About two years ago, after more than two decades in the watch hobby, I developed a new condition. It arrived quietly, without warning, sometime around 2024.
I became ambivalent about bracelets.
I suspect the trouble began with my Seiko SLA055. It came on Seiko’s chocolate-bar rubber—an arrangement I never learned to love. The sliding metal keeper felt cheap, the rubber looked underdressed, and the whole thing struck me as unworthy of a watch north of three thousand dollars.
So I did what any rational enthusiast would do. I spent over a thousand dollars chasing the perfect strap.
Most were disappointments. One survived: the FKM Divecore. For a brief moment, peace. Then came the study about FKM and the whispers of “forever chemicals,” and suddenly my sanctuary felt like a toxic waste site.
Back to the drawing board.
I finally bought the Seiko bracelet from the SLA077. Four hundred dollars. And I have to admit: it transformed the watch. Steel gave it authority. Gravity. Presence. The same thing happened with my SLA023 and the Tuna SBBN049. On bracelets, these watches don’t just look good—they look heroic. Complete. Like they’ve put on their uniforms.
So what’s the problem?
The obvious answers come first. Bracelets are heavier. Links press into the wrist at odd angles. Sizing becomes a seasonal engineering project as weight and weather shift. All true.
But none of that explains the deeper resistance.
Because the truth is, this isn’t about comfort. It’s about identity.
Straps represent something to me: restraint, practicality, anti-bling minimalism. Being “the strap guy” feels like a moral position. Seven watches on rubber feels orderly. Clean. Controlled. And in the strange psychology of collecting, control is another word for happiness.
Except the mind doesn’t stay controlled for long.
After months of strap purity, I start craving variety. Maybe one bracelet. Maybe two. A little diversity. A little steel.
And that’s when the real problem begins.
The moment a watch goes on a bracelet, it becomes a box queen.
I tell myself I’m saving it for special occasions. But special occasions turn out to mean a birthday dinner twice a year. Meanwhile, the watch sits in the box, looking magnificent and doing absolutely nothing.
This morning, after a post-workout nap, I woke up with a plan. Enough of this. I would remove the bracelets from the three offenders and restore order.
Then I opened the watch box.
And there they were—those watches on steel—looking perfect. Finished. Complete. Like museum pieces that had finally been framed correctly.
I couldn’t do it.
So here I am typing this while wearing my Seiko Uemura SLA051 on an MM300 waffle, fully aware of a simple truth:
If this watch were on a bracelet, it would still be sitting in the box.
At this point, I don’t see a solution. I’ve stopped looking for one. This is simply another occupational hazard of the enthusiast’s life.
I suffer from Bracelet Ambivalence Disorder—the chronic inability to commit to either straps or bracelets, marked by alternating attraction and avoidance. Bracelets are admired. Straps are worn. The heart wants steel. The wrist wants rubber.
If anyone else suffers from this condition, please make yourself known.
Misery, like stainless steel, feels lighter when shared.
Cinemorphosis 
Leave a comment