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

271–278 of 278 posts

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

#271

Post by Sporktacular »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #245
Sporktacular wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's disagreeing with the arbitrariness of where you're drawing lines to make your argument sound more reasonable. And he's free to argue his way. Mass production already has a definition and I'm pretty sure significant manual work goes into each copy. But this is beside the point. Regardless of how many copies are made, the creativity and ingenuity that went into the first one alone makes it something marvel…

Manual work goes into each copy, manual artistry less so. So it's true that I should classify batches of 100+ and mass production quite differently. Along with pure one-offs and batches under five. But my original point still applies. I think these different quantities should be treated quite differently in terms of how art can be very expensive. In your other comment you said: Finally, quantity is irrelevant to whet…

But all this missed the point. I like that there are artists making these things. If they go on to be copied X times so that it can provide a living wage to the original artists and designers, then in my opinion it's money well spent, even if some of it goes to the (also talented) machinists and assemblers.

I also think it's good that it's accessible to 150 people who maybe appreciate the artistry that went into it, as opposed to 1 super rich guy who maybe doesn't.

All I'm saying is charity is really important, arguably more so than art, but when they're created with skill and artistry; appreciated and not just consumed conspicuously as wealth/status objects, such things have value too.

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

#272

Post by Mikeb85 »

lmm wrote: post #265
Mikeb85 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ec…

> 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. Good service or entertainment definitely has real value. But yes, IMO if people are producing something whose value is fake (e.g. artificial scarcity) then they don't "deserve" income; if they can get so…

> they can get someone to pay them for whatever they're doing then more power to them

Which is exactly the situation

> they shouldn't feel entitled to it.

It's more that others shouldn't feel entitled to take away their profession for "reasons" when they very clearly are in demand...

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

#273

Post by Dylan16807 »

Sporktacular wrote: post #271
Dylan16807 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manual work goes into each copy, manual artistry less so. So it's true that I should classify batches of 100+ and mass production quite differently. Along with pure one-offs and batches under five. But my original point still applies. I think these different quantities should be treated quite differently in terms of how art can be very expensive. In your other comment you said: Finally, quantity is irrelevant to whet…

But all this missed the point. I like that there are artists making these things. If they go on to be copied X times so that it can provide a living wage to the original artists and designers, then in my opinion it's money well spent, even if some of it goes to the (also talented) machinists and assemblers. I also think it's good that it's accessible to 150 people who maybe appreciate the artistry that went into it,…

So I generally agree with all this. But in my opinion there's a limit to how much money you can justify with "it's art". If you're making 150 of something, you shouldn't be justifying a particularly huge price with it being art. If it really cost that much, and the price of making just one would have been ridiculously huge, then there is a point where I'd say the whole project is not worth it, is not making the world a better place. (Note: I am not stating any opinion on where this watch is relative to that level.)

Or to restate and elaborate on my original point: 99% of the time, it's fine to use art as a reason to buy something. You don't always have to be donating every dollar to charities. But for any level of justification you want to reach for the price of a piece of art, the dollar amount that fits under "justified" depends on how many copies are being made.

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

#274

Post by lmm »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #272
lmm wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Good service or entertainment definitely has real value. But yes, IMO if people are producing something whose value is fake (e.g. artificial scarcity) then they don't "deserve" income; if they can get so…

> they can get someone to pay them for whatever they're doing then more power to them Which is exactly the situation > they shouldn't feel entitled to it. It's more that others shouldn't feel entitled to take away their profession for "reasons" when they very clearly are in demand...

> It's more that others shouldn't feel entitled to take away their profession for "reasons" when they very clearly are in demand...

Everyone is entitled to try to change fashion. If your profession is only in demand because of fashion rather than real value creation, you should make peace with the possibility that fashion will change, or find a different profession.

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

#275

Post by Synaesthesia »

s0rce wrote: post #155
Synaesthesia wrote: post #63

First time I have read the word "allusive" as well as "grade 5 titanium"

You haven't read grade 5 titanium or in combination with allusive? Gr5 titanium is quite common, many medical implants use this.

I read up on Gr 5 titanium and yes it's pretty common, probably the most common alloy.

The word allusive was just interesting to me since it wasn't elusive or illusive .. had to look it up.

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

#276

Post by itisit »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #87
huhtenberg wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

In my opinion, its successor, the S200, has a cleaner design.

Do you mean the T200? There is no S200 per se.

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

#278

Post by itisit »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #277
itisit wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean the T200? There is no S200 per se.

I did mean the T200.

Tough choice! I prefer the blue dial of the T200, but I'm partial to titanium bands (i.e. S100).
Post reply on HN