Thank you to Romain Jerome for providing us with. . .

. . .an opportunity for further discussion of the question!

I realize that this approach will tend to excite some difference of opinion. I would like everyone who comments to express their opinion candidly, but to also please keep an open mind in considering the issues raised by this approach and to remember that RJ has made a good faith effort to discuss their intentions in presenting this design to the public.

Remember Thomas' 'does intention matter' thread from a while back? The issues raised there seem very apropos here. Let's remember that our stock in trade is civil discourse, and let's phrase our opinions as if we were sitting down one on one, in person, with the RJ design team.

Does the use of historical materials in a commercial product become justifiable when the manufacturer's intention is genuinely to commemorate the past and to honor it? How do we evaluate sincerity of intention?

Jack

Romain Jerome - The "Titanic-DNA"; a high-end watch integrating real steel from the Titanic

By: AnthonyTsai : March 7th, 2007-09:16

ROMAIN JEROME PRESS RELEASE The "Titanic-DNA"; a high-end watch integrating real steel from the Titanic The "Titanic-DNA" watch contrains authentic parts of the Titanic ocean liner drawn from the ocean floor. It brings together material and spirit. Or per...

So it is really water-resistant? ...

By: Marcus Hanke : March 7th, 2007-09:29

I like the look of the watch but find the use of Titanic material rather tasteless! (nt)

By: alex : March 7th, 2007-10:04

to equip or embellish with unnecessary features, especially in order to increase salability, acceptance, etc. stunt, plan, ruse, ploy; angle.

Gimmick...?

By: nickd : March 8th, 2007-10:45

Why is this a gimmick and the use of die-cast carbon fibre or similar unnecessary-but-good-from-a-marketing-point-of-view material not a gimmick? Or how about any exotic but irrelevant material? Or oversize watches pretending they need to be so so as to b...

Horological Meandering