Happiness revisited
Further reflections on how our happiness connects with our watch collecting hobby
If you had the opportunity to pamper yourself, how would you choose to spend your money?
Option A: Inexpensive but frequent watch purchases?
Option B: Expensive but infrequent watch purchases?
(Before you continue reading, leave a comment and tell me if you choose A or B and why)
Most watch collectors will have faced this conundrum at some point in their journey; To buy a cheap new release for a small sum, or to remain focused on their longer-term goal (or ‘grail’) … a target set ages ago, but which remains out of reach for now.
I have previously discussed ‘watch collecting and happiness’, and I recently updated that post in anticipation of linking it here. In summary, I cover how (1) happiness has a set point, (2) it is relative, and (3) our own memories of pain and pleasure are always skewed… where we are likely to discount overall pleasure in favour of the most recent feeling.
I also talked about the difference between happiness and relief… you can read the full post later, but the gist of it is: happiness is an emotional state... which relates to an individual's personal feelings about their life in the present. Relief on the other hand, is what we feel when we overcome feelings of anxiety and stress. Relief, therefore, is a reduction of a negative state. This is where things like retail therapy or binge-eating are perfect examples; People seek temporary relief through dopamine hits (you might be happy when you buy things or eat those lovely pastries) which never last.
Speaking of dopamine… here’s something to refresh your memory on the subject:
Anyway… In this post, I will explain my view - which is if you’re pursuing happiness, Option A: inexpensive but frequent watch purchases is the way to go.
To be happy: Frequency is more important than Intensity
Diener et al (1991) did a study to prove this. They evaluated “subjective well-being” as a measure of happiness - this is basically how frequently one is experiencing positive and negative emotions, during the hours they are awake. Logically, you can deduce that maximising the amount of time you feel happy, and minimising the amount of time you feel unhappy… is the formula to experiencing the highest state of “subjective well-being.”
If you’ve ever bought a watch, you will know that the ‘honeymoon period’ fades eventually. Chemically speaking: the dopamine from that purchase runs out. If you then consider the relative feeling of buying a very expensive watch versus buying an inexpensive one, you will agree there is a limit to how much total excitement and happiness you can possibly feel.
Let’s make up numbers: say you buy a Tudor bbPro for £3460 - doing so gives you a ‘happiness boost’ of 4/10. I realise in practice this will be relative to one’s income and overall wealth, but stick with me for now. Consider an extreme alternative… a Greubel Forsey Balancier S2 for CHF245,000; You might get a happiness boost of 7/10. Ignore the absolute number, focus on the relative difference.
There are things like seeing your newborn child for the first time, or attending your child’s wedding or graduation… which ought to bring much more genuine happiness. These truly joyous moments are what I might describe as 9/10 or 10/10 events. Beyond that, the window of ‘happiness potential’ from any individual watch purchase is limited.
You could buy over sixty Tudor Black Bay Pro watches for the cost of ONE Greubel Forsey Balancier S2 - but the Greubel Forsey will not make you 60 times happier than the Tudor! Additionally, the new watch honeymoon period - no matter what the price of the watch is - will eventually end.
To back this up, take a look at this study by Okulicz-Kozaryn et al. (2015). The authors use a study of income dynamics to investigate the relationship between car consumption and happiness. Guess what they found? Luxury car (e.g., Lexus or Audi) ownership does not make people happier than frugal car (e.g., Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic) ownership.
The McMansion effect is another useful analogue described in this 2019 paper. The author explains why US homeowners have been stuck in an endless loop of building increasingly bigger houses.
Basically, when someone builds a big house, a chain reaction begins with the other homeowners in the neighbourhood who begin wanting a bigger house too - that is what is defined as “the McMansion effect.”
This effect was strongest in homeowners who (previously) had the biggest houses… as someone builds a new, bigger house, their house is no longer the biggest. Suddenly, they don’t feel so great about their house - what do they do?
Indeed; they upsize! (Either buy a bigger house or build an extension to their current home). If you apply this to watches, it can actually lead to much worse outcomes over time, which directly impact your happiness. A ‘better watch’ often means:
More money spent
Higher insurance costs
Higher service costs
Increased risk of theft when using it
Reduced usage, due to increased anxiety when using it
etc
Back to the McMansion paper… Does owning a larger house make people happier? Only temporarily. This is what I would expect, as explained in this post and above - happiness has a set point! Eventually, people get used to living in a bigger house, which doesn’t make them happier than before.
The same thing applies to watches, of course. Honeymoon periods fade, and as I discussed in this post, the only way you can use money to buy happiness is by subtracting negatives. Beyond that, we cannot look towards objects like watches to make us happier - because we will eventually get used to whatever watches we buy.
Money only really buys happiness indirectly. If you consciously engineer your life to use all the money at your disposal to buy ‘freedom’ - this is how you could ‘buy’ happiness. That’s because having more money ‘buys’ us more control over our lives. This feeling of control and freedom is what makes us happy.
So yeah, the next time your mate buys a Greubel Forsey, understand that you may feel envious, and that is a perfectly human response. All you need to do is reframe the situation in your mind; Realise that your circumstances are not the same. Remember the McMansion effect: you don’t need to get caught up in ‘pissing contests’ (or ‘wristing contests’!).
Instead, remember the study above, and remind yourself frequency is more important than intensity - so maybe go and buy yourself a Moonswatch or a Baltic; Scratch that itch, and move on. Sure, it would be better if you just remained focused on your goals and didn’t buy anything to make yourself feel better… but if you can’t manage that, at least you have a solution now :)
PS. Referring back to Option A vs. B at the start - do you have any further reflections?!
Well, I am still going for option B. Now, the theory assumes zero dopamine between "purchases". That need not be the case... My Focus the last few years have be solely on indies and comissioning from independent watchmakers. The whole process which often last several years is rewarding. Updates, dinners, meeting and event making friends in the process. So many spikes on the route and a rush at the end.
Perfect way to actually get the dopamine rush from not buying, but from experiences and personal interaktion.
Hope this makes sense. Cheers!
I generally I have always done A, even as a kid I was buying cheap quartz watches all the time to enjoy different styles, complications and refine my taste. And loved collecting and wearing variation. I can always sell to buy better/expensive ones more often too!
For me the whole point of collecting however is variation, and as a result quantity. If you just have 3-5 watches and are content, you're not a collector in my book..I have more pairs of shoes I wear regularly and I don't consider myself a shoe collector! It's just an accessory then and you need some different ones to fit the occassion. Or it's a fashion/status symbol.
This may well be how a collection starts, but it can't be the end goal. You may settle, consolidate a large collection but that end the collecting journey for me.
Collectors often have some philosophy, for example to collect a certain era, brand, complication or some range within these. Mine is to collect a watch I appreciate from each brand (only 1!), and to get as broad a range of complications, style, age and utility across the collection.
I enjoy the hunt for new things (and hidden gems/deals give an extra kick) to add and will add as much as my budget (and safe) fits. Sometimes selling to get something better, I enjoy watches nearly the same regardless if they are 1000 or 10.000 pounds and get a very similar honeymoon period as described for both ranges.
Below 1000 some quality/movement issues can start to affect enjoyment and satisfaction period. So I do try to hold off on cheap hits (like a Baltic or Furlan Marri).
Above 15-20k there are also negative enjoyment factors such as increased worry about theft/loss/damage which is why I try to avoid that range as I don't see it fit my current lifestyle. But no doubt may become more fitting later, as these worries are also relative. Some treat a 40k watch like I do a 1k watch because it has the same relative value for them. They might struggle to wear a 250k watch in the same way I do a 40k watch.
Another key advantage I find owning a larger collection (20+) is that you get to rediscover watches after having worn them for a while and the average use per watch remains very low in a decent rotation so the condition and service cost per watch are also improved.