lol I find that difficult to believe barring maybe the total collapse of the wristwatch industry. They have been in a league of one in terms of successful marketing and brand building and I don't see that changing without, again, the collapse of the entire industry.

It has a certain last-century jet-setter romance attached to it. IMO it has little practical use for its originally intended customer base (i.e. pilots) in the age of digitized timekeeping. I guess I'd find it attractive if I need to fly all over the world going directly from airport to board meetings? But even then I would probably still prefer the aesthetics of a 3-hander with independent hour hand like the Omega globemaster.

It needs to be made out of gold and myrrh lol.

Even within the context of "investment vs frivolous spending", this sentiment is still not entirely true. One key aspect of investment is liquidity. While it may be true that the higher price bracket you go, the more likely watches will hold their values (which is very debatable and mostly only true to a fraction of the high-demand/low availability pieces), the frequency at which they are traded is going to be lower than something like a Rolex, which, with a few exceptions (Daytona etc), trade below the $50k mark. Is anybody gonna say Rolex being a poor investment?

Yea unfortunately size is always going to be an issue when it comes to microbrands and even some established brands as many of them are only available online. Over the many pieces I have owned, I eventually worked out a series of physical dimensions that work for me 90% of the time. However, these general guidelines are usually too conservative for the remaining 10%, when it comes to designs that are deceptively large on paper but are actually more wearable than dimensions suggest (my quartz Tuna for example).

I don't think the aging is supposed to happen quickly. It will probably take place over 10s of years.

Can't agree more. Definitely been hit by that before.