Cinemorphosis

Tag: writing

  • The High Isn’t the Watch–It’s the Rabbit Hole

    The High Isn’t the Watch–It’s the Rabbit Hole

    One of my favorite pastimes is watching YouTube comparison videos of the Toyota Camry vs. the Honda Accord. I’m not shopping for a car. I don’t need a car. I may never buy another car. 

    But these videos? They soothe the savage beast inside of me. They go down like a smooth bourbon, with notes of ABS braking and a smoky finish of fuel economy.

    While others go to YouTube to meditate or do yoga, I fall into the hypnotic cadence of two grown men comparing rear-seat legroom and infotainment systems with the solemnity of Cold War negotiators. 

    I’m riveted. Parsing the pros and cons of these two sedans gives me a focus so intense it borders on religious ecstasy. I study engine specs like they’re verses from Leviticus. My concentration sharpens, my anxiety fades. I am, for a brief and blissful moment, free.

    And then it hits me: I don’t want the car. I want the focus. The Camry and Accord are just placeholders in the temple of obsession.

    This revelation sheds light on my watch obsession. It helps me realize that acquiring a watch in most cases is a bitter letdown. A $3,000 watch on the wrist is like a Tinder date at Denny’s: out of place and super embarrassing. 

    I’ve worn $5,000 watches while taking my daughters to YogurtLand and I’ve said to myself, “Dude, you’ve lost the plot.”

    How did I get here with expensive watches that I wear when I’m buying pretzels and diet soda at Target?

    And then I realize. The same drive to focus on Camry-Accord comparisons is the same drive that makes me do “timepiece research.”  Watching my fellow timepiece obsessives drool over bezels and lume shots is the real high. That’s what lights me up. That’s what gets the adrenaline surging through my veins. 

    So as watch obsessives, we need to understand that, even more than watches, we are addicted to focus. We are afflicted with Focus Addiction–the true dependency hiding beneath consumer desire: the craving for intense, narrowing concentration that drowns out modern life’s chaos, even if it must be chemically replicated through YouTube reviews and lume shots.

    I’ve spent years confusing consumer acquisition with personal transformation. Getting this thing or that thing will change me inside. I want to be courageous, dignified, courteous, disciplined, fit, and healthy. A watch can’t redeem me. It can’t make me whole. It can’t make me the person I wish I were. Not once have I ever put a new watch on my wrist, gave my wife a wrist shot, and said, “Look, honey, I’ve achieved a metamorphosis.”

    She’ll just look at me and say, “Dude, clean the leaves out of the rain gutters.”

    The material thing in my hands is a letdown because what I really want is the chase and the intense focus. The glorious plunge down a rabbit hole lined with brushed stainless steel and leather-wrapped dashboards. My consumerism isn’t about consumption—it’s about cultivating a state of intense obsession that drowns out the shrieking absurdity of modern life.

    So no more mistaking adrenaline for fulfillment. No more clicking “Buy Now” hoping for transcendence in a shipping box. 

    I’ll keep researching. That’s my Prozac. That’s my monastery. 

    But buying something has proven to be a fool’s errand. And if doing so-called research inflames my consumer appetites, then I should probably put my foot on the brakes when it comes to the research because it can be a prelude to making a purchase I don’t want to make.

    Let me give you an analogy. Let’s say you’re back in high school and you’re at the high school dance, but your girlfriend isn’t there because she’s on a ski trip. While bored at the dance, your ex shows up. She looks more beautiful than you remember her. She approaches you and asks you to dance. “Nothing will happen,” she says. “It will be completely innocent.” You dance with her and something happens. 

    That’s what watch research is like. You tell yourself the research is innocent. You’re just reading forums. Watching a video or two. Maybe checking inventory. 

    But then you wake up and you’re shopping at Target with a $5,000 watch on your wrist and you feel both embarrassed and ashamed.

    Doing research on watches is like having that dance with your ex-girlfriend: Something is going to happen. And it’s not going to be pretty. 

    Have a wonderful day, everyone. Don’t forget to smash that Like button of your soul.

  • How Watch Collectors Lie to Themselves About “Finding Their Style”

    How Watch Collectors Lie to Themselves About “Finding Their Style”

    I recently made a YouTube video arguing that a man should not chase variety in his watch collection but instead find his signature style and whittle his hoard down to a tasteful few. Like a monk with only one robe. Or a chef with one good knife. Or a middle-aged guy who knows that buying yet another GMT won’t fix his marriage.

    Now, did I believe what I was saying? Not entirely. I was, to be honest, talking myself off the ledge. It was a kind of public self-hypnosis: say it enough times on camera, and maybe I’ll stop buying watches I never wear. But I’ll admit—the thought experiment was stimulating, like sniffing ammonia salts just to feel something. Most commenters agreed, saying peace of mind only arrived after purging the herd. But not all. Some insisted that a large, diverse collection brings them genuine joy. Fair. Not everyone needs to live like a horological monk.

    Still, I enjoyed making the video. It felt like intellectual calisthenics for the soul, even if it didn’t convert me.

    One viewer, the formidable “Captain Nolan,” asked a deceptively simple question that demands more than a quick reply:

    “How can you discover your identity without trying watches in every category—divers, pilots, field watches, dress, digital, mechanical, quartz, and so on?”

    By “identity,” he means your taste. What fits your lifestyle, your aesthetic, your internal brand. A fair question. And at first, I answered like a smug adolescent. I said, “You know what you like the same way I knew Raquel Welch was the apex of female beauty when I was nine. One glance. No need to watch Love American Style reruns or thumb through Vogue. Case closed.”

    But that answer is glib. And idiotic. Taste in watches—unlike adolescent lust—is not a hormonal thunderclap. It’s a process.

    So here’s the grown-up answer: yes, you do need to try different styles, just like trying on jackets at Nordstrom. Some are flattering, some make you look like a Bulgarian hitman. It’s tactile. Visceral. And wildly expensive. To really figure out your taste, you may end up spending $5,000 to $10,000 just to land in the right neighborhood. You might call this the Fitting Room Narrative—the idea that trying on a wide range of watches will help you find the “real you.”

    It sounds rational. Comforting, even. But I don’t believe in it.

    The problem is the human brain. It’s not a spreadsheet. It’s a haunted house full of desires, delusions, and marketing fumes. So let me propose a more honest theory: Fever Swamp Accretion–the uncontrolled phase of acquisition in which watches multiply faster than self-awareness. Purpose is retroactively assigned; sanity is postponed.

    Here’s how it works:

    You fall headfirst into the hobby. You start buying watches the way a toddler grabs Halloween candy. You buy microbrand divers, G-Shocks, Speedmasters, and maybe a Rolex or two if your credit limit allows it. You tell yourself each one serves a “purpose.” You start spending a grand a month, easy. Over ten years, you’ve spent more than most people do on therapy. And God knows you need therapy.

    Eventually, the collection metastasizes. Dozens of watches, each one representing a temporary high. You stop wearing half of them. You obsess over straps, bezels, lume. Your identity fuses with your hobby. You’re no longer a man who wears watches; you’re a man being worn by them.

    Then comes the collapse: financial strain, marital tension, the vacant stare of a man wondering why he owns three identical Seikos. Maybe you go through a breakup or foreclosure. Maybe your friends stage an intervention. Maybe your dog leaves you. Think about that. Your watch obsession got so bad your dog abandoned you. 

    You finally tap out. Sell the collection. Keep three. Or two. Or one. You tell yourself you’re “cured.”

    Except… maybe you’re not. Maybe, like Bell’s palsy or a bad ex, the obsession lies dormant. All it takes is one random trigger—a stressful day, a YouTube thumbnail, a flash sale—and you relapse. Buy a Sinn. Then a Squale. Then you’re back in the swamp.

    Why do we cling to the Fitting Room Narrative when it’s so obviously false? Because it has a tidy structure. A clean arc. Beginning, middle, resolution. We’re narrative junkies. We want our Luke Skywalkers to finish Jedi school and never regress. 

    Same with watch collectors. We want the Watch Ninja to overcome his demons and live a Zen life with a single Grand Seiko. If he relapses, we unsubscribe. He becomes a punchline. Another Liver King of horology.

    Still don’t believe me? Consider Pete Rose. In the ‘70s, he was “Charlie Hustle,” the human embodiment of work ethic. But zoom out, and the myth crumbles. Pete wasn’t disciplined—he was compulsive. He gambled, lied, betrayed friends. The man was a walking cautionary tale wrapped in a Cincinnati Reds jersey.

    Or take Sedona. Supposedly a spiritual vortex. In reality, a commercialized fever dream of overpriced crystals, green juice, and pseudo-mystical hokum. You arrive expecting transcendence and leave with a maxed-out credit card and lower back pain from a “chakra realignment.”

    We love myths because they sell. But real life is more complicated. Messier. Less flattering.

    So I could tell you a satisfying tale about finding my “true self” through curating a humble collection of retro divers and minimalist field watches. I could wrap it all up with a bow. But I won’t. Because that would be fiction.

    And honestly, haven’t we had enough of that?

  • Absolutes and the Ruin of Watch Collecting

    Absolutes and the Ruin of Watch Collecting

    It’s often said that comparison is the mother of misery. No matter how high you climb in any pursuit, there’s always someone perched above you, dangling their boots over the edge. The distance between you and them can feel vast—so vast it erases the climb you already made. In watch collecting, this happens fast. You finally land your grail: a Seiko GMT diver that cost real money, money that made you flinch. You admire it. You feel complete. Then a friend casually flashes a five-thousand-dollar Grand Seiko and—poof—your triumph collapses. You don’t feel lucky. You feel inadequate.

    If comparison is the mother of misery, then she has a meddlesome sister. Call her Aunt Absolute. Aunt Absolute is just as ruinous. She whispers that contentment requires perfection. Not just a great watch, but the right watch. Not just a collection, but the collection. The correct rotation. The correct strap. The correct bracelet. She promises peace once everything clicks into place forever.

    This hunger for absolutes usually rides shotgun with an OCD streak in the hobby. The flaw in that mindset is simple: the hobby refuses to stay still. Tastes change. Knowledge deepens. Bodies age. Jobs shift. Moods fluctuate. Absolutes hate variables, and watch collecting is nothing but variables. To the absolutist, change feels like threat, and threat breeds anxiety. In its ugliest form, that anxiety convinces you your collection is one wrong move away from collapse. Sell a watch. Swap a strap. Wear a bracelet again. The whole thing topples. This is Jenga Anxiety—the chronic fear that a single adjustment will destabilize not just your watches, but the identity you’ve built around them. Adaptability feels like fragility. Experimentation feels like self-destruction.

    I lived under Aunt Absolute’s roof for about two years. I refused bracelets entirely. Every watch sat on Divecore FKM straps. The system was clean. The rules were rigid. I was happy—until the FKM “forever chemical” scare cracked the foundation. I reassessed. I adjusted. Now four watches live on straps and four on bracelets. The collection breathes. I have options. And yes, I forgot how good a bracelet can feel until I let myself enjoy one again.

    That experiment proved something important. I didn’t need absolutes to enjoy the hobby. I didn’t need perfection. Flexibility wasn’t failure—it was freedom. The watches didn’t lose meaning when the rules softened. They gained it.

    Will I stay flexible, or will I drift back toward absolutism? History suggests vigilance is required. But if I feel Aunt Absolute tugging at my sleeve again, I’ll remind myself of a simple truth: absolutism is the aunt of misery.

  • Evil With a Vacant Face: The Turpin Case and the Myth That Mental Illness Explains Everything

    Evil With a Vacant Face: The Turpin Case and the Myth That Mental Illness Explains Everything

    I remembered the Turpin case the way most people do: as a headline too grotesque to metabolize. Thirteen siblings chained, starved, beaten, and imprisoned by their parents until one of them finally escaped in 2018 and called the police. I hadn’t revisited the story until I saw an update, The Turpins: A New House of Horrors. In it, Diane Sawyer interviews three of the children who survived their parents’ private dungeon—only to be handed over by social services to another household that abused them all over again. The people who adopted them have since been convicted. The rescue, it turns out, was only a handoff to a new nightmare.

    What struck me immediately was how eerily gothic the parents appear, as if the story had summoned its own visual shorthand for evil. The mother, Louise Turpin, radiates menace—her face tight with cruelty and mental fracture. The father, David Turpin, looks equally arrested, a sixty-year-old man wearing the shaggy hair and slack affect of a disturbed adolescent. Both faces are blank, glum, almost vacant. And yet once you hear what they did—years of systematic starvation, torture, and control—you understand that the vacancy is not emptiness but concealment. Behind those dead expressions worked a tireless, inventive cruelty.

    They are plainly evil people. They also appear mentally ill. Those two facts do not cancel each other out. Narcissism, for instance, is a recognized pathology, but it often carries a moral charge—a pleasure in domination, a delight in harm. Watching the Turpin parents, I was reminded of M. Scott Peck’s The People of the Lie, a book I read decades ago that argued precisely this point: that evil can wear the mask of sickness, and sickness can provide cover for evil. Louise and David Turpin fit that category with chilling precision—malignant narcissists cloaked in religious piety, manipulating their children while feeding off their suffering.

    What makes Sawyer’s interview watchable, even bearable, is what comes after. The children speak about therapy, recovery, work, and the slow construction of a life that does not revolve around fear. Sawyer notes that they “won the hearts of the country,” and it’s true. They are lucid, self-possessed, and deeply sympathetic. You don’t pity them so much as root for them.

    The clearest light in the story is their sanity—and how visibly it flows from their love for one another. These siblings endured the same menace together. They shared it. They protected one another where they could, and afterward, that bond became ballast. They are not just survivors; they are witnesses for one another. Watching them, you come away with a rare conviction that sounds sentimental until you see it embodied: that love, stubborn and mutual, can outlast even prolonged, institutionalized evil. In this case, it appears to have done exactly that.

  • Buy Now, Regret Later: How Ancient Instincts Ruined Modern Shopping

    Buy Now, Regret Later: How Ancient Instincts Ruined Modern Shopping

    In the early 1990s, I saw comedian Rob Becker perform Defending the Caveman in San Francisco—a one-man anthropology class disguised as stand-up. His central thesis, stitched together from kitchen-table spats with his wife, was that men are hunters, women are gatherers, and this prehistoric wiring still runs our modern relationships like a bad operating system.

    His proof? Shopping.

    For the gatherer, shopping is a leisurely daydream. Wandering the mall for six hours and imagining buying things she can’t afford is an enriching sensory experience—like spiritual window-shopping. For the hunter, shopping is a surgical strike. He wants pants. He buys pants. He leaves. The suggestion to “just browse” makes his eye twitch.

    “Let’s get the hell out of here,” says the man. He has completed his mission. He has felled the beast.

    That moment—man as single-focus, tunnel-visioned, goal-oriented predator—explains a great deal about the pathology of watch addiction. We are still cavemen, just hairier and worse at squatting. And we don’t hunt food anymore. We hunt wristwear.

    We see a watch online and a brontosaurus steak lights up in our brain. Locked in. Target acquired. Our dopamine circuits spark like faulty Christmas lights. We must have it. There is no tranquility, no peace, until the object is in our possession.

    The problem? Our primitive instincts weren’t designed for the digital age. Back then, acquiring a new object meant trekking through wilderness, battling saber-toothed tigers, and earning your meal. Today, it’s clicking a “Buy Now” button while half-watching a YouTube review at your ergonomic standing desk, surrounded by a sea of unopened Amazon boxes. Intoxicated by online shopping platforms, we are overcome with the Horological Hunt Reflex–the involuntary lock-on response triggered by spotting a desirable watch. Once activated, attention narrows, patience evaporates, and the collector cannot rest until the object is captured—regardless of need, cost, or logic.

    Our brains still think we’re walking 40 miles to spear a mammoth. In reality, we’re reclining in office chairs with lumbar support, ordering $2,000 divers like they’re takeout sushi. The hunt requires no sacrifice, no sweat, no real effort. And so it never satisfies.

    This caveman instinct affects our watch hobby. We get the watch. We admire it. We post a photo to Instagram. Then—we twitch. We fidget. Our brain says, “Good job. Now go get another.”

    We are not content in the cave. Evolution didn’t design us for stillness. It designed us to be hungry. To prepare. To hoard. So we keep hunting. And the cave fills with stainless steel trophies until the glint attracts low-flying pterodactyls that dive-bomb us in our sleep and try to pluck the Omega off our wrist.

    We are maladapted creatures. Our eyeballs evolved for survival. Now they doom us. We were built to scan the horizon for danger. Now we scan Hodinkee, Instagram, Reddit, eBay, WatchRecon, and Chrono24 until our dopamine is a wrung-out dishrag and our bank account is an obituary.

    We’re trapped in a glitch—stone-age instincts, 5G bandwidth. Our visual fixation, once essential to survival, now chains us to a cycle of desire and regret. Thousands of watches flood our screens in a single hour, and our brains are too old and too soft to resist. The only real solution is exile. But exile from what? Our jobs, our networks, our entire digital lives?

    There is no cave to retreat to. Just another tab open.

  • Why I’m Not Really Into Watches (Says the Man Writing About Watches)

    Why I’m Not Really Into Watches (Says the Man Writing About Watches)

    I can’t believe I’ve spent more than twenty years obsessing over watches, because the inconvenient truth is this: I’m not actually into watches. They are the last things I want to think about, write about, or discuss with another adult human. And yet—here we are. I’ll admit I’ve allowed watches to hijack my brain more than is healthy, but these hijackings aren’t lifelong commitments. They’re flare-ups. Brain fevers. A condition I’ve come to call Timepiece Malaria.

    Timepiece Malaria is a recurrent, feverish fixation that arrives without warning, drains your energy, and leaves you sweating under the illusion that the answer—the answer—is just one more reference number away. It’s not a hobby. It’s not an identity. It’s an illness that behaves episodically, exhausts the host, and then disappears, leaving behind only the desire for shade, silence, and distance. Once the fever breaks, I want nothing to do with watches. Not even a little.

    I’m reminded of something the Edge once said about music: he dives deep, burns himself out completely, and then has to get away from it. I understand this instinct perfectly. When the watch fever hits, I plunge like a SCUBA diver hunting abalone—methodical, obsessive, convinced there’s treasure just beyond the next reef. But once I surface, gasping for air, all I want is a pool floaty and a long afternoon of not giving a damn about bezels, calibers, or lume plots.

    What I resent most is that trying to understand the obsession only makes it worse. Overthinking watches is like trying to smooth choppy water with your hands. Every attempt at control produces more turbulence. Analysis doesn’t cure the fever; it spikes it. The more I try to “get a handle” on the madness, the more aggressively it grips back.

    This is why I sympathize with Werner Herzog’s famously hostile reaction when Terry Gross once asked him if he was in therapy. He bristled at the idea, calling it a kind of intellectual stupidity—a descent into a carnival Fun House of Mirrors. You peer inward and see nothing but distorted fragments: too tall, too short, grotesquely magnified, absurdly shrunken. Therapy, in this view, doesn’t unify the self; it dismembers it. That’s exactly how writing about my watch obsession feels. Every paragraph multiplies me. None of them put me back together.

    And yet the evidence is damning. A blog. A YouTube channel. Endless introspection about the very thing I claim to be done with. My left hand insists I’m not into watches. My right hand keeps typing anyway. I say I don’t want to explore the psychology of the obsession, then immediately explore it in public, at length, with footnotes.

    I don’t seem to understand this contradiction. I can’t resolve it. I can’t stop it.

    Which may be the clearest symptom of all.

  • The Greatest Book My Father Never Wrote

    The Greatest Book My Father Never Wrote

    Last night I dreamed I was summoned to a publisher’s office, the kind that smells faintly of dust, old paper, and deferred hope. I sat across from a man in his early sixties wearing a beige suit so aggressively neutral it seemed designed to disappear into the shelves behind him. Those shelves were packed tight with books—the visual shorthand for authority, legitimacy, and the life I was supposed to have lived.

    He told me, calmly, as if delivering weather updates, that my father had written a perennial classic. A bestseller. A semi-autobiographical novel about growing up poor, raising me with my teenage mother in the Gainesville projects. The book, he said, was written with mordant wit and bruised humor and was routinely compared to Huckleberry Finn.

    Then he handed me a copy.

    I opened it and recognized everything immediately: Flavet Villages, the roach-infested housing complex for veterans and struggling students, where poverty clung to the walls like nicotine. The prose was first-person present tense—close, intimate, relentless. I said this out loud, the way you do in dreams when you want credit for noticing things. The publisher nodded, pleased.

    “Have you ever thought about doing something like this?” he asked. “Following in your father’s footsteps?”

    I shook my head. Then I asked the only question that mattered: “How come I never heard about this book before?”

    “Oh, it doesn’t exist here,” he said, waving the concern away. “It exists in a parallel universe in a faraway galaxy.”

    Naturally.

    At this point, he reached into his desk and handed me a gray carbon radio shaped like a pyramid—part Cold War relic, part sci-fi prop. It had a special shortwave frequency that could lock onto that distant planet, where my father’s novel was being read aloud, endlessly, by a space alien. Anytime I wanted, I could tune in and listen. It would comfort me, he said, as if this explained everything.

    I thanked him, left the office, and met my wife and twin daughters at the San Francisco Zoo. While they stared at zebras with the earnest fascination of people grounded in reality, I extended the antenna and tuned the dial. The alien’s voice crackled through—steady, patient, reverent—reading my father’s great novel for the thousandth time.

    My family looked at me like I’d finally tipped over into madness. I didn’t care.

    I was listening to the greatest book my father never wrote, being read forever in a universe where it mattered. And for once, that was enough.

  • When Loving Watches Starts to Feel Like a Job

    When Loving Watches Starts to Feel Like a Job

    In her darkly hilarious comedy special Father, Atsuko Okatsuka shares the origin story of her career in punchlines. Her schizophrenic mother once “kidnapped” her in Japan and whisked her away to the United States without warning, severing her ties to her father in the process. The trauma was so disorienting, so profound, that Atsuko now mines laughter for survival. She tells us, with a comedian’s grin and a survivor’s twitch, that she performs to fill an infinite hole in her soul with the validation of strangers.

    That hole is not unique to her. It’s a universal pit—bottomless and demanding. Validation comes in many flavors. For some, it’s esteem and admiration. For others, it’s expertise, artistry, the warm glow of audience approval. For Atsuko, it’s laughter. For others, it’s the faint buzz of a “like” on a post about a wristwatch.

    Let us now consider the watch obsessive, a different breed of relevance-seeker, but a kindred spirit nonetheless. He isn’t doing five-minute sets at the Laugh Factory, but he is performing—on Instagram, on forums, on YouTube, in the comment sections of strangers’ macro shots. He presents his taste, his “knowledge,” his ever-shifting collection. But underneath the sapphire crystals and brushed titanium is the same primal whisper:
    Do I still matter?
     Do they still see me?

    Here’s the tragic twist: he may already have the perfect collection. It gives him joy. It’s balanced. It fits in a single watch box. By all logic, he should stop. Buying another watch would be like adding a fifth leg to a table—wobbly and unnecessary. But he doesn’t stop. He can’t stop.

    Why? Because if he stops collecting, he stops posting. If he stops posting, he stops being seen. And in a world addicted to scrolling, disappearing feels like dying.

    Relevance is the new oxygen. And social media is a machine that runs on novelty, not legacy. The digital hive forgets fast. “Gangnam Style” is now a fossil. “Call Me Maybe” is background noise at the grocery store. To stay visible, you must be new. You must be shiny. You must offer dopamine.

    And what happens when the watch addict manages his demons, reaches peace, and stops feeding the machine?

    He becomes boring. He becomes silent. He becomes irrelevant.

    And the parasocial bonds he once had—those illusory friendships, those mutual obsessions—fade. The sense of exile is real. It doesn’t matter that the exile is self-imposed. The pain still lingers.

    That fear—that primordial fear of irrelevance, of being cast out from the tribe—can be so powerful it masquerades as passion. It convinces the watch obsessive to keep flipping, keep chasing, keep posting. Not out of love, but out of fear.

    In this crazed state, the obsessive has succumbed to Performative Collecting–the transformation of a private pleasure into a public act staged for recognition. Watches are curated less for personal resonance than for their ability to sustain audience attention. Silence is interpreted as failure.

    So the question becomes: Are we collectors? Or are we hostages? Do we love horology? Or are we simply terrified of vanishing?

  • The Howard Ratner School of Watch Collecting

    The Howard Ratner School of Watch Collecting

    Watch obsessives have more in common with Howard Ratner than we care to admit. Yes, that Howard Ratner—the unhinged gem pusher played with twitchy brilliance by Adam Sandler in the Safdie brothers’ cinematic panic attack, Uncut Gems. Ratner operates in the Diamond District behind bulletproof glass, drowning in sparkle and debt. We operate behind the bulletproof delusions of horological obsession, buried in brushed steel and moonphase complications.

    Like Ratner, we gamble—not at sportsbooks, but with FedEx tracking numbers. We tell ourselves, this is the one as we refresh the delivery status of the next “grail” watch. The package might as well be glowing, Pulp Fiction-style. And like Ratner chasing a cursed Ethiopian black opal mined from the bloodied crust of the Earth, we twist ourselves into financial and emotional pretzels to score that one special piece—the wrist-mounted miracle that will finally quiet the voices.

    Spoiler: it never does. Why? Because we are trapped in an Acquisitive Panic Loop–a self-perpetuating cycle of anxiety relieved only by purchase, followed immediately by renewed anxiety. Collections expand not by intention but by momentum, like debt rolling downhill.

    Like the crazed watch collector, Ratner is a man who thinks more is the cure. More bets. More jewels. More chaos. The watch obsessive runs the same play. We soothe our midlife despair not with therapy or silence, but with spring drives, meteorite dials, and limited edition bronze cases. Our collections don’t grow—they metastasize.

    Like Ratner, our problem isn’t the world. Our problem is internal. The call is coming from inside the skull. He can’t stop because he doesn’t want to stop. The thrill is the point. Every acquisition, every wrist shot, every gushing forum post—just another hit of synthetic joy to distract from the gnawing void. We call it a hobby. Let’s not kid ourselves. It’s dopamine addiction disguised as design appreciation.

    Uncut Gems is a cinematic espresso shot laced with panic. My wife and brother couldn’t sit through thirty minutes. Too stressful, they said. Too jittery. I’ve watched it three times.

    But of course I have. I’m a watch addict.

    I live in Ratner’s world. The caffeinated chaos? That’s not discomfort. That’s home.

  • When Your Bodybuilding Past Still Haunts You

    When Your Bodybuilding Past Still Haunts You

    Last night I dreamed I was illegally transporting a piano.

    This was not a metaphorical illegality. It was a regulatory one. The kind involving helpers, permits, and fines. According to Dream Law, moving a piano required two assistants. I only had one. If caught, I’d be cited. Possibly shamed. I loaded the piano anyway—my beautiful, expensive ebony instrument—into the back of an open truck and drove it from the Bay Area to Southern California, white-knuckled and guilty, like a man smuggling contraband Chopin.

    I was living, temporarily, on a compound owned by a vaguely unsavory man. He was tall, pinch-faced, and always wore a blue suit, the uniform of people who know things you don’t want to know. He had the aura of a community fixer—part mentor, part hustler, part moral hazard. He gave me piano lessons, encouraged me to keep lifting weights, and introduced me to restaurants with the enthusiasm of someone laundering taste through generosity. 

    On the day I was supposed to leave, my anxiety peaked. Rain was coming. The piano sat exposed in the truck bed like a sacrificial offering. One good storm and the ebony would swell, crack, die. I panicked. The trickster waved it off. Go eat lunch, he said. By the time you’re done, the rain might stop. This was either sage advice or the kind of line uttered by men who profit from delay.

    I drove to a nearby restaurant. It was mobbed. People stood outside drinking champagne as if waiting for a table were a lifestyle choice. Inside, servers were popping bottles at a frantic pace—corks flying, foam spilling, the atmosphere halfway between celebration and collapse.

    Then I saw it.

    Mounted beside the menu was a massive poster advertising a local bodybuilding exhibition. And there I was. Not the man I am now. Not the sixty-four-year-old who qualifies for senior discounts and considers fiber intake a moral issue. This was me in my mid-twenties: thick, swollen, carved out of stubborn protein and vanity. A human monument to leg day. I was the marquee attraction.

    The trickster, it turned out, had signed me up to pose in a bodybuilding exhibition without telling me.

    How did he know I’d be staying long enough to star in this marquee event? How did he know the rain would delay me? How did he still have a photo of a body I no longer inhabited? 

    When the diners saw me standing outside, recognition rippled through the room. Glasses paused midair. Heads turned. Then applause broke out. Cheers. My name—my old name—chanted with conviction. I tried to explain. I gestured at my face, my posture, the subtle collapse of time. I wanted to tell them I wasn’t that man anymore. That I now stretch before standing. That I wake up injured. That my biggest competition is inflammation.

    They refused to listen.

    The cheering swallowed my protests. Reality bent. And I understood, I would be showing up to that exhibition—dragging with me a body, an identity, and a past I no longer owned, but which apparently still had bookings.