Inherited Obligations - Purchasing a Pre-Defined Heirloom Watch

17 Sep, 2026

Watches as Future Heirlooms

It doesn't take long browsing online watch forums and social media before one stumbles across the latest post requesting help choosing "an heirloom piece" for an as-yet-unborn familial addition. For reasons I don't, as yet, fully understand I find these posts to feel faintly awkward, faux-sentimental and over-optimistic.

It appears though, that I am, at least to some extent, out on a limb in this respect. Whilst opinions may differ over what makes a particular watch a more suitable "heirloom" than others, most respondents are on-board with the general concept.

Although I'm sure we all know what an heirloom actually is, just so everyone is on the same page the Merriam-Webster definition is:

"Something of special value handed down from one generation to another."

Within that definition are two words which will probably turn out to be crucial, specifically, "special value" and I suspect we'll move on to these in much more depth later in this post.

Firstly though, let's examine the type of post which I find objectionable, and I mean objectionable in the literal sense, as I do frequently object to the concept. The following is something of an amalgam of a variety of heirloom-related posts I've read whilst being part of the enthusiast watch-space.

"I'm looking for suggestions for a watch to celebrate the upcoming birth of my son and which I can pass on to him as an heirloom when he's 18. I've got a budget of $750 and I've been looking at the Seiko Alpinist. I want something versatile, which will last and which gives the best bang for my buck."

Before progressing too far, I quickly want to note that when looking back through a fairly large number of heirloom posts to get a proper flavour for that example, I was struck by just how many of them specified a son rather than a child or, indeed, a daughter. I've not run the numbers on this but it was noticeable - a topic for a later date?

Whilst the posters almost always provide an approximate price range, and if they don't they're swiftly encouraged to do so, it's important to make clear from the outset that none of my objections are based on cost per se - affordability is both relative and individual. This is usually understood by the various commenters. Occasionally one will sneer at a budget they deem too meagre but on the whole people will pitch their suggestions accordingly.

It seems to me that my objections take on two main forms. The first are the practical, day-to-day considerations which are worth pointing out to those considering embarking upon this journey. The second are more nebulous ideas which take some more mental unpacking.

Practical Paradoxes

On a practical note, the initial considerations are relatively mundane - the intended recipient may not be interested in watches or may not like that particular chosen watch. "Ah", but I hear the heirloom proponents cry, "they'll like this because it's a gift from you!". A statement so lacking in real-world experience as to be touchingly (or irritatingly) naive - delete as appropriate.

It's considered cynical to suggest that this optimism is potentially ill-founded however I feel that it's far more cynical to suggest that the originator of the gift is enough to establish sufficient value. That thought, effort, respect and suitability are somehow irrelevant in gift-giving and the only thing which matters is from whom the gift came, let alone your real relationship with that person.

And what will happen to the watch in the near two decades before the ceremonial handover? If the heirloom-er wears the watch during that time then conventional watch-enthusiast wisdom suggests that it'll need servicing at least three times at a very low-end cost of approximately $150 for a basic automatic movement.

Which raises several points, according to Time & Tide, a watch with a service cost of "only" $150 per time will likely be in the region of $250 - $750 so spending $150 on servicing the watch three times will very soon get you into "could've bought a new one for that" territory.

Furthermore, servicing a movement at this end of the price spectrum often means replacing the movement entirely as it's more cost efficient. So prior to handover the watch may have had three new movements fitted and presumably a replacement strap or two.

In this case the heirloom-ee is potentially receiving something which is less a watch and more a Ship of Theseus for those with an inclination towards classical philosophy or a Trigger's Broom for those who obtain their knowledge of philosophical paradoxes via the medium of classic 80s/90s BBC sitcoms.

Of course, there's always the option to not wear the watch and keep it in a pristine state, although slightly counter-intuitively the watch will still need servicing, not to rectify wear caused by use obviously, but to re-lubricate the parts and seals etc which have dried out in the absence of use.

The primary concern with this approach is the absence of any form of association in the mind of the recipient, rather than being presented with dad's old watch, they've instead received an old watch which dad kept in a drawer.

Of these two approaches I tend to favour the former if I'm able to disregard the service costs, the sentimental association is ostensibly the entire point of the exercise after all.

There is a potential middle-ground of wearing the watch just enough to imbue it with the essence of association as outlined by Csikszentmihalyi et al,(1981)¹, but not enough to wear it out however that seems an awkward compromise which risks achieving neither objective simultaneously.

As we move up the price range the service costs to value ratio does improve and at the higher end, someone who can afford to "look after a $94,000 Patek Philippe Nautilus 5810/1G-001 for the next generation" as per Patek's "Generations" ad campaign, can likely well afford the $2500 (not including taxes) service costs. As we can see - a $500 watch costs approx 30% of the purchase price to service, a $94,000 watch costs roughly 3% of the purchase price.

Once again, being "financially comfortable" turns out to be surprisingly cost efficient, as stated in the Sam Vimes ‘Boots’ Theory of Socio-Economic Unfairness.

Obligations

Whilst reading around this topic it turns out that, unbeknownst to me, central to my dislike of the general idea are the issues surrounding the "anthropological obligations" of gift giving. This is a much discussed concept which, according to Mauss, M (1954)² can be broken down into three main points.

To give

To receive

To reciprocate

All of which appear reasonably self-explanatory, although for many, the reciprocation aspect may cause some hesitation as they consider what type of reciprocation is required for the gift of an heirloom watch. However, Mauss' work can also suggest that not only do these things need to occur but they also need to be seen to occur otherwise they don't entirely fulfil their required purpose within, what I'll loosely call, the "gifting ceremony". Without being previously aware of this concept, it transpires that it forms the basis of many of my objections towards the entire concept of buying a future heirloom.

There's the temporal disconnect between the purchase and the giving, let's say 18 years give or take. Some of my practical concerns noted earlier help to highlight why imagining you can predict the nature of the handover two decades into the future seems fate-temptingly hubristic. Furthermore, the future nature of the relationship remains unknown. Familial estrangement is not, after all, particularly uncommon.

This goes some way to explaining my sense of witnessing performative faux-sentimentality when reading many of the heirloom related posts and discussions. The poster has decided on a course of action and the delayed gratification inherent to the entire concept requires some form of mitigation. Instead of waiting to handover the watch, the intention to do so is publicly announced and the responses form a kind of down-payment on the obligation for the gifting to be acknowledged. Although I'm certain this isn't what the posters intend, it's how it can be perceived.

At this point, it is important to note the value of the watch, not the monetary value of the physical object but instead the overall value including all the various aspects which combine to transform the item into the gift which is to be received. Financial, emotional, social and so on. In the words of Sherry, J (1983)³, "gifts are tangible expressions of social relationships." After all, if the heirloom was purely a financial consideration then just Venmo-ing the cash or establishing a savings fund would certainly be more efficient.

I will risk paraphrasing Sherry by positing that gifts are actually tangible expressions of how we perceive social relationships. This brings the concept into line with Belk, R. W. (1976)⁴ who argued that the giver is presenting an idealised projection of self in their selection of gift and recipient rather than an actual version. Or, to put it into context, they want to be seen as the sort of father who gifts their male progeny (or heir?) a thoughtful, valuable and (ironically) timeless heirloom piece and not just some guy giving his teenage son their old watch.

In light of this it is only by understanding the value of the heirloom in the eyes of the giver that we can understand any response from the recipient. The risk here is obvious, an unaligned view on the value of the gift between the giver and the recipient, as per Sherry "Giving too much, too little, or too late can strain a relationship to the point of dissolution". Again, it feels important to note that these aren't risks of a purely financial nature. Instead there should be genuine concerns about how much sentimental value is being asserted by the giver and how much of that value may go unrecognised by the recipient.

Unwelcome Gifts

I'm sure we all understand the feeling of receiving a gift we don't particularly want. A couple of Christmases ago I received a relatively expensive silver bracelet with some sort of wooden inlay, objectively it was a perfectly adequate gift.

Subjectively, I hated it.

In part because it just isn't my style and in part because when I tried it on there was a brief but unsettling sense of a sort of "claustrophobic entrapment" when I couldn't operate the clasp to remove it. And so it was returned, privately, gratefully and humorously, and exchanged for a camera tripod.

As a further aside, I also remember the time when the giver of that bracelet received a literal sack of potatoes from their financially well-off parents one Christmas, on the grounds that "everyone likes potatoes". A justification which was simultaneously both accurate and, much like the gift itself, inadequate. However, according to some, even this gift should have been treasured purely by virtue of from whom it originated.

Whilst Sherry's quote above referencing too much, too little, too late was in relation to the act of giving a gift, I believe it can also be applied to the manner in which the recipient receives the gift. An heirloom piece received purely as an old, slightly tattered, physical object will elicit a completely different response to one which is received in the spirit in which it was given. A meagre display of gratitude is something most have experienced at some point and will acknowledge the discomfort it can cause

Once again, it is the size of the discrepancy in perceived value which will determine the degree of misalignment between the giver's and recipient's respective levels of satisfaction.

With my aforementioned silver bracelet I was able to arrange an alternative for a handful of reasons. It was a purely physical, immediate object - not something gaining subjective significance over a period of years, it wasn't gifted in the presence of any invested witnesses, and my relationship with the giver is such that laughing at misjudged gifts is entirely acceptable. All told, this is a world away from a quasi-ceremonial handover of an heirloom piece on a significant occasion witnessed by family members all aware of the circumstances.

More Obligations (for longer this time as well)

Furthermore, this obligation continues beyond receipt. When should it be worn? When can it not be worn? What if it's lost or damaged? Must this tradition continue? The recipient is obligated to consider these aspects, and continue to manage familial expectations, even though they had no say in the scheme when it was initially hatched many years previously.

These ongoing obligations are a central part of the work of Weiner, A. B. (1992)⁵ who considers the paradox of keeping whilst giving. The heirloom is presented but the recipient does not have the social permission to do with it as they will - ie, they can't sell it without attracting social opprobrium . Instead they are expected to keep within the guidelines established by the giver. The recipient has use-age rights but not full and unrestricted ownership - a situation which continues should it be passed to the next generation, albeit with a greater weight of history bearing down upon the next incumbent and with two previous keepers, which aren't the same as owners, to satisfy.

Declaring an object an heirloom, particularly if the object was bought with that specific intention seems troublesome. Traditionally, heirlooms were created when objects were passed down with a sense of financial, utilitarian or emotional value already established, Curasi et al, (2004)⁶. The heirlooms were, in a sense, grown organically and not created on the whim of the first purchaser decades ahead of their handover. It's possible that in the age of readily-available consumer goods at all price points, the need for heirlooms, on a practical level, is diminishing. If this is so, does it follow that the spontaneous designation of heirlooms is filling the space left-behind?

Conclusion

At the outset of this post I wrote that the entire concept of spontaneously creating an heirloom years in advance felt awkward and somewhat one-sided.

Whilst I'm aware that I'm still somewhat out on a limb with this view in terms of the watch enthusiast space, there is a lot of academic writing which codifies gift giving and reception. This writing has helped me understand that my particular objections resulted from a sense of disquiet about the (previously unknown to me) rules of gift-giving being somewhat subverted.

At its simplest it boils down to a feeling that someone else's sentimentality, genuine or less so, shouldn't impose unwelcome obligations on the recipient. Obligations which begin prior to handover and which can continue beyond the lifespan of the recipient.

I wrote that the phrase "special value" would recur and instead of retreading that ground I think I've established, at least to my own satisfaction, that the defining factor of acceptance of any form of heirloom is "agreed value". If giver and recipient are aligned in their estimations of the value of the object then the road ahead should be relatively smooth. If those estimations differ then one or both sides may find themselves feeling aggrieved.

It seems like the missing information from the initial posts online isn't anything to do with watches per se, more so it's any information relating to familial relationships, existing gifting traditions and prior experience with heirloom objects.

I still dislike the idea but if forced I'd maybe concede that whilst declaring a future heirloom is one thing, creating the circumstances in which an heirloom can be "claimed" by a possible future recipient is another.

Purchasing a solid everyday beater watch, such as the very low maintenance sub-$400 Citizen Promaster Tough, which can be worn whenever and wherever and whose transition to new ownership can take place more organically, seems much more likely to create a worn and treasured possession rather than an old watch which just lives in a sock-drawer except for the slightly awkward occasions when its wearing is unavoidable.

Watches (in order of appearance)

Seiko Alpinist SPB507J1

Patek Philippe Nautilus 5810/1G-001

Citizen Promaster Tough BN0118-04E

References