So often in our collective writing, we throw away phrases like "love it or loathe it". This made us think as a group: what do we not like about watches and the watch industry? The following feature represents very personal views of the WatchGecko authors, but we're confident they'll resonate with many of you.
Neil
1973 British Military Watch Strap: SPACE-BOUND
It's an ick, and probably a peeve too. My primary concern extends beyond the watches themselves to those who exploit them solely for profit. As a dedicated collector, acquiring limited-edition or new-release watches poses a formidable challenge due to their scarce availability.
Enter the "Flipper," an individual indifferent to brand, model, or collaborative efforts, often possessing limited watch knowledge. Their singular objective is to amass watches indiscriminately, diminishing the chances for genuine enthusiasts to secure one. Within minutes, these watches surface on eBay, commanding exorbitant prices – 5 to 10 times their original value. The frustration intensifies as this exploitative practice persists unchecked, with few brands actively addressing a solution. Finding a straightforward remedy to this issue remains elusive, leaving genuine collectors disheartened by the unchecked cycle of opportunistic reselling. We all want to sell any excess watches we have for a profit, but that shouldn't be the reason to buy them.
Nathan
Rolex Sea Dweller - Credit WatchGecko
Sometimes, I reminisce about the days when I didn't have so many pesky watch opinions. I remember the joy of walking into a Fossil store at the mall and genuinely liking nearly every watch there. Those were the days! Now, I find myself dissecting and critiquing most watches I come across. Some criticisms stem from genuine, objective flaws, while others are mere reflections of my evolving subjective preferences. To my dismay (I really do just want to enjoy watches) my list of pet peeves is constantly growing. Recently, I've discovered a recurrent theme among these grievances—a dislike toward design choices that defy justification.
Take, for instance, a brand releasing an integrated sports watch that strays from the DNA of its existing catalogue. These Genta-esque designs can look more like a cash grab than an attempt to move the industry forward. Alternatively, there's the perplexing pursuit of excessive water resistance, often at the expense of dimensions and wearability (I'm looking at you Rolex and Oris). While innovation is commendable, if change is challenging to rationalize, perhaps it's best left undone.
Richard
Omega Seamaster Diver 300m - Credit WatchGecko
When is a tool watch not a tool watch? When you have been collecting watches for as long as some of us, you build up quite a few peeves. If I had to pick one, it would be the current trend of creating tool watches that have long since ceased to be functional models and have morphed into fashion vanity projects destined for a soft life in expensive wine bars. Not the desert, jungle or ocean depths where they were originally intended to be.
My irk was rekindled by filming a recent review of a 2023 Omega Seamaster, which I now consider a fashion watch. Few of these latest elaborate models will go near salt water, yet they are considered a standard Seamaster. The models are crafted from such expensive materials that one has to question why make them 300M water-resistant, with a helium escape valve, shockproof, and anti-magnetic. I humbly request the collective industry begin to categorise particular creations as what they are: "dress/fashion watches". I will never be convinced that a watch made from gold and diamonds, costing £45,000, is a Professional Moonwatch.
Charlotte
Rolex Day Date - Credit WatchGecko
For me, there's a few traits on a watch that give me the ick. In fact, "a few" is a little kind; I could list several, but to prevent this from turning into a complete rant, I'll choose just two.
My first is "limited edition" watches that are barely limited. I love you, Seiko, but I'm looking at you here. When a watch is limited to a whopping 15,000 pieces, it's barely a limited edition, even when it's a brand as popular as Seiko. I understand it's part of the marketing process, and it clearly works because it's not often a Seiko watch doesn't sell out, but this instantly puts me off the watch. I wouldn't want to own a watch that was supposedly "limited" knowing full well there was another 14,999 people out there with the same one.
Another real pet peeve for me, particularly on watches aimed at women, is the unnecessary abundance of diamonds. I understand that stereotypically us women like things that sparkle, but more often than not, a lady's watch looks all the more stunning when gemstones are used sparingly. It's not necessary to add diamonds at every index and to cover the entirety of the bezel. I much prefer when it's one or the other. It still gives the watch a glamorous feel but without it feeling gaudy. Too many diamonds feels tacky and makes the watch look more like a cheaper fashion watch than a luxury piece.
Martin
Rolex Submariner - Credit WatchGecko
There's little that annoys me about watches, to be fair – everything is subjective at the end of the day, and any such issues that come with watches is quite frankly a First World Problem, but what does irk me somewhat is the apparent need for some manufacturers to stick (literally) a cyclops' bubble' (as my partner calls it) over the date window. I know this is almost a trademark for some brands/models, notably the Rolex Submariner. Still, for me, there is no reason why, of all things, the date needs to be magnified – especially as, for many, having any date is an asymmetrical bother, let alone literally making it a stand-out focal point.
And it's not just Rolex. Citizen's latest little beauty has one on their sporty dress watch, the Tuseno, as does Roamer's Aqua Terra killer in their previous, stunning Sea Rock. It's a game changer for me, which is a shame as these two would be in my collection had the Cyclops bubble been absent. It's a Marmite matter, but it's a no-go for me. If anything for anyone like me, whose ageing eyesight needs some assurance, why not have the whole of the dial act as a magnifying glass, not just the nice-to-have date window? Now, there's a thought (or maybe not).
But the biggest ick for me in horological circles is not the watches themselves but the snobbery that is sadly so often attached – but that's a whole other story.
Corbin
$181.00 CAD
One aspect of watch design that gives me "the ick" is overuse of gold, especially in bracelets. Depending on skin tone, style, and more, there are plenty of people who can pull off (stylistically) wearing watches and bracelets that are predominantly or entirely gold. But I’m not one of them! So while I acknowledge that gold watches can be stunning and are often a symbol of luxury and success, they usually don't align with my personal style or complexion.
In my view, the lavishness of gold needs to be balanced, and when it's applied too liberally, it can overpower the watch's design and aesthetic appeal. I've always felt watches should complement one's style rather than dominate it, and a full gold bracelet tends to demand attention in ways that can feel ostentatious or overly flashy. Additionally, I find that such watches can lack versatility; they might not pair well with everyday wear or more understated outfits. In essence, while gold watches certainly have their place and can look fabulous on others, for me, they are a bit “too much” and don't resonate with my personal style.
