OPINION: Does AI redefine collectability or undermine it?

Traditionally, collectability has always been tied to scarcity. 

Limited runs, small batches, odd production quirk — that feeling that not many people have ‘this exact thing.’ But importantly, that scarcity is never accidental; it was carefully controlled by the people making the watches. Think about something like the Rolex Daytona Paul Newman — it matters because it’s rare, but also because enough people collectively agree that it matters.

Now along comes AI, and it flips the whole idea on its head. Instead of scarcity, it offers unlimited uniqueness.

At first, it sounds incredible. Imagine being able to tweak everything, including dial layout, colours, finishes, even down to simulating how a watch might wear over time, before it’s even made. Want a true one-of-one? Done. Want it to evolve based on your habits? Also doable. For an industry that’s been slowly inching towards personalisation, AI doesn’t just push things forward — it kicks the door off entirely.

But the more I sit with it, the more I feel like there’s a catch — if everything is unique, then what actually makes anything special?

Collectability, when stripped back, isn’t just about the object; it’s about a shared understanding. It feels like a kind of unspoken language between collectors. A limited run of 500 pieces matters because there are 499 other people out there who get it. There’s context, comparison, and a sense of place. With AI-generated one-offs, that framework starts to dissolve. If everyone owns something unique, there’s nothing to measure against. Instead, there is just a sea of individual pieces, each existing in its own bubble.

And it’s not just watches. You can already see this creeping into fashion, where AI-driven customisation is starting to shape everything from fit to design. On paper, it sounds like the ultimate luxury. But it raises a weird question: if something is only meaningful to you, how does it hold value beyond you?

I think part of the issue is how we respond to choice. When we’re given endless options, it’s tempting to believe the ‘best’ one will somehow reveal itself, but that assumes we already know what ‘best’ even looks like. In reality, most of the decisions that stick with us, the ones that feel right, come from narrowing things down, sitting with a bit of discomfort before landing somewhere.

Take that process away, and it’s like jumping straight to the answer without ever really understanding the question.

Don’t get me wrong, we all can agree that AI is an incredible tool, but it doesn’t just help us execute decisions, it starts to shape how we make them, and, over time, there’s a subtle shift where judgement itself can start to get outsourced. That’s where it gets a bit blurry — where does assistance end and dependency begin?

Because collecting has never really just been about acquiring things. It’s about the story around them. The near misses, the time spent searching, the context, and all of that feeds into why something feels valuable. If AI compresses that whole journey into something instant and on-demand, you have to wonder what gets lost along the way.

None of this is to say AI is going to ruin watchmaking — it won’t, but it might quietly force us to rethink what collectability actually means. If everything can be unique, then maybe the real differentiator isn’t the object itself anymore — it’s how you arrive at it. For now, at least, that still feels like something distinctly human.