The Wristwatch: Why Men Still Wear What They No Longer Need

Two very different scenes. A train driver at the end of the 19th century. A businessman in New York at around the same time. Two very different men, with different occupations, demands and responsibilities. And yet, there is one point of convergence. In the pocket of both men sits a pocket watch. One uses it to keep track of the schedules of the trains carrying countless passengers across a continent. The other uses it to keep track of meetings that might move thousands of dollars.

The watch is both an object of presentation and a working tool. But in little more than a century, it would move from the pocket, to the wrist, and eventually to the phone, becoming something accessible and permanently available, but somehow losing some of its essence along the way.

The pocket watch had a different character altogether. It became increasingly popular among middle- and upper-class men during the 19th century, who saw it not only as a practical instrument for telling the time, but also as an object of status. This was especially true when watches were made from precious metals and featured intricate cases and individual details. Wearing one was normally part of wearing a suit and waistcoat. On many occasions, a watch was also given as a gift, acquiring a sentimental value that could turn it into an heirloom piece, passed from one generation to the next.

Unlike today, however, the watch was physically separate from the man who owned it. It lived in his pocket, not constantly out in his hand like a phone.

The transition from the pocket to the wrist did not happen overnight, nor was the wristwatch simply invented as a replacement for the pocket watch.

Wristwatches had existed before the 20th century, but for a long time they were more commonly associated with women. For men, the pocket watch remained the standard. It was practical enough for everyday life, and it fitted naturally into the way men dressed.

Then circumstances changed.

As warfare became increasingly dependent on coordination, timing and movement, having to let go of a rifle to reach into a pocket to check the time became inconvenient. A watch worn on the wrist could be consulted almost instantly, without taking a hand away from a weapon, equipment or whatever task was being performed.

The First World War accelerated this change dramatically.

Military watches, often referred to as trench watches, became an important bridge between the traditional pocket watch and the modern wristwatch. They retained many of the characteristics of pocket watches, but were adapted for the wrist, often with protective features and luminous markings that made them easier to read in difficult conditions.

What began as a practical solution gradually became normal.

Men returned from the war wearing watches on their wrists. What had once seemed unusual began to feel familiar. And once practicality had established the wristwatch, fashion did the rest.

During the 20th century, the wristwatch became much more than a convenient way of telling the time.

It became part of a man's clothing.

Different watches began to develop around different activities and environments. The dress watch was designed to disappear beneath the cuff of a suit. Field watches were built for practicality and legibility. Divers' watches were designed to withstand the demands of underwater use. Chronographs were associated with sport, racing and aviation.

The interesting thing is that most of these watches could still tell the time.

The difference was what they said beyond that.

A watch could suggest that its owner spent his days in an office, on a ship, in a workshop or behind the wheel of a racing car. It could be as formal or as rugged as the user intended.

The watch had become an extension of the clothes around it.

And this is perhaps what makes it such an interesting piece of men's style. Unlike many accessories, a watch rarely needs to announce itself. It can be almost invisible, sitting quietly beneath a cuff, and yet still change the impression of an entire outfit. It sounds cliché, but as I got used to wearing a watch throughout the years, I now feel naked if I leave home without one.

The best accessories in men's clothing tend to work this way. They do not look like decoration. They look like they belong there.

This is where the story becomes slightly strange.

At the present time of technology and easy access to everything, we no longer need a wristwatch.

At least, not in the way the train driver did in the 19th century.

The time is displayed everywhere. It is on the computer in front of us, on the dashboard of the car, in the corner of the television and, most importantly, in the phone that most of us carry everywhere.

A smartphone tells the time more accurately than almost any mechanical watch ever could. It can also tell us the date, the weather, our location and practically everything else we might want to know.

And yet, men still wear watches.

Perhaps that is precisely why the wristwatch has survived.

Once an object stops being necessary, using it becomes a choice.

We no longer wear a watch because we have no other way of knowing the time. We wear one because we like the object itself.

There is something satisfying about having a small mechanical instrument on your wrist whose only real job is to measure something that we already have several other ways of measuring.

This is particularly true of mechanical watches. They are not necessarily more accurate, more convenient or more useful than a quartz watch, let alone a smartphone. They are interesting because of how they work, how they are made and the fact that they can be maintained and passed on.

That makes the watch less like a piece of technology and more like a possession. Something of value.

Something you own rather than something you simply use.

A good watch should complement what you are wearing rather than become the outfit itself.

This is where simplicity matters.

A thin dress watch can make sense with a suit because it respects the proportions and formality of the clothing. A field watch can work naturally with denim, boots and a more utilitarian wardrobe. A diver's watch can sit comfortably alongside casual clothing because its origins are functional rather than decorative.

There are no rules that need to be followed religiously. A man can wear a diver with a suit or a vintage dress watch with jeans. Personal style has always been about knowing when to follow conventions and when to ignore them.

What matters is that the watch feels appropriate to the man wearing it.

A watch does not need to be enormous. It does not need a giant logo. It does not need to be covered in precious metals.

Sometimes the most interesting watch is the one that looks as though a man has been wearing it for twenty years.

The history of the wristwatch is, in many ways, the history of something becoming unnecessary and surviving anyway.

The pocket watch was born in a world where knowing the time required a physical object. The wristwatch made that object easier to access. The smartphone eventually made the traditional watch almost completely redundant.

And yet, the watch remains.

Perhaps this is because usefulness has never been the only reason we keep things.

We keep objects because they remind us of people, places and periods of our lives. We keep them because they are well made. Because they develop character. Because they can be repaired instead of replaced. Because one day they might belong to someone else.

A good watch can become part of a man's personal history in a way that a phone never will.

You can replace a phone every few years without thinking much about it. A watch can stay with you for decades.

And perhaps that is why the wristwatch still has a place in men's style.

We don't wear one because we need to know the time.

We wear one because some things are worth carrying even when they are no longer necessary.