>>18525118
Bad reputation? That's the first I've heard of it. True, it's usually one of the first 'real' watches that a non watchgeek will buy, but it's because it has a combination of elements that are appealing at an affordable price. You can get an 1861 for around 3.5 or 4kUSD, and it's got the moon connection (tangentially, but still there), a design that is iconic and legible, and recognizable in the watch community. What other watch has those things (history, price, and respect)? Submariners are more expensive, and although the Bulova was worn on the moon, the modern Bulova has the design shell but a quartz movement. Granted, it's much more affordable, but will not have the respect in the community due to the lack of a mechanical movement.

As for people making a watch 'their whole personality', I'd agree to that for sure. You see the same thing with the Paneristi, or Rolex owners who are 'building their relationship' with their AD. Human nature.

>>18525370
Yes, it does CredorChad. If I reduced my collection to what I wear the most, it's the 1966, the Holy Grail, and 'everything else'. If I were near water more often, I'd wear the Seamasters or the Rolex more, but quite honestly I could be quite happy with just the two Speedies. The thing that makes me happy however is having the variety to choose from. If I feel like something dressy, I can do Reverso, and if I feel like something precise, I can go Citizen. In other words, I have variety to assuage my mood. I do seem to require this, but I haven't bought a watch in a while because I seem to have hit the point where I have a watch for every mood requirement. I've looked at Zenith, more Omegas, but they all feel like variations on a theme to me now, and I have the ones that I truly want anyway. So, maybe you're at the point where your choice hits the mark for you at this point in life where you live now. Enjoy this moment, because watches are taken care of in your life.