Chronotriggered destroys watches… #6

I know what you are thinking… how long can he keep this charade up. The Air King “Double 9” survives - fair enough… Another solo entry this time, and it was sparked by a recent video by Andrew Morgan: “10 Worst Watches”… and it reminded me that the following watch series exists. Romaine Jerome Titanic DNA. This is a series of watches that claim to be made with steel from the Titanic. Let that sink in (pun not intended) The Titanic DNAs do kind of have me on the shelf a little. I did have the opportunity to purchase one around 6 years ago, and to be honest the main reason at the time is that I didn’t think the price the seller was asking was justified. Upon many many years of reflection, I’m actually glad I didn’t anyway because the more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I am about having a watch that uses material supposedly from the hull of the Titanic. I’m reminded of another Channel 4 (UK) show called “4 Rooms” whereby 4 collectors had the opportunity to purchase obscure and rare items that people had (Elvis’s golf cart, etc…). One episode in particular saw Chilean artist Marco Evaristti bring in his sculpture of the entrance to the Auschwitz concentration camp made from gold teeth and fillings. He claimed his grandmother had left him her gold teeth when she died, and that he had acquired a jar of gold teeth from an Austrian dealer who told him that the likely source was from Holocaust victims. The artist told the dealers that his sculpture was important as it expressed how cruel human beings could be. The simple questions raised here were what the fuck, why, and have you gone too far (and at the risk of shutting down discussion - fuck yes, this thing didn’t need to exist). Three of the buyers refused to make an offer, and one of the buyers offered him £37,000 to destroy it there and then. It went unsold. The Titanic was a tragedy, no denying it, so is this crass? Is this, as Andrew alludes to in his video, grave-robbing? There seems to be many different versions, so how much steel are they taking from the wreckage? Does the Titanic DNA series really need to exist? It seems almost obscene to wear a watch fabricated from the wreckage of a tragedy, and (to me) might be one of the most offensive (series of) watches going, and that’s from someone who nearly bought one. Do you agree? What do you think - keep or destroy?
118 votes ·
Reply
·

Ugly and in poor taste. Kill the beast ☠️ 

Can I suggest for episode 7, the entire Breguet brand based on your reaction to my ideas in the “underrated brands“ post.

Maybe smashing up some Classiques or Type XXs would be cathartic for us all ?! 💥 🔨 🧘

·

I guess over the years I‘ve begun to think it would be crass to take pieces of a sunken tomb and put it in a watch. I am happy to be told I’m overthinking it, but I also have real issues with certain things we do put in museums, but then again Britain took everything and claimed it for itself, so perhaps I’m just uncomfortable with that.

I get that there is a certain appeal, but you know the series, it asks the tough questions…

·

What I wrote about the Brewmont Wright Flyer with its bit of historical scrapifact stands. This stuff is stupid. Same for those watches with a piece of old Ford Mustang, Land Rover, vintage aircraft, etc. Lame.

·
PoorMansRolex

What I wrote about the Brewmont Wright Flyer with its bit of historical scrapifact stands. This stuff is stupid. Same for those watches with a piece of old Ford Mustang, Land Rover, vintage aircraft, etc. Lame.

Yes, I remember, but at least it isn‘t material taken from a tragic event. Is this justified, or is it poor taste?

·

Destroy. Something this ugly shouldn't exist...

·
rowiphi

Destroy. Something this ugly shouldn't exist...

So looks rather than material? Ok.

·

I’m so offended by the look of the thing, I can’t even get around to the moral implications. 

·
thekris

I’m so offended by the look of the thing, I can’t even get around to the moral implications. 

Yes, the steampunk aesthetic is pretty difficult to digest. They have plainer versions, but the outer case is similar. It’s an acquired taste.

·
Porthole

Yes, the steampunk aesthetic is pretty difficult to digest. They have plainer versions, but the outer case is similar. It’s an acquired taste.

I just can’t approve of a dial that busy. Everything about it flies in the face of the concept of a watch. It’s like they designed it to be difficult and unpleasant to look at. It makes me think of this…

Image
·

That is an ugly looking watch - but not exceptionally ugly. I guess the Andrew Morgan Video really dulled my senses.

As for morals - I'd guess more people died making cheap electronics than ever boarded the Titanic, still I have a phone in my hand.

I find the whole Spiel "contains real pieces of x" unintriguing anyway, but not annoying enough to want this ugly watch destroyed.

·

So, what's the depth rating on that?

·

Morally questionable, but I wouldn't destroy it IMO. Unlike the holocaust sculpture, which is literal graverobbing the victims, using metal from the wreck (assuming it is true) is not directly stealing from any one's grave, however distasteful it is to use the scraps of an otherwise tragic incident.

I'd destroy it just for how ugly it is, but that would ruin the metal from the Titanic even more, so I would rather contain it on display, but more because of the history regarding the material composing the watch rather than the watch's worth itself. I also think it is a disrespect to the incident to even commercialize this kind of watch, and use a tragedy for profit.

If the Chronojudges decide to destroy it, though, I won't budge. I get why this thing would get the death penalty, probably being taken back to the wreck's resting place, as the metal should be in the first place.

·
Porthole

So looks rather than material? Ok.

Both tbh

·
Porthole

Yes, I remember, but at least it isn‘t material taken from a tragic event. Is this justified, or is it poor taste?

I don't care about using recycled or reused metal, but the promotion and profiting by mention of a catstrophe is very low. In the States, every other town has a memorial with some scrap beam allegedly from the World Trade Center. It's the secular American variant of True Cross slivers. Anyway, this whole ascribing of physical objects with some supernatural specialness is very superstitious and weird. 

·
PoorMansRolex

I don't care about using recycled or reused metal, but the promotion and profiting by mention of a catstrophe is very low. In the States, every other town has a memorial with some scrap beam allegedly from the World Trade Center. It's the secular American variant of True Cross slivers. Anyway, this whole ascribing of physical objects with some supernatural specialness is very superstitious and weird. 

Is it? I mean you allude to sacred artefacts, relics have always been sought after, so perhaps this is no different. The number of casualties that were trapped within the ship, to me, would effectively warrant this as a “tomb raid”, and again I just feel slightly uncomfortable wearing something that had parts sourced from that. What is the point?

The DNA series does also have watches with moon dust and parts of Apollo 11, which kind of make sense to a certain degree in terms of homage (albeit you find it daft), but the Titanic feels a little bit of a line cross? Would you wear a watch made with parts of the aftermath/wreckage of a tragedy. You wouldn‘t expect an Ayrton Senna homage watch to be made with the fuselage of his Williams would you? Sorry if this is a little morbid, but I did want to explore this one and the views people may have.

·

The movie was terrible, but it is a story, there is an element of artistic licence. I don’t believe it deserved the plaudits it received, but that’s Hollywood. This is a physical item made from parts of the wreck - whilst it’s not malicious it is a little bit morbid. Obviously I’m not attributing blame to the watch, or towards RJ, but is this something that really needed to be made? I’d argue probably not, and is probably on the borderline of bad taste. Plus, it is ghastly. 

Again, just throwing it out there for discussion. You can call me a snowflake if you like, but this is one of the rare times you find me struggling to defend something avant-garde; read into that what you will.

·

At the risk of providing some information a little late in the day, and to kind of clarify...

RJ purchased a piece of the Titanic’s hull weighing about 1.5 kg that was retrieved in 1991, and used parts of the metal to construct the watches. The actual Titanic metal is melted with other metal for the bezel, which is later processed to rust for the distinctive look that has become synonymous with the brand. This is where the DNA part comes in, the hull metal forming part of the new construction in the form of an alloy.

Ugh… I could work in watch marketing. Got an (almost) in-house movement you need flogging?

Anyway… carry on.

·
Porthole

At the risk of providing some information a little late in the day, and to kind of clarify...

RJ purchased a piece of the Titanic’s hull weighing about 1.5 kg that was retrieved in 1991, and used parts of the metal to construct the watches. The actual Titanic metal is melted with other metal for the bezel, which is later processed to rust for the distinctive look that has become synonymous with the brand. This is where the DNA part comes in, the hull metal forming part of the new construction in the form of an alloy.

Ugh… I could work in watch marketing. Got an (almost) in-house movement you need flogging?

Anyway… carry on.

So they threw a little piece of metal into the big pot and now the spirit of the ship is infused into the watch?

Yeah right 🙄

·

Imagine the uproar if Tag had made a limited edition version of the Formula 1 from bits of Senna's car. 

It's a dreadful pile of tat. Destroy

·

I would say: don't destroy it. Just let it drown. And make sure no people are harmed.

·

 just drop it into the sea at the end of the movie...

·
charkerparles

 just drop it into the sea at the end of the movie...

Well spoiler alert there… oh well, there’s a sneak peak into #7 (unless these are growing tiresome and I can quit whilst I am ahead) 😂

·
Porthole

Well spoiler alert there… oh well, there’s a sneak peak into #7 (unless these are growing tiresome and I can quit whilst I am ahead) 😂

I find them quite entertaining. So please continue...

·
charkerparles

I find them quite entertaining. So please continue...

Thank you. I am open to suggestions - no watch or angle is off-limits, so guest editors wanted 👍

·
witcher.watcher

I would say: don't destroy it. Just let it drown. And make sure no people are harmed.

Burial at sea, perhaps?

I voted destroy.  I think it's tacky to 1) melt down a historical artifact, regardless of how small a piece it is, 2) profit from a tragedy.

·
thekris

There's a difference between a sculpture meant to be a reminder of history, and a commercial product meant to generate profit.

Also, how are you getting past the look of the thing to even have these thoughts?

I am not getting past the look. I'm trying to painstakingly ignore it because, remember, the metal there is unfortunately part of a devastating event...

·
UnholiestJedi

Without even considering the moral or ethical quandaries, Destroy. 

It's gaudy AF. 

Damn good point

·
mikaeshin

I am not getting past the look. I'm trying to painstakingly ignore it because, remember, the metal there is unfortunately part of a devastating event...

Well, you're a better person than I am.

·

When I see that watch...this comes to mind...

Kilgo-gargoyle GIFs - Get the best GIF on GIPHY
·
Aurelian

So, what's the depth rating on that?

I heard you can go pretty deep with them as long as the water isn't cold and full of ice.