"Absolute trash"

"It makes me laugh but it’s actually so atrociously pathetic."

Introduction

I suspect that most of you who have subscribed to this new Substack will have done so having followed my Instagram account for some time, and if you haven’t got around to it yet, I would recommend you read my Substack About page to get an understanding as to why I made the decision that going forward, the content that I used to publish on Instagram will now be published here.

Back on Instagram, I would typically use the Stories when I felt like bringing brief attention (they of course disappear after 24 hours) to a subject that for one reason or another had piqued my interest.

Substack brings the opportunity to expand on such matters with perhaps more consideration and effort than I would have typically expended in the past, and just in the past week there have been two interesting topics that have popped up that I feel are worth opining on. The first of those topics is the subject of this newsletter.

Interspersed throughout this newsletter will be feedback I received on Instagram regarding the subject matter concerned. Please note that the inline comments are typically relating to the article in general, and not necessarily directed at the specific section that they fall under.

The following is a commentary on what is, in the words of budgecoutts -

---

“Literally the worst article I've ever read with regards watches. The people quoted all seem to be making idiotic statements either because they think it's 'cool' or they're trolling the fool that wrote it.”

---

An early contender for the year’s most ill-thought-out article on watches

The headline

Just under a week ago, an article¹ was published on GQ that came to my attention when one of the people I follow on Instagram (forgive me, but I cannot recall who it was) posted it to their stories.

I don’t doubt for one moment that said article will by now have been considered by its author and publisher a resounding (by the metrics that they will use to measure it, of course) success. And why would that be? Well, if your hackles aren’t raised by the assertion - note, it is not positioned as a subject to be investigated, but as a conclusion that has been reached - that “true watch heads” never set the time on their watches, then you sure as heck are going to be suckered in with the promise in the subtitle that “GQ polled a wide range of collectors, dealers and watchmakers in order to reach that conclusion.

So, rather foolishly, I decided to click through and read the article in its entirety with a view to understanding how we could possibly have come to a point in time where I could not be a “true watch head” for the very reason that I use whatever watch is on my wrist to, well, you know, tell the time.

The author shows his hand, and admits to the lie

The first two paragraphs of the article set up the whole thing, with the author explaining his rationale for writing the utter garbage that is to follow. But the interesting thing is that the final sentence of the introduction is this -

As I found in talking to a handful of people across the watch world, there are plenty of good reasons not to bother with a winder at all.²

Soooo… less than 250 words into the article, and we discover that - far from polling “a wide range of collectors, dealers and watchmakers” - the author actually talked to “a handful” of people.

Let’s see who they were, and keep a tally.

The “wide range” of individuals polled by GQ for the article

Mike Nouveau

For Nouveau, a Cartier isn’t really the type of watch that needs to be set. “If I’m wearing a vintage Cartier, I don’t care as much,” he explained. “It’s more about the case, the design, the shape rather than 100% timekeeping.”

Kicking off with a guy who for some reason has escaped my notice up until now, but I don’t doubt for one moment that he would never have heard of me either, so that’s fine. Apparently he’s big on TikTok, and I guess if that’s your thing, that’s pretty cool. In addition to being big on TikTok, he’s also apparently a vintage watch dealer

The author links to a very brief “interview” Mike did with another person I’ve never heard of (although Mike’s camera appeared to be a very well known acquaintance of the interviewee as he thrust it in the direction of her décolletage), Emma Chamberlain. Emma - whilst clearly not polled by GQ for this article - was relieved to discover during the course of the “interview” that Mike also doesn’t bother to set the time on his jewelry.

---

I see it as a way to advance the “watches as jewellery” narrative to boost sales as this literally makes the total addressable market for ALL watches … larger. No need to be a “watch person” - you like wearing ornaments? Well this is an ornament. Time? Happenstance, bonus if you want it to be. Otherwise don’t bother with setting it. Absurd, but this isn’t “watch guy” speak, it’s for the world of fashion.

kingflum

---

Roger Smith

Now it does need to be stressed that Roger wasn’t actually polled for this article, rather, the author quotes him from an interview back in June 2023.

”I do use my phone,” he said. “I'm guilty as everyone else. But a watch is just a lovely thing to own, isn't it?”

But this isn’t Roger validating the premise of the author in the slightest. Almost everyone carries a phone these days, and will use it to check the time multiple times per day. Can you infer from this that they don’t bother to set their watch? No.

---

Hey! Even you (deservedly) bashed my inclusion of a 2017 Grand Seiko in the «pre owned vintage» story I wrote (of my forgetfulness of the heading…), this is ridiculous. Even my Casio F-91W gets set to the right time, man 😄. Seriously?

thorsvaboe

---

Jessica Owens

Prioritizing the watch’s design was a reason I heard a lot. “The time-telling utilitarian aspect of my watches is secondary to its beauty and design,” said Jessica Owens, founder of Daily Grail. “I’m never going to wear a watch that I don’t aesthetically love, so to be blunt, everything comes second to the design.”

Ms Owens is the founder of “Daily Grail”, a publication that sets out “to bring a bit of enjoyment and enthusiasm back into the luxury industry”.

Clearly a doyenne of the watch industry, according to her own website, Ms Owens has been quoted in GQ articles on no fewer than 10 occasions since establishing her brand less than 12 months ago. Indeed, just a matter of weeks following the launch her site, she was interviewed in no less an esteemed publication than the New York Times where she reveals having an extensive collection of around a couple of dozen watches, including two AP Royal Oaks, and a Patek Nautilus.. Impressive stuff for a 26 year old ex-Phillips viewing assistant and Watchonista event planner.

But - and here’s the rub - at no point in that quote, does she say anything about not bothering to set the time on the watches she wears. She simply states that for her (and I’m sure for pretty most watch collectors) aesthetics comes second to time-telling. It’s hardly supportive of the author’s premise, is it?

---

It's so stupid when people don't even bother to set their watches. It bugs me like an untied shoelace.

jbmjbm0

---

Kevin O’Dell

Another one that I had to Google. In fact, with the obvious exception of Roger Smith, I’ve actually had to Google everyone mentioned so far, which I guess goes to demonstrate just how out of touch I am with the in-crowd.

Kevin is a watch dealer. Based on his Instagram postings, it would seem that Kevin specialises in vintage watches. This is what Kevin has to say about the watches in which he deals -

“These watches are old. Most of my watches are manual wind and I don’t even wind them 70% of the time.” Preserving a vintage watch by avoiding its winder just makes good sense. “More wear and tear I don’t love.”

---

Ah yes, the ol’ “keeping vintage time” bs

mroscarmay

---

Readers might want to take that into consideration when sourcing a watch from a dealer - ask them whether or not it is actually going to work?

But even Kevin, when pushed, relates that -

“If I’m going out for dinner or where I need to keep track of the time I do [wind], but never for day-to-day errands.”

---

Haha! I saw this and did not read it because it was dumb! Almost as dumb as you look if someone notices that your watch is way off the true time. It looks even worse when most of your friends and coworkers know that you are passionate about horology. You just look even stupider.

atechnicaltime

---

Returning to Jessica Owens

“I hope this doesn’t get me kicked out of the Watch Illuminati, but in terms of any complicated watch—whether that be a perpetual calendar or a day-date—I am incredibly lazy when it comes to setting,” said Owens. (If anything, this behavior seems to only cement her Watch Illuminati status.)

Once again - totally unrelated to not setting the time.

---

I actually feel guilty not attempting to set the moon phase on my only moon phase complication, even if no one notices. And you can quote me on that😄😄

thorsvaboe

---

Tony Traina

“I set the time, never really the date.”

So, no support there for the author it seems.

Despite Mr Wolf’s promise that the article would be explaining “why true watch nerds never set the time on their watches”, with a “wide range of collectors, dealers, and watchmakers” consulted, so far, GQ would appear to have polled a grand total of 4 people for the article, and we have just a single voice that supports his case.

Mike Nouveau.

Now, the following seems a little harsh, but fortunately for me I don’t “do” TikTok, so - barring the Instagram interview linked to in the GQ article (as an aside, maybe Mike should consider setting up an OnlyFans account to run alongside his TikTok?) - will never be exposed to Mr Nouveau’s oeuvre . For all I know, he might be the perfect gentleman (although his aforementioned camera work leaves me with some doubt in that area).

Maybe I’m missing out, but I guess it’s my loss if I am, or not, as the case may be…

---

---

But we’re not done yet. Two more voices to listen to.

Etienne Malec

Even watchmakers fall victim to incorrect settings. Etienne Malec, the founder of Baltic watches, said that he mostly gets his pieces on track, but more often than not, he finds himself with one out of order.

Oh - well that might be a bit of a red flag for anyone considering adding a Baltic to their collection. Certainly it would put me off if the founder of a brand “more often than not” finds himself with one of the watches on his wrist out of order.

Mr Malec - if you get to see this, on the basis of that GQ article, I rather suspect you have just lost a bunch of potential customers.

Except… that’s not exactly what Mr Malec actually said. Is it Cam?

“Recently I’ve been testing a lot of prototypes, and I keep them quite often on 10:10 to get a non-disturbed dial view and that can last for few days,” he said. “Not to mention, I wear two watches daily and only one is on the right time.”

Ahh - so the true reason for the founder of Baltic watches often finding himself with one of this watches “out of order”, is in fact because he’s testing prototypes (presumably for their fit, comfort, and aesthetics), and not because they are supposed to be functional watches. The watch he does wear for timekeeping? It’s set to the right time.

So that’s now 4-1 against the premise of the article. One more to go.

---

I find the entire concept of not setting the time on a watch completely absurd. Very interested to see what others have to say!

kmcgivney

---

Perri Dash

“I definitely fall into the group that sets a watch each and every time I switch up,” Dash said. “I'm a watch romantic in that way, and I just can't wear a watch with the incorrect time or date.” I asked if it would grate at him to have it wrong. “Absolutely! I just can't do it. Even if I'm not looking at it, the thought that it is incorrect bothers me. I have to set it.”

---

And so we have it. From the promise of explaining why “true watch heads” never set the time on their watches - with polling taken from “a wide range of collectors, dealers and watchmakers” - we discover that the author actually only reached out to 6 individuals (plus a Roger Smith quote lifted from an old interview), with just 1 of them actually in support of his quest for vindication.

What an absolute wanker (I can say what I think here and not have to worry about my account being suspended).

Cam, if you get to see this, you represent everything that is wrong in “watch journalism” today. I will leave you with a few more choice bits of feedback that I received regarding your pathetic and self-contradicting clickbait article, and then for the rest of those reading this, sign off with some words from a newsletter I posted a few months back on a different Substack.

---

What kind of shit joke is this nonsense?

thesinowatchguy

---

Personally I set my watches even when I change timepiece every day. The look and feel is the most important to me but it still is supposed to give the time.

from a follower

---

Absolute trash.

another follower

---

I think those people need to discover battery-powered watches. No need to set or wind. It will blow their mind🤯

quartzcrisis

---

Lol 😂 is all I have to say watch journalism has gone to the shitters thank you guys like you and kingflum for keeping it real

ronniesteja

---

I will only be found dead with the incorrect time if they find me after the power reserve depleted.

seikoism_vintage2

---

This is the kind of person that has been plaguing our hobby for the past years. Says he likes watches and is a collector but he couldn’t really care less. Doesn’t even know what a Universal Geneve is and only wears watches that can be recognized across the room in a vain attempt to look important and rich and in the hopes people will overlook the fact he has a small d1ck. If he were a women he’d be carrying an Hermes bag without anything in it. Well, come to think about it he probably does too

watch.garage

---

Well, I guess I’m on my way to Cartier’s HQ to present them my new amazing business proposition: 1: remake old Tank and Santos designs (which they are already kind of doing) but without movements.

2: Set the hands at some random position and beat them up to make the look vintage

3: sell the like hotcakes to these “watch heads” for 100 times of their already ridiculously inflated prices

4: Profit

5: (optional) Laugh on their backs, while they praise their new amazing “watches”, that are actually just bracelets, that do nothing

ponte.dm

---

Really odd!!! And sounds like a load of BS!!

moserlover

---

It makes me laugh but it’s actually so atrociously pathetic. And such a disrespect for what horology is all about since the beginning of times. I obsessively set the time of all my watches each time I wear them (which is why I also have a pair of no date 9F quartz which are always ready to go in a hurry). Just f#ck them.

mr_mrz0

---

Signing off

As promised, a few paragraphs from how I closed a recent newsletter on the Seiko Astronomical Observatory Chronometer that I feel are particularly apt here -

“For someone such myself who got interested in watches from a very young age driven by a fascination with time, and timekeeping, it is perhaps somewhat disappointing to witness the significant weight given these days to purely aesthetic endeavours.

Certainly the main focus of the PR pumped out by the majority of brands these days - and so eagerly regurgitated by the so-called watch “journalists” - is on the finishing of the parts of a watch, such as its case, dial, and - especially - its movement, rather than how the watch actually performs.

It would be tempting to draw an analogy between what so many people seem to think is of primary importance in themselves these days - that is, how they look, as they narcissistically do everything they possibly can to garner thumbs up, likes and views; rather than concerning themselves on what actually is important - and that of course is how they actually perform. But this curmudgeonly old chap is not going to go there. No siree!”

---

Please do share any feedback in the comments below - I’d like to see this Substack evolve into an interactive feed rather than just a firehose of content that comes to my mind.

I’m more than happy to receive criticism - be it constructive or not. I’m not a writer by trade, and have had no formal training in writing since completing my English O Levels four decades ago. What you get here is basically a stream of unedited consciousness, so apologies if it’s not as erudite an article as you are used to reading elsewhere!

And don’t forget, if you know anyone who you think would enjoy the article, please don’t hesitate to forward it on to them!

1. In order to read the article on GQ, you need to sign up. I forget whether all they want from you is your email, or whether there are any finances involved, but there is no way I’m going to be sending them any direct traffic, so the link provided will take you to a copy of the article on the Internet Archive.

2. Where I quote from the article, I will format in italics.