I prefere a 16 watch collection than a single Rolex at the same price

I have little interest in owning a Rolex.  I greatly prefer owning a small collection (smaller than 16) of quality, affordable watches.

Here are my reasons:

1. I'm not overly worried if a watch lost/damaged/destroyed/stolen.  They're replaceable.  Therefore, I can wear a watch anywhere without getting stressed or being overly protective of it.
2. I can get an attractive, quality watch for a modest price.
3. Some style experts advise against wearing the same watch every day.
4. While it's fun to discuss a one-watch collection, you're really supposed to wear a dress watch (or pocket watch) with a tuxedo, and wear some type of sport watch (diver, field, etc.) or other casual watch with very casual attire.  Even a two-watch or three-watch collection will handle this far better than a one-watch collection.
5. I avoid status symbols, particularly obvious displays of wealth (like a Rolex).
6. With a collection, I can have one or two quirky pieces, while mostly owning more timeless styles.
7. A finance periodical (that I trust) did an article on Rolex, and stated that 60% of the price is due to the strength of the Rolex brand.  While I will often pay a small markup for a brand I trust, that's a large markup.
8. I'd rather learn/practice modding on an affordable watch.
9. On the other hand, I'd rather have a smaller collection, maybe 6 rather than 16, and wear each one a little more frequently.

Overall, I agree with you.  It makes more sense (to me) to own multiple watches.

When a brand's identity becomes entwined with larger social connotations, it can become problematic.  And, depending upon how the manufacturer handles the situation, it can either redound to the brand's benefit...  or to its detriment.

Take Lamborghini, for example.  When I've spoken with hard-core sports car enthusiasts, invariably, when I've mentioned Lamborghini, these enthusiasts snort derisively, and say, "Lamborghini is a luxury brand, NOT a performance brand."  I've been told in no uncertain terms that if you want a real sports car, you buy a Porsche, or a Ferrari, or a McLaren.  If you want to be a crass show pony, I've been told, then you buy a Lamborghini.  Apparently, the brand's identity has been co-opted to now represent "status" as opposed to "racing performance."

Porsche, on the other hand, seems to have done a phenomenal job of preventing that sort of "brand hijacking."  Porsche began creeping dangerously close to the "status" connotation, and then did something utterly brilliant - they started releasing SUVs and cross-overs.  They made the Cayenne and the Macan perfectly accessible to soccer moms, and anyone who wanted access to the badge.  This has resulted in Porsche becoming the manufacturer with the highest margins of any manufacturer on the planet.  They also made the 911 plusher and softer and filled it with tons and tons of technology and goodies.  All of this would destroy Porsche's "performance" branding, were it not for their next genius move:  They turned around and plowed a bunch of that profit into increased R&D, and have funded the GT division to the gills.  The Porsche GT cars are UNDENIABLY about pure rip-your-face-off performance.  If anything, Porsche has further cemented its performance creds, and moved away from the "luxury" and "show pony" connotations.

Some watch brands (and we all know who they are), are falling dangerously close to becoming pure "status symbols" in the wider public consciousness.  That's good for their short-term revenues and profits; however, may not be so good for their brands in the long-term.  The public eye is fickle.  Once everyone gets sick of Instagram wrist shots, they'll move on to flashy jeans and butt-shots, or some such.  The question then becomes, will these watch brands be able to survive and thrive when it's just regular ol' watch people who want a nice watch who are the consumers, instead of those out to buy a "status symbol"?

When a brand's identity becomes entwined with larger social connotations, it can become problematic.  And, depending upon how the manufacturer handles the situation, it can either redound to the brand's benefit...  or to its detriment.

Take Lamborghini, for example.  When I've spoken with hard-core sports car enthusiasts, invariably, when I've mentioned Lamborghini, these enthusiasts snort derisively, and say, "Lamborghini is a luxury brand, NOT a performance brand."  I've been told in no uncertain terms that if you want a real sports car, you buy a Porsche, or a Ferrari, or a McLaren.  If you want to be a crass show pony, I've been told, then you buy a Lamborghini.  Apparently, the brand's identity has been co-opted to now represent "status" as opposed to "racing performance."

Porsche, on the other hand, seems to have done a phenomenal job of preventing that sort of "brand hijacking."  Porsche began creeping dangerously close to the "status" connotation, and then did something utterly brilliant - they started releasing SUVs and cross-overs.  They made the Cayenne and the Macan perfectly accessible to soccer moms, and anyone who wanted access to the badge.  This has resulted in Porsche becoming the manufacturer with the highest margins of any manufacturer on the planet.  They also made the 911 plusher and softer and filled it with tons and tons of technology and goodies.  All of this would destroy Porsche's "performance" branding, were it not for their next genius move:  They turned around and plowed a bunch of that profit into increased R&D, and have funded the GT division to the gills.  The Porsche GT cars are UNDENIABLY about pure rip-your-face-off performance.  If anything, Porsche has further cemented its performance creds, and moved away from the "luxury" and "show pony" connotations.

Some watch brands (and we all know who they are), are falling dangerously close to becoming pure "status symbols" in the wider public consciousness.  That's good for their short-term revenues and profits; however, may not be so good for their brands in the long-term.  The public eye is fickle.  Once everyone gets sick of Instagram wrist shots, they'll move on to flashy jeans and butt-shots, or some such.  The question then becomes, will these watch brands be able to survive and thrive when it's just regular ol' watch people who want a nice watch who are the consumers, instead of those out to buy a "status symbol"?

I don’t know about the Porsche analogy. I work tangential to the auto industry, and in my experience most Porsche owners know only one thing: They own a Porsche. They don’t know their engine model or even displacement. They don’t know what sub class their 997 is. They just know that they own a Porsche. Same with with every dude with money who wants a luxury watch and only knows one brand: Rolex. 
 

Contrast that with people who own a Subaru WRX STi (arguably the Omega of sports cars).* STi owners are the true gear heads these days. Porsche owners never, ever tune their engines. STi owners do constantly. Those people know everything from their compression ratios to what exact temps the oil hits while doing pulls. They pay close attention to and love every detail. That is a real enthusiast with a passion for how things work.** (See Omega owners)

*The VW Golf with the TSI/TSFI engine is the Seiko. 

**Honorable mention to BMW M3 owners. Those dudes are insane. 

Too funny!  We're gonna turn this into a car forum.

• Agreed 100% with you about the typical 911 owner
• However, if you come across anyone with a GT3 or a GT4, then you immediately know that they know that you know that they know that you know
• I love your WRX = Omega and TSI/TSFI = Seiko analogy!

I used to own an M2 Competition, and almost bought an M2 CS, but after a couple of years on Bimmerpost, the keyboard warriors ruined the entire brand for me, so got a Cayman T instead, called it a day, and became a watch person instead.

Car, watch, and pen people (honestly, mostly guys) are all part of the same spectrum.  Cost prevents most from having too many cars.  Practicality prevents you from owning too many pens (although I have some that I have never inked).  Watches hit the sweet spot, so 20 or 40 may not seem like too many (it is).

It may be that 15 watches, with five being workhorses (dress, sport, dive, etc.) and 10 being tastes and novelties, should keep interesting and useful pieces in rotation.  Sounds great in theory anyway.

I have little interest in owning a Rolex.  I greatly prefer owning a small collection (smaller than 16) of quality, affordable watches.

Here are my reasons:

1. I'm not overly worried if a watch lost/damaged/destroyed/stolen.  They're replaceable.  Therefore, I can wear a watch anywhere without getting stressed or being overly protective of it.
2. I can get an attractive, quality watch for a modest price.
3. Some style experts advise against wearing the same watch every day.
4. While it's fun to discuss a one-watch collection, you're really supposed to wear a dress watch (or pocket watch) with a tuxedo, and wear some type of sport watch (diver, field, etc.) or other casual watch with very casual attire.  Even a two-watch or three-watch collection will handle this far better than a one-watch collection.
5. I avoid status symbols, particularly obvious displays of wealth (like a Rolex).
6. With a collection, I can have one or two quirky pieces, while mostly owning more timeless styles.
7. A finance periodical (that I trust) did an article on Rolex, and stated that 60% of the price is due to the strength of the Rolex brand.  While I will often pay a small markup for a brand I trust, that's a large markup.
8. I'd rather learn/practice modding on an affordable watch.
9. On the other hand, I'd rather have a smaller collection, maybe 6 rather than 16, and wear each one a little more frequently.

Overall, I agree with you.  It makes more sense (to me) to own multiple watches.

I don't want to wear the same watch every day.  I need at least 5 - different purposes, different clothes, gotta have a watch to go with the situation!

Meanwhile I’m wearing the same clothes every day at work and have a weekend uniform at home as well. Variety is cool but I personally prefer having one less thing to think about. To each their own!

Must admit, timepieces tempt me think twice about my variety/simplicity balance…

Four omegas for 9k? What? 

sub steel/gold 14.100 euros 

Speedmaster reduced 3.000

Aqua terra quartz 1.500

Geneve 800

aqua terra automatic 3.000

all the omegas used.

The Rolex steel gold street price 17.000 euros.

A Rolex at 9k it is hard to find.

fair enough...but when i do those mental gymnastics on my own i usually think of current models.