Really Esquire?

Someone bought me a subscription to Esquire magazine recently, and this month in their 'essentials' section, I was told that the watch I should be wearing is the one pictured above. The Patek Philippe 5116G. They explained that this was a dress watch, so I should also purchase a Rolex for more sporty non-business attire type situations. Seriously? WTF?

Now I'm down with the expensive watch idea, which by my definition is any watch that costs four figures. But in this global economy, what percentage of their readers can afford to spend $20,000 on a Patek Philippe, and then buy a $10K Rolex just to wear around the house?

From what I understand Patek Philippe is an exquisitely made watch that is considered one of the best in the world. But many of the models in my opinion, look extremely plain/boring. This particular model is made of white gold, which looks a lot like polished stainless steel. So essentially you are paying a shit ton extra for the materials, even though they look much like their cheaper counterpart.

Now in terms of this specific model, there are some truly beautiful watches that cost less than half the price of their recommended model. This IWC, for example costs around $3,000 retail. And unlike the manual winding Patek Philippe, this one is self winding, and you could own six of them for the cost of the Patek. And it's not like IWC is not a highly respected offering.



Now if you are one of those people who can't bear to look at their watch and know it isn't made of gold, you could consider an Omega DeVille.

The DeVille is available in various forms, I picked this merely because of its similar layout to the Patek. At $7,000, this beautiful Omega watch is to me a far better buy than the Patek. First off, it looks nicer by a long way. And secondly, like the IWC, this is an automatic watch self winder with a 48 hour power reserve and a low maintenance coaxial movement.

Citizen make an outstanding eco-drive dress watch in a similar style that runs less than $200, and never needs a battery.

The bottom line here is that I cannot understand the point of a $20,000 dress watch with a leather strap (which will quickly wear out; it's leather after all), when it looks almost the same as other quality watches that cost thousands of dollars less. And keep in mind, I'm somewhat of a watch snob. I'm not one of those people that argues for buying a Casio G-Shock over a Tag Heuer.

Also, how many events are you attending in life where only a dress watch is suitable?

So now let's talk about Esquire's assertion that your other watch should be a Rolex. I'm sorry but as someone on right side of 40, I can't agree with that either. Sure, Rolex make a very good watch. But to recommend a watch that these days pretty much starts at $10,000 as a back up watch, for when you are not wearing your Patek, is fucking stupid. Less than 1% of their readers are going to have that kind of money that they would go out and buy $30,000 worth of watches on the say so of some $1 magazine.

So if I were to be extravagant and drop some serious money on some watches, here's how I would play it:


First off we have the limited edition (1948 made - to commemorate the year that Seamaster was launched) Omega Planet Ocean liquid metal. Cutting edge materials including a ceramic bezel. The amazing co-axial movement will last for years. This is just a cool watch, plain and simple. The fact it's limited edition bumps the price from the usual Planet Ocean price of $3,600 to around $5,800.

When it comes to a dress watch, I find it hard to get excited. Because for me, a quality watch like the Planet Ocean is so beautiful, I'd have to be at an extremely formal black tie event to feel the need for something more dressy. Even then, I'd argue that the Planet Ocean would fit in.

If forced to buy a dress watch, I'd probably go with the Omega DeVille I already mentioned. Although their X2 is pretty cool as an alternative. Pictured below runs around $13,400, but if you lose the gold, you can shave $9,000 off that price.


So my Omega take on the $30,000 watch problem would cost about $13,000. I'd own a limited edition Planet Ocean, which is an absolute classic. I'd also have a beautiful gold dress watch. Both quality chronometers. I'd have saved a minimum of $17,000 over what Esquire recommends allowing me to also buy a Rolex, if I were over 40 (and unoriginal), or simply wait a few years and buy something else as my tastes change.

Some people might argue that the Patek Philippe would be a better long term investment. But I call bullshit on that argument. Yes, collectors go crazy for these watches. But once you get into the mindset that your watch is a collectors item, it becomes all too easy to keep it in storage and not on your wrist. I'm talking about watches that you could actually wear every day, without worrying about hurting the future value of some investment because of an accidental scraping of watch and wall.

The simple reality when all is said and done is that the average Esquire reader cannot afford a $20,000 watch. Neither can most Americans. So perhaps Esquire could be a little less silly in the future.