Rob Walker, IMHO, totally misses the point in his column in the New York Times Magazine today. He's writing about watches, in particular high end watches that don't really tell time. Today, when I woke up, I did what I usually do -- picked up my cell phone to see if I'd gotten any urgent phone calls/texts over the night (hey, it does happen!). And a pang of fear struck my heart -- my phone said it was daylight savings time. My watch did not. Neither did my computer, and nothing in the paper. A quick search showed I needed to update some software on my phone, but the point was clear -- I trust the time on my phone as more accurate than that on my wrist.
But back to the column. Walker notes:
This, in fact, is what makes a useless-seeming watch potentially more valuable — in identity terms — than, say, regular jewelry. If the Timeless Bracelet didn’t have an empty space where the face should be, it would just be a bracelet. “It has more value because it’s missing its functional component,” Berger suggests; a thing that’s more of a comment on watchness than a watch “provides more information” about the person wearing it.
He's talking about super expensive watches, and he's wrong. What this sort of watch says is this: I have so much money and am so important, time doesn't matter to me -- it only matters to others.
I'll keep my collection of inexpensive watches, thanks. For me, time is still something to be watched.