What constitutes a "Collection"

[DrLindaPhD]

In the book "The Best of Time: Rolex Wristwatches" by Dowling and Hess (2006) they define Rolex watch collection "paths" such as

1) Vertical Rolex Collection (includes such things as a 1915 calendar/mixed dial zerographe/split second chronograph and a Steel Daytona "Paul Newman" (6239/6241) among a host of other Prince, Speedking (Kew A), Early Explorer (6610 or 5504) early Migauss (6541) etc. etc.
2) Horizontal collection based on the Rolex "Prince"
3) Horizontal collection based on the rolex "Bubbleback"
4) Horizontal collection based on the "Explorer" Models


Does anyone follow these recommended collection routes? I was under the impression that your collection is whatever you want it to be and based on the Rolex models (vintage or new) that you like and should be a mixture of various types.

Am I right in that there are no "collection" rules for collecting Rolex watches and you can mix vintage and new (and hopefully will) ! ! !

[jot_]

I certainly don't think there should be any real rules for collecting. Collect what appeals to you.

[floater156]

The action or process of collecting something. I don't know who Dowling and Hess are, but I think they defined Rolex watch collection a little too narrow. I'd say my collecting route is what puts a smile in my heart.

[kilyung]

A collection is plural therefore anything over one watch IMO.

[beshannon]

I collect what I like, those are my "rules"

[DiamondJack]

It's always nice to have some structure to a collection and I would agree to a certain extent that to have a "collection" in the conventional sense of the word, you should collect in a themed approach either through the ages or across watch types or both.

This approach is nevertheless taking the word collection almost literally and assuming you were for example going to display your watches somewhere, like an art exhibition.....then some theme or structure would normally be expected rather than some random jumble of watches irrespective of how nice or interesting they were.....

However, reality is that people simply tend to collect what they like and what becomes available to them. This is certainly how I've built my collection for what it is......

[Frogman4me]

You appreciate watches and you own more than one

[Vincent65]

more than one - anything you like!

[thomaspp]

Each ref in my collection has come by way of random love relationships... no way i could have followed a pattern/rule

[RolexDivers]

Atleast one watch.

[powerfunk]

Funny you bring that up Linda! I've seen the "any legitimate collection must align with an existing generally accepted theme, or else what the hell are you doing" dogma presented in at least one other Rolex book as well.

I always took issue with that stance, and I buy what I like. My goal isn't to have a "collection" that society at large can appreciate...it's to have a bunch of watches lying around that I love to wear.

[TakesALickin]

I have to agree that you should collect only those watches that appeal to you. That's why I always wince at threads that start something like "Every collection should have...." I don't think there are any rules really.

On the other hand, I've seen it suggested that collecting the way I do (buy, flip, buy, flip, buy, flip, buy, flip, buy, flip, buy, flip, etc, etc, etc...) really makes me more of an "acquirer" and not so much a collector.

[capote]

I'm aiming for an eclectic collection, or "just a bunch of watches" like others would phrase it.

[Jeffin]

Owning one watch can be a collection because you are just getting started. The watch that popped your cherry in collecting.

[Shikar]

Collection is, greater than, or equal to, one watch.

Regards.

[Solo118]

Originally Posted by DrLindaPhD

Am I right in that there are no "collection" rules for collecting Rolex watches and you can mix vintage and new (and hopefully will) ! ! !

There are no rules! Do as you please

[Venusfly]

3 or more IMO. Two seems too few.

[alanc]

Originally Posted by DiamondJack

It's always nice to have some structure to a collection and I would agree to a certain extent that to have a "collection" in the conventional sense of the word, you should collect in a themed approach either through the ages or across watch types or both.

This approach is nevertheless taking the word collection almost literally and assuming you were for example going to display your watches somewhere, like an art exhibition.....then some theme or structure would normally be expected rather than some random jumble of watches irrespective of how nice or interesting they were.....

However, reality is that people simply tend to collect what they like and what becomes available to them. This is certainly how I've built my collection for what it is......

I agree with your description of what a "collection" ought to be; I also think that most such collections start with someone gathering those examples of whatever object it is, that sing to him or her. After a certain point, when one has enough of what sings to him or her (and if he or she has the necessary funds), that person may start adding additional examples that fill in the blanks of whatever "theme" or "structure" defines that particular object.

Say I like Corvettes. I buy a new Corvette. Then I start studying Corvettes because I like them, and decide I must have a 1963 split - window coupe. I get one (I forgot to say I'm assuming I'm rich). Then I decide I must have a 1968, because that was the first year of the next body style and I like those too. After a few more such purchases, I have all the ones I want, but now I'm seized by the desire to have as complete a collection as possible, no matter how I feel about particular examples. So, I get one of each generation, and then start adding convertibles, different engine sized models, and fuel-injected models ( forgot to say I'm assuming I'm Jay Leno). Eventually I have thirty Corvettes, only a few of which I may love individually, but which I all love in the context of having a complete collection.

[alanc]

Originally Posted by DrLindaPhD

In the book "The Best of Time: Rolex Wristwatches" by Dowling and Hess (2006) they define Rolex watch collection "paths" such as

1) Vertical Rolex Collection (includes such things as a 1915 calendar/mixed dial zerographe/split second chronograph and a Steel Daytona "Paul Newman" (6239/6241) among a host of other Prince, Speedking (Kew A), Early Explorer (6610 or 5504) early Migauss (6541) etc. etc.
2) Horizontal collection based on the Rolex "Prince"
3) Horizontal collection based on the rolex "Bubbleback"
4) Horizontal collection based on the "Explorer" Models


Does anyone follow these recommended collection routes? I was under the impression that your collection is whatever you want it to be and based on the Rolex models (vintage or new) that you like and should be a mixture of various types.

Am I right in that there are no "collection" rules for collecting Rolex watches and you can mix vintage and new (and hopefully will) ! ! !

I think Dowling and Hess are wrapped a bit too tight.

[andromeda160]

Originally Posted by alanc

I agree with your description of what a "collection" ought to be; I also think that most such collections start with someone gathering those examples of whatever object it is, that sing to him or her. After a certain point, when one has enough of what sings to him or her (and if he or she has the necessary funds), that person may start adding additional examples that fill in the blanks of whatever "theme" or "structure" defines that particular object.

Say I like Corvettes. I buy a new Corvette. Then I start studying Corvettes because I like them, and decide I must have a 1963 split - window coupe. I get one (I forgot to say I'm assuming I'm rich). Then I decide I must have a 1968, because that was the first year of the next body style and I like those too. After a few more such purchases, I have all the ones I want, but now I'm seized by the desire to have as complete a collection as possible, no matter how I feel about particular examples. So, I get one of each generation, and then start adding convertibles, different engine sized models, and fuel-injected models ( forgot to say I'm assuming I'm Jay Leno). Eventually I have thirty Corvettes, only a few of which I may love individually, but which I all love in the context of having a complete collection.

the things I would do for a 63 split window, my across the streen neighbor builds transmissions for one of the best if not the leading vintage corvette restoration, his boss has cars at autorama every year. he always had the coolest corvettes come over though, because his boss would drive every super unique one over.

[alanc]

Originally Posted by andromeda160

the things I would do for a 63 split window, my across the streen neighbor builds transmissions for one of the best if not the leading vintage corvette restoration, his boss has cars at autorama every year. he always had the coolest corvettes come over though, because his boss would drive every super unique one over.

You and me both - to me, if you want to wrap USA, the 60's and Rock n' Roll all into one object, it is a '63 Split Window. You can actually buy a restored version (assuming it doesn't have a rare engine or the like) for about 80 large, which wouldn't scare a lot of folks on this forum. I could actually do it, if I'd be willing to sleep in it after my wife threw me out of the house...

[SUBversive]

Originally Posted by kilyung

A collection is plural therefore anything over one watch IMO.

Have to agree with that. Well said.

[masterserg]

Originally Posted by DrLindaPhD

In the book "The Best of Time: Rolex Wristwatches" by Dowling and Hess (2006) they define Rolex watch collection "paths" such as

1) Vertical Rolex Collection (includes such things as a 1915 calendar/mixed dial zerographe/split second chronograph and a Steel Daytona "Paul Newman" (6239/6241) among a host of other Prince, Speedking (Kew A), Early Explorer (6610 or 5504) early Migauss (6541) etc. etc.
2) Horizontal collection based on the Rolex "Prince"
3) Horizontal collection based on the rolex "Bubbleback"
4) Horizontal collection based on the "Explorer" Models


Does anyone follow these recommended collection routes? I was under the impression that your collection is whatever you want it to be and based on the Rolex models (vintage or new) that you like and should be a mixture of various types.

Am I right in that there are no "collection" rules for collecting Rolex watches and you can mix vintage and new (and hopefully will) ! ! !

Why all these rules?

More than one, of anything you like ... Rules make you miserable.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by DrLindaPhD

In the book "The Best of Time: Rolex Wristwatches" by Dowling and Hess (2006) they define Rolex watch collection "paths" such as

1) Vertical Rolex Collection (includes such things as a 1915 calendar/mixed dial zerographe/split second chronograph and a Steel Daytona "Paul Newman" (6239/6241) among a host of other Prince, Speedking (Kew A), Early Explorer (6610 or 5504) early Migauss (6541) etc. etc.
2) Horizontal collection based on the Rolex "Prince"
3) Horizontal collection based on the rolex "Bubbleback"
4) Horizontal collection based on the "Explorer" Models


Does anyone follow these recommended collection routes? I was under the impression that your collection is whatever you want it to be and based on the Rolex models (vintage or new) that you like and should be a mixture of various types.

Am I right in that there are no "collection" rules for collecting Rolex watches and you can mix vintage and new (and hopefully will) ! ! !

This isn't germane to Rolex, but I primarily collect IWC watches produced in the 1995-2005 range. I generally think of these as the best "pre-Richemont" watches, though the company was actually sold in 2000. That's what I like at this point in time. When I have collected all watches of this period that appeal to me, I'm sure I'll find some other unifying theme to pursue.

[JohnBoy]

Originally Posted by DiamondJack

It's always nice to have some structure to a collection and I would agree to a certain extent that to have a "collection" in the conventional sense of the word, you should collect in a themed approach either through the ages or across watch types or both.

This approach is nevertheless taking the word collection almost literally and assuming you were for example going to display your watches somewhere, like an art exhibition.....then some theme or structure would normally be expected rather than some random jumble of watches irrespective of how nice or interesting they were.....

However, reality is that people simply tend to collect what they like and what becomes available to them. This is certainly how I've built my collection for what it is......

Absolutely agree! For most of us, the cost of a nice watch is significant and we have somewhat limited access to all watches that are available. Thats our reality - and I think we are doing fine and having some fun along the way!

[AK797]

Originally Posted by kilyung

A collection is plural therefore anything over one watch IMO.

This is true, but Id say for watches it ought to be three and more as someone might have a daily beater and a nice one for the w/e so purely functional whereas three would mean its more of a hobby and a collection.

[bridgs]

Originally Posted by kilyung

A collection is plural therefore anything over one watch IMO.

agree

[tkc324]

When you have more then 2 watches constitute a collection... as far as which watches, thats entirely up to you...

[alanc]

Originally Posted by tkc324

When you have more then 2 watches constitute a collection... as far as which watches, thats entirely up to you...

Yes, for some reason three seems like the minimum, although two is technically correct.

[stevedssd]

Anything more than one is a collection, although some on here may consider single figures just the start of a journey.