Watches made from the Titanic

[evilboy]

Geneva watchmaker Romain Jerome SA billed its "Titanic-DNA" collection as among the most exclusive pieces showcased this week at Baselworld, the watch and jewellery industry's largest annual trade fair.

"It is very luxurious and very inaccessible," said Yvan Arpa, chief executive of the three-year-old company that hopes the limited edition watches will attract both collectors and garrulous luxury goods buyers.

"So many rich people buy incredibly complicated watches without understanding how they work, because they want a story to tell," Arpa said. "To them we offer a story."

Enjoy!

link here

[Richard Tracy]

Looks like a Hubot,....

Some would consider it a bad luck piece....

Could anyone here wear the totally rusted out model ??

[Tim]

I think the thing is ghoulish, tacky, and ugly to boot. I know the Titanic is a legendary story, but the thing is a grave yard. We ought to leave it and the people that went down with the ship in peace. How about a watch made from Hiroshima rubble? Or maybe steel from the World Trade Center? Chernobyl watch anyone?

Of course that said, they'll probably sell every one because there are enough tacky people out there with too much money to buy them. Probably Middle Eastern Sheiks will snap them up.

/Tim

[andreww]

Well, I have seen coins struck from steel from the world trade center. James Cameron states that the titanic is being eaten by micro-organisms and in the not too distant future, disappear completely. If you want to honor or remember the dead, why not make sure at least a piece of that great ship lives forever. I would buy one in a second if there was a rep of this. I've always loved a watch with a story.

[fotoman]

I think the thing is ghoulish, tacky, and ugly to boot. I know the Titanic is a legendary story, but the thing is a grave yard. We ought to leave it and the people that went down with the ship in peace. How about a watch made from Hiroshima rubble? Or maybe steel from the World Trade Center? Chernobyl watch anyone?

Of course that said, they'll probably sell every one because there are enough tacky people out there with too much money to buy them. Probably Middle Eastern Sheiks will snap them up.

/Tim

i thought it was cool before i knew it was the titanic.

your analogy is way off though you would make your point better with the hindenburg or ameila airhart or oceanic flight 815 or

There is a huge difference in human psychology relating to death that was the fault of the dead (i.e. they chose to get on the ship knowing accidents can happen)

as opposed to the cause of someone else trying to make them dead i.e. bombing buildings or japanese or boats in pearl harbor. Mentally its proven different when you account for age culture ect.

would you want a watch made out of a pirate ship? - that would be cool as [censored] right

what about ancient greek coins that sunk

all grave yards.

in Fact - the ground you walk on is a grave yard for something. Indians Grass Bugs dinosaurs punk ass TZ members who can't mind their own f-in business

[TeeJay]

In the same vein, how would people feel if Omega where to produce another Astronaut Watch made from pieces from the Challenger? I'm sure there's still plenty of it scattered around Cape Canavaral...

[Admin]

Off course this will be repped....no problem.....just build a replica of Titanic first....transport it about 100 years back in time...sink it...... well, you all get the rest of the story

T

[Tim]

i thought it was cool before i knew it was the titanic.

your analogy is way off though you would make your point better with the hindenburg or ameila airhart or oceanic flight 815 or

There is a huge difference in human psychology relating to death that was the fault of the dead (i.e. they chose to get on the ship knowing accidents can happen)

as opposed to the cause of someone else trying to make them dead i.e. bombing buildings or japanese or boats in pearl harbor. Mentally its proven different when you account for age culture ect.

would you want a watch made out of a pirate ship? - that would be cool as [censored] right

what about ancient greek coins that sunk

all grave yards.

in Fact - the ground you walk on is a grave yard for something. Indians Grass Bugs dinosaurs punk ass TZ members who can't mind their own f-in business

Ethically it is all the same. The principle in question is profiting off the death and/or suffering of others. It is always inappropriate. My opinion. Others are always entitled to their opinion.

However in the United States, Canada, France and the United Kingdom you would be violating the law since:

U.S. Department of State

Media Note

June 18, 2004

U.S. Signs Agreement to Protect RMS Titanic Wreck Site

Today the United States signed an international agreement that will lead to increased protection of the RMS Titanic wreck site. The four nations most closely associated with the Titanic -- Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the U.S. -- negotiated the agreement, beginning in 1997. Concerted action by these countries would effectively foreclose financing for and the technical ability to conduct unregulated salvage and other potentially harmful activities.

Though it rests 12,000 feet deep, the Titanic continues to capture the attention of people around the globe. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) recently sponsored a scientific expedition to the wreck that included explorer Robert D. Ballard, the man who discovered it in 1985. He attributed newfound damage to the wreck to submarines landing on the deck for salvage operations, filming, and tourism.

Under the agreement, the Titanic is designated as an international maritime memorial, recognizing the men, women and children who perished and whose remains should be given appropriate respect. Parties will also protect the scientific, cultural and historical significance of the wreck site by regulating, within their jurisdiction, dives to the Titanic shipwreck, including the hull, cargo and other artifacts at the wreck site.

The Swiss are not signatories to the agreement so, I guess profit is always more important to their culture or lack thereof.

-T

[TeeJay]

Ethically it is all the same. The principle in question is profiting off the death and/or suffering of others. It is always inappropriate. My opinion. Others are always entitled to their opinion.

However in the United States, Canada, France and the United Kingdom you would be violating the law since:

U.S. Department of State

Media Note

June 18, 2004

U.S. Signs Agreement to Protect RMS Titanic Wreck Site

Today the United States signed an international agreement that will lead to increased protection of the RMS Titanic wreck site. The four nations most closely associated with the Titanic -- Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the U.S. -- negotiated the agreement, beginning in 1997. Concerted action by these countries would effectively foreclose financing for and the technical ability to conduct unregulated salvage and other potentially harmful activities.

Though it rests 12,000 feet deep, the Titanic continues to capture the attention of people around the globe. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) recently sponsored a scientific expedition to the wreck that included explorer Robert D. Ballard, the man who discovered it in 1985. He attributed newfound damage to the wreck to submarines landing on the deck for salvage operations, filming, and tourism.

Under the agreement, the Titanic is designated as an international maritime memorial, recognizing the men, women and children who perished and whose remains should be given appropriate respect.

Parties will also protect the scientific, cultural and historical significance of the wreck site by regulating, within their jurisdiction, dives to the Titanic shipwreck, including the hull, cargo and other artifacts at the wreck site.

The Swiss are not signatories to the agreement so, I guess profit is always more important to their culture or lack thereof.

-T

Playing Devil's Advocate here, according to the point Andrew made:

Well, I have seen coins struck from steel from the world trade center. James Cameron states that the titanic is being eaten by micro-organisms and in the not too distant future, disappear completely. If you want to honor or remember the dead, why not make sure at least a piece of that great ship lives forever. I would buy one in a second if there was a rep of this. I've always loved a watch with a story.

One could argue that as the hull is being eaten away and will eventually disapear, by removing pieces and using them to create something which is indeed memorial to the original object, technically, that could be interpereted as "protecting the scientific, cultural and historical significance"...

As I said before, I think the watches should be given to the families of those who died (or descendents of survivors), rather than selling the watches to the general public.

[fotoman]

Ethically it is all the same. The principle in question is profiting off the death and/or suffering of others. It is always inappropriate. My opinion. Others are always entitled to their opinion.

However in the United States, Canada, France and the United Kingdom you would be violating the law since:

U.S. Department of State

Media Note

June 18, 2004

U.S. Signs Agreement to Protect RMS Titanic Wreck Site

Today the United States signed an international agreement that will lead to increased protection of the RMS Titanic wreck site. The four nations most closely associated with the Titanic -- Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the U.S. -- negotiated the agreement, beginning in 1997. Concerted action by these countries would effectively foreclose financing for and the technical ability to conduct unregulated salvage and other potentially harmful activities.

Though it rests 12,000 feet deep, the Titanic continues to capture the attention of people around the globe. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) recently sponsored a scientific expedition to the wreck that included explorer Robert D. Ballard, the man who discovered it in 1985. He attributed newfound damage to the wreck to submarines landing on the deck for salvage operations, filming, and tourism.

Under the agreement, the Titanic is designated as an international maritime memorial, recognizing the men, women and children who perished and whose remains should be given appropriate respect. Parties will also protect the scientific, cultural and historical significance of the wreck site by regulating, within their jurisdiction, dives to the Titanic shipwreck, including the hull, cargo and other artifacts at the wreck site.

The Swiss are not signatories to the agreement so, I guess profit is always more important to their culture or lack thereof.

-T

ethically its not the same, based upon psychology of the human brain.

here is the basic type of study that i'm talking about

Would You Kill A Fat Man?

...to save five other people?

Fascinating research into our "moral intuitions" out of the U.K. Here are two cases:

1) A trolley car is out of control and heading towards a group of five people. If you do nothing, all five will die. But if you flip a switch, the car will be diverted onto a side track and kill only one person. Would you flip the switch?

2) A trolley car is out of control and heading towards a group of five people. If you do nothing, all five will die. But in this case you are standing on a bridge over the trolley track. Now, if you throw yourself under the wheels of the trolley, it will not have an effect on the car's forward momentum. But if you push the fat man next to you onto the track, the car will grind to a halt and all five people would be saved, although the fat man will surely die.

Most people would decide to flip the switch in 1), but not push the fat man in 2), even though the amount of good and bad done in each case is the same (five saved, one dead). The reason, according to philosophical bad-boy Peter Singer (of Practical Ethics fame, or infamy), is:

For most of our evolutionary history, human beings have lived in small groups, in which violence could be inflicted only in an up-close and personal way, by hitting, pushing, strangling, or using a stick or stone. To deal with such situations, we developed immediate, emotionally based intuitive responses to the infliction of violence on others. The thought of pushing the stranger off the bridge elicits these responses. On the other hand, it is only in the past couple of centuries - not long enough to have any evolutionary significance - that we have been able to harm anyone by throwing a switch that diverts a train. Hence the thought of doing it does not elicit the same emotional response as pushing someone off a bridge.

The moral, according to Singer: you can't always trust your moral intuitions.

If you wish to submit yourself to moral dilemmas like the one outlined here, visit the Harvard University Cognitive Evolution Laboratory and take their Moral Sense Test. Taste the ethical confusion!

[Fireman_Fred]

Well, I have seen coins struck from steel from the world trade center. James Cameron states that the titanic is being eaten by micro-organisms and in the not too distant future, disappear completely. If you want to honor or remember the dead, why not make sure at least a piece of that great ship lives forever. I would buy one in a second if there was a rep of this. I've always loved a watch with a story.

I have to disagree - it's bad enough buying a watch made from the remains of what is essentially a mass grave but to then hanker after a rep is totally ghoulsih !

[Tim]

One could argue that as the hull is being eaten away and will eventually disapear, by removing pieces and using them to create something which is indeed memorial to the original object, technically, that could be interpereted as "protecting the scientific, cultural and historical significance"...

As I said before, I think the watches should be given to the families of those who died (or descendents of survivors), rather than selling the watches to the general public.

Again, the principle involved is profiting off of the death/suffering of others. It would be totally appropriate to present an artifact to a descendant of one of the Titanic passengers. It would also be totally appropriate to maintain artifacts in a museum or a memorial. WTC mementos sold for profit are equally ghoulish and tacky.

-T

[Tim]

ethically its not the same, based upon psychology of the human brain.

here is the basic type of study that i'm talking about

Would You Kill A Fat Man?

...to save five other people?

So which is it Mr. Spock, do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?

My ethical objection is to profit in such a situation. None of the situations cited involve profiting of off the death/suffering of another. If those five people PAID you to flip the switch or push the man, that would be wrong in either situation, yes? No dilemma involved at all.

Oh and if you did happen to flip that switch or push the man, expect the man's estate and family to sue the pants off of you for wrongful death. How is that for trying to help?

-T

[TeeJay]

I have to disagree - it's bad enough buying a watch made from the remains of what is essentially a mass grave but to then hanker after a rep is totally ghoulsih !

The way I see it, there would be no point in a rep. It would be totally profitting from a tragedy, but, the watches themselves would be meaningless as they would simply be made from regular metal. Sure, the design of the watch is quite nice, but then again, so are Panerai, U-Boat, and several similar Russian watches if one's tastes run to that design... Much better to get one of those as, if it wasn't actually made from sections of the Titanic, the watch would be doubly fake. (in content as well as manufacturer)

Again, the principle involved is profiting off of the death/suffering of others. It would be totally appropriate to present an artifact to a descendant of one of the Titanic passengers. It would also be totally appropriate to maintain artifacts in a museum or a memorial. WTC mementos sold for profit are equally ghoulish and tacky.

-T

I quite agree, the profiting is the moral objection, but, that is not prohibited by the above mentioned legislation. It simply states that the Titanic (in whatever form) is to be protected, hense why I made the point that one could argue that as the hull is being eaten and will eventually vanish, removing sections of the hull from that environment could indeed be seen as protecting it, and, by making those pieces into watches which (as you so rightly pointed out) could be given to descendants, would also fullfill the criteria of protecting it's 'cultural and historical' significance.

[andreww]

Two points of view. Is the Titanic a mass grave? No, the spot it went down is the grave. We didn't have any problem hauling away the tons of steel that was the world trade center did we?

Aside from that, for me the Titanic story that is represented to me is not the mass loss of human life, but the story of man vs nature. The Titanic was deemed unsinkable, certainly a cocky claim indeed. Its just a lifelong reminder that nothing man does is perfect. Its an important life lesson.

[fotoman]

So which is it Mr. Spock, do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?

My ethical objection is to profit in such a situation. None of the situations cited involve profiting of off the death/suffering of another. If those five people PAID you to flip the switch or push the man, that would be wrong in either situation, yes? No dilemma involved at all.

Oh and if you did happen to flip that switch or push the man, expect the man's estate and family to sue the pants off of you for wrongful death. How is that for trying to help?

-T

And i'm not talking about the seller but the buyer.

In the buyer's mind its different than your analogy thats what i was pointing out. Profit aside. the analogy you made was off. what i was saying and still say is that there is an ethical difference int he analogy for the user perspective

[Tim]

Two points of view. Is the Titanic a mass grave? No, the spot it went down is the grave. We didn't have any problem hauling away the tons of steel that was the world trade center did we?

Aside from that, for me the Titanic story that is represented to me is not the mass loss of human life, but the story of man vs nature. The Titanic was deemed unsinkable, certainly a cocky claim indeed. Its just a lifelong reminder that nothing man does is perfect. Its an important life lesson.

What they hauled away was scrap metal which they picked through to find as many bits as possible. They can take that metal, melt it down and make a pot out of it no problem. You take that same piece of metal, make a tchotchke out of it, say it's a hunk of the WTC thereby profiting off of the tragedy, and that is ethically wrong.

And in fact this happened. The Commissioner of the New York City Department of Design and Construction had to write a letter to three scrap companies telling them to stop this very activity stating that "It is unacceptable for manufacturers of medallions and other items to profit from that tragedy."

Good grief splitting hairs here. Is it that hard a concept to appreciate?

-T

[sam1174]

In the same vein, how would people feel if Omega where to produce another Astronaut Watch made from pieces from the Challenger? I'm sure there's still plenty of it scattered around Cape Canavaral...

Actually... I think I would buy one of those. Tacky or not.

[Guest TTK]

I'd like to see a rep of it......'cos the Chinese wouldn't use the Titanic......it would be a rep of it......

[cornerstone]

Word from the dealers is that the rep will have to make do with parts from Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick Oldsmobile

[TeeJay]

What they hauled away was scrap metal which they picked through to find as many bits as possible. They can take that metal, melt it down and make a pot out of it no problem. You take that same piece of metal, make a tchotchke out of it, say it's a hunk of the WTC thereby profiting off of the tragedy, and that is ethically wrong.

in fact this happened. The Commissioner of the New York City Department of Design and Construction had to write a letter to three scrap companies telling them to stop this very activity stating that "It is unacceptable for manufacturers of medallions and other items to profit from that tragedy."

Good grief splitting hairs here. Is it that hard a concept to appreciate?

-T

That is a case of someone in a position of authority making a (correct) moral statement and using their position of authority to frighten people into obeying them. That does not make it a legally enforcable piece of legislation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the various states in America can have widely varying local laws which are unenforceable above state level, and can always be overridden by a citizen's Constitutional Rights. As Andrew pointed out above, the Titanic is being eaten. It will eventually disappear. The legislation quoted about it's protection did not specify that people could not profit from it (that is a purely moral point) and, as I pointed out, someone could argue that by using pieces to create commemorative pieces, that is fullfilling the legislation's mandate to protect the Titanic's 'cultural and historical significance'. I agree 10000% that the watches should not be sold, and should only be given to families of those who died or survived, but, from a legal aspect, there is nothing preventing the company from making the watches.

[Pugwash]

Well, I like it and don't see it as at all ghoulish. A rep seems pointless, however.

[Tim]

That is a case of someone in a position of authority making a (correct) moral statement and using their position of authority to frighten people into obeying them. That does not make it a legally enforcable piece of legislation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the various states in America can have widely varying local laws which are unenforceable above state level, and can always be overridden by a citizen's Constitutional Rights. As Andrew pointed out above, the Titanic is being eaten. It will eventually disappear. The legislation quoted about it's protection did not specify that people could not profit from it (that is a purely moral point) and, as I pointed out, someone could argue that by using pieces to create commemorative pieces, that is fullfilling the legislation's mandate to protect the Titanic's 'cultural and historical significance'. I agree 10000% that the watches should not be sold, and should only be given to families of those who died or survived, but, from a legal aspect, there is nothing preventing the company from making the watches.

Understand that I am just carrying on this discussion because it is interesting and I am not trying to be contrary.

Never said there was a law concerning the WTC scrap. It was an ethics issue and ethics are not necessarily legally enforceable. Although in both cases, I think there is some question as to the legality of the situation. With the WTC scrap, it actually belonged to the city of New York and they paid some scrap companies to haul it away -- to India of all places -- for recycling. But then there is the question of once the scrap was sold for recycling if NYC could assert a legal claim to the scrap as still being their property. Who knows. I personally would not want to stand in front of a jury however trying to prove that legal issue. You'd most likely be publically drawn and quartered in Times Square.

For the Titanic, it is an International Treaty and I do not know the ramifications of a private citizen breaking the terms of a treaty signed by the country of their citzenship. It would seem certain to me that there has got to be some sort of legal issues involved. But there are just four countries that are signatories to the treaty, and I would think it very likely that Titanic memorabilia would be a banned product just like ivory, conflict diamonds, and skins of endangered species.

-T