How to Consolidate Your Watch Collection for the New Year
With the new year fresh upon us, we enter a time of reflection, resolution, and refocusing. For watch collectors it’s common to look back on the previous year and, looking forward, to consider changing things up in our collections. For some of us, this time of year finds us considering paring back and working toward that horological ideal so few of us ever really see in our watch boxes.
Two avid collector friends wrote to me on New Year’s Eve to say they hadn’t bought a single watch in 2024, and that they were both gearing up to consolidate their collections in 2025. One who owns a bevy of Rolexes is considering going down to just a Rolex GMT-Master II and a Patek Philippe Calatrava 5196G in white gold—a fine two-watch collection that could surely do it all. The other friend owns boxes full of vintage Grand Seikos and several excellent vintage Swiss watches from Rolex, Longines, and so on; he’s considering selling off the bulk of his watches and getting a vintage Rolex GMT-Master 1675—the mythical one-watch collection.
More from Robb Report
No, this isn’t a love letter to the Rolex GMT-Master (though one can certainly see the appeal of paring down to that classic, which almost cracked the top 10 on our list of the 50 greatest watches of all time.) Instead, this essay is for any of us who are at least several years into our “watch journeys”—as this obsession is sometimes called as if it were a quasi-spiritual quest—and especially for those among us who wonder if owning fewer and better watches would be more satisfying.
The Watch Journey Is a Head Trip
If owning multiple watches constitutes anything other than a material obsession, it’s probably more psychological than spiritual. I talk to and/or text with avid watch collectors every day, and the question I hear these folks ask themselves most is whether a watch “Is really me or not?” This question is one of identity, of self-conception, and for this reason I have come to think of the proverbial watch journey as being in no small part a psychological trip. We are ultimately grappling with ourselves when we decide which watches to own.
One clarification before we travel into the heady space of the watch trip: Those who buy watches solely for investment and those who assemble museum-grade, academic collections to sit in vaults or vitrines usually don’t grapple with the same psychological questions as those of us who own and wear our watches.
How Do You Choose a Watch?
Collecting watches boils down to making decisions. It’s a psychological game, one in which we are grappling with myriad considerations, many of which are likely subconscious. Even if we can point to details that appeal to us—a color, the way a bezel clicks, legibility, a precious-metal formula, fine engraving, anglage, and so on—we don’t often really know precisely why one watch or one detail appeals to us more than another. If you’ve ever thrown up your hands and said, “I just like this one,” or “Eh, I just don’t like it,” then you’ve engaged in what is largely a subconscious aesthetic judgment, one made on a gut level without really knowing what motivates that preference.
There’s nothing wrong with trusting one’s instincts. It may be the very best way to dig into our deeper longings. But if, like me and my friends above, you find yourself looking into your watch box and seeing a bunch of watches you don’t wear—or one that has you wondering what the hell you were thinking when you bought it—then it’s fair to assume that either your gut was off or that your tastes have shifted. Either way, it can be helpful to unpack these feelings and to get to know them—and yourself—better.
“There’s no accounting for taste,” the adage goes, but I think there is a way to at least partially account for taste, and if we can we will make better decisions. This should, in theory, lead us to own fewer watches because a truly well-chosen watch will satisfy more of our horological longings more of the time.
However, making such fine decisions isn’t as easy as it may sound.
It’s Good to Have Assembled a Messy Collection
One often hears experienced watch collectors tell those in the early stages of their watch journey to just go ahead and buy watches to learn what they like and don’t like. I couldn’t agree more. I think with watches we all have some wild oats to sow, harvest, and discard before we know what will nourish us. Trial and error is typical in the early stages of a watch journey, and it’s inevitable that mistakes will be made.
In other words, it’s good to have assembled an unfocused collection, an amalgam of well-intentioned purchases, even if they turn out to be misses in the long run. This is how we learn.
However, the messy collection is usually kind of a bummer, especially if we do the math. I can’t think of a single collector who hasn’t woken up one day to look in their watch box and think, “My gosh, there’s a lot of money in there. What if I added it all up and bought what I really want?” This is a healthy impulse. It indicates that you’re ready for what I’ve called a “quantum leap,” in which you go directly from one level of collecting to the next. If you’ve asked yourself this question, then you may be on the verge of a consolidation.
Consolidating Your Collection
The quantum leap is always a big step. Let’s say you’ve got 10 watches, each one bought to satisfy some longing, and now you’ve put way more money into watches than you ever imagined you would. Some of us half-jokingly say that we have slowly set aside money on the horological installment plan in preparation for “The Big Purchase.” This seems to be especially true for younger collectors who are moving up in their careers and earning more money. The shifts in identity that come with socio-economic ascent often lead one to a new level of watch ownership (we’ve even pondered this in terms of spending one’s bonus on a watch). But whatever your age or career trajectory, a messy collection can be thought of as a nest egg set aside for a next-level watch purchase.
What’s difficult is knowing what to do next. The watches we bought five, 10, or 15 years ago might not look like such a big purchase now, and these watches might make us feel that we were naïve, ill-informed, or just immature. This can cause you to doubt your gut impulses about watches. If you’re like me, you might even feel a little shame or, in a better head-space, you might chuckle over how little you knew about watches.
But it’s important when considering a consolidation to discard the idea that we didn’t know enough about watches and instead realize that we didn’t know enough about ourselves. Yes, your hard-won knowledge about watches is essential to consolidating—to making the quantum leap—but to make much better decisions this time, especially because more money is likely at stake, it may be wise to look inward.
Who Are You Really?
This may sound a bit woo-woo, but let’s shed our aversions to the self-help jargon and instead think of this inward investigation as a step toward becoming a more exceptional and satisfied watch collector. The collectors who I admire the most seem entirely pleased with the watches they own; they have journeyed into their hearts and minds and come out the other side to make excellent decisions about which watches to keep, to flip, and to buy next.
Below are a number of things to consider if you’re looking to take the quantum leap.
Which Watch Would Be Most Comfortable to Wear in Most Circumstances?
Part of consolidating a collection involves finding more versatile watches, and by that I don’t mean that it can go in the pool and to the board room, but instead, it is a watch you would be comfortable wearing in the greatest number of scenarios. This question gets us beyond “I like it” and “I don’t like it” and instead asks about feeling comfortable in our lives as we actually live them.
To answer this question, it may be helpful to consider not only the activities you engage in but also the people you engage with and how the watch will work socially for you.
Personal example: I could wear my ghosted Rolex Submariner Ref. 16800 in just about every scenario I can imagine. It’s relatively low-key in steel with faded features, but it’s a Rolex, so it can go upscale as far as I need.
Which Watch Would Best Express Your Vibe?
What does “your vibe” even mean? Effectively, this is admitting that watches speak socially for us—at least to those who pay them any heed, which is far more common nowadays than ever, as watches have become massively popular. Our vibe is a feeling we emit into a room and how that feeling informs our interactions. This requires going past “I like it” and “I don’t like it” into a more personal examination of how we exist and aspire to exist in social settings.
Personal example: My faded Rolex Submariner 16800 doesn’t exactly emit elegance, and I am often more gracious when I feel I am emitting a bit of elegance (not unlike getting dressed up). I have often considered a Vacheron Constantin 222 as the ultimate expression of the vibe I aspire to: a sporty elegance.
Which Watch Will Make You Smile the Most When You’re Alone?
A watch is most often a private thing, one we experience from around 18 inches from our faces when our arms are bent to check the time. I’d guess that about 95 percent of the time we spend with a watch is when we’re alone with it in that time-checking position.
Looking at a watch sitting in a display case or across the table on someone else’s wrist, and certainly in an online image, is nothing like looking at a watch on our wrists. How it looks on your wrist will get you thinking less about details and technical specifications and more about how it fits on your wrist (don’t think about size, experience it instead) and whether you smile or not when you see it there (again, think less, feel more).
Personal example: I wish I smiled more at my chill steel Rolex Submariner Ref. 16800 than I do my two-tone Submariner Ref. 16803, but I simply get the warm fuzzies when I see that yellow gold bezel and gloss black dial. The two-tone 16803 has a bit more elegance, too.
Ignore the Experts and Resist Geeking Out
There are a lot of “rules” of watch collecting these days, borne mostly of the watch media, but also sellers espousing what constitutes “a good example.” For vintage watches, this often comes down to the condition being as close to the original as possible, which certainly impacts value, but not necessarily our enjoyment. For new watches, there are persnickety rules espoused in the internet’s echo chamber, including if a watch seems overpriced, is poorly finished, has a date window in a bad location, or if it isn’t close enough to some ideal (often an original model the watch is imitating). Ignore all that and look inward instead.
Personal example: My two-tone Submariner Ref. 16803 is not especially rare, and it’s been polished a little too heavily, and the bracelet is (literally sometimes) falling apart. No one would call it “a great example.” But none of that outweighs the smile it puts on my face or the elegance the gold emits socially.
Don’t Discount What You Can’t See
Get to know your watch’s movement. If the watch has a clear case-back or a skeletonized dial, the movement is part of the show, but even a watch with a solid case-back can hold a treasure worth keeping in mind. Just knowing that you own a piece of interesting—and perhaps very beautiful—mechanical technology can add a great deal to your experience of owning and wearing at watch.
Similarly, having your watch tuned up to keep excellent time can add to the ownership experience. The private sense of quality and precision can be very rewarding. You might even get a timegrapher, a machine that measures the performance of your watch. There are even some timegrapher apps for your phone now. But barring those machines, checking your watch now and again for precision against an atomic clock is a window into its invisible world.
Personal example: My Vacheron Constantin Ref. 7592 from the 1970s is a discrete little 34 mm stainless steel watch with an unremarkable face. Inside, however, is the venerable caliber 1120, which is based on the Jaeger-LeCoultre 920 of 1967, an autowinder that remains the world’s thinnest mechanical movement with a full-sized peripheral rotor at just 2.45 mm. The same movement base went into the first Audemars Piguet Royal Oak, the first Patek Philippe Nautilus, and the original Vacheron Constantin 222. The finishing thatr Vacheron added to early caliber 1120s is exquisite. But you can’t see it unless I unscrew the caseback, and most people think I’m wearing an unremarkable Timex when I sport my 7592. It’s a private luxury.
Happy New Year!
If thinning out your collection is something you’re considering, we hope this helps you narrow down your prized possessions to the ones that will keep you smiling and worrying less. It’s a new year, and there’s really no better time to look inward and decide what it is we really want in the year ahead.
Best of Robb Report
Sign up for RobbReports's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
