I mean, I don't mind if others have such hobbies -- to each their own. As a matter of fact, I have some friends, too, who are into collecting expensive watches. Yet, I still don't get it, just like in the grandparent comment.
Your imagination needs work. Being on HN, I'd assume that you have at least one hobby that necessitates a significant amount of electronics (gaming console + TV, monitor + PC, laptop). Any one of these (if you actually care about the hobby) will run you thousands of dollars.
You'll probably dodge at this moment and say how necessary or important or utilitarian all those things are, but that's just because you like your hobbies and don't like other people's.
I'm not sure I see the distinction between "wearing it" and merely "owning it", as they both seem somewhat passive activities (if you'll pardon the oxymoron).
In other words, I'm asking, is the hobby one of collecting (as with stamps or coins), or is there something involved in the wearing that is the fundamentally interesting/engaging part of the hobby?
Perhaps what most commenters (including me) are skeptical of is that hobbies have also been known as "pastimes" and are, presumably enjoyable, ways to pass the time.
I suspect that most here would agree that for "expensive" hobbies, such as high-end computer gaming, automotive racing, or aviation, they would still participate in it and call the hobby by the same name if they didn't personally own the equipment necessary to engage in their chosen activity (and merely had unrestricted, or even shared/restricted, access to it).
I'm not so sure this is the case, however, for something like art collecting. If that person doesn't get to keep the art, isn't that really just an art buyer, not a collector?
I am, indeed, surprised by that, but only, again, because it seems passive. Is there more to it, like being seen? Seeing others' reactions? I'm genuinely curious.
I also suspect you're unusual, which is why I was hoping to hear from the original commenter. I could, of course, be quite wrong.
> If there was a service where I could wear different watches without owning them I would be all over that.
I did a web search for "luxury watch rental" and found something at least vaguely similar. If those services aren't what you're looking for, maybe that's a business idea, along the lines of pooling/sharing private jets.
> If I could only own watches to display them in my house and never take them out I wouldn't bother.
Seems like a false dichotomy. However, it's closer to the actual practice (as I understand it) of owning multiples units but only ever wearing one at a time.
Of course, I'm lumping "collectors" in with "wearers", but that's partly because it's so difficult to distinguish from external observation and partly because some commenters have described watches as art, something which doesn't generally have an activity it can be used for.