The Problem with Watch Nicknames
So let's talk about something collectors don't seem to want to talk about earnestly, the "beloved" watch nickname. Nicknames have become these charming little shortcut that turned have turned Pepsi into a GMT-Master and Kermit into a Submariner with a green bezel. But somewhere along the way, things spiraled out of control. What started as a fun way for collectors to talk casually about their favorite watches has turned into a chaotic nickname free-for-all. It's gone so far that I sometimes I wonder if I should just sell my watches and settle for an Apple Watch. I mean, this isn't a real threat. I’d regret it immediately. But the madness must end!
Let’s get one thing straight: nicknames can be helpful. They make it easier to reference models without rattling off a long reference of seemingly random numbers and letters (I'm looking at you Seiko). Calling a watch a “Pepsi” is a lot easier than saying “Rolex GMT-Master II ref. 126710BLRO”. And that's totally fair. I mean, no one is memorizing every Rolex reference (I know I'm not). The issue is that what started as useful collector shorthand and a bit of fun has morphed into a crazy percentage of watches having nicknames, and nicknames that feel more like manufactured marketingt than the organic names of watch nerds. The nickname has become part of the product, and that’s where I have an issue.
Take the "John Mayer" Daytona. Of course, it's a great watch. I love the combination of solid yellow gold with green sunray dial. Awesome. But the moment Mayer’s name got attached to it, the watch took on a new identity. It was no longer just a luxurious chronograph, but a “celebrity-backed grail.” Prices immediately skyrocketed. The hype exploded. And the ultimate outcome was that the watch has become as much about the association as it is about the object. It's no longer “I love how this looks and wears,” it's “I heard Mayer wore this on Hodinkee and now I need one too.”
And the funny thing is that the nicknaming epidemic is no longer relegated to just the bigger, most hyped pieces. We’ve started slapping names onto every single shade of blue, every ceramic bezel color combo, every minor variation in lume or font weight. You get weird ones like "Cookie Monster" for the white gold Submariner, or "Sprite" for the green and black GMT-Master. And don't get me started on the "Bruce Wayne" GMT-Master. it felt almost inevitable that collectors would need a second batman-inspired GMT-Master when the grey-black bezel appeared just a couple Watches & Wonders ago. Even the most minor changes now need their own branding. To me, it feels forced and unauthentic. And let’s be honest, some of these nicknames aren’t even good or creative. They feel forced. Like people are trying too hard to create the next “Batman.” Did we really need the “Batgirl” too? It's the same watch. The Pepsi is still the Pepsi regardless of whether its on Oyster or Jubilee Bracelet. Why does a Jubilee bracelet make the watch more "feminine", but only in the case of the blue/black GMT-Master II?
Here’s the real issue: nicknames flatten the story. They reduce complex, well-thought-out design and mechanical detail into something cutesy and clickable. A watch that took years to develop is now “that root beer thing” or “the Panda.” And while it’s fun shorthand, it also shifts the focus away from what makes the watch actually interesting, the movement, the proportions, the history, and toward whether or not it fits the vibe of a sugary snack or a pop star who may have worn it a few times.
The over-nicknaming also fuels a certain kind of hype-fueled collecting, where people chase the “name” rather than the watch. You don’t even have to like yellow gold. If it’s a “John Mayer,” collectors want it. Collecting becomes more about checking off the hyped watches boxes than forming a personal connection with a piece you actually love. This combined with the fact that everyone is looking for a watch that will appreciate in value, makes watch collecting a lot less fun. It’s performative. And honestly, a little boring.
This situation also creates additional confusion. What one part of the world calls a “Bart Simpson” another might call “Gilt Chapter Ring” or just “that weird old Sub.” There’s no official naming convention (just ask Rolex), so we’re left with a messy collector dialect that changes depending on what forum or YouTube channel you frequent. It can make watch conversations feel like inside jokes. To me, that’s not a great look if we’re trying to expand our hobby and make it more inclusive.
To be clear, I’m not saying we should ban all nicknames. Some have become part of the culture. “Batman” “Pepsi,” “Paul Newman". Names like these have definitely earned their spot. But maybe we can cool it with the endless naming of every minor variation like it’s a new Pokémon. Not every black dial Seiko diver needs a moniker. Sometimes a reference number, or just “that cool blue Seiko I saw,” is enough.
I think that we should let watches breathe a little. Let them be what they are, and that is thoughtful, personal, mechanical little things that happen to tell time. You don’t always need a catchy nickname to justify liking a watch. And a watch definitely doesn't need a catch nickname for you to justify buying it.
So yes, I get the appeal of watch nicknames. But if we keep treating every bezel combo like it’s a new celebrity baby, we’re going to nickname ourselves into total absurdity. After all, nobody wants to explain to their non-watch friend that their $40,000 watch is called a “Smurf.”