Every few years someone declares the wristwatch dead, and every few years the watch industry proves them wrong in a slightly different way than expected. The current version of this debate is genuinely more nuanced than “watches are dying” — it’s actually two separate stories happening at once.
Story One: Analog Literacy Is Genuinely Declining Among Teens
This part isn’t really disputable. Multiple accounts, including from educators, describe a real and specific skill gap: teenagers increasingly can’t read an analog clock face fluently, often preferring to check a phone or a laptop’s taskbar over glancing at a wall clock. This tracks with a broader shift away from analog interfaces generally — most new cars now use digital dashboard displays instead of dial gauges, reinforcing the same pattern. For this age group specifically, a watch genuinely isn’t a daily necessity the way a phone is, and that’s simply a function of ubiquitous, GPS-accurate timekeeping living in everyone’s pocket now.
Story Two: Young Adults (20s-30s) Are Driving a Genuine Resurgence — Just Not the Way You’d Expect
Here’s where it gets more interesting, and where most “watches are dying” takes miss the real picture. A striking, specific data point came up repeatedly: around 70% of grey-market Rolex purchases in London reportedly went to men under 30 — not a declining market, but one with a notably younger buyer base than historically typical. This isn’t an isolated anecdote; it’s echoed across multiple independent accounts of 20-somethings and 30-somethings actively building watch collections, often starting with accessible pieces (Seiko, Tissot, Casio) before working toward aspirational luxury pieces.
A few credible explanations for why this specific age group is driving the trend:

  • Rising housing costs mean many young adults have given up on near-term home ownership as a financial goal, freeing up disposable income that previous generations would have put toward a mortgage down payment — redirected instead toward discretionary purchases like watches.

  • Smartwatch fatigue is real and measurable as a backlash, not just a vibe. Multiple people specifically described choosing an analog or “dumb” mechanical watch as a deliberate reaction against the constant notifications and biometric data overload of a smartwatch — framing it as a tool for intentional disconnection rather than a nostalgia purchase.

  • Information access has changed what “entry-level enthusiast” looks like. Easy access to watch communities and reviews means young buyers increasingly skip past the “obvious” luxury choice (Rolex) in favor of researched alternatives like Grand Seiko, Tudor, or Omega — getting comparable quality without Rolex’s famously rigid, waitlist-heavy retail experience, which several commenters specifically described as a dealbreaker for younger buyers used to frictionless online shopping.

The Honest Middle Ground
The most balanced read across this discussion isn’t “watches are dying” or “watches are thriving” — it’s that the category of buyer has split cleanly in two. Teenagers are overwhelmingly moving toward smartwatches or no watch at all, driven by genuine lack of need rather than any particular rejection of analog watches. Meanwhile, watch collecting as a hobby is trending measurably younger at the high-horology end, and casual analog wear (Casio, Seiko, budget microbrands) remains genuinely common enough among 20-30-somethings that nobody in the broader population finds it remarkable.
What This Means If You’re Shopping for Your First Watch
If you’re in your 20s or 30s and feel like getting into watches is somehow out of step with your generation, the data says the opposite — you’re part of a specific, well-documented wave of younger buyers actively getting into the hobby, not an outlier. Whether that starts with a $50 Casio or eventually leads toward a Seiko, Tudor, or beyond, the “watches are only for old guys” framing simply doesn’t hold up against what’s actually happening in the buyer data.