Apple designer Marc Newson sells $12K hourglass as Swiss watchmaker does analog Apple Watc...

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in Apple Watch
One of the designers behind the Apple Watch, Marc Newson, has crafted a special-edition hourglass priced at a whopping $12,000. Swiss luxury watchmaker H. Moser & Cie., meanwhile, has launched a new mechanical piece designed to resemble the Apple Watch itself.




The Marc Newson Hourglass for Hodinkee is made out of a single piece of borosilicate glass, filled with 1,249,996 "nanoballs" instead of sand. Each ball is actually made of stainless steel with a copper coating, using an additional anti-corrosion material to prevent the copper from turning green. The product measures 10 minutes per flip.

Only 100 units are being produced. The first six have already sold, and four more should be delivered in early June, according to Hodinkee. The company expects to deliver about 10 per month, since each is handmade.

To discourage casual shoppers, Hodinkee is requiring that buyers put down a non-refundable $6,000 deposit, and pay the remaining $6,000 after a delivery time is set.

The H. Moser product is the Swiss Alp Watch Zzzz, which replaces the Apple Watch's OLED display with a pair of analog watch hands. The device has a four-day power reserve and is "fully rechargeable by hand," according to the company.




Two versions of the watch are being sold: one with a black dial, and another in "Funky Blue." Only 20 units of each are being manufactured -- pricing wasn't immediately available.

The most expensive Apple Watch currently available is the Series 2 Edition, which costs up to $1,299 and differs from other Series 2 models simply by using a ceramic case. "Series 0" Editions used real gold, and cost up to $17,000.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Honestly, I'm not the biggest fan of Marc Newson and his design aesthetics.
  • Reply 2 of 15
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 2,241member
    SpamSandwich said:
    Honestly, I'm not the biggest fan of Marc Newson and his design aesthetics.

    Maybe not, but I'm sure he can sleep peacefully at night knowing that he's contributed something many people think is beautiful, therefore making their world a better place for them.
    slprescottSolilkruppspice-boy
  • Reply 3 of 15
    randominternetpersonrandominternetperson Posts: 3,089member

    Eye-roll inducing verbiage from the hour glass description:  "Every Hourglass is filled with approximately 1,249,996 tiny spheres."  So that would be... approximately 1,250,000, but subtracting 4 makes it sound more precise?

    And "Each is numbered "1 of 100" just below the "HODINKEE" signature on one side".  At least they are honest about their misleading labeling.  Every numbered item I've ever seen assigns a unique number to each one.  "25 of 100", "26 of 100" etc.  In that case having "1 of 100" is special.  But in this case each of the 100 buyers can pretend they have the original.

    I'm sure these are beautiful and cool items, but frankly these are playthings for the 1% of the 1% so who cares.

  • Reply 4 of 15
    Eric_WVGGEric_WVGG Posts: 966member
    About ten years ago I had a client who commissioned my firm to design and build an ecommerce site that sold "luxury games" — most of them took the form of normal games, but made with fancy leathers instead of cardboard or whatever. Lots of chess sets, I think a monopoly set, even a frisbee. The most expensive of these was about the price of that hourglass and nowhere near as cool or classy.

     If the rich are going to have silly playthings, I'm at least in favor of them being cool and weird.

     "Every Hourglass is filled with approximately 1,249,996 tiny spheres." You know there was a chat with an attorney… "You don't understand, we designed this amazing machine that precisely counts out the spheres. We're from Apple, we can do these things." "That's really cute. See the law degree on my wall? Now let's make this copy dumb!"
    edited May 2017 docno42
  • Reply 5 of 15
    The_Martini_CatThe_Martini_Cat Posts: 485member
    Copper-coated stainless steel "nanoballs?"  How are these not toxic?  And how are they an improvement on grains of sand.  Sand at least you can sweep up when the hourglass breaks.  With a million nanoballs underfoot you'd have to skedaddle to avoid getting it into your system.  Hey, I bet a beautiful blue-colored mixture of cyanide and plutonium would be lovely too. And another Darwin Design Award winner.  (I hope we get to see a list of who bought them).
  • Reply 6 of 15
    levilevi Posts: 344member
    H. Mosher made a similar watch shortly after Apple Watch release. If you like the Apple Watch aesthetic, which I do, it's breathtaking watch. 

    https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-h-moser-and-cie-swiss-alp-watch-a-not-so-subtle-jab-at-the-apple-watch/


  • Reply 7 of 15
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,093member
    The_Martini_Cat said:
    Copper-coated stainless steel "nanoballs?"  How are these not toxic?  And how are they an improvement on grains of sand.  Sand at least you can sweep up when the hourglass breaks.  With a million nanoballs underfoot you'd have to skedaddle to avoid getting it into your system.  Hey, I bet a beautiful blue-colored mixture of cyanide and plutonium would be lovely too. And another Darwin Design Award winner.  (I hope we get to see a list of who bought them).
    Our home water pipes are made of copper, and many food containers are made of stainless steel.
    netmage
  • Reply 8 of 15
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,056member
    The_Martini_Cat said:
    Copper-coated stainless steel "nanoballs?"  How are these not toxic?  And how are they an improvement on grains of sand.  Sand at least you can sweep up when the hourglass breaks.  With a million nanoballs underfoot you'd have to skedaddle to avoid getting it into your system.  Hey, I bet a beautiful blue-colored mixture of cyanide and plutonium would be lovely too. And another Darwin Design Award winner.  (I hope we get to see a list of who bought them).
    Because those are not actual nano particles. Instead, they are just small steel balls covered with copper...way bigger than anything truly nano.
    SpamSandwichnetmage
  • Reply 9 of 15
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,056member
    sflocal said:
    Copper-coated stainless steel "nanoballs?"  How are these not toxic?  And how are they an improvement on grains of sand.  Sand at least you can sweep up when the hourglass breaks.  With a million nanoballs underfoot you'd have to skedaddle to avoid getting it into your system.  Hey, I bet a beautiful blue-colored mixture of cyanide and plutonium would be lovely too. And another Darwin Design Award winner.  (I hope we get to see a list of who bought them).
    Our home water pipes are made of copper, and many food containers are made of stainless steel.
    The point is, anything nano-sized is potentially carcinogenic, due to its size, and not due to material toxicity.
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 10 of 15
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    SpamSandwich said:
    Honestly, I'm not the biggest fan of Marc Newson and his design aesthetics.
    Yeah, and a certain segment of the population doesn’t ‘get’ J. S. Bach either... and never will.
    pscooter63
  • Reply 11 of 15
    randominternetpersonrandominternetperson Posts: 3,089member
    anton zuykov said:
    The_Martini_Cat said:
    Copper-coated stainless steel "nanoballs?"  How are these not toxic?  And how are they an improvement on grains of sand.  Sand at least you can sweep up when the hourglass breaks.  With a million nanoballs underfoot you'd have to skedaddle to avoid getting it into your system.  Hey, I bet a beautiful blue-colored mixture of cyanide and plutonium would be lovely too. And another Darwin Design Award winner.  (I hope we get to see a list of who bought them).
    Because those are not actual nano particles. Instead, they are just small steel balls covered with copper...way bigger than anything truly nano.

    Way bigger than grains of sand, for that matter at 0.6 mm.
    SpamSandwichnetmage
  • Reply 12 of 15
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,450member
    I wish everyone had analyzed #45's sales pitch like people are here before voting. 
    seandomattinozjax44spheric
  • Reply 13 of 15
    evilutionevilution Posts: 1,399member
    anton zuykov said:
    The point is, anything nano-sized is potentially carcinogenic, due to its size, and not due to material toxicity.
    What about the iPod nano? Is that carcinogenic?
    Because when they use the word "nano", it's just marketing wank to mean "small".

    1,250,000 actual nano particles would be the size of a spec of dust.
    netmage
  • Reply 14 of 15
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,315member
    I hope the sound in the video is accurate to the design.
    If it is I could understand why someone pay $12k for one of these.
    spheric
  • Reply 15 of 15
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Maybe the skeptic in me but it sounds like someone's been ripped off;

    buyer: how much for the hourglass mate?
    marc: $12k?
    buyer: wut?!
    marc: $12k yeh it's special edition, I've signed it too.
    buyer: it's just an hour glass with sand in it.
    marc: no, that's stainless steel balls! cool huh!
    buyer: it looks like sand. stainless steel is silver no?
    marc: that's why I covered each one with copper! its so expensive and cool huh!
    buyer: won't it turn green if it's copper?
    marc: no no, it's um, it's got a fancy special coating so it doesn't change colour and it just looks like sand! honest! gimme $12k.

    o_O
Sign In or Register to comment.