"Hi,

I only intended to buy one quality mechanical watch, so after a lot of research I bought an Omega Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch. Unfortunately I'm now hooked on watches, but I don't want to build a large collection of watches which I cannot really afford. As I really like chronographs, I would like to eventually buy a single example of a flyback, split-second, and foudroyante chronograph to complement my "basic" Speedmaster. What watches should I consider buying in each of these categories, that would be worth owning, but won't break the bank?

Robert"

Hi Robert,

And welcome to the club (there is no cure!)

A little while ago I put together 'The Ultimate Watch Collection'. A collection where money is no object.

But, what if money is an object?

In other words, if we wanted to build a watch collection of 'attainable' watches, where attainable isn't necessarily cheap, but that a person making an average salary could, with time, save up to buy at least a couple, what would that look like?

Well, I'm about to tell you (in no particular order), and yes there are watches in this list that overlap with the "ultimate watch collection", and thats because money isn't everything.

An interesting subject in collecting vintage watches for me has always been those so called "dead" watch brands that made chronographs pre-1970's.

Once the quartz crisis took hold, only a few managed to actually survive, and the majority of those were bought by the Swatch Group or other large conglomerates. 

The rest, all gone (unless their names alone have been revived for some marketing reason).

Names like Nicolet, Gigadnet, Wakmann, Cyma, Gallet, Zodiac, etc. There were literally hundreds of these brand names that popup up pre-1970s. Some were owned by bigger brands, for example, Wakmann, which belongs to Breitling. This brand was used to assemble watches in the USA to avoid certain taxes when the watches entered assembled.

A watch's primary function is to tell us what time it is. This is why telling the time is not considered a "complication".

But anything beyond that is.

And some complications are much more difficult to make than others. And combining more than one of these complications into one watch is absolutely spectacular, hence, it's own category: Grand Complications (minimum 3 complications to qualify).

But even doing one of these things well is a challenge, and making them all, even in individual watches make for quite the repertoire.

The main issue, in general, when it comes to the watch industry today is that many brands that once were relevant, no longer are. And it's become increasingly difficult to decipher between the true horologically relevant watch brands and the pretenders.

Whats worse, many pretenders were once at the pinnacle of haute horology, so it can get tricky. 

So, here's a list of criteria that all truly high-end brand/watch will meet. If a brand or watch does not meet all of the criteria, regardless of how much it costs, I'm here to tell you to walk away. You have better options

SIHH is winding down, and as usual, there are always some nice things to see.

This year, to my surprise, a couple watches really excited me, perhaps even surprised me. I'd like to discuss those in particular, understanding these two watches are not the only worthwhile watches this year at SIHH.

The first, is more of a collection revamp to me, and it was by IWC.

I've been a fan of IWC for nearly two decades now, but there was a definite turing point for me once Richemont took full control. What was once a very simple, minimalist no nonsense company making serious watches with serious in-house innovations, suddenly became a watch for Hollywood, and started pimping itself out.