There’s a new trend of wearing watches in a particular way. I say “trend”, not because lots of people have started doing it, but because certain personalities known for their trendsetting abilities have done so, and it’s usually just a matter of time before we begin to see mainstream adoption of this style. And unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last year or two, you might have just the tiniest inkling of what I’m referring to.
Rihanna, Paris Fashion Week 2023. Taylor Swift, the 66th Grammy Awards. Is this starting to ring any bells? These megastars, arguably the biggest in the world today, created a cascade of headlines with their timepieces, that they chose to wear snugly around the neck in the form of a choker. Now, before we go any further, I want to state that in a stylistic sense, I absolutely love what they’ve done. I’m a big advocate of people being able to wear their watches however they want. Rihanna is a known watch lover, and her choice of a 47mm Jacob & Co. Brilliant watch fully set with baguette-cut diamonds and a flying tourbillon at 6 o’clock is pretty representative of her career — unconventional and untraditional, but with a powerhouse impact and lashings of raw talent. And while Taylor Swift’s pick, a modestly sized Concord with an Art Deco flavour, may not have the immediate blockbuster effect that comes with the calibre and carats of the Jacob & Co. piece, fans jumped into analysing it with fervour, since Swift is known for hiding allusions to her work in her outfits.
The thing is (and I’m sure you all knew this was coming), I’m not entirely over the moon about the fact that both these hugely influential women chose to wear their watches in such a way that they were unable to read the time on them. And I readily admit that this is objectionable only to someone (like me) who knows a thing or two about the history of personal timepieces. Other people — normal people — would simply think, these two superstars have made bold fashion choices and should be applauded for bringing watches into the spotlight in the era of smartphones and connected devices.
However, one thing that has preoccupied me throughout my time in the watch world is the remarkably small role that women play in it. Not just in terms of business leadership, but also in terms of product offering and consumer share. The fact is, because of a complex combination of various factors, watches that truly appeal to the modern woman are few and far between, and those that do exist rarely measure up to their masculine counterparts in terms of creativity, mechanical value and innovation. The underlying message seems to be that so-called women’s watches are predominantly regarded as objects of decoration, coupled with the anachronistic fallacy that women themselves are objects of decoration.
Before wristwatches became the primary form of personal timepieces, women wore watches variously on the belt, as brooches, and — of course — as pocket watches on chains. Specifically in the brooch format, the orientation of the watch was significant. Brooch watches created with utility in mind often had their attachment pins fixed at the 6 o’clock or 9 o’clock position of the watch case, so that the wearer could read the time quickly with a downward glance. These became known as nurse watches or nursing watches, associated with the professional women who needed practical and easily readable timepieces in the course of their important work.
Brooch watches that had their attachment points at the 12 o’clock position were, by and large, items of jewellery, worn on social occasions, and their timekeeping function mainly benefited those interacting with the wearer, not the wearer herself. And if I’ve learned anything from six seasons of Downton Abbey, it’s that 19th-century social occasions were pretty much just matchmaking events. The logical conclusion being that the beneficiaries of these jewellery-type brooch watches — that women wore but could not read — were men. Things were different back then, that’s for sure.
Without this context in mind, the choker watch is nothing more than a bold fashion choice; the result of an adventurous sense of style. Unfortunately, we currently have no reliable way of selectively removing information from our brains, so I’m stuck with this unflattering historical association with outdated and oppressive gender constructs that intrudes on my perception of these massive pop culture moments.
I did come up with a rather interesting idea in the process of trying to reconcile my views of the choker watch with my equally robust belief that people ought to be able to wear their watches however they want. Rather appropriately, inspiration came from 18th-century antique watches. A tact watch (montre à tact) essentially allowed the wearer to feel, rather than read the time. Most commonly, this took the form of an entirely enclosed watch movement, with a robust hour hand set on the case exterior, so that the time could be determined merely by feeling the position of the hour hand. There was also the so-called “dumb” repeating watch (montre à toc), a striking watch without gongs whose hammers would hit the interior surface of a watch case, allowing its owner to discreetly ascertain the time through touch. The original purpose of these watches was to avoid incurring social embarrassment or giving offence by looking at one’s watch. (Once again, it was a different time.)
A choker watch with the features of a montre à tact or a montre à toc tells you the time without requiring you to look at it. It allows you to have it all. And, in my humble opinion, Rihanna and Taylor Swift are two formidable women with unparalleled careers — they already have it all in so many aspects of their lives. Why not in their watches too?
