You only truly need one Rolex

[alphadweller]

I'm caressing the idea that one Rolex in the collection could be enough. You get that one rugged and dependable mechanical watch with a nice history and pedigree and you're done.

That was my plan when I bought my first Rolex several years ago. Now I've got three (YM, SD43, TT Sub), but do I need them? Yes, I love them. Still, I can't help thinking one is enough. I could let two of them go and live happily ever after. No more ADs, greys, chasing the dopamine. Let others have a crack at getting their first.

Why not stop at one Rolex (and embrace other brands) Thoughts?

[the dark knight]

I'd say two for when the other is away for servicing. Also practically speaking I think 2 may be enough for Rolex because there is some overlap in design for a lot of their models. You probably don't need BOTH a Sub and GMT or both a GMT and Exp II. You probably only need one of an Exp I, OP, or DJ.

The classic 2-watch combo of a Sub and DJ would probably be enough.

[Stan Cooper]

I'm down to one Rolex (not counting my 1915 trench watch) and have no burning desire for another. My 16710 GMT II checks all the boxes.

[WatchTimes]

It's hard, I can't be a one watch guy as if I was it would be my 228238 but I need a beater as well so I guess Id keep my 16570 Polar as well.
If I could only collect one brand it would be Rolex but luckily Im not restricted

[Charlie Tango]

I’m sort of having the same thought right now honestly. I have three and maybe I have enough.

Polar Exp II 226570 —the every day watch
Submariner 124060 —the casual watch
TT SkyD, Champange, Jubilee 326933 — the special occasion watch

I’ve expressed interest in the lefty GMT and the new mint dial SkyD, but realistically neither of those feels like a fundamentally different watch than what I already have. Is it just me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hgg43c]

@ the moment my Sub is my GADA Rolex.

[Kevin of Larchmont]

My parents grew up during the depression. I am well schooled on the the subject of what I do and don’t need. A childhood of enforced frugality lead me down the wayward path of acquisition. I buy Rolex because I want to, need never enters the equation.

[PenDelicate]

Had a Sub for three years.
Twitched the needle to a Sub + a Daytona. Just not for me.
Now back down to just the Daytona.
I'm done.

(Fingers crossed.)

[Beto737]

I was a one watch person for about 15 years. As long as it’s rugged and dependable, no problem.

I went from a 16233 to a 16610LN to a 116610LV. I was perfectly content just wearing the one watch. Then the craziness kicked in.

[BobtheViking]

I like to have some diversity.

I've got an explorer 2 and I don't think there is another brand that does anything quite like it.

I've got a speedy and I think that's the best chrono you can buy (calm down Daytona owners)

I'd like a proper pilots watch and whilst the air king, sky-dweller or GMT would fit that bracket. I'm more inclined to get a Stowa b., Longines Zulu or one of a number of Breitlings

I think the iconic divers watch is the sub, but I've got an explorer so you could add a Blancpain

Basically, Rolex do a reference to cover most types and complications and if you're set on Rolex then they make amazing watches.

But I'd prefer to have more brands and different history/stories in my collection

[The Novice]

I don't even own a Rolex yet but I WANT one. I certainly don't need one.
Once it is established I don't need the first one how can you argue that I only need one?
I think we are all here for something that goes beyond need.

Anyway, I will probably need at least one dress and one casual Rolex. Anything beyond that is just superfluous.

[HERITAGE82]

I'm a one Rolex guy with my Explorer, but being honest my Tudor 79270 is pretty much a 5 digit Rolex and my black bay has similar DNA.

[Mr Ben]

I might be changing my mind on this question. Having had an Exp II for nearly 6 months, I can fairly confidently say I don’t “need” anything else…

I’m playing with the idea of keeping the 226570 as my “one modern six digit Rolex” for daily use. And adding a couple of classics as “occasional wearers”. Either:
- adding a 16710/ 5513 would give me a nice sports trio in 4/5/6 digit refs; or
- adding a 16570/ 1655 would give me more or less the Exp II family with very different looks in 4/5/6 digit refs

So one is plenty but we can always find excuses for another couple!

[JTL31]

I own 2. The discontinued white dial OP 36 & the TT Explorer.
The OP is set to be my daughter’s in 10 yrs on her golden birthday. We both choose the engraving for the caseback as it represents a term of endearment shared. My WIS personality rationalizes that is hers, the Explorer is mine.

But, I agree in one is plenty. We WIS should consider ourselves fortunate to have the means for such an item at all.

[brandrea]

I think I’d need at least two Rolex to be happy, a Diver and a GMT.

I agree with the sentiment… plenty of other brands to enjoy

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

I'm caressing the idea that one Rolex in the collection could be enough. You get that one rugged and dependable mechanical watch with a nice history and pedigree and you're done.

That was my plan when I bought my first Rolex several years ago. Now I've got three (YM, SD43, TT Sub), but do I need them? Yes, I love them. Still, I can't help thinking one is enough. I could let two of them go and live happily ever after. No more ADs, greys, chasing the dopamine. Let others have a crack at getting their first.

Why not stop at one Rolex (and embrace other brands) Thoughts?

It suddenly dawned on me … you haven’t even worn the SD43

[Tahitianmoon23]

Assuming you NEED a watch, agreed you could do with one...That said I personally would stick with Rolex and probably an Explorer 1. Its a sport watch that works as it was designed and it works in business or formal.

[the dark knight]

Originally Posted by Stan Cooper

I'm down to one Rolex (not counting my 1915 trench watch) and have no burning desire for another. My 16710 GMT II checks all the boxes.

So you have 6 Rolexes then.

[Big Tex Rolex]

For me … the minimalist theory for watches would be 2 …

(1) a Sports Watch … a Rolex Submariner … good for work, lunches, casual dinners, play, sporting events, vacations, etc.

(2) a Dress Watch … a Rolex 1908, or the like from another brand … I need a Dress Watch for Black Tie events, weddings, funerals, meetings, etc. …

and, I find that wearing a “dress watch” is suitable to wear under any of the listed events under Sports Watch also.

Obviously you could get away with just a dress style watch … a watch that’s suitable for any occasion … but where’s the fun in that !!??

1 or 2 works … that said, I currently have 7, and I am trying to buy (wait listed for) 4 more.

[the dark knight]

I must say though, Rolex or not (though I prefer Rolex) I’m always happier with a small collection. Decision paralysis is removed, and I am forced to wear the watches I have more often, which is kind of the point.

[rgwarden]

I’m glad I’m not the only poster who feels a bit queasy when people discuss their multiple Rolexes. I’ve owned three but only ever one at a time, quite simply because I’m not comfortable with them sitting in boxes or switching watches every few days to avoid that. How do you build up a special relationship with a piece if you keep changing it? I don’t get it. I have two Omegas and use the Speedmaster whenever my Explorer is in for service, but boxing my first ever mechanical watch - a 2000 Seamaster - makes me feel uncomfortable enough.
Don’t get me wrong. I am crazy about Rolexes, and perhaps if money were no object I’d just hoover up as many as i could and buy a serious safe to guard those I wasn’t wearing! But the truth is it’s because i love them that owning them and putting them into rotation wouldn’t do it for me at all. It’s bordering on neglect!

[RogerOP]

I think 2 is enough for me.

I think that’s enough watches too, unless your style depended on it.

[krounchou]

I have three (DJ41, 126110Ln and 16570 polar) each time i wear one of them I tell myself it could be the only one. So I guess I need them 3

[syedsumunali]

One Rolex is a pretty hard thing. You need a dress piece and a casual piece. Now don’t say a jubilee GMT because it isn’t a dress piece. But I don’t think Rolex do a piece that can fit both. Perhaps the day date in platinum since it’s on a metal bracelet but flashy and dressy enough to work with a suit. The only watch that I can think of that can satisfy casual smart, casual and dress is the vacheron overseas in a silver dial because of the ability to change straps and a clean dial. That’s probably about it

[cdm765]

I don’t NEED any Rolexes. A luxury watch is absolutely not a need and I have no false perceptions of that being the case.

A Rolex is a WANT for me and as long as I have taken care of what matters in other areas of my life, I’m happy to indulge with multiple. I also get a great deal of joy out of research and engagement with the watch community and ownership makes me enjoy that even more. I don’t regret a cent I have spent on watches for myself or others. I’ve gifted Rolexes to family and that has made our time together and experiences all the more memorable for me.

[Scott TX]

I have two Rolex watches. A DJ SS and a Submariner Pro. It could easily be an ideal 2 watch collection. However, I also own a couple SMP 300m, a Speedmaster Pro and a JLC Master Control RDM. The only thing really missing would be a GMT. But, the GMT Master II pricing is a too high in secondary market for my liking.

[BKScripto]

Waiting on a Rolex GMT. That paired with my speedy will do me fine for a while. Perhaps a sky dweller sometime in the future but I gotta land that GMT first haha

[alphadweller]

Thanks all for contributing with your views.

Just to clarify, I don't mean being a one warch guy. That to me would be far too difficult. What I'm thinking is I could own just one Rolex and one model from my other favourite brands, within reason.

Keep the collection small and don't hoard more Rolex watches than I need. I don't mean "need" as a real necessity of course, but more like a way to scratch that Rolex itch with just one model and be done with it.

The same could apply to other brands, one Seiko as a beater or GS as a dressy sports watch, one Omega as a chrono, one PM dress watch for those special occasions, etc. Whatever you might like or work for you, but just one Rolex.

[JRell]

I did the chase, one is all I need. One Rolex and one watch. Black sub date is all I need for every occasion.

[syedsumunali]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

Thanks all for contributing with your views.

Just to clarify, I don't mean being a one warch guy. That to me would be far too difficult. What I'm thinking is I could own just one Rolex and one model from my other favourite brands, within reason.

Keep the collection small and don't hoard more Rolex watches than I need. I don't mean "need" as a real necessity of course, but more like a way to scratch that Rolex itch with just one model and be done with it.

The same could apply to other brands, one Seiko as a beater or GS as a dressy sports watch, one Omega as a chrono, one PM dress watch for those special occasions, etc. Whatever you might like or work for you, but just one Rolex.

If it’s going to be one Rolex, it’s probably got to be the stainless steel sub. The original. I think it’s the most renowned Rolex above the GMT and a Daytona and pretty much fit a lot of occasions