Just curious, Do you consider watches to be Jewelry, an Accessory, or a Utility?
Obviously, jewelry and accessories can mean the same thing, so I’ll clarify. Jewelry is usually for looks or sentiment, while accessories (belts, ties, etc) typically have a function as well.
Personally, being new in the watch collecting space, my watches are all “Jewelry” for now.
I don’t find myself using them for the time since clocks are everywhere, and I’ve used the ones I’ve bought lately to add a bit of flare to my outfits. Smart watches (definitely a utility) just aren’t pretty enough!
There’s no utility in a luxury watch that can’t be delivered by a 100-200 quid quartz one (and that’s allowing for a lot of flexibility). So like, your Tudors, Balls, Omegas etc have no utility that these don’t have (except in very niche circumstances).
So anyone claiming utility from their Longines or Sinn is lying to themselves
Saying luxury watches have no utility beyond that provided by a quartz watch admits that luxury watches provide utility. Watch enthusiasts will generally appreciate watches for a variety of reasons all while getting utility from the watches.
Uhh no, it’s pointing out that the expensive mechanism you paid so much for adds nothing other than the intangible feelings you associate with it.
That’s some serious cope you’ve got there friend
So you’re saying it adds something? You get a watch that tells the time and you get positive intangible feelings associated with the watches due to a personal appreciation for history/mechanical devices/design? Sounds like a win-win. I agree with your statements, but you’re saying it like these are bad things and I’m saying they’re positive. Whether these intangible feelings are worth the extra cost is up to the buyer.