[mhermher]

I think the difference is that the hobby is the thing you do, not the act of buying itself. I have a probably un-utilitarian hobby of building/upgrading maintaining my desktop computer. But still, the hobby is the building/upgrading/maintaining part, not the buying part, using the thing is great too, but I probably don't purely need everything I've put into it. So in a way, I don't get it either. With the watch example, the hobby seems to be the act of buying itself, since you don't actually doanything.

[throwawaymath]

There are conferences and meetups you can go to for the purpose of hanging out with other watch collectors and geeking out about watch features. Buying the watch is not the hobby, wearing it is.

[mmt]

> Buying the watch is not the hobby, wearing it is.

I'm not sure I see the distinction between "wearing it" and merely "owning it", as they both seem somewhat passive activities (if you'll pardon the oxymoron).

In other words, I'm asking, is the hobby one of collecting (as with stamps or coins), or is there something involved in the wearing that is the fundamentally interesting/engaging part of the hobby?

Perhaps what most commenters (including me) are skeptical of is that hobbies have also been known as "pastimes" and are, presumably enjoyable, ways to pass the time.

I suspect that most here would agree that for "expensive" hobbies, such as high-end computer gaming, automotive racing, or aviation, they would still participate in it and call the hobby by the same name if they didn't personally own the equipment necessary to engage in their chosen activity (and merely had unrestricted, or even shared/restricted, access to it).

I'm not so sure this is the case, however, for something like art collecting. If that person doesn't get to keep the art, isn't that really just an art buyer, not a collector?

[dagw]

As a "watch wearer" I find wearing the watch to be the whole point. If there was a service where I could wear different watches without owning them I would be all over that. If I could only own watches to display them in my house and never take them out I wouldn't bother.

[mmt]

> As a "watch wearer" I find wearing the watch to be the whole point.

I am, indeed, surprised by that, but only, again, because it seems passive. Is there more to it, like being seen? Seeing others' reactions? I'm genuinely curious.

I also suspect you're unusual, which is why I was hoping to hear from the original commenter. I could, of course, be quite wrong.

> If there was a service where I could wear different watches without owning them I would be all over that.

I did a web search for "luxury watch rental" and found something at least vaguely similar. If those services aren't what you're looking for, maybe that's a business idea, along the lines of pooling/sharing private jets.

> If I could only own watches to display them in my house and never take them out I wouldn't bother.

Seems like a false dichotomy. However, it's closer to the actual practice (as I understand it) of owning multiples units but only ever wearing one at a time.

Of course, I'm lumping "collectors" in with "wearers", but that's partly because it's so difficult to distinguish from external observation and partly because some commenters have described watches as art, something which doesn't generally have an activity it can be used for.