It has long fascinated me that in the world of watches, or at least the parts of that world that I wander around in, the most welcoming people are usually also the ones who know the most. And the most unwelcoming people, conversely, are often the ones who seem to be stuck in this or that dogmatic position ("date windows suck!" "Watches bigger than 38mm diameter suck!" etc etc) without really being able to justify their particular perspective. But in the many years that I've been reading, and on occasion posting/commenting, about watches, the most knowledgeable people have invariably been supportive, even when their perspective differs from mine and their knowledge base dwarfs my own. Maybe I'm living in a bubble, but if so it's a damn nice one.
I am convinced that the angry small-watch crowd is a sub-segment of the angry little man population. My personal favorite are the ones who want the largest possible watch for their writs. They become engaged when a watch comes in 36mm and 40mm, because EVERYONE knows that it should come in at 37mm!!! Those individuals take the cake in the most crazy posters of watch forums awards.
I think "gatekeeping" is about behavior, not one's standards and opinions.
For example:
"I will say, though, and I know this might be controversial to some people, that I think if you are going to write about watches you should at least have a grasp of the technical fundamentals."
Having this opinion is not "gatekeeping." But if you go around quizzing watch writers on the technical fundamentals, and decry them as not qualified to write about watches if they get the answers wrong, then you're gatekeeping.
I've written a few times about my frustration with quite narrow-minded concepts of what does, and doesn't, make a watch collector; I truly believe there is no right or wrong way to appreciate watches and what's more important is that enthusiasm for watches is on the rise (not least because it keeps me in a job). There is no entrance exam, and prolific collectors can quite easily go their whole lives without understanding, or caring much about, concepts like daily rate variation or the relative merits of a lateral or vertical clutch. The world of watches being what it is, a lot of people who become interested in them do end up acquiring some technical knowledge, or at least an appreciation of the mechanics at work; where I think this gets interesting is in the definition (self-applied, or otherwise) of a watch *collector* as opposed to someone who simply owns a lot of watches. Would Elton John describe himself as a watch collector? I suspect not. And there is an inverse snobbery directed at those who have the wealth to buy watches that many serious enthusiasts will never attain but never trouble themselves to care about them in the same way. For some gatekeepers, it's not enough to achieve the end result - you have to have done it in the "right" way.
As a watch journalist, I completely agree with the points made about the responsibility to be well-informed about all aspects of a watch. It isn't surprising that the conversation around watches - particularly on social media and in mainstream titles - is centred on the aesthetics of watch design, on style, on the position of watches as cultural signifiers. It is a hyper visual age, dominated by visual - as opposed to written - media. But what does surprise me is some writers' readiness to proudly declare themselves uninterested in the technical aspects of watchmaking when, as Jack says, they often have a direct bearing on the design of a watch. Subdial placement, dial material, case shape and size, chronograph pusher placement... to name just a few off the top of my head... all are at least partly governed by, or decided in conjunction with, technical considerations. One of the characteristics which, in my experience, marks out a professional journalist is an unending curiosity; it's not in our nature to cheerfully flaunt gaps in our knowledge. Sorry, bit of an essay, but this post struck a chord!
One example of this is the term "quartz crisis", which is frequently mentioned in various circles - it is sort of shorthand for a myth which goes something like "the Swiss watch industry was an perfect system of master craftsmen hard at producing objects of beauty in idyllic surroundings, when one day, evil Japanese electronics ruined everything". Of course we know that the Swiss were leaders in quartz movements (Omega quartz beat out Seiko at Neuchatel) and that most of the foreign competition were for cheap mechanical watches like Timex. Then of course there was the valuation of the Swiss Franc during the '70s, the struggle with mass production that the industry had suffered since the previous century and many more factors. Also, wasn't it popular quartz watches by Tag Heuer, Swatch, Omega, that saved the Swiss Industry?
Quartz is awesome. I say that as much as possible everywhere. A pretty movement is all fine and good, but the best travel watch is a Seiko Astron, and no one makes a better chronograph that Citizen's Attesa models. I can understand and respect beautifully finished mechanical movements, but for function, quartz is better tech.
Speaking of “gatekeeping”, and the various forms of drawing lines in sand, I love that your profile photo is a Seiko diver, and which has a certain nickname, iykyk, etc, etc…
Us Trekkies are docile folk because we have nothing to prove and know full well that our debates are honorable and highly logical… need I even mention the entire basis of the show is literally about inclusion and overcoming differences?
It has long fascinated me that in the world of watches, or at least the parts of that world that I wander around in, the most welcoming people are usually also the ones who know the most. And the most unwelcoming people, conversely, are often the ones who seem to be stuck in this or that dogmatic position ("date windows suck!" "Watches bigger than 38mm diameter suck!" etc etc) without really being able to justify their particular perspective. But in the many years that I've been reading, and on occasion posting/commenting, about watches, the most knowledgeable people have invariably been supportive, even when their perspective differs from mine and their knowledge base dwarfs my own. Maybe I'm living in a bubble, but if so it's a damn nice one.
With the notable exception of William Massena.
I am convinced that the angry small-watch crowd is a sub-segment of the angry little man population. My personal favorite are the ones who want the largest possible watch for their writs. They become engaged when a watch comes in 36mm and 40mm, because EVERYONE knows that it should come in at 37mm!!! Those individuals take the cake in the most crazy posters of watch forums awards.
Do you think some of the sensitivity is related to the perception of some that trauma is everywhere? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/opinion/caleb-love-bombing-gaslighting-trauma.html
You need to stop posting as your opinions make me feel unsafe.
In all reality I am happy I grew up before hallucinations of "gaslighting" and other paranoid delusions became part of American culture.
I think "gatekeeping" is about behavior, not one's standards and opinions.
For example:
"I will say, though, and I know this might be controversial to some people, that I think if you are going to write about watches you should at least have a grasp of the technical fundamentals."
Having this opinion is not "gatekeeping." But if you go around quizzing watch writers on the technical fundamentals, and decry them as not qualified to write about watches if they get the answers wrong, then you're gatekeeping.
I've written a few times about my frustration with quite narrow-minded concepts of what does, and doesn't, make a watch collector; I truly believe there is no right or wrong way to appreciate watches and what's more important is that enthusiasm for watches is on the rise (not least because it keeps me in a job). There is no entrance exam, and prolific collectors can quite easily go their whole lives without understanding, or caring much about, concepts like daily rate variation or the relative merits of a lateral or vertical clutch. The world of watches being what it is, a lot of people who become interested in them do end up acquiring some technical knowledge, or at least an appreciation of the mechanics at work; where I think this gets interesting is in the definition (self-applied, or otherwise) of a watch *collector* as opposed to someone who simply owns a lot of watches. Would Elton John describe himself as a watch collector? I suspect not. And there is an inverse snobbery directed at those who have the wealth to buy watches that many serious enthusiasts will never attain but never trouble themselves to care about them in the same way. For some gatekeepers, it's not enough to achieve the end result - you have to have done it in the "right" way.
As a watch journalist, I completely agree with the points made about the responsibility to be well-informed about all aspects of a watch. It isn't surprising that the conversation around watches - particularly on social media and in mainstream titles - is centred on the aesthetics of watch design, on style, on the position of watches as cultural signifiers. It is a hyper visual age, dominated by visual - as opposed to written - media. But what does surprise me is some writers' readiness to proudly declare themselves uninterested in the technical aspects of watchmaking when, as Jack says, they often have a direct bearing on the design of a watch. Subdial placement, dial material, case shape and size, chronograph pusher placement... to name just a few off the top of my head... all are at least partly governed by, or decided in conjunction with, technical considerations. One of the characteristics which, in my experience, marks out a professional journalist is an unending curiosity; it's not in our nature to cheerfully flaunt gaps in our knowledge. Sorry, bit of an essay, but this post struck a chord!
One example of this is the term "quartz crisis", which is frequently mentioned in various circles - it is sort of shorthand for a myth which goes something like "the Swiss watch industry was an perfect system of master craftsmen hard at producing objects of beauty in idyllic surroundings, when one day, evil Japanese electronics ruined everything". Of course we know that the Swiss were leaders in quartz movements (Omega quartz beat out Seiko at Neuchatel) and that most of the foreign competition were for cheap mechanical watches like Timex. Then of course there was the valuation of the Swiss Franc during the '70s, the struggle with mass production that the industry had suffered since the previous century and many more factors. Also, wasn't it popular quartz watches by Tag Heuer, Swatch, Omega, that saved the Swiss Industry?
Quartz is awesome. I say that as much as possible everywhere. A pretty movement is all fine and good, but the best travel watch is a Seiko Astron, and no one makes a better chronograph that Citizen's Attesa models. I can understand and respect beautifully finished mechanical movements, but for function, quartz is better tech.
Gatekeeping is mid, low-riz clout-farming. Generally speaking.
Speaking of “gatekeeping”, and the various forms of drawing lines in sand, I love that your profile photo is a Seiko diver, and which has a certain nickname, iykyk, etc, etc…
Us Trekkies are docile folk because we have nothing to prove and know full well that our debates are honorable and highly logical… need I even mention the entire basis of the show is literally about inclusion and overcoming differences?