What do you regard as a "REAL" watch?

In my opinion a watch is something you use to tell the time, whether it’s the Casio F-91W or the Rolex Submarina you’ve got in your photo, both great watches by the way. I think it’s just snobbery if someone says something isn’t a watch just because it isn’t a luxury watch. 
My watches don’t vary too hugely in value as I have small kids and don’t want to be too scared to wear any of my watches whenever the mood takes me. My cheapest is this Timex 

And my most expensive is this Chris Ward 

Now I've been guilty of this ,describing my first 'real' watch which was Swiss and mechanical auto. When really my 1st real watch was a timex wind up when I was 5,over the years I've had loads of real watches from the likes of casino digitals, quartz rotary,kinetic seikos etc,all proper watches, but its a perception thing,all watches are real. And to be honest the electronic cheap real watches are far more accurate and less hassle. Now just because you think a lot of people don't think cheaper,quartz,digital watches aren't real,well they are and the majority on here still like those kind of watches even though they'll post about their 'real' watches I know I do. Don't be disheartened we like real watches and we like 'real' watches,post yours with pride and tell the story ( we all haven't got rolex,omega etc ,most have got casinos,timex etc)

Any portable device with the primary purpose of telling time.

Amateur existentialism: if you choose an object primarily for purposes of beauty, status, investment, or something besides telling time, it now merely resembles a watch and is not a real watch. Collectors basically don't have real watches. You can have a collection or you can have watches. Possibly you can have both, but they will not be the same thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxplpDKx_Qk 

A real (wrist) watch is a device that goes on your wrist and tell the time. A "real" watch is something that one consciously picks out from other watches after deliberation. Often associated with spending a large sum of money. Is how I would define it!

Came here to say just this.  Does it tell time on a wrist.  Real watch.

I don't discriminate in my watch collection from one brand to another, low end to high end, homage or high cachet brand name. If I like it, if it tells time with reasonable accuracy, has some proven mechanical longevity, decent build quality and looks, there's a good chance that I'm going to love it. I have everything from a Lorus driven quartz reverse (have to get that in for WRUW real soon) to an Omega Seamaster, with plenty of Ricoh automatics, HMTs and Vostoks going back to WWII somewhere in the middle. Recently, I've added a few new homage watches, as well. I collect what I like. 🤷🏻‍♂️

If it works for you, then it's worthy of being added to your collection. That's really the only criteria that should matter. 😁

I am pedantically pleased by the tacit admission that not all watches go on wrists. Not all of the others are even pocket watches! 

Back on topic. I assume one could add qualifiers about durability or "kwalitee" or some attribute beyond financial value, but only one trait is consistently increased in any objective way.

Durability is where I define it as real. This 30 year old transformer watch would literally fall apart if I tried to wear it, so probably not a “real” watch. But everything else I own from the F91W up is real. 

I think we all know what watches are. The rest is nit picking. No one I know ever mistook a car for a watch or a hammer or a piece of cheese. 

One bit of nit picking that pisses me off is when people suggest that smartphones aren't watches. They will no doubt offer all sorts of rationalisations to confirm why they hold that view, but, in the end, 'a watch is a watch is a watch'.

Any time piece has its place here. The expensive ones have flex and longevity while the inexpensive ones have easy replaceability. They only have to work. 

This is such a great response. I appreciate the honesty and clarity mate. Can I just ask this, do you disregard the other "Quartz" watches simply because their quartz or it due to another reason? If so, what is that reason. 

Nice watches bro. I think you hit the nail on the head. As much as I like to look at all sides of the coin I feel that when people disregard anything that isnt Luxury it comes off as snobbish and thats sad. 

There is nothing to discuss, a real watch is one that works and tells the time, irrespective of price. Luxury does not equal real, that’s just a silly way of showing off. Most of your collection would probably outperform many luxury watches in certain criteria, but that shouldn’t be the underlying criteria for ownership, just wear what you want (except Seiko or Tudor, be different).

I beg to differ to the view that smart watches should count as real watches.

Unlike real watches and in common with smart phones , smart watches are not built or designed to last effectively beyond two to three years. They have built in obsolescence. 

The same cannot be said of real watches,be they the cheapest casio or a high end Omega.

As such smart watches are only devices and not real watches?

I consider a real watch to be a piece that has been deliberately chosen AND cannot be easily replaced (due to rarity and/or price... thus I don't think it's not wrong for people to connect 'real' with luxury).

That's why I don't consider watches like casio to be a real watch since it's easily replaced (I own one and it is an important part of my collection).

Nor is my comically large diesel watch a real watch because this was purchased during a trip on the whim by a younger me with zero knowledge of watches.

That's the top shelf of my (mostly vintage) Vostok box. 😁

I haven't got many pics of everything all in one place though. I'll have to make time to post more stuff! 

My first watch was a Casio f-91w which I got from my uncle when I was 6. Sadly I lost it, didnt own a watch until 16 years later got myself the same f-91w, then a calculator casio inspired by BB. Still love both of them.

It tells the time at it's core level of function. It's "real" if it doesn't fail or fall apart in a few days/weeks of use. Beyond that, it's just levels of arm candy. 

What's this watch? Looks cool.

It’s a transformer watch from the 80s. I had one as a kid and recently got this new old stock one on eBay. 

Plankton gets so heated when he’s told he isn’t real. I often have to console him. 

Thanks I really like them. I find snobbish attitudes to watches quite perplexing as you’re turning a blind eye to an awful lot. Just look at what some of these cheaper microbrands can put out. I love my Chris Ward and the idea of refusing to look at that or my other micros because they’re not over £5000 a little strange. 
Still each to their own. 

Indubitably thought provoking.

Casio might chuckle a little at this while driving their Brink’s truck to the bank. 

Did someone convince you the smaller watches didn’t look good on your wrist, or did you decide yourself that they stopped ‘looking great on you’? 

I like a Lorus great lume on some of them.

I understand your sentiment. If you love your watches that's all that counts. I love my Seiko and Gucci Chrono and I love my Date just. They all have a place in my collection.  They all have a value. Enjoy it.

Looks like the Go Bots watch.

I love this response. Great points mate. And yeah I have a few Timex watches and I also have some other watches I dont want to damage so I regard them on a higher tier but I still look at them all the same in the sense of whats "real and not".