The Spieljust 1: Damage Control

Like all good watch collectors, we like to either have our watches look pristine, or for them to have evidence of rough-and-tumble, hardscrabble labor. Although the debate between “like-new” and “patina-ed” watches will go on until the inevitable heat-death of the universe (and authentic vs fake patina for that matter), one thing that’s always bugged me is some collectors’ fears about accumulating damage on their favorite timepieces. I’m not talking about your grandfather’s pie-pan Omega falling off your wrist while you’re going 80mph on the I-95, or an MRI machine disemboweling your Seiko SLA017. I mean stuff like scratching the inside of your Submariner’s lug while you try and put on a 16mm NATO, after you’re seven martinis deep at your James Bond-themed costume party.

Some (emphasis on some) Rolex owners in particular are especially anal about this. After all, their timepiece(s) are from one of the very few brands that appreciate in value, instead of becoming part of Jomashop's seemingly perpetual sales. Their logic is that they can enjoy their Submariner/Day-Date/Milgauss/Yachtmaster/Daytona/Turn-O-Graph/seven lady Datejusts while also making a nifty profit in ten or so years. On paper, this seems like a damn good deal; you'd get to enjoy the timepieces of the most coveted watch brand of the past century while also making some money down the line.

But like most things in life, some people take it too far. A few Rolex owners in particular have started to take pretty extreme measures to ensure their watch is in BNIB-condition when they trade it in to Tourneau or sell it on Chrono24 in 2037. It's not uncommon to go on r/rolex, The Rolex Forums, Watchuseek and r/watches and find people asking fellow enthusiasts how to prevent their clasps from being scratched...by desk diving. Wanting to avoid dumb mistakes that'll damage your watch is one thing, but trying to prevent them entirely is a fool's errand. Short of never wearing it and never exposing it to the elements, it's inevitable that your watch will, at some point, get a scratch or ding on it.

And what baffles me even more is that these people's Rolexes (and other luxury watches for that matter) will still be worth substantial money, even with some evidence of wear. A couple months ago there was an older Rolex GMT Master II that was being sold on Walmart's website. Despite that it had a pretty noticeable chip on the bezel, and there was a good amount of patina, it still cost thousands. Hell, if these people were in it for the long game, they could hold onto their pre-ceramic Submariners for 30, 40, perhaps 50 years, and probably get the same amount of money Subs from the 60s, 70s and even 80s sell for now. Even beat-up, worn out Subs from the 50s sell for six, sometimes even seven figures.

Although I'm not in control of what these people do, and I don't believe I'm qualified to be some sort of weird, watch-centered behavioral therapist, I don't understand why people get so upset when their valuable watch accumulates inevitable damage. A watch is something you should enjoy, not some untouchable heirloom that you forbid your own wrist from wearing. Apart from a handful of high-end brands and maybe two or three unfathomably in-demand microbrands, watches are a pretty shitty investment unless you get lucky; grey market sellers who probably made a metric fuckton of cash after Seiko officially discontinued the SKX, SARB017 and SARB033/35 are a prime example.

Furthermore, what's the point of even owning a Rolex-or any watch for that matter-if you're never gonna wear it? Part of what brings people to these brands is the recognition that they get when Apple Watch-wearing, Dodge Durango-driving, Disney+-using professional mommies see them wearing a Datejust, Daytona or Submariner at the local Stop and Shop. Even in all their strangeness, r/rolex regulars constantly brag about how a Rolex "makes you feel like a king" or some unsubstantiated bullshit they write about what is ultimately an inanimate, unliving anachronism. Sure, I think my Seiko SNJ025 Arnie is a cool diver that can do anything that an average human person would need from a watch, but it doesn't make me feel like I'm better than someone who wears an Invicta, Movado or a G-Shock.

I think all this strange behavior honestly stems from people's desires to validate themselves through the things they use and own, and more generally the actions they commit. Burly male Millennials buy coal-rolling Cummins to prove to everyone else on the highway that they're big-dicked and manly. Limousine liberals and their companies only post about societal woes on social media when they're big in the corporate news cycle. And luxury watch owners buy and fanatically preserve their watches so Gilbert, the thirtysomething who works at Bob's Watches, can tell them in 2059 that his 16610 Sub looks "brand new" and "is the freshest one we've ever seen", while u/RolexLover1570 clutches his aged and well-worn tinkle.

The world of watches is, in of itself, strange. We all obsess over these little time-tellers that, arguably, have no real purpose in our so-called "modern" and "enlightened" world. Even the likes of Citizen, Seiko and Casio, who nearly ended Western watchmaking 5 decades ago, struggle to compete with a company who don't even specialize in watchmaking. By owning a more traditional, non-smart watch, we commit ourselves to fully embracing them against all logic. But when logic dictates that we should actually enjoy our watches, from Casio F-91ws to Piaget Altiplano Ultimate Concepts, maybe we shouldn't throw caution to the wind sometimes.