Transcending Utility
Quite a lot has been written on the psychology of collecting, and on various collectors subcultures. Yet despite this, there is not a precise definition, or a consensus, as to what collecting entails. What is the difference, for instance, between collecting and accumulating? Collecting and hoarding? Collecting and asset investment? Collecting and simply owning multiples of a particular type of object because you need lots of it?
Most of us, for instance, have wardrobes filled with clothes, houses filled with furniture, and (albeit perhaps less commonly now than before) shelves filled with books. Does that make us collectors of clothes, furniture, books?
Most would say it does not. Because the idea of collecting implies a deliberate focus on a type of thing that goes beyond merely needing to use it; that transcends utility as it were.
I always thought this was an assumed aspect of collecting. However looking back at my encounters with the practice, I am no longer sure.
Even in childhood, I was a collector of something or other. Not in an intense, concerning sort of way. Just as a general tendency, driven in equal parts by curiosity and sentimentality. Shells and stones gathered on nature walks lined the windowsills of my childhood room. Colourful pens graced my desk. Postcards I had received from friends made their way into a keepsake box.
The watch thing began similarly. I was born in the dawn of what is known among watch people as the Quartz Crisis: that is, when mechanical watches were all but phased out in favour of cheaper, battery-operated ones. When I was around 8 or 9 years old, an aunt gave me her old broken mechanical cocktail watch, having replaced it with a new quartz one. I played with it enthusiastically - prying off the back and marvelling at the tiny wheels and hammers. Upon seeing this, another relative followed suit and gave me his old army watch. And then another, and another - until I had a tray of old watches, beside my shells, pens, and postcards.
Going into adulthood, a few of these watches stayed with me - surviving various moves and life transitions. I did try to purchase a new watch now and again - but never felt as excited about the current production offerings as I did about the old decrepit watches from childhood. So eventually I figured out how to look for vintage, but functional ones from the same era. And it became a Thing. I never had a crazy-large collection, always gifting some and trading others along the way to keep things manageable. But I did have well beyond what was necessary for timekeeping purposes, or even for wearing as accessories to match different outfits and occasions. Some of the watches I wore often. Others I wore almost not at all and simply enjoyed handling them and looking at them. This did not trouble me in the least. It was fairly standard collector’s behaviour, I thought.
And then, a couple of years ago, I joined a watch forum. And I realised others did not share this view. Among the online watch collectors, there seemed to be an almost pathological concern that their watch ownership be justified by use case scenario and sufficient time on the wrist. Features such as water resistance, power reserve (how long a watch will remain accurate before it needs to be wound again), the presence of a date or day function, various bezel rotation issues (we’ll not even go there for now), and dare I say lume intensity (those the glow-in-the-dark bits on the dial) were discussed with the earnestness normally reserved for housing considerations or vehicle purchasing decisions. No matter how large a collection, each watch performed a specific function, and was always discussed in the context of being ‘in rotation’ and getting ‘wrist time.’
And then there was the talk of watches as investments. And a superior form of investments at that. Just think: One could wear one’s assets and get use out of them while the watches (well, only certain ones - but still) actually increased in value on the ‘grey’ (second-hand) market. The fact that very few watch owners actually managed to buy or sell their watches favourably in response to market fluctuations was beside the point. The very idea that it was hypothetically possible, seemed sufficient to rationalise the investment narrative.
Was all of this merely to justify spending money on a hobby, by making the acquisitions seem useful, utilitarian and logical?
Perhaps that is part of it. But as I gaze at my own collection, I think something greater is at play.
In the culture war between analogue and digital, watches perhaps have a special status. They are tiny wearable machines, mechanical miracles - requiring so much time and skill to produce today that their cost is frankly eye-watering. To think of them as predominantly artisanal and sentimental objects, banishes them to the category of non-essentials. It endangers them. Therefore, it becomes important for the very survival of the watches to stress their usefulness, their tool-like nature, their functional benefits. And perhaps the online watch collectors are aware of this instinctively.
Collecting may transcend utility. But without a utility-driven mindset having created the thing in the first place, we would not be in a position to collect it.
