up or down. It just works
I disagree to a certain extent though. The Reverso and the Santos were sport watches in the days where sports were still played in relatively very dressy outfits. Both of them were designed in a time where almost every man had a suit and wore a suit regularly in town. I believed that the more formal culture back then influenced the design of the sports watches to still look coherent with the general outfits of the era. That, I believe, is why they work as dress watches today because a polo player of the 1930s would still dress more formally and more elegantly than an average person of the 2020s. Dress watches to me are primarily defined by their form and elegance, not by their antiquity or defunct utility. There will be a day where a Richard Mille would be considered a bonafide dress watch, but I dread for that day.
P.S. you can tell which side of "can you wear a dive watch with a suit" do I lean on, can't you? 😂
Indeed the average person in the 1920s wouldn't be doing any sort of pastime like polo, or rowing crew, or chasing foxes. And have you see pictures of people flying across the Atlantic in 1965?
In terms of watches, there is sort of a survival bias here. Your are quite right, fashion is not defined by obsolescence, but if something is obsolete and still being worn, then it is being worn for something other than function. (Style, sentimentality, etc)
On wearing a dive watch with a suit. If the floodgates are open on watch style today, I saw the leak in the levee a few years ago when Seiko started offering matching cufflinks with their dive watches.
BTW I think Mr. Bond's Subariner choice is commonly misinterpreted. Maybe a new post.
If that masses are wearing smart watches with suits, I think just about any other watch will look better with that same suit.
That's a low bar. But at least it is something
Dress it up or down. It just works
Nice watch!
I've felt this way for some time. I got married in Jamaica in 1990...and wore my Submariner SCUBA diving that day and under the cuff of my tux that night!
I've felt this way for some time. I got married in Jamaica in 1990...and wore my Submariner SCUBA diving that day and under the cuff of my tux that night!
Excellent Choice, Mr. Bond
Completely agree. In a world where the vast majority wears no watch at all, and the most sold watch is the Apple "watch", any analog steel watch appears like an elevated dressy option by comparison.
It's no wonder that more and more people wear divers with suits. In the eyes of muggles, any "real" watch = fancy jewelry.
Ah muggles! Those people blissfully unaware that they living in and surrounded by a world of magic, watches, and wonders.