What Even "is" a Watch Collection? (and do I have a sock collection?)

13 Aug, 2026

Why the Hesitation?

Occasionally, somebody will say to me "you collect watches don't you?" which always gives me pause. I inevitably answer "no" and follow up with something along the lines of "I like watches and I've got quite a few but I wouldn't say I'm a collector as such".

Which is true as far as it goes. However, it feels like I'm coming across as being needlessly pedantic in order to shut down the conversation, which isn't the intention. We all know that the first rule of watch club is you don't not talk about watch club.

So why the hesitation?

I'm just not happy using the word "collection" - it seems inaccurate and unrepresentative of how I've ended up with at least "several" watches and a watch blog. In this post I'm going to try and articulate why I'm not a collector, how it makes a difference and why it matters.

What is a Collection?

Obviously, we need a dictionary definition to act as a jumping-off point here and so Merriam-Webster defines a collection as "an accumulation of objects gathered for study, comparison, or exhibition or as a hobby".

Which seems like it should be case closed as I do indeed have "an accumulation of watches gathered for (my) comparison, exhibition (on wrist and online) and as a hobby.

But what this definition of collecting shares with my accumulation of watches is an absence of coherent curation.

"It is, in fact, quite conventional to think of "collections" as different from "accumulations," but it is not very satisfactory because it skirts the question of how, or by whom, the coherence of a "collection" is to be determined." Tanselle, G. T. (1998)¹.

I'm convinced, even at this early stage of this piece, that an "accumulation" is by far a better general term than "collection" when used as the collective noun for an underwear drawer full of watches.

Beyond Ordinary Goods

However, according to Belk, R. W. (1998)²

"[Collecting] does not involve the use of ordinary consumption goods to satisfy ordinary desires. If this were the case we would not be able to distinguish hoarding (say of toilet paper, light bulbs, or string) from collecting. Unlike the hoarding pattern of accumulating utilitarian objects, the objects we collect are either luxury goods from the start (e.g. art works) or are objects removed from their ordinary uses."

Which raises some interesting points.

We can presumably agree that a watch isn't included in the term "ordinary consumption goods". The average individual watch is generally an everyday item for a significant number of people but it isn't a "consumable".

Indeed, we can argue that at a certain point watches stop being just watches and instead transform into "luxury goods" by virtue of possessing attributes beyond those required for simple daily time-keeping.

Whether this be from cost, functionality or appearance etc could be considered both subjective and/or relative but the point, I believe, still stands.

However, possessing a single luxury item doesn't automatically constitute collecting just because it is, in some aspect, unnecessarily "extra".

What is noteworthy is Belk's idea that objects are more readily considered as part of a collection when they are removed from their ordinary use.

The ordinary use of a watch is generally daily time-keeping but is that true of say, a ~$150,000 Rolex Day-Date 40 in Platinum with a diamond set bezel and a diamond and sapphire dial?

Or is the daily use case of such a watch more about "being" and "being seen to be being" such a watch?

And where exactly would one draw the line?

I would probably argue that the latter is true, it might not be possible to say exactly where the line is which separates "daily time-keeping" from "something else" but it's not hard to argue that a watch like the Day-Date mentioned above is definitely on the "something else" side of any such divide.

Conversely, you don't need to spend much time on Reddit's r/watches or similar online spaces before you read something about Casio's $15 F-91W being all the watch you ever "need".

Whilst I'll concede that this may be somewhat true for daily time-keeping I'd suggest it doesn't cover as broad a range of average daily-use cases as it could. It would look slightly out of place in a more corporate environment for example, the horological equivalent of some budget trainers rather than actual shoes. But realistically that's something of a digression and I'm prepared to let it slide.

The Circular Question

However, what can safely be stated is that there are a huge number of people all around the world wearing F-91Ws who have never once thought about watches or watch culture in any sort of depth.

Consequently, if we apply Belk's logic, an F-91W only becomes something you would have in a collection when it's removed from its role as a day-to-day watch.

Which brings us to something of a circular argument; if somebody includes an F-91W in a collection as an example of "the only watch you ever really need" does its place in the collection take priority over its daily time-keeping in terms of the role it's fulfilling?

And what about if the person who has said collection doesn't think of it as such and to them it's just a cheap watch - does it revert back to being part of a simple "accumulation"?

Designation as Qualification

This uncertainty about a watch's place in a collection or an accumulation is addressed by Belk who suggests that "a new piece might hover in a liminal state before the [dealer] decides if it goes into the collection".

Whilst this is specifically referring to dealers it can just as easily be applied to those watch enthusiasts who post their collection with words to the effect of "...and I've got some other watches which aren't part of the collection".

At some point there was decision to be made about whether or not to include a particular watch in "the collection". To be a watch owned by a watch collector but to not be accepted as part of their watch collection seems almost tragic...

So in a nutshell, using the above logic it could be said that by designating a watch part of a collection you have removed its original purpose of just being a watch and given it a distinct status which qualifies it to be a part of a collection.

The designation is the qualification.

Three Types of Collection

Pearce, S. (1993)³ goes further than this and states that there are three distinct but overlapping types of collection:

Souvenirs - "items or objects that have significance primarily as reminders of an individual's or group's experiences."

Fetish-Objects - "relating primarily to the personality of the collector; the collector's own desires lead to the accumulation of objects that feed back into those desires, with the collection playing a central role in defining the personality of the collector, memorializing the development of a personal interest or passion."

Systematics - "has the broader goal of creating a set of objects that expresses some larger meaning. Systematic collecting involves a stronger element of consciously presenting an idea, seen from a particular point of view and expressed via the cultural world of objects."

Looking at the above three examples I would probably claim that the majority of "collections" displayed on social media etc probably fall somewhere in the souvenir/fetish object overlap and fewer collections appear to be "systematic" in the sense described by Pearce.

Of note to me is the idea, perhaps particular to watch collecting but probably not, that a watch could be purchased as a fetish-object with the intention of it becoming a souvenir.

A sort of pre-facto to post-facto justification.

An example of this would be practice of buying a watch ostensibly to commemorate an upcoming experience, such as the birth of a child, with the intention of it becoming a souvenir of the birth and possibly treated as some form of heirloom at a point in the future.

Changing Categories

So whilst Pearce has said that the categories overlap I also think they can be progressed through.

A hiking holiday with something like a Timex field watch leads to it being kept as a souvenir. This then forms the basis for a fetish-object based collection of field watches more widely. This collection could then become something more systematic if a more considered collecting framework is applied and it becomes, for example, US-branded field watches from 1980s - today.

Reddit Versus Systematic Thinking

With Pearce's contribution in mind I now feel that my thoughts on the differences between accumulations and collections are solidifying. It seems rare that someone sharing their collection on social media has multiple souvenir pieces.

Likewise, the number of systematic collections also seems to be limited, with few having an overall coherent theme.

In fact I'd note that on Reddit as well as other social platforms, a common complaint on "rate my collection" posts is that there's often too much in common between the pieces in the collection. Someone with three Seikos is encouraged to get a Casio, someone with black dialled watches is told to get some colour and someone with purely divers is told to get a chronograph.

It is, in my experience, extremely rare to see anyone lean into a systematic collection of black-dialled Seiko divers and even rarer to see a comment suggesting steering a collection in that sort of direction.

The Holy Trinity

Prior to familiarising myself with Pearce's work I would have said that amongst my accumulation of, cough, "some" watches, I have three which I can't help but consider to be a discrete collection: a Skmei 1123, a Skmei 1335 and a Skmei 1456 - all in the same yellow "gold".

For those unaware of the exact nature of these watches, they can probably be summed up as "very cheap, poor quality, tacky, and fun Casio rip-offs".

When watch enthusiasts refer to the horological "holy trinity" they are likely not referring to this particular threesome.

Despite their lack of value, I do feel these watches stand apart from the rest of my accumulation and form something of a curated collection by virtue of the following layers of additional context:

Purposeful - you can't end up with these three watches by chance or haphazard accumulation.

Consistent - they have distinct recurring similarities such as colour or brand - specifically they're gold, Skmei, digital watches.

Logical - they progress through a range and not encompass every option. In this case they are examples of small, medium and large sized variations.

Stepping even slightly outside of these boundaries would feel like reverting to a simple accumulation.

A gold, digital Casio to sit alongside these watches would seem incoherent and misplaced, as would a silver Skmei 1123.

In some respects it could be said that a collection is defined by what it excludes almost as much as by what it contains.

But these were just my criteria for when an accumulation transforms into a collection.

Having familiarised myself with Pearce's work it now seems reasonable to describe this trio of cheap, gold coloured, trinkets as a curated systematic collection. Not simply because the watches are inherently linked as objects being of the same brand, display type and colour but also because the motivation to buy these watches did go at least a little way beyond "they look cool".

Beyond the Gold

"Systematic collecting involves... 'consciously presenting an idea, seen from a particular point of view and expressed via the cultural world of objects.'" Pearce, S. (1993)³

The first watch, the 1123, was bought as inside joke to "one-up" a friend with several different coloured versions of Casio's F-91W. The $12 my 1123 cost made the idea that my "gold knock-off" was superior to their $20 genuine Casio watches seem laughable.

I began to feel that there was some sort of sense of "consumerist irony" in buying an even cheaper, clearly fake gold, version of what is possibly the world's most popular cheap watch.

This went even further with the purchase of the 1456, the "homage" to a $700 Casio G-Shock whose reputation for indestructibility is entirely at odds with the probable durability of my $30 gold-coloured pastiche.

The 1335 was bought as a deliberate bridging piece to fill the size and style gaps between the first two watches.

This collection gets a surprising amount of use. There are times when cheap tacky fake gold is exactly the vibe I want to portray.

I'm currently writing this article wearing marl grey tracksuit bottoms, a charcoal grey tee and the 1456. It is, as I'm sure you can envisage, a particularly distinct ensemble.

Conclusion

To a certain extent I feel that I've arrived back at where I started. Still uncertain of whether I'm a collector or not but this time I at least know why I have conflicting ideas about the status of my accumulations and collections and the justifications which separate and define them.

In my title I refer to a sock collection and despite having numerous pairs, organised into categories including hiking, warm, gym etc there is no underlying story to any of these, they're just "consumables" and I will replace when required with nary a second thought.

So no, I don't have a sock collection, merely a sock accumulation.

But the next time somebody asks me "you collect watches don't you?", I think the answer is obvious:

"I'm more of a watch accumulator but with a couple of groupings, one a distinct fetish-object accumulation, the other a systematic collection. The latter is currently examining themes of post-consumer irony in shades of gold."

That will definitely get them wanting to talk about watch-club.

Watches (in order of appearance)

Rolex Day-Date Platinum

Casio F-91W

Skmei 1123 (yellow "gold")

Skmei 1456 (yellow "gold")

G-Shock 5000

Skmei 1335 (yellow "gold")

References