What's The Deal With Wearing Two Watches? A Look At Double-Wristing

Let’s be honest: human anatomy is built on a strict sense of symmetry: two arms, two legs, and two eyes. And yet, when we collectively decided it was a brilliant idea to start strapping watches to our wrists to keep track of time, we completely abandoned this natural equilibrium and opted for one singular timepiece. Symmetry went out the window, and in its own weird way, one watch became aesthetically proportionate. But at some point in horological history, lines were blurred and someone, somewhere, looked at their left arm (another debate for another time), and thought, I need another one for my right wrist. Thus, we encroach upon double-wristing territory.

Swatch Group CEO (1986-2003) Nicolas Hayek, who famously wore even more than two watches via Omega.

To the casual observer, the act of wearing two watches might seem like nothing short of madness. In fact, walk into any room wearing a watch on both wrists, and you may as well expect the same bewildered looks as someone wearing sunglasses indoors or trying to eat soup with a fork. Is the person wearing two watches to track a second time zone, obsessing over their punctuality, or have they simply decided that the traditional rules of the wrist no longer apply to them? Perhaps it’s none of the above, because by our very own definition, we’re slightly unhinged when it comes to paying large sums of money for a mechanical instrument that serves the same purpose as a mobile phone. Wearing two watches requires us to abandon the last remaining shred of practical justification we have for our hobby and embrace the pure greed and beauty of it all. Is our love for horology really so deep that one timepiece simply won’t suffice?

Is the Fitness Tracker to Blame?

Image: Android Police

Double-wristing rarely begins as an act of rebellion. Usually, it starts simply because your left arm is proudly rocking something elegant for the day, while your right wrist is left looking tragically bare. So, you strap on a heavy-duty pilot’s watch, just in case you’re suddenly called upon to navigate a vintage aircraft before lunch, or perhaps an over-engineered diver to survive the crushing atmospheric pressure of a Tuesday afternoon Zoom call.

More often than not, though, the madness creeps in through the backdoor of fitness tracking. You absolutely refuse to sacrifice traditional mechanical beauty, but your modern guilt insists you need to count your steps. So, you slap on a smartwatch and tell yourself, “It’s just a health device." It’s a lie, of course. You’re officially double-wristing. On your left arm sits a timepiece that celebrates the romance of time itself, while your right arm wears a device that counts how fast you burn through it. Navigating this conflict has arguably served as the catalyst for the rise of the double-wrist.

We’ve become deeply interested in monitoring our own health; tracking steps, sleep cycles, and heart rates, so it’s no wonder the smartwatch has become a modern alternative to the mechanical watch enthusiast, forcing a choice between the traditional escapement and the data of a wrist-worn computer. For a long time, collectors sought to resist this. We argued that a hand-bevelled bridge and the precision of a Swiss lever escapement possessed the kind of soul that a lithium-ion battery could never compete with. And though that much may be true, the utility of the smartwatch is undeniable. A discreet digital tracker satisfies our desire for data. But why settle for one over the other?

Function or Fashion?

Before the smartphone era, and long before satellite technology ensured that the exact local time was always within reach as soon as we touched down in another country, tracking time when travelling presented a genuine logistical challenge. Purists, of course, will quickly remind us that some of Switzerland’s greatest watchmakers addressed this need during the golden age of transatlantic aviation, where we were gifted the GMT – a complication involving a fourth hand and a 24-hour bezel. Given that a well-engineered world-timer can track multiple time zones with ease, the question arises: why would an enthusiast choose to wear a second timepiece on the opposite wrist?

The answer, perhaps, lies in the need for immediate data. Consider the late General Norman Schwarzkopf, for example. During the first Gulf War, the commander famously operated wearing a robust Seiko diver on one wrist and a Rolex Day-Date on the other. For a man orchestrating such a massive global military operation, the need to know the time in Riyadh alongside the hour in Washington D.C. was critical. He required legible, instant information to assist with the demands of his position.

Fidel Castro wearing two Rolex watches circa 1963. 

Conversely, history offers us more complex examples of this practice. Fidel Castro’s habit of wearing a Submariner and a GMT-Master stacked on a single wrist remains a point of fascination for collectors. While the GMT-Master was designed for multiple time zones, the inclusion of a second watch added a layer of mechanical redundancy, serving as a reminder that double-wristing often transcends the functional and becomes an aesthetic choice.

The Weight of Human Sentiment

Image: Getty

It is crucial to acknowledge that not all instances of double-wristing are born from military or geopolitical necessities. Occasionally, the practice is rooted in something far more personal: human sentiment. When we look at the famous image of Princess Diana at the Guards Polo Club in 1981, we see her wearing two Patek Philippe timepieces on one wrist. Sporting both her own and Prince Charles’s Disco Volante, she kept his watch safe while he played, and thus the image still reminds us today that mechanical watches are intrinsically connected to the people who wear them.

Image: Getty

Diego Maradona offered another sentimental variation, famously wearing twin Rolexes, one dedicated to the time wherever his travels took him, and the other locked to Buenos Aires. With the names of his daughters engraved on the casebacks, checking his wrists was about an emotional tether to his home and his family as much as it was a purely practical tool.

The Lug-to-Lug Philosophy: A Return to Proportion

Chris Pratt double-wristing on a 2019 episode of the Jimmy Kimmel Show

A decade ago, the industry was captivated by an oversized watch trend. Case sizes measuring 44mm were standard. During that era, wearing a single heavy steel timepiece made any attempt to double-wrist physically impossible for most, unless you possessed a massive wrist circumference. The current renaissance of wearing two watches is tied to the return of more modest, wearable case sizes. The 36mm case, in particular, has become the hero of this trend.

Double-wristing requires careful management of proportion, and these smaller pieces offer a slender, more elegant profile, sitting low against the skin and possessing a spatial awareness that allows for a second device without the ensemble looking too cluttered. By anchoring the primary wrist with a well-proportioned mechanical watch, you can easily create the visual breathing room to incorporate a fitness tracker or a slimline smartwatch on the other.

The Future of Double-Wristing

Billie Eilish for Chanel via Getty

In the grand scheme of things, double-wristing is perhaps a playful solution to a modern dilemma. It violates traditional notions of symmetry, but it’s also a sign of genuine passion. It’s a public admission that we can’t get enough of these machines, and that we’re willing to embrace a little eccentricity to keep them close to our pulse.