The Cusp of Collecting

Balancing Passion and Practicality in Watch Collecting

On Sunday, I posted the above on Instagram, and it seemed to resonate with many collectors. If nothing else, browse through the comments on the post to get an idea of how much this resonated with people; I received many thoughtful responses via DM, WhatsApp and even email. One of those responses, was from an SDC subscriber and I thought it was something worth sharing with you all. I asked Nathan if he would mind me sharing it, and he agreed!

Below is the email I received, unedited, except for the bullet points which made the formulae easier to read.

---

ScrewDownCrown is a reader-supported guide to the world of watch collecting, behavioural psychology, & other first world problems.

---

The Optimal Size of a Watch Collection

By

TheFamilysTime

What is the optimal size of a watch collection where diminishing returns are minimized? The correct size is subjective as each collection varies as does each collector. There is, however, most likely an underlying principle that guides the subjective size of a collection. So let us look at a few potential collection sizes. 

One watch to some is adequate and anything more will most likely diminish the return. To this person, there is one good watch that they can wear with everything and for everything. It grants them the most wrist time and gets all the memories built into it. But does one watch even count as a collection? No. One is singular, and collection infers plurality. Therefore, one watch is a potential start to a collection, but not a collection. A collection must have at least two watches. Two watches could potentially be adequate but is it the optimal size? Perhaps not. The purpose is finding the optimal size without diminishing returns.  

Let us look at three watches. A three-watch collection comprised of, perhaps, a sports watch, fun, casual, sporty, great water resistance, take a beating, go anywhere watch. A classical dress watch, perhaps time only in a precious metal, the watch for the special occasions and the more formal moments. Then there is the daily all around watch, your go to. This watch is the chameleon, looks great in almost any setting and goes with most outfits, it dresses up and down. It’s the watch you can’t do without.  This three-watch collection seems pretty optimal. There is a watch for almost every occasion (let’s be honest, we can always find that one more occasion to justify an additional watch). With three great watches you have a diversity in aesthetics, perhaps movement type, dial, function and purpose and they all get proper wrist time. They build memories and people remember you wearing each of them because they are worn with enough frequency, they are recognized as your watch. People associate you with these watches. But is three, right? Perhaps. I tend to like three and how rational it is. It is optimized.  

Yet something is missing. We need to look at the definition of collection and collector. There are many types of collectors and equally as many types of collections. There are archetypes if you will.

The definition of the collection set by the collector’s archetype will inform the optimal size of the collection. We can explore two of the many archetypes here. For some, the primary driver of their collection that matters most to them, is to not have diminishing returns in wrist time. This person may find two or three to be the optimal number. Other collectors, seek collect a complete series, or something specific like Rolex GMT’s from 1975 to 1985. Or a focus on WWII pilot watches dating from 1939 to 1945. Or Omega Speed Masters. The ideal number for their collection is certain to be higher. If a collector is dead set on GMT watches, or any specific type, era, series or collection from a specific manufacturer they may not have an upper bound that diminishes the return as each new watch only adds to the overall depth and quality of their collection. Like a network effect, each additional watch to the series only enhances the collection as it inches closer to completing a series. The only upper bound here is set by one’s financial ability to acquire additional watches and the availability of said watches. 

Coming back to the collector and collection style where wrist time is a matter of importance and they seek to avoid the feeling of anxiety induced by deciding which watch they should wear; Here I come up with a potential formula that can allow a collection to continue to grow over time while not increasing feelings of anxiety. Without the diminishing returns. It does have an upper bound however, it is not limitless. The primary criteria for this collection type, which I personally currently ascribe to, is as follows:

• Wrist time is our numerator “Wt”

• The number of watches in the collection is the denominator “Nw”.

• The satisfaction and enjoyment, “E” of the collection can be expressed as E=Wt/Nw.

Each additional watch only increases the denominator reducing the enjoyment of the collection. Wrist time must be defined, but it is a constant either a week, month etc… The formula holds, the denominator will reduce enjoyment as it grows. Thus, we must define what “E” is acceptable and this is subjective to each collector. I will argue there is a number for each collector, when it lowers, so does their enjoyment of their collection.

There is a wrinkle to this formula, which is where I believe a collection can grow with time and the “E” remains relatively constant at a number that brings enjoyment. This is due to retired watches in a collection. Like the 36mm stainless steel Bulova dress watch that was gifted to me by my grandparents 25 years ago as I graduated and moved to France. They had the case back engraved with my name and graduation date. I wore this daily for many years, and every day for the duration of time living in France. I have not worn this watch in years. But it remains part of my collection, it is full of memories and stories. Seeing in the collection makes me smile. It had its time on my wrist and had sufficient meaning that it has remained in the collection permanently, just retired from the rotation. There are many watches that have come and gone since this watch, but they meant little, developed too few memories to remain in the collection and have moved on.  

The wrinkle is the “retired” watch like the Bulova that allows the collection, where wrist time, is part of the enjoyment an ability for additional watches to accumulate over time and increase the size of the collection without reducing enjoyment.  

A collector and collection of this type may add a new watch every one-and-a-half to two plus years. The greater the time between additions the better. This allows the watches that are in the primary rotation for wrist time to be worn, gain memories and have their time being infused with the patina of the collector. It also provides time for the older of these watches, like the Bulova of mine, to age out and retire to the watch box making room for the new addition. If, however, you acquire and accumulate to quickly you will diminish enjoyment. “E” drops because the denominator became too big with too many watches in the rotation.

To amend our previous formula E = Wt / Nw:

• The denominator is equal to the watches in the primary rotation “Pr” instead of Total collection “Tc”.

• This means “Nw” is equal to “Pr”

• “Pr” is equal to “Tc-R” where “R” is retired watches.

•  E = Wt / (Tc - R)

Editor’s note: In words, this says “Your enjoyment is wrist time, divided by total collection, excluding the retired watches.”

This says nothing about the watches that sit in limbo. These are cool watches we would like wear more, but never do. They do not fit the criteria of a primary rotation watch or a retired watch. They are in effect in limbo, these are the anxiety producing watches. A collection with the lowest diminishing return on enjoyment where “E” is maximized should have watches in limbo “L” equal to zero.  This I believe takes place over time and “L” trends towards zero as a collection and collector mature. Their tastes refine and their ability to reduce “L” increases. 

My anecdotal observation is that I have five primary watches that rotate in my collection for wrist time, which has me looking at watches some watches that have naturally landed in limbo and then three retired watches, two of which will most likely move along shortly. I want the limbos to remain, but they get little wrist time. Of the five primary watches, two are garnering most of the time with a third that is on the wrist at least once a week and holds a space a more formal dress watch. The remaining two have their place, and like the formal dress watch in third position, has a function that means it will remain in the fourth spot. The fifth gets the least of the five, but it is not limbo status. What do I see from this internal audit and observation? When I do the math on the total collection, the three watch that get worn the most are approximately 20% of the total collection and they get 80% of the time on the wrist, if not more. Pareto seems to pop up here too in wrist time allocation. Leading me to believe perhaps three to five watches in primary rotation are optimal. Total collection is different. 

In summary, to find the optimum size collection where the diminishing returns on enjoyment are as low as possible one must first identify what archetype of a collector they are. This will inform their collecting style and in turn, the size that suits them best. For the minimalist it may two or three. One does not count. For style/series archetype more is most likely better. For the wrist time collector, where wearing the watch is a large part of the enjoyment we have a formula: E = Wt / Nw where Nw = Pr (Tc-R) and “L” is at 0 or < 2. With new watches being added slowly over time to allow room in the rotation without increasing the denominator. 

In the end, this more rational and logical approach using formulas and time is just a theory. It is a single collector’s thoughts on how many is too many, and what type of collector archetype I am. We also have to remember that we are not 100% rational beings void of emotions. We are human, we are emotional and that means logical analysis and rationality are often in the back seat to the driver who is emotion in our decision making, in our collecting and in our passions. So perhaps there is not really a right answer other than, if you have too much anxiety each morning about what watch to where you may need to thin the herd a bit or retire a watch until the anxiety ceases.

Take the time to define your process, your archetype and have some guiding principles to help inform your decisions and collection with some intentionality. If there is intentionality, then you’re more likely to avoid the anxiety of too many without adequate wrist time.

---

My Reflections

That was pretty good, right? You know I love a formula, and breaking this hobby down into ‘basic math’ is both amusing and appealing. With watch collecting, where time is both the subject and the medium, I always find myself pondering the very essence of collecting - SDC readers know this all too well. Nathan’s thoughtful discourse on the optimal size of a watch collection, skilfully dissects the mathematics of collection enjoyment. Before we go on, I have one more thing to share, from another watch buddy, Arj (find him here) - he shared this diagram, with the following message:

I wonder if collecting actually decreases joy or the diminishing returns become severe after a certain point. 

For me, I want more watches than I can sanely afford, so there are still returns on a new purchase. However, whether by time or by having handled more watches, or just the as a casualty of dopamine, the emotional return on a new purchase is both shorter in duration and lower in its spike.

Part of that is the realization that, for me, durable satisfaction comes with wear. There are a few watches that I could get satisfaction from owning and not wearing with any frequency, e.g., 1463, 3448, etc. - but those are, by definition, hard to come by.

On a graph it would look like this. The trick is to endure the post-purchase let down and accept the watch for the accessory that it is.

Interesting reflection for sure, and very much aligned with Nate’s view above, which is that time spent on the wrist is a key factor - and yes, everyone knows I love graphs, too.

Anyway, going back to Nate’s post above, and in light of Arj’s reflections, there’s one last thing to cover. With wrist time as the primary variable, I think we must not forget or at least acknowledge, that the joy of collecting can transcend the mere wearing of watches. The fact of the matter is, there exists a breed of collector for whom ownership itself is the wellspring of satisfaction.

Consider the collector who acquires a piece of genuine horological history - a watch so significant that its rightful place might well be behind museum glass. For this individual, the sheer knowledge of possession is, frankly, intoxicating. The ability to hold in one’s hands a sliver of timekeeping evolution, to feel the weight of history on one’s wrist, even if only occasionally, provides a form of joy that defies quantification.

Fine.

This brings us to what we might call the Collector’s Paradox: the notion that the act of collecting can simultaneously increase and decrease one’s enjoyment. As my Instagram post suggests, I still believe there is indeed a ‘critical mass’ where acquiring one more watch might tip the scales towards diminished joy. Yet, paradoxically, for some collectors, it is precisely this acquisition that rekindles their passion!

Nathan’s formula, covers perhaps two parts of the complex ecosystem of a watch collection, and he says as much. You might want to consider additional variables:

1. The Joy of Curation: The act of carefully selecting each piece, of crafting a collection that tells a story or represents a specific era of watchmaking.

2. The Thrill of the Hunt: For many, the search for the next piece is as rewarding as the ownership itself.

3. The Social Aspect: The connections made, the stories shared with fellow enthusiasts - a collection often serves as a conduit for rich human interaction.

4. The Educational Value: Each new acquisition can deepen one’s understanding of horology, engineering, and even economic history.

Perhaps, then, we might view the ideal collection not as a static entity with a fixed optimal size, but as an evolving organism. It grows, sheds, and transforms in concert with the collector’s journey through life. The collection of our youth, with its emphasis on quantity and variety, may give way to a more curated selection in our later years.

The true test of a collector’s self-awareness, lies in simply being able to recognise the point of diminishing returns. This epiphany is deeply personal and often hard-won. It requires a level of introspection that goes beyond spreadsheets and formulae.

To be honest, this post and the discourse around it just reminded me how watch collecting, at its core, is actually a profoundly human endeavour. It’s a pursuit that marries the precision of timekeeping with the imprecision of human emotion.

The optimal collection size, then, is not a universal constant but a personal equilibrium - a balance struck between the joy of acquisition, the pleasure of wearing, and the satisfaction of curating.

In the end, perhaps the most valuable skill a collector can cultivate is not the ability to acquire, but the wisdom to know when enough is precisely enough - and the courage to act on that knowledge.

Bon courage!

---

🙏 Huge thanks, once again, to

TheFamilysTime

for the thoughtful reply. Give him a follow on Instagram, here.

---

Believe it or not, that “❤️ Like” button is a big deal – it serves as a proxy to new visitors of this publication’s value. If you enjoyed this post, please let others know. Thanks for reading!

---