Let’s make one thing clear right out of the gate: wearing a watch on each wrist – or “double-wristing”, as it has been creatively labelled – is not a sartorial feat many can, or indeed want to, pull off. It’s a lifestyle choice that exists at the ends of the bell curve, the domain of the exceptional few.

At one end, you’ve got those who double down in the name of functionality. On the other, those who know that more watches means more impact. The truly exceptional Sir Lewis Hamilton knows this. Hamilton famously wore a trio of watches (from team sponsor IWC Schaffhausen, natch) at last year’s Miami Grand Prix. For Hamilton, the rarely seen triple-wrist was a protest against the FIA’s proposed ban on wearing jewellery while racing, which many considered a rule change made with the British driver in mind. Trackside politics aside, there’s no denying that the power of multiple watches made an impression (and plenty of headlines).

The late, great Mr Diego Maradona was also known for wearing two timepieces. While many theorised that this eye-catching move from a larger-than-life figure was a convenient way to quickly tell the time at home and abroad, we don’t really know.

Things are a little clearer when it comes to beloved thespian Mr Richard E Grant, who typically wears a Cartier Tank on his right and a Breitling Navitimer on the left. Besides being a unique way of bridging the sports/dress watch divide, Grant’s rationale is as sentimental as it is idiosyncratic. The Navitimer was a gift from his father and the Cartier a gift from his late wife. According to Grant, the Breitling is set to local time and the Cartier to Eswatini, the place of his birth. The fact that both his father and wife have passed away adds an extra layer of poignance.

No matter the rationale, double-wristing for style points is a bold move. But if you’ve got the personality to pull it off, it’s a top-tier flex.

The other primary rationale is that of functionality. Many purists don’t even deign to consider smartwatches “real” watches at all, but few can deny their usefulness as a fitness aid. The solution? Wear both. On one wrist, Swiss precision; on the other, Silicon Valley’s smartest. It’s an approach adopted by Prince William, who wears the Omega his mother gave him on his left wrist, and a Garmin Forerunner on the right.

Truly this solution offers the best of both worlds. Wearing a smartwatch constantly gives you a more accurate health picture than just wearing it for exercise, and there are numerous other quality-of-life benefits this sort of clever kit can offer. And while a traditional watch on the other wrist doesn’t check your emails, it offers something far more important: quality and tradition. So, the next time you feel like spicing up your wrist situation, just add another watch.

With my learned colleague having put the case for the expressive freedom or practical benefits of wearing two watches at once, it falls to me to make the conservative, straight-laced retort. Because that’s what this must be, you assume. What kind of dull, square, regressive individual must I be to rain on this bi-brachial parade?

Don’t fall for it. I’m purely pointing out the common-sense reality. Humans have two arms, two wrists, therefore the capacity to wear two watches with ease – that’s what the double-wristing advocates say. Inarguably true. But you have the pure capacity to do all kind of things; it does not make it a good, or worthwhile idea.

A watch is a remarkable device: ergonomic, convenient and in its more complicated forms, capable of doing many things. With a watch on, your timekeeping needs are covered. Wearing a second one is like wearing two hats at once. Your head will not be twice as dry.

If you need to know the time in multiple parts of the world, allow me to guide you to our collection of GMT and world-time watches, designed exactly for this purpose. If you want to track your heart rate and calorie burn, by all means switch to a connected watch for the duration of your chosen exercise. Despite heavy marketing to the contrary, you do not actually need to know your daily step count. If your lifestyle isn’t healthy enough, deep down you know that already.

I will accept that a scuba diver might wear a digital dive computer on one wrist and a mechanical dive watch on the other. But outside of very niche scenarios, one watch will suffice.

Don’t even try and tell me that seeing your emails, WhatsApp messages and calls come through to your wrist is a positive thing. For the good of your mental health, keep the outside world at arm’s length and prevent it intruding upon your meal, your meeting or your morning commute. Being always available is a curse, not a quality.

I’ll go further: wearing two watches just isn’t natural. If you force yourself to wear a watch on each arm, I expect you can train yourself to feel normal, but it’s an established fact that no more than one per cent of the population worldwide is truly ambidextrous. Try as you might, you’ll be fighting against the sense that one of your arms – usually the alternate to your dominant hand – is the best place for a watch.

There is no rational reason to wear two watches at once. Unfortunately, that itself provides the only flaw in my argument. Enjoying mechanical watches isn’t a particularly rational pursuit to begin with. They are style statements, social signifiers and subjective choices that reflect our love of a whimsical, anachronistic invention.

If you, in the name of personal taste or sheer disregard for accepted norms, want to wear two watches wherever you go, that is your right (and left). Better two watches than no watch at all.