Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

richardmille.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 278 posts

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#231

Post by samatman »

dirtyid wrote: post #210
samatman wrote: post #51

I'm disappointed to see this merger of art and engineering received so poorly here. This pushes the envelope of the possible, something I consider beautiful. It's roughly as impractical, expensive, and awkward looking, as a human-propelled airplane. I don't think any of the many commenters here who panned this watch would have anything bad to say about a human-propelled airplane. It's a pity that they can't appreciat…

>envelope of the possible Maybe limits of human hand craft which I assume is the allure of these bespoke time pieces. That said I don't actually see the description mention hand crafting other than polishing and drawing a few surfaces. Otherwise I don't see why this is pushing any envelopes when we can make micrometer MEMS machinery. Which would be pretty slick - theoretical minimum micrometer thick watch mechanism e…

I'm sure you're correct and making a thinner mechanical wristwatch that doesn't just fold in half is really easy!

I look forward to your Show HN on a wristwatch How long do you figure it will take you? three months? six? should I send an email to remind you?

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#232

Post by Sporktacular »

mulmen wrote: post #138
Sporktacular wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ostensibly. 'Owe' is more than accounting parlance.

Is it? This is social accounting. It all translates.

Yeah. Just as wealth is more than accounting parlance.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#233

Post by Sporktacular »

injidup wrote: post #225
bowsamic wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it seems in bad faith to use a word that draws a line in a roughly agreed upon place, and then claim you have freedom to place that line wherever you want, and thus are always correct in asserting that it is "made in bulk". Using your argument, you could claim that 1, or even 0 watches are "made in bulk", or that 30C is "cold" bc you draw the line of "cold" at 40C, etc. Throwing away all understanding of concep…

It is not bad faith at all. He is pointing out that the watches are an example of artificial scarcity. The original engineering may be impressive but once the tooling and quality control has been setup the process will be, to a reasonable extent, automated. Whether 10, 50 or 100 or 100000 of these watches are made, is the process any different? Is it more like a limited edition print . High DPI printing is an example…

But that's not going to be how these watches are made. They set it to 150, which means there is almost no value in creating customised tooling just for the assembly. The parts may be mass produced (and used in other products), but their tolerances in this assembly will mean they have a low yield, and expensive manual quality control.

This is called batch production. It is not akin to a printer and even if it was, limiting the production quantity would, by definition, mean it is not mass produced.

Finally, quantity is irrelevant to whether something is classified as art. My point was that the fact that it was created at all is meaningful and valuable.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#235

Post by WelcomeShorty »

huhtenberg wrote: post #85
staplung wrote: post #55

William Gibson wrote a piece for Wired back in the day about his obsession with mechanical watches.[1] He puts it thus: ``` Mechanical watches are so brilliantly unnecessary. Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time, and high-end contemporary Swiss watches are priced like small cars. But mechanical watches partake of what my friend John Clute calls the Tamagotchi Gesture. They're pointless in a peculiarly needful way; t…

> Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time ... and that's my cue to pimp one of the most practical watch of all time - Casio Oceanus, the 100 series. * Analog watch face. * Quartz, radio auto-sync, solar-powered. * Sapphire glass, titanium body and bracelet. Waterproof. * Clean design. Under $500. https://www.google.com/search?q=OCW-S100-1AJF&tbm=isch

Well, thank you. Now I have an new object (OCW-S100-1AJF) of my desire that I need to pursue :)

Interesting to see these prices "all over the place" but yours is indeed a good average.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#236

Post by defective »

jmu1234567890 wrote: post #234

Would it actually be possible to make a analogue or digital quartz watch this thin?

https://www.plus9time.com/blog/2020/12/12/worlds-thinnest-mo...

The thinnest quartz watches have all been made well in the past, as far as I'm aware. They were still made to be practical, however, and have thicker cases. They are about twice as thick as this watch.

Could they do better today? Possibly?

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#237

Post by silverlake »

staplung wrote: post #55

William Gibson wrote a piece for Wired back in the day about his obsession with mechanical watches.[1] He puts it thus: ``` Mechanical watches are so brilliantly unnecessary. Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time, and high-end contemporary Swiss watches are priced like small cars. But mechanical watches partake of what my friend John Clute calls the Tamagotchi Gesture. They're pointless in a peculiarly needful way; t…

Watches are jewelry for men, like a tiara for women. It is pure status signaling.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#238

Post by Mikeb85 »

lmm wrote: post #197
Mikeb85 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead and find simpler luxuries. Why? Are watchmakers not people who deserve to have an income? Do they not then spend their income on goods and services that help the economy?

> Why? Are watchmakers not people who deserve to have an income? Why? Just because they're good at something that takes effort? By that logic everyone who has a challenging hobby - and most hobbies are ultimately challenging - deserves an income from it. Would you say that anyone who's good at any sport, or any craft, or any game, or even knowing celebrity trivia, deserves an income? IMO at most people who produce re…

> IMO at most people who produce real value

This is a terrible take. So you're saying restaurant workers in high end restaurants don't deserve income, neither do musicians, or any number of artists and artisans based on what YOU think is valuable to society.

The value isn't in what they produce, the value is in the fact that someone will pay them for it and the worker will then contribute to and participate in the economy and society.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#239

Post by Mikeb85 »

kqr wrote: post #227
closeparen wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because someone is willing to pay them one. Value is between buyer and seller. It's not for an onlooker to say which value is "real" and which is not.

But why is someone willing to pay them? Because luxury watches are a status item. Why are they a status item? Because enough people believe them to be one. So value (in this sense) is not really between buyer and seller at all, but a common agreement between a large enough number of people. What OP in this discussion did was shine a spotlight on that fact, maybe in the hopes of getting at least one person to change w…

> Because luxury watches are a status item.

Rolexes are a status item. They're cheap in the world of watches. Many brands you've never heard of command far higher prices.

The value is in the fact someone who studied horology their whole life devoted a certain amount of hours and effort into creating something. People who love watches love the craftsmanship.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#240

Post by SergeAx »

polio wrote: post #81
staplung wrote: post #55

William Gibson wrote a piece for Wired back in the day about his obsession with mechanical watches.[1] He puts it thus: ``` Mechanical watches are so brilliantly unnecessary. Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time, and high-end contemporary Swiss watches are priced like small cars. But mechanical watches partake of what my friend John Clute calls the Tamagotchi Gesture. They're pointless in a peculiarly needful way; t…

They're beautiful and impressive, but I find the amount of money that flows into "high horology" to be an sum with an egregious opportunity cost to society, made even worse by the fact that all that complexity goes towards a movement that is worse at keeping time than a rudimentary quartz. If people want Tamagotchis, they can get a Tamagotchi. I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead an…

Expensive timepiece today is the only way for a man to show off his wealth indoors in a relatively tasteful manner.

Woman can wear gold and diamonds on the neck, in the ears, on the wrists, on the lapel. She may carry a bag which costs thousands. Man can't wear any gold at all, except he is a rap star. He can't even wear cufflinks outside formal attire. Not sure about even a ring with stone. Maybe steel one with small diamond will not look extremely kitsch, but it is a big maybe.

Expensive low-key watch on steel or leather wristband is totally okay in almost any social situation. In case someone suddenly recognizes the brand - you always may say that it is a Chinese replica.

Not that I endorse that, just pointing out.

Post reply on HN