Watches Are More Than Status-Symbols

I submitted this letter to the editor at the Financial Times and wanted to post it here too…

There has been some discussion about the luxury watch industry in the FT recently and I believe we’re getting the psychological draw to luxury wristwatches completely wrong. 

One commenter claimed watches lack the utility of fine wines since we can drink wine, while the time is displayed everywhere for free. Another commenter responded by explaining the allure of luxury watches as status symbols. In response to the former comment, and in the words of King Lear, ‘reason not the need!’. And in response to the latter, let me point out that a watch is usually between 3 and 5 centimetres in diameter. Isn’t there more effective ways of flaunting your wealth than with a watch, if that’s really what they’re for?

Rather, mechanical watches are an avenue away from the interminable tech/social media world, and into the world of arts, popular culture, history, design, engineering, astronomy… and so on. Watches were on the wrists of second world war soldiers on land, air and sea; they were worn by the first scuba-divers, by astronauts during the Apollo missions, by the first people to summit Mount Everest, by pioneering aviators in the advent of flight. Ultra-accurate mechanical clocks were even on-board colonial ships to calculate longitude at sea. The wealth of nations therefore rests on mechanical timekeeping. 

Horology (the study of timekeeping) is therefore a hobby in its own right - one for the deeply curious person. Explaining the appeal of watches as mere consumerism, greed or wealth-signalling misses the point. 

An Omega Speedmaster Professional ‘Moonwatch’, almost identical to the ones used by NASA, but in solid white gold, found in Omega, Glasgow