Watches were once considered a 'silly a-- fad' — here's what that could say about their future

pulse

February 7, 2017 7:57 PM

What does the past say about the future of wristwatches? It doesn't look good.

null

Wristwatches have been commonplace for nearly everyone alive today.

It was hard to imagine a world where most people — both men and women — didn't have a watch mounted on their wrist. A future where we learn the time from glancing at our phones and not our wrists was inconceivable. But that certainly seems to be the future we're heading towards.

And, historically, it's not an inconceivable one. Watches, when they were first being worn on the wrist in the early 1900s, were not considered to be a serious trend, and were instead worn by jokesters and Vaudeville artists. A 1916 New York Times article even referred to wristwatches as a "silly a-- fad."

At the time, both gentlemen and ladies tended to carry around pocket watches. The Times article notes how wrist-mounted watches started as a tool of the military in WWI. The use of wristwatches later migrated to civilian life because they were so practical, and because they were positively associated with a kind of warlike masculinity.

Now, watches have none of that cachet. With the proliferation of clocks — from car dashboards, to laptop screens, to microwave oven displays, to, of course, phone screens — the wristwatch is seen by some to be not just impractical, but not useful at all.

Alexis McCrossen, a professor of history at Southern Methodist University, wrote in a 2013 Time magazine article that while the "

According to estimates from IDC, Apple shipped 1.1 million Apple Watches in the third quarter of 2016, down 71% from the same quarter a year before. Though Apple has never publicly revealed exact sales figures, the watch has clearly not proven to be the industry disrupter the company hoped it would be.

pulse