Building A One-Watch Collection

Sometimes, our editorial meetings produce the sort of nerdy, off-topic conversations that make us pause and say, "Wait, this should be an article." Okay, more than sometimes. As our team grows, it's become clearer that we should be sharing our takes (hot, cold, or lukewarm) here on the site for your reading pleasure – or just to stir the pot a bit.

Today's topic of choice is the idea of expressing what we each would consider to be a one-watch collection. It's important to note that these picks are purely subjective and derive from the minds of our editorial staff. Our hope is that this thought exercise gets you thinking about what a one-watch collection might look like for you. So with that in mind, enjoy this story and let us know what you think of our choices in the comments!

Danny Milton, VP of Content

Not to spoil anything, but the team really went for it with the picks in our first real editor’s roundup here at Teddy. It’s hard to argue with any of the choices because – well – they represent the tastes and opinions of each individual writer. My approach to something like a one-watch collection is complex, perhaps unnecessarily so. My instinct tells me to go Rolex, but then I start to think about scenarios in my life in which I think “maybe I am not comfortable with a Rolex here.” It does happen. So then my mind delves into the more attainable price segment where I want to identify something bulletproof, something that packs undeniable value.

If you’re reading my thoughts, you no doubt have figured out that I am leaning towards Seiko with choice here. The SKX007 was an early watch in my budding collecting career and it has proven to be a keeper over the last decade. But my life has also seen travel become a really big part of my week-to-week or month-to-month. So my one-watch collection needs to be accessible, functional, unbreakable, and travel…able.

Have you figured out my pick yet? That’s right, it is the Seiko “SKX Series” SSK001 – a mouthful of a naming convention but a watch that manages to bring an affordable GMT into a nostalgic package. From the jubilee-style bracelet, to the basically monochromatic color scheme, this watch feels every bit like a tool, but one that can be a little bit dressed up if need be – you know, James Bond style.

I love how natural the design is here, as if this watch should always have existed. Because this style of GMT aesthetic is so reminiscent of the mid-century jetset age it feels timeless despite being only about two years old. The format is well-known at this point: The 24-hour scale on the bi-directional bezel separated into two colors (here black and grey), with a hyper legible black dial contrasted by white applied markers.

At 42.5mm these are not small but they are also compact which allows them to wear closer to 41mm. The new Seiko 5 emblem reminds us we are in modern territory while the script Automatic text gives us a bit of that mid-century feel. Turning the watch over reveals the perfectly adequate 4R34 movement. No it isn’t winning any chronometric awards but I’ll be damned if it own’t last me on every adventure I take it on … perhaps for life.

In the one watch context, I like the idea of this toolish design, at the sub-$500 price giving an exhibition caseback. Understanding what a Seiko 5 GMT movement looks like is just fun. Sure, this is just a caller GMT, meaning that the hour hand is not independently operable on the fly – but I think a little extra work to achieve the dual timezone effect just allows you to engage with your one watch more.

This might be a controversial pick, or maybe it’s not. You let me know what you think.

Blake Buettner, Contributing Writer, Founder of The Deep Track

The allure of a single-watch collection runs deep even within even the most hardened collector. No fuss, no trends to keep up with, and no yearly allowance for purchases. Just a straightforward, simple relationship with a single watch that covers the majority of your needs. Not only does it make life a bit easier and shift focus to enjoying experiences in your watch, but it also becomes a part of your identity to the outside world, as well. The downside being that you don’t get to experience the breadth and diversity of a multi-watch collection that changes with time. That last part makes this an untenable position for many of us, but deep down, it’s something I think I could pull off. 

The upside of spending the past decade and half handling watches of all sorts, is that I’ve developed a pretty strong sense of what works for me. That doesn’t mean the best, the most beautiful, or the most expensive, it just means that I’ve got a handle on what works in the context of my own life, for my own tastes. A single watch collection for me needs to tick a few important boxes, and while I do think that multiple watches would end up fitting the bill, there is a single reference that jives with my needs better than anything else. It’s a watch I currently own, and while it’s not even my favorite watch in the watchbox, it’s the one I’d happily take over the others were I to take the plunge into being a single watch guy. 

First, let’s discuss those boxes that need ticking. The first and possibly most obvious is wearability. If this will be the ultimate daily driver, it needs to wear as organically on my wrist as possible. My watch rarely leaves my wrist, so it needs to be able to stand up to whatever I’m doing, be it active or otherwise, without getting in the way and without really making itself known until I need it. 

Second is practicality. I travel semi-often so there’s one complication that I happen to find more handy than most, and that is a GMT hand that can be independently adjusted. Since it’s a daily wearer, a date goes a long way here as well. Visually, I prefer a time-only watch more often than not, as well as a rotating bezel of some sort, but when it comes down to it, those aren’t really a necessity in the same way that a proper GMT complication can be while on the go. In so much as we can call a watch a necessity at all, I suppose. In addition to the handy complications, I’d add that a robust build quality and ease of repairability are also important factors that fall under this rubric.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is character. This is trickier to define, and it’s more than just the odd little details of a watch.There are no shortage of fantastic options that fit the above criteria, but this one provides a greater level of focus. Sure, the watch has to look and feel good on the wrist, but it also must be endearing in a way that keeps me excited to throw it on each morning over the course of years and decades. What gives a watch character will undoubtedly be different for each of us, and that’s exactly what makes it special. Whatever it is, it should be the reason you check your wrist for the time and find a smile on your face. 

With that, the watch that I believe I could make do with as a single watch is the neo-vintage Rolex Explorer II reference 16570. In particular, an example from the mid ‘00s that gets the updated movement and solid end links, but retains the lug holes. This is a watch that represents the best of Rolex, from what might be their greatest era. The case is slim, and exceptionally wearable, and while the bracelet is as good as the five digit references can get, it also looks great on third party strap options (hence the lug holes case being a preference). 

The 16570 of this era has the traveler style GMT functionality, and in my view it’s the easiest to use as it’s not competing with a bi-colored rotating bezel as you find in the GMT-Master collection. Just a steel bezel with a 24 hour index that seems to welcome dings and scratches. This is a watch that just gets better with usage, and if I’m wearing just one watch, it had better have some stories to tell. 

The white dial variation of the 16570 has the ability to fit into nearly every area of my wardrobe, which is another welcome quality in a list like this. It’s not dressy, but it’s also not overly offensive when dressed up a touch. I credit the thin case and tapered lug for the great all-rounder nature of the look. That thin case does bring up the only potential drawback with this watch, and this is the 100m depth rating. 

I do dive in my watches, and if this were my only option I may think twice before bringing it into the water with me (beyond the swimming pool, at least). It’s not an important part of the kit these days, but it’s still a little something that adds to the experience underwater, so not having a watch like this would certainly be a bummer. However, not a deal breaker, and no watch is perfect. The positives outweigh the negatives here, and it’s not even close. 

While I probably won’t be ditching my collection in favor of the Explorer II, it is a watch that I’d be perfectly content with for decades as a single watch. In fact, it’s a watch I plan to enjoy for the coming decades as part of a multi-watch collection all the same.

D.C. Hannay, Video Content Manager

Before we start, I’d like to make it clear that my idea of a one-watch collection flies in the face of most people’s definition of the phrase. But hey, if we're splitting hairs, the correct watch for formal occasions is no watch. It’s all arbitrary, and everyone can wear whatever they want. Luckily, I’m unburdened by the precepts of others’ strict adherence to archaic fashion morés. I've got no time to be uptight, y’all. If I’m limiting myself to one paltry timepiece, you’d better believe it’s one I’m going to enjoy to the absolute fullest.

And that’s why my choice is a dive watch, albeit an elevated one (at least to my eyes). My pick is the Tudor Black Bay 58 925.

When it comes down to it, I’m a tool watch guy. Not that I don’t appreciate a nice dress watch, but if I’m only eating one potato chip, it had better be salty and crunchy (like me). In other words, it needs to be able to take a flogging. My most-worn watches have a few things in common: vintage styling, Goldilocks dimensions, real-world water resistance, a solid movement, fantastic legibility, and more often than not, a timing bezel. Who says you can’t wear an elegant tool watch with a suit? Certainly not the armchair secret agent living inside my head.

I had considered the Serica 5303 diving chronometer as my choice, because it fits the checklist above to the letter, but after a bit more reflection, the silver Tudor just has that extra oomph. It has a great vintage look, perfect size, a COSC-certified movement, a 200-meter depth rating, and a bezel action that made me audibly gasp upon first turning. But it’s the case material that does it for me. It’s a legitimate precious metal, but one that forgoes the look-at-me vibe of yellow gold. In my eyes, it’s the anti-yellow gold Sub. Having said that, if you ever get hands-on with the 925, you’ll find it has a weight, substance, and truly luxe feel you don’t get with steel. The silver elevates the proceedings with its otherworldly glow, and it’s more than worthy of a suit and tie, in that action-hero sort of way. Which is how I feel every time I try it on.

Erin Wilborn, Editor, Content Strategy

I am one of those annoying people who, when it comes to thinking about something I would wear – that I would dream of spending my own hard-earned cash on – I helplessly pitfall into the contrarian camp. If something becomes, by my own definition, too popular, I feel the need to rebel. This could be an unsightly hangover from surviving the “2012 Hipster” era (which is now being repurposed by the chronically online as “Indie Sleaze,” if you require a dose of current pop-culture buzzwords). Anyway, all of this is a primer for My Strange Addiction: The Cartier Pasha Edition. 

While I do love the Tanks, It-Girl-Worthy Panthères, and Santos watches within the extended Cartier universe, there is just something about the Pasha that appeals to me more than the rest. Maybe it’s the yet-to-be-validated lore of its ties to the Pasha of Marakesh in the early 1930s, maybe it’s my Gérald Genta fangirl showing, or perhaps it's that they have yet to be over-hyped. Likely, it’s all of the above. And, given that I am not the most careful gal in the world, the 300 meters of water resistance and sturdier build don’t hurt, either. 

Though I am well aware that these watches were created to be uncharacteristically large for the time and equally uncharacteristically sporty for Cartier, I’m going to continue to be contrarian and state that I think the 27mm Miss Pasha sizing might wear the best on my wrist (which is slightly less than 5.5 inches, for reference), though this size has the caveat of only being available with a quartz-powered movement. I’m also not opposed to the 35mm sizing. 

It’s weirdly difficult to find an extensive reference list for the Cartier Pasha. If I were to dream up my perfect model, I would go with a two-toned stainless-steel-and-yellow-gold combo (vehemently not rose gold, sorry) with the simple time-only layout, free from the weird, slanted date window that is sometimes included, and it would most definitely have blued hands. I am not willing to budge on that. 

Mark Bernardo, Director of Editorial Content

First, a confession: Before the concept for this article made it into the editorial queue, I had never given much thought to a “one-watch collection.” I wasn’t even sure what the term meant. Isn’t paring down to one watch the opposite of building a collection? From an even more semantic — dare I say pedantic — standpoint, doesn’t the very word “collection” imply that there’s more than one of something? 

After consulting with my friend and colleague Blake Buettner — whose own well-reasoned approach above implies that he has given this idea much more thought than most — I came around a bit to a more open-minded analysis of the concept, similar to Blake’s but perhaps a bit wider in scope. If I’m accepting the basic gist that a “one-watch collection” is not just a favorite watch but a watch that could serve all the needs met by every individual watch currently in a collection, need I also accept the scenario that such a watch already lives in my collection, ready to displace all the others? If not —  if I jettison the idea that I already own that single, do-everything, go-everywhere timepiece — the exercise of finding it becomes that much more intriguing — encompassing not only my relatively modest personal collection but the much larger pool of watches I have reviewed on loan, and the nearly endless universe of watches I have otherwise encountered, in photos, articles, and videos, that I may have craved some personal experience with but never managed to get my hands on.

So what are the criteria? Well, it would have to be a watch that could be worn in both casual and very dressy situations. (For rugged tasks like yard work and the like, I would cheat a bit and keep a good G-Shock around.) It should have a mechanical movement, preferably an automatic, because if I’m only going to have one watch I don’t want it to be something that requires battery changes. It should be a watch that other watch aficionados will appreciate, and hopefully even recognize at a glance, but also one that could draw interest from laymen out in the social wild. Of course, it needs to be a watch that I would actually wear, not just stash away in a safe, which is the type of watch that far too many actual “collections” seem to consist of. This criterion, along with the need for casual-wear-to-cocktail-party versatility, eliminates many of my actual (and somewhat predictable) bucket-list timepieces — your Royal Oaks, your Nautilii, your complicated Reversos, your Honey-Gold Lange 1. Finally, and despite the initial wide-open parameters identified above, I ultimately realized it needed to be something that I have already had a pleasant experience wearing, even if it’s not one that I own.

Weighing all these factors, more or less for the first time, I came up with a watch that I hadn’t even thought about at the outset but one which I had spent some serious quality time with a few years ago and was very reluctant to send back: the Omega Seamaster Diver 300M “007 Edition.” Considering my well-documented obsession for all things James Bond, it probably should have been a no-brainer from the start. I wore the watch for several weeks shortly after its debut, during the early days of Covid lockdowns — remember, the movie in which Daniel Craig actually wears the watch as Bond, No Time to Die, was supposed to come out in Fall of 2020 but ended up pushed into the following year. Which meant, of course, that during the very few social occasions I was afforded during that fraught time, I was able to tell friends and family that the watch they were seeing on my wrist, before the rest of the world, was the one that James Bond would be wearing in his next movie, if that movie ever made it to theaters and if theaters ever reopened for business. (Yes, we were all a bit cynical during Covid.)

But it wasn’t just bragging rights. The watch’s 42mm titanium case looked and felt perfect on my wrist and the scalloped edges on its rotating diver’s bezel were a tactile delight for my thumb and forefinger; I found myself fidgeting with the bezel often, even when I wasn’t using it to actually time something, which, to be honest, was most of the time. Wearing this Seamaster Diver was my first extended experience with a titanium-cased watch and it was a revelation, from both a comfort and attractiveness standpoint, and has made me a fan of that metal for life. I currently have one titanium watch in my collection (from Citizen; more on it here if you’re curious) and it gets worn probably twice as much as any other timepiece lately, on comfort alone. The movement, Omega's Master Chronometer 8800 packs a way-better-than-average power reserve of 60 hours, and you can be assured, if this was my only watch, it would rarely if ever be off my wrist long enough to require a manual winding.

Primarily, the “007 Edition” of the Seamaster Diver 300 addresses what was one of my main issues with a one-watch collection, namely that very few watches truly look just as good dressed up as dressed down. Initially, I wasn’t even considering dive watches for this concept because A.) I am not a diver, and B.) I am someone who wears suits, sports jackets, and ties fairly often in the social aspects of my job. However, if James Bond, that indisputable arbiter of men’s fashion, feels that he can pull off a dive watch — even a military-style, matte-finished dive watch like this one —  with a suit or a tuxedo, then I should have no reason to shy away from embracing the look myself, right? It helps that the 007 Edition actually does manage to look either ruggedly sporty or suitably luxurious depending on the ensemble it’s worn with, and also on whether it’s on its Bond-approved nylon NATO strap or its alternate titanium-mesh bracelet. (In this scenario, by the way, I have access to both, and can switch the watch out as needed. Probably another slight cheat, but it’s my fantasy, right?)