NationStates Jolt Archive

Pieces of Titanic transformed into luxury watches By Laura MacInnis
Fri Apr 13, 8:44 AM ET

BASEL, Switzerland (Reuters) - Steel and coal from the Titanic have been transformed into a new line of luxury wristwatches that claim to capture the essence of the legendary oceanliner which sank in 1912.

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," he said. "To them we offer a story."

The North Atlantic wrecksite of the Titanic, which hit an iceberg and sank on its first voyage from the English port of Southampton to New York, have been protected for more than a decade but many relics were taken in early diving expeditions.

Romain Jerome said it purchased a piece of the hull weighing about 1.5 kg (3 pounds) that was retrieved in 1991, but declined to identify the seller. The metal has been certified as authentic by the Titanic's builders Harland and Wolff.

To make the watches, which were offered for sale for the first time in Basel for between $7,800 and $173,100, the Swiss company created an alloy using the slab from the Titanic with steel being used in a Harland and Wolff replica of the vessel.

The gold, platinum and steel time pieces have black dial faces made of lacquer paint that includes coal recovered from the debris field of the Titanic wrecksite, offered for sale by the U.S. company RMS Titanic Inc.

Arpa said the combination of new and old materials infused the watches with a sense of renewal, instead of representing a reminder of the 1,500 passengers who drowned when the oceanliner met her tragic end off the coast of Newfoundland.

"It is a message of hope, of life stronger than death, of rebirth," he said in an interview in Romain Jerome's exposition booth in Basel, where more than 2,100 exhibitors are flaunting their latest wares amid a boom for the luxury goods sector.

The company will make 2,012 watches to coincide with the centenary anniversary of the Titanic's sinking in 2012.

Arpa said the young watchmaker would unveil a new series next year commemorating another famous legend, but declined to offer clues of what is to come.

"For a new brand, you have to find something different to be interesting," he said. Asked if the next collection would be based on Scotland's legendary Loch Ness monster, he smiled and said: "Ooh. Have you found it?"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070413/tc_nm/luxury_titanic_dc
Reports just in say they aren't Waterproof!
Zing[/lame]

Honestly, I agree with Dr. Ballard on this one, they are dessicrating a grave and using the materials within to make money. It's no different than taking steel from the WTC and using it to make a watch for rich people to buy for a conversation piece at cocktail parties.

Honestly, I agree with Dr. Ballard on this one, they are dessicrating a grave and using the materials within to make money. It's no different than taking steel from the WTC and using it to make a watch for rich people to buy for a conversation piece at cocktail parties.
I wouldn't have a problem with that. Honestly, I don't understand this obsession we tend to have with our graves-sties. I mean, in the west, even most theology has moved past the point where special rules for handling a corpse were required to get into heaven and such.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Honestly, I don't understand this obsession we tend to have with our graves-sties. I mean, in the west, even most theology has moved past the point where special rules for handling a corpse were required to get into heaven and such.
So you have no qualms with, say, someone wandering buy and chipping apart your parents headstones to make an ornimental rock garden?

So you have no qualms with, say, someone wandering buy and chipping apart your parents headstones to make an ornimental rock garden?

Totally different scenario. I paid for that headstone, and chose it to be my parents' resting place.

The Titanic (or any other sunken ship) was not chosen, purchased or decided upon; it's just where the bodies ended up. I'd object if it was the bodies themselves, but not when it's just the metal that went down with them.

Hell, let's be honest: after that long, there probably aren't any bodies there.

Totally different scenario. I paid for that headstone, and chose it to be my parents' resting place.

The Titanic (or any other sunken ship) was not chosen, purchased or decided upon; it's just where the bodies ended up. I'd object if it was the bodies themselves, but not when it's just the metal that went down with them.

Hell, let's be honest: after that long, there probably aren't any bodies there.
The people on board her paid to be there (or were paid) and in many cases their families did not have a choice later on where they would be burried or honored. It's a tomb and should be as respected as such and as much as any family plot.

So you have no qualms with, say, someone wandering buy and chipping apart your parents headstones to make an ornimental rock garden?

Totally different scenario. I paid for that headstone, and chose it to be my parents' resting place.
What he said.
Besides, my mother is an environmentalist freak who plans to have her body disposed of in an eco-friendly manor. There will be no tombstone, and I doubt my father would want anyone spending any money on him after he's dead.

But... doesn't coal float?

What he said.
Besides, my mother is an environmentalist freak who plans to have her body disposed of in an eco-friendly manor. There will be no tombstone, and I doubt my father would want anyone spending any money on him after he's dead.
It wasn't by choice, but it is where they are burried.

Thank God I'll be cremated and ashes will be spread across the sky. You people will be breathing in my ashes!

But... doesn't coal float?

No. It's light, and coal dust will float, but then, so will rock dust. Coal sinks quite readily.

The people on board her paid to be there (or were paid) and in many cases their families did not have a choice later on where they would be burried or honored. It's a tomb and should be as respected as such and as much as any family plot.

Say a wife survived, but not the husband. Would you allow her to, when she died, be put to rest at the ship's location? And I don't mean scattered ashes..

It wasn't by choice, but it is where they are burried.

No, it's where they ARE. There was no burial service, no consecration, no memorial.

It's unfortunate that the familes were not permitted to dispose of their loved ones' remains as they chose, but why should that force anyone else to venerate the area they fell in? I know of a case where a man was incinerated at a chemical plant - the volatiles he was exposed to completely vapourised him. Must we count that place as a sacred spot forever?

Say a wife survived, but not the husband. Would you allow her to, when she died, be put to rest at the ship's location? And I don't mean scattered ashes..
If there was a way to do so, yes.

I just don't think they should be looting a historical site to make watches out of it; that's like taking pieces of the Parthenon and using it for lawn decoration. Just seems like a bad idea, IMO.

It wasn't by choice, but it is where they are burried.
Then no, but that could be just because I don't love either of them nearly enough to care if their graves were desecrated unless I spent money on the location.

I really can't relate, but I suppose I could see how, if I was a person who for some reason felt that graves of my loved ones were sacred, and if I was a person with loved ones, I would probably feel violated, sad, a little embarrassed and very angry.

No. It's light, and coal dust will float, but then, so will rock dust. Coal sinks quite readily.

Hrm. I was sure.. I thought at least anthracite would..

*shrugs*

No, it's where they ARE. There was no burial service, no consecration, no memorial.
Gott'cha there. There WAS a service and consencration over the site of the sinking for those bodies not recovered.

It's unfortunate that the familes were not permitted to dispose of their loved ones' remains as they chose, but why should that force anyone else to venerate the area they fell in? I know of a case where a man was incinerated at a chemical plant - the volatiles he was exposed to completely vapourised him. Must we count that place as a sacred spot forever?
Because it wasn't just one person but over a 1,000 men, women, and children lost their lives in, what was at the time, the greatest marine diaster. It would be like telling survivors of the USS Arizona that we shouldn't honor the wreck and we'll be pulling up that hulk to make tie clips that say "Support the Troops".

Then no, but that could be just because I don't love either of them nearly enough to care if their graves were desecrated unless I spent money on the location.

I really can't relate, but I suppose I could see how, if I was a person who for some reason felt that graves of my loved ones were sacred, and if I was a person with loved ones, I would probably feel violated, sad, a little embarrassed and very angry.
Exactly. IIRC, there are no more survivors (or very few left), but the children and grandchildren of are still very much alive.

Submarines and really heavy caskets, of course.
The casket would implode before you got it to the site though.

If there was a way to do so, yes.

Submarines and really heavy caskets, of course.

Gott'cha there. There WAS a service and consencration over the site of the sinking for those bodies not recovered.


You have a point, but that service was decades after the event. The Arizona Memorial was declared almost immediately. By that logic, we could have just about anywhere declared "sacred ground" - somebody died there.

And, if this piece was recovered prior to the memorial, then it can hardly be considered to be covered by it.

The casket would implode before you got it to the site though.

This is why you'd let the water flow into the casket.

You have a point, but that service was decades after the event. The Arizona Memorial was declared almost immediately. By that logic, we could have just about anywhere declared "sacred ground" - somebody died there.
No, this was days after the event. The ship's chaplin from the ships chartered to retreive the dead said service over the area and consigned the missing bodies (and the few they recovered that were burried at sea) to the ocean deep.

And by your logic however, any graveyard can be broken up for the materials, irregardless of family wishes.

And, if this piece was recovered prior to the memorial, then it can hardly be considered to be covered by it.
Since steel hardly floats I can be fairly sure that this was recovered by one of the scavanger dives and not found amoung the floataims.

This is why you'd let the water flow into the casket.
If someone is willing to do that... sure.

No, this was days after the event. The ship's chaplin from the ships chartered to retreive the dead said service over the area and consigned the missing bodies (and the few they recovered that were burried at sea) to the ocean deep.

And by your logic however, any graveyard can be broken up for the materials, irregardless of family wishes.


Since steel hardly floats I can be fairly sure that this was recovered by one of the scavanger dives and not found amoung the floataims.

Ah, sorry, I thought the memorial had been done after the ship's remains were found in the 1980's.

In that case, I can accept your opposition to the watches, and support it.

And by your logic however, any graveyard can be broken up for the materials, irregardless of family wishes.
Don't they do that all the time in Britain?

Don't they do that all the time in Britain?
Damned if I know. I know that in the US the laws are that if any surviving family can be found (or said graveyard is not of historical interest) it cannot be disturbed.

I'm not sure how I feel about this really.

I guess it depends, in part, on what the money made from the sales will go to. If it's just some company profit margin, then screw that! If a portion of the proceeds will go to some sort of fund/charity/memorial/etc that either respects and helps memorialize the Titanic or encourages-supports future archaeological type activities then there's a bonus side.

In all honesty, however, it's not like they're scavaging grave robbers. That was a big freaking boat, and there's tons of broken pieces all over that part of the ocean floor. Picking up a fallen bit of hull and turning it into commemorative memorial items and pieces of collectable conversational interest just mean that people will be more apt to discuss, and therefore remember, the event as a whole. I think the families of the people who died would be grateful they're not being forgotten.

You can't claim that a place where a person has died is forever sacred, cause then we'd be totally unable to do anything, anywhere. I think the basic laws in the US about keeping it intact as long as there are surviving family members is very logical, and there are in this case, so we can't go around picking up the ship, disturbing the area and carving it up for coffee table pieces.

I don't know how I feel about this! Heh. Brain is totally undecided as there are logic points on both sides. I think I'd need to hear something from the surviving family members to make a decision. This is a subjective topic.

What he said.
Besides, my mother is an environmentalist freak who plans to have her body disposed of in an eco-friendly manor. There will be no tombstone, and I doubt my father would want anyone spending any money on him after he's dead.
Did you mean manner or actually meant manor, cause a large house for the dead would be pretty cool...

Is your dad of Irish decent?:p
--------------
I actually don't like the watch idea whether it be purchased or not.

I'm not sure how I feel about this really.

I guess it depends, in part, on what the money made from the sales will go to. If it's just some company profit margin, then screw that! If a portion of the proceeds will go to some sort of fund/charity/memorial/etc that either respects and helps memorialize the Titanic or encourages-supports future archaeological type activities then there's a bonus side.

In all honesty, however, it's not like they're scavaging grave robbers. That was a big freaking boat, and there's tons of broken pieces all over that part of the ocean floor. Picking up a fallen bit of hull and turning it into commemorative memorial items and pieces of collectable conversational interest just mean that people will be more apt to discuss, and therefore remember, the event as a whole. I think the families of the people who died would be grateful they're not being forgotten.

You can't claim that a place where a person has died is forever sacred, cause then we'd be totally unable to do anything, anywhere. I think the basic laws in the US about keeping it intact as long as there are surviving family members is very logical, and there are in this case, so we can't go around picking up the ship, disturbing the area and carving it up for coffee table pieces.

I don't know how I feel about this! Heh. Brain is totally undecided as there are logic points on both sides. I think I'd need to hear something from the surviving family members to make a decision. This is a subjective topic.
Well i think that it might just be a UN heritage site or something of that manner so people arent really meant to take things from it.

that just sad and if my mom was going to have a tomestone i be pissed off if that happen to it
but when she dies she going up in puff of somke

Don't they do that all the time in Britain?

No...

Where did you pluck that from? :confused:

I just don't think they should be looting a historical site to make watches out of it; that's like taking pieces of the Parthenon and using it for lawn decoration. Just seems like a bad idea, IMO.

Yet our museums, and many private antique collctions are full of things looted from graves. Is it OK to loot graves so people can see what things people put in them, but not for private profit - or what?
Many would argue (especially in Greece) that Lord Elgin taking pieces of the Parthenon and putting them in the British Museum was a bad idea.

A watch made out of titanic survivors would be much more impressive.

Yet our museums, and many private antique collctions are full of things looted from graves. Is it OK to loot graves so people can see what things people put in them, but not for private profit - or what?
Many would argue (especially in Greece) that Lord Elgin taking pieces of the Parthenon and putting them in the British Museum was a bad idea.


While I find personal enterprise profiting from the grave that is the wreck of the Titanic disgusting, but I wouldn't mind items from the Titanic being recovered from the ship and being put into a museum. That way it is in the public interest.

Ah, sorry, I thought the memorial had been done after the ship's remains were found in the 1980's.

In that case, I can accept your opposition to the watches, and support it.I will never get religion so long as I live...

It's where huge amounts of people died, what does it matter if a priest mutters a few words about how tragic is was or if he doesn't?

I'm not sure if I have a problem with the metal being recovered though. I have a problem with it being used to make 'titanic' watches - that just smacks of a form of social masturbation (yes, this watch was made from the titanic and I have a huge cock). However, these people are dead, and have no need for material possession any more, but resources are finite and so the dead cannot be allowed to diminish the pool of resources available. I mean, just consider how many other living beings that the atoms that you are made up of have been a part of. Life is cyclical, as are the resources we are made up of and that we use.

The dead have no rights, but the living do. If people who knew those on the titanic are still alive then they should be able to request that the site not be disturbed.

Meh, I'm beginning to get less coherrent. I'll stop now.

Yet our museums, and many private antique collctions are full of things looted from graves. Is it OK to loot graves so people can see what things people put in them, but not for private profit - or what?

It's not the best, but museums at least preserve the artifacts as they are, not turn them in to novelty items, nothing more than kitsch that will be cast by the wayside in the near future. A museum can borrow them for display, although they should be returned to the original site when possible (although since the Titanic is decaying it might be wise to recover those artifacts for posterity). In addition, museums at least educate people about ancient cultures and show the importance of preserving these sites; looting them for profit just encourages more destruction. Their concern is the public interest, not taking artifacts and destroying them for profit.

Many would argue (especially in Greece) that Lord Elgin taking pieces of the Parthenon and putting them in the British Museum was a bad idea.

It might have been. Frankly, they should just return them to Greece just like many museums have done with Egyptian artifacts; it would make sense, although if Greece wanted to it could loan artifacts out for display. It would be nice if they could recover the pieces of the Great Pyramids that were dismantled in the Middle Ages, but they're probably long gone.

I will never get religion so long as I live...

It's where huge amounts of people died, what does it matter if a priest mutters a few words about how tragic is was or if he doesn't?

I'm not sure if I have a problem with the metal being recovered though. I have a problem with it being used to make 'titanic' watches - that just smacks of a form of social masturbation (yes, this watch was made from the titanic and I have a huge cock). However, these people are dead, and have no need for material possession any more, but resources are finite and so the dead cannot be allowed to diminish the pool of resources available. I mean, just consider how many other living beings that the atoms that you are made up of have been a part of. Life is cyclical, as are the resources we are made up of and that we use.

The dead have no rights, but the living do. If people who knew those on the titanic are still alive then they should be able to request that the site not be disturbed.

Meh, I'm beginning to get less coherrent. I'll stop now.

Dude, this has nothing to do with religion. I happen to be an Athiest; dead bodies are just so much waste product to me. It's about caring for people's feelings and emotions. The Titanic dead have family who care about their loved ones; and it would hurt them to have what they consider a grave desecrated.

Now, to me, unless it has been consecrated as a grave site, you can't expect it to be treated as such. But if it has, then hands off, at least until there are no living memories of the dead.

How exactly does having metal from a wreck make a better watch? What kind of cretins would buy one of these? What next for rarity value - "we killed off all the pandas and turned them in to these highly exclusive watch straps".

The dead have no rights, but the living do. If people who knew those on the titanic are still alive then they should be able to request that the site not be disturbed.

Meh, I'm beginning to get less coherrent. I'll stop now.
When the company that would become RMS Titanic Inc went down and brought up some of the ship's china, the daughter of a victim noted that plate may have been the one that her father ate his last meal on. The wreck is slowly disintegrating (they think in about 20 years it will collapse), let it go back into the abyss before we artifact hunt; and never for profit.

Dude, this has nothing to do with religion. I happen to be an Athiest; dead bodies are just so much waste product to me. It's about caring for people's feelings and emotions. The Titanic dead have family who care about their loved ones; and it would hurt them to have what they consider a grave desecrated.

Now, to me, unless it has been consecrated as a grave site, you can't expect it to be treated as such. But if it has, then hands off, at least until there are no living memories of the dead.Sorry, your use of the word consecrated confused me. The word itself pretty explicitly religious in nature. It can be used in a non-religious sense, but I've never seen it used like that.

But nor do I think the Titanic should have to have been declared a grave. It's a mass grave, and to me that dictates that it's automatically protected.

How exactly does having metal from a wreck make a better watch? What kind of cretins would buy one of these? What next for rarity value - "we killed off all the pandas and turned them in to these highly exclusive watch straps".
People with money to burn who want to show off that they can and could.

People with money to burn who want to show off that they can and could.

And then they'll be thrown away or forgotten once the novelty wears off. This is just kitsch for the rich. (pardon the rhyme).

What's next? Turning pieces of Titanic victims' skeletons into high class necklaces?

And by your logic however, any graveyard can be broken up for the materials, irregardless of family wishes.

This is a special case.... most graveyards aren't rotting chunks of metal at the bottom of the seas

You can't claim that a place where a person has died is forever sacred, cause then we'd be totally unable to do anything, anywhere. I think the basic laws in the US about keeping it intact as long as there are surviving family members is very logical, and there are in this case, so we can't go around picking up the ship, disturbing the area and carving it up for coffee table pieces.

The US shouldn't be involved in the first place.

What's next? Turning pieces of Titanic victims' skeletons into high class necklaces?
If you replace the Titanic with Holocaust dead sure...

irregardless

Ugh, this really grinds my gears, so sorry about this, but I have to: the word is "regardless". Adding an "ir-" to it makes no sense whatsoever. Please stop doing that, it confuses people who don't know how to speak the language properly.

This is a special case.... most graveyards aren't rotting chunks of metal at the bottom of the seas
How is it at all different? It's a mass grave. Most of them aren't all that nice either, but you don't see people going into Auschwitz to turn the gates into watches.

Ugh, this really grinds my gears, so sorry about this, but I have to: the word is "regardless". Adding an "ir-" to it makes no sense whatsoever. Please stop doing that, it confuses people who don't know how to speak the language properly.
It's a US English thing. Sadly, given it's lasted since the 1930's, it's probably here to stay.

How is it at all different? It's a mass grave. Most of them aren't all that nice either, but you don't see people going into Auschwitz to turn the gates into watches.
Because it is a UN Heritage site(or something) too and aparently it is pissing off the locals, they can't develop their shit towns much.

It's a US English thing.

I thought I had already mentioned people who don't know how to speak the language properly. :p

It's a US English thing. Sadly, given it's lasted since the 1930's, it's probably here to stay.

I wish it was just US English. Australians seem to have caught the bug, too.

I wish it was just US English. Australians seem to have caught the bug, too.
Yeah and that LABOR party doesn't have a u in it.:eek:

Yeah and that LABOR party doesn't have a u in it.:eek:

You have no idea how annoying that is... and how do you know so much about my country? Shouldn't you be paying attention to your own?

You have no idea how annoying that is... and how do you know so much about my country? Shouldn't you be paying attention to your own?

Given how much media attention is given to crackpots exploiting the VT shootings (anti-gun people and Jack Thompson, I'm looking at you), celebraties whose lives and deaths are broadcasted everywhere, and people in the media who even hate how Bush eats breakfast, it's safe to say that many of us would rather learn what Austrailians ate for breakfast yesterday just to break the monotony of American, or other whatever you are, life. Wait. A celebraty on the East Coast is eating lunch. To the Anti-Media Circus Bunker! Why didn't I make it deep enough underground? Why didn't I plant more landmines? Why?

As for the Titanic thing, I don't like the watch idea. You're taking a piece of a world-famous mass grave, from the most infamous and one of the most tragic marine disasters, and melting it into a crappy watch. Who does this benefit? Leaving the Titanic alone would help the family members of victims and survivors feel better. Putting it in a museum or whatever would educate people, benefitting them. Who is the watch idea benefitting? The company. It's like digging up a grave and turning the casket into crappy niknaks, except bigger, underwater, and a lot mroe corpses were using that grave, although the corpses were surely carried off by underwater currents and sealife by now.

Why anyone would want a seven-foot wristwatch (http://www.greatbigstuff.com/watch.html) evades me, but there it is.

http://www.greatbigstuff.com/prodpics/watch2.jpg (http://www.greatbigstuff.com/watch.html)



Oops. Not 'titanic' but 'Titanic'. Sorry.

I would not want to wear something that so recently A) May've touched a dead person and B) was associated with a horrible and monstrously unfortunate disaster.

I'm not particularly superstitious, but bad luck is as bad luck does.

You can't claim that a place where a person has died is forever sacred, cause then we'd be totally unable to do anything, anywhere. I think the basic laws in the US about keeping it intact as long as there are surviving family members is very logical, and there are in this case, so we can't go around picking up the ship, disturbing the area and carving it up for coffee table pieces.

Well, depends really. With my knowledge of American Indian relations and such, it pretty much goes like this:

If the burial site can be proven to be related to an existing group, that group has control over what can be done. Not only that, but they have control over any artifacts found at the site. However, they must be proven to have relation to said burial site. If no existing group can make that claim, it is then handled by the government/whomever owns the land(However, if you own land, and find remains, or anything indicating a site of historic or prehistoric value, you have to report it to the proper authorities-if you don't, you're pretty much screwed beyond all belief if someone finds out) at their discretion.

I would imagine that the same holds true for the Titanic, however I don't know any specifics about the site regarding this.

You have no idea how annoying that is... and how do you know so much about my country? Shouldn't you be paying attention to your own?
I won't admit to being secretly jealous of your country but there are so many things i dislike about mine, it's nice to be able to bag yours.:)

Man, that's crass beyond belief.

Eh, the pieces are gonna end up haunted, why bother?

What's next? Turning pieces of Titanic victims' skeletons into high class necklaces?

Nah, the skeletons are long gone.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070413/tc_nm/luxury_titanic_dc
Reports just in say they aren't Waterproof!
Zing[/lame]

Ok...