Chubb is awesome. That's who I insure my business assets through, and they've been great to work with while at the same time being one of the lowest priced options.  That's a rare combination, especially in insurance.

As a mechanical engineer, I have to wholeheartedly agree with @SurferJohn. 

I see four objective differences to using titanium. However, I think that all four of these are subjective in how important they are (or are not) to an individual person.

1. Reduction of mass for the same size case
2. Allergic reactivity
3. Coefficient of thermal conductivity (titanium feels "warmer" since it doesn't transfer heat as readily as stainless steel)
4. The "look"

The toughness argument is specious at best. First of all, grade 2 titanium actually has less tensile strength than 316L stainless steel for a given unit of mass.  But let's say for the sake of argument that a watch is designed be "stronger" using titanium.  I think we can all agree: If you need more tensile strength in a watch than stainless steel provides, you are not using your watches correctly. Some companies also try to make toughness this ultimate selling point. As much as I love Damasko (and I really love them), the fact that their steel can deform more without fatigue cracking is absolutely meaningless in the world of mechanical watches. Great for submarines, meaningless for watches. It's just marketing.

Now as to what you give up when choosing titanium over stainless steel, it is absolutely a softer metal, which means it will scratch more easily unless it is somehow hardened (Grade 5) or treated (e.g. DLC).  Based on the fact that the secondary market proves that scratches are objectively viewed as reducing a watch's value, I have to conclude that the majority of people view scratch resistance as a desirable property in a watch. Thus, titanium is objectively "worse" in this area. For me, this single attribute is far more meaningful than the four listed above. YMMV.

Then again, companies make watches out of gold, which literally has ONLY ONE THING going for it: its perceived beauty/value.  Every other material property of gold is objectively terrible for a watch.  But they continue to sell a bunch of them, so it clearly comes down to what you value and think is important.

And by the way, I say all of the above as a titanium watch owner (but no gold). 😀

Holy crap! I never in my life thought I'd read a "Mambo #5" lyric in the headline of a Watchcrunch post.

Well played, sir.  Well played indeed. 

You assume too much.  I didn't use it in the pejorative whatsoever.  I meant it in the same way that "Women's" clothing is typically smaller than "Men's".  That's all.

One step smaller and I might have said "Child's".  Again, not pejorative.  Simply stating a size class.

Like you, it doesn't matter one iota to me for what gender a watch is made.

I know I won't gain any popularity points for this, but...

When I saw the 36 on someone's wrist for the first time, I honestly thought they had a women's version (before I knew anything about the history of this model). His wrist is even smaller than mine, so I know there's no way I could appreciate wearing a watch that small.

The 39 is as small as I would go, and honestly wish they made that dial design in the 42 case like the Explorer II.

Assuming you're going to use a "stainless" material such as steel or titanium, then give me surface hardness over ANYTHING else. Most other material properties are a distant second. I just want it to be resistant to oxidation and scratches.  It's nice if it can be polished as well as brushed, but the key thing (for me) is that it's tough.

The first rule of watch wearing in the snow?  You have to be able to FIND the watch if you drop it. 😉

Here's what I'm wearing through our 15° (F) day today.