Absolutely. It brings to mind a recent post on TZ-UK in response to someone's lament about being "bored with watches" — a first-world problem if ever there was one.
Vintage watches, learning about watch movements and the chance of a coup at an antiques market/boot sale is the only thing that has kept me interested over time.
Conspicuous consumption of expensive baubles is not a hobby and is pretty meaningless in reality.
I'll add consideration of design principles to that list. I find Dino's writing particularly illuminating in this regard, as his approach to watches is based on history and design fundamentals. The recent posts on originality and lack of interest in "homage" watches clearly articulated this mindset, and provide insight that's unmistakably the product of considerable deliberation and a well-developed sense of discernment.
Watches do become a bit boring without this broader context, just like every other category of stuff. In fact, the learning can be more satisfying than the actual ownership experience, as the majority of experienced watch/clothing/car/motorcycle/audio/coffee/camera/etc. nuts can tell you. For me, the part that truly engages is trying to understand the elements that constitute a quality design, much more so than simply possessing the object itself. You certainly don't need to own a watch to make meaningful contributions to this type of discussion.
The more you learn about enduring and well-appreciated design of any type, the more you discover how much the principles are transferable in both the concrete and the abstract sense — that's the "aha!" bit.
Edited for following reason: "The only grammar Nazi you want to see in a thread is yourself."
Yes, absolutely agree with this.