Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
For 1.2k you could go buy a nice designer watch - get a Versace or Ferragamo - something that will relatively keep a value vs technology that just gets old. And the difference between the 2 is if you wear the designer watch you will get compliments for looking classy, whereas if you wear the apple watch you are going to look like someone trying too hard to be technology savvy =P.

I don't think we will see anyone wearing Apple Watches to their corporate bigwig business meetings in NYC. =P
 
That is 1/2" thick. Not exactly svelte. Good luck getting that underneath the cuff on a long sleeve shirt.

It's pretty much as thick as two iPhone 6 stacked on top of each other. Granted, the slightly conical and protruding back may shave off a millimeter or two but still, that is way too thick.

BxRMH1GCEAA1oTZ.png


I wore one of my old watches a couple days ago that is barely larger than my iPhone 4S and I though that it mustn't be any thicker than that, it's the threshold for me.
I did just pull out some calipers though and whaddaya know, that watch is 12.64mm thick. That's exactly the thickness of the Apple Watch. But the Apple one has nicely rounded on the top and bottom so sliding your sleeve over it or moving your wrist might be more comfortable than on a normal watch. Go wear an old watch for a while and then measure it with calipers, you might be surprised about how thick it is.
 
I agree. I highly doubt this thing is anywhere close to pure gold. It's def an alloy or plated. Plated is cheap - always is. An alloy would explain the comments about twice as hard. Either way I think your math kind of sums it up - not going to be solid gold.

18k is not "solid" gold. Since 24k is so soft I don't know if there's a watch made with it. We have many pieces of 24k jewelry but it's all necklaces, earrings, bangles, and rings.
 
For 1.2k you could go buy a nice designer watch - get a Versace or Ferragamo - something that will relatively keep a value vs technology that just gets old. And the difference between the 2 is if you wear the designer watch you will get compliments for looking classy, whereas if you wear the apple watch you are going to look like someone trying too hard to be technology savvy =P.

I don't think we will see anyone wearing Apple Watches to their corporate bigwig business meetings in NYC. =P

If you're going talk about designer watches, you can get a very nice Swiss Made Calvin Klein watch for less than $349.
 
.

1200 for a bulky watch? I'll wait for the Air version in 4 years.

My favorite past-time is reading reviews for 10,000 dollar watches on Amazon. Pretty Hilarious.

went to amazon and found this review on a 110k patek phillippe. it made me chuckle

"Instead of the Jaeger-LeCoultre Hybris Mechanica à Grande Sonnerie that I asked for, my mum got me this hunk of junk when I turned 16. Talk about embarrassing. I couldn't show my face at the Bellagio for a week.

This thing is so pedestrian. I could feel it draining the equity away from my second home. I smashed it with my Tanino Crisci and tossed it over a bridge before I was spotted with it.

I hate my parents so much."
 
If it's gold plated, in many markets they would have to be explicit about that. Or they would be breaking the law. Assuming the labelling on the watch does not change, it would have to be solid 18 carat gold.

The Edition collection features six uniquely elegant expressions of Apple Watch. Each has a watch case crafted from 18-carat gold that our metallurgists have developed to be up to twice as hard as standard gold. The display is protected by polished sapphire crystal. And an exquisitely designed strap provides a striking complement.

From Apple's website. If this turned out to be gold plating they will be in a world of pain soon enough. Not just people losing faith in them, but the law coming down on them strongly.


Yeah, I hear you on that one, they should be specific on whether it's plated or solid gold. The reason why I think they are doing the PVD gold sputtering is that it's typically done with titanium nitride and the process makes it far more durable than traditional gold plating and far less expensive.

I think Apple needs to be a little more specific on this one. I know how some marketing people tend to get a little out of hand with their descriptions.

----------

It's pretty much as thick as two iPhone 6 stacked on top of each other. Granted, the slightly conical and protruding back may shave off a millimeter or two but still, that is way too thick.

Image

I wore one of my old watches a couple days ago that is barely larger than my iPhone 4S and I though that it mustn't be any thicker than that, it's the threshold for me.
I did just pull out some calipers though and whaddaya know, that watch is 12.64mm thick. That's exactly the thickness of the Apple Watch. But the Apple one has nicely rounded on the top and bottom so sliding your sleeve over it or moving your wrist might be more comfortable than on a normal watch. Go wear an old watch for a while and then measure it with calipers, you might be surprised about how thick it is.

I think a better comparison would be to compare the thickness of an AppleWatch to other watches like a Rolex Oyster or some formidable watch that commonly worn. Even those Casio G-Shocks can get pretty bulky.

But I look at the design and build quality of the Apple Watch to be closer to what a top end watch maker would do if they were given the task of designing this vs the other watches that look more like a Casio design.

----------

He did not say 100% gold, but solid gold, as opposed to gold plated (although later he seems confused about what 18k means).

Solid gold would cost much more than $1200 if it were a real watch, but this is a mass market gadget, so who knows.

This $1200 price was just SPECULATION. There are many ways to do a case or decorative coating/plating.

I think Apple does need to be a little more specific and I think it would be wise for us to WAIT until Apple releases the REAL MSRP rather than some jeweler that is just spouting what they THINK it MIGHT be. Not all 18K Gold watches are $1200+, some are less than that, but some are differently plated/coated using different processes.

I haven't priced out Gold Sputtered PVD over traditional plating, but I do know it's priced by the tank load and you can cram a whole bunch of watches in one tank load and it's combined with titanium nitride and it's a VERY thin coating so it should be a LOT less just to give the color of 18K Gold, but due to the process, it's a lot harder. I guess we'll find out when they release it.

Has anyone got a photo of the back of the watch? It might say on the back whether it's gold plated over stainless steel or whatever it's made from. They do say that they are using Aluminum or Stainless on the other models.
 
Yeah, I hear you on that one, they should be specific on whether it's plated or solid gold. The reason why I think they are doing the PVD gold sputtering is that it's typically done with titanium nitride and the process makes it far more durable than traditional gold plating and far less expensive.

I think Apple needs to be a little more specific on this one. I know how some marketing people tend to get a little out of hand with their descriptions.

----------



I think a better comparison would be to compare the thickness of an AppleWatch to other watches like a Rolex Oyster or some formidable watch that commonly worn. Even those Casio G-Shocks can get pretty bulky.

But I look at the design and build quality of the Apple Watch to be closer to what a top end watch maker would do if they were given the task of designing this vs the other watches that look more like a Casio design.

That sounds pretty specific to me. The case is crafted from 18 carat gold, not the case is crafted from some other metal then plated with 18 carat gold.
Of course if it was plated Apple would come up with a way to make it sound better than I did, but they would say it. They haven't said its plated so it isn't.
 
Sigh, so apparently several "resident experts" decided to jump all over my comment the other day about this not being "solid 18k gold". I realized that I did not bother to take the time to fully explain what I meant by it not being "solid 18k gold". Yes, thank you all for stating the obvious that 18k gold is not solid pure gold. That is part of what I was trying to say. I am aware of that and that it is mixed with other metals. Apple mentioned that they mixed it with metals in their intro to the watch. I was not referring to just that however and did not mean to make it seem that way.

What I was meaning without bothering to type a whole useless thing was that the casing may be mixed. In other words, maybe a casing within a case if that makes sense. This would allow the gold case to be fairly thin and keep costs down. It would not necessarily be plating that way. I, like many others here, think that if it is 18k gold casing solid through and through, it would likely be more than 1200$ given the size of the watch and the pricing of gold. Gold is gold. It is worth a certain amount to anyone, even Apple. Of course this all may be a totally moot point as this 1200$ price it totally speculation.

And yes, I do collect watches. And no, that does not make me some kind of watch expert, especially on an as of yet unreleased product. I just enjoy it. I like watches. :D

Edit: Actually on further consideration, one thing that would make this watch potentially very valuable to a collector would be if they made this edition limited, and serialized the numbers produced. Now that would sell like mad. Hum....
 
Last edited:
High-End 18-Karat Gold Apple Watch Could Cost Up to $1,200

That is 1/2" thick. Not exactly svelte. Good luck getting that underneath the cuff on a long sleeve shirt.

The watch I am wearing now is .3" thick. Which is about normal for most watches, although dress watches tend to be thinner than sports watches.

Only when you get to something like a Rolex Explorer, which is an absolute monster of a watch, do you begin to approach this 0.5" thickness... I have never liked watches that large. Possibly most common Rolex (Oyster Pertpeuta) is 10.4mm thick, which makes the Apple watch a monster.


Come on dude.
12.5/10.4 is not a big difference.
Do you even use the metric system?
2.1mm is a very small amount of thickness.

Have a little perspective.
Don't compare the apple watch to some piece of **** battery watch.
Compare it to most mechanical sport watches, which have a little engineering in them.

Omega Planet Ocean (left) and Rolex Sea Dweller (right)
03.jpg

both around 14.5mm

Rolex GMT Master 2
DSC03033.JPG

12.5mm

PAM 111
434137d1305052233-panerai-wrist-size-tripz.jpg

15mm thick

Vacheron Constantin Overseas Date: ? mm
Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore Diver 15703ST: 13.90mm
vacheron_image.2947143.jpg


Breitling Navitimer B01
Navitimer_01_01.jpg

17mm thick

RM11
16mm thick
925561_529940583795503_1945606653_a.jpg


Patek Philippe Sky Moon Tourbillon
Patek-Philippe-Sky-Moon-Tourbillon-5002P.jpg

16.25mm

Forgive me for this ****** picture but these are my watches: Patek Calatrava 5127 and Rolex GMT Master
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/09/11/thumbnail/ragy5amy.jpg
Top: ~12.5mm
Bottom: ~8mm
But that's a dress watch.

Maybe you like think watches but that's a personal preference.
Apple Watch is not thick.
 
I have a manual wind mechanical watch with a power reserve complication and that is only 6.6mm thick.

The Apple Watch is so thick you can't fit it under a cuff. That's a pretty horrendous oversight for any watch collector.

Are you kidding? There are tons of Swiss watches out there this thick and thicker, I've never read a review of one of those that faults them because of
"cuff fit," give me a break. I have my dress shirts made custom, and my tailor purposefully made the left cuff wider than the right to accommodate my watches. This is not uncommon.
 
High-End 18-Karat Gold Apple Watch Could Cost Up to $1,200

Are you kidding? There are tons of Swiss watches out there this thick and thicker, I've never read a review of one of those that faults them because of

"cuff fit," give me a break. I have my dress shirts made custom, and my tailor purposefully made the left cuff wider than the right to accommodate my watches. This is not uncommon.

Yeah I totally agree.

These people talking about cuff links make me laugh.
Do they understand we are talking about a $350 watch? LMFAO.

People who wear cuff links generally wear nice watches for dressy attire, not a $350 sport watch.
 
Sigh, so apparently several "resident experts" decided to jump all over my comment the other day about this not being "solid 18k gold". I realized that I did not bother to take the time to fully explain what I meant by it not being "solid 18k gold". Yes, thank you all for stating the obvious that 18k gold is not solid pure gold. That is part of what I was trying to say. I am aware of that and that it is mixed with other metals. Apple mentioned that they mixed it with metals in their intro to the watch. I was not referring to just that however and did not mean to make it seem that way.

What I was meaning without bothering to type a whole useless thing was that the casing may be mixed. In other words, maybe a casing within a case if that makes sense. This would allow the gold case to be fairly thin and keep costs down. It would not necessarily be plating that way. I, like many others here, think that if it is 18k gold casing solid through and through, it would likely be more than 1200$ given the size of the watch and the pricing of gold. Gold is gold. It is worth a certain amount to anyone, even Apple. Of course this all may be a totally moot point as this 1200$ price it totally speculation.

And yes, I do collect watches. And no, that does not make me some kind of watch expert, especially on an as of yet unreleased product. I just enjoy it. I like watches. :D

Edit: Actually on further consideration, one thing that would make this watch potentially very valuable to a collector would be if they made this edition limited, and serialized the numbers produced. Now that would sell like mad. Hum....

What's funny is that people are speculating that they are throw away watches. They haven't even shipped them yet and people are already making assumptions.

We still don't the price of the Gold versions, we still have yet to see a replacement that would render these obsolete and unusable. I think they have the ability to be usable for a long period of time, since they are a device that connects to our phone wirelessly. Who knows, maybe they'll last 10 years and be totally usable other than having to replace a battery.

Heck, most watches that are less than $350 are kind of throw away once you crack a crystal due to the cost of the crystal, sometimes it's not worth replacing the crystal as it's just a little more to get another $350 watch.

i've owned about 8 watches over my 55 years and I replaced them either because they were lost, stolen, broke and it was too expensive to fix because it wasn't an expensive watch. The most I've paid for a watch was around $600 and that's my current limit for a watch. If I had millions or dollars, I would certainly bump that price, but I see these watches as something more fitness/health conscious people would want in addition to people that want a cool James Bond like gadget that's kind of cool. Will I get one? I'm up in the air right now as I would rather check them out in person, but spending $350 or so isn't THAT big of a deal since they do seem like they are a lot better designed and built than the cheaper smart watches that others make.
 
the same guy that turn in gold cars logo at dealers will charge me $20 bucks to turn my watch in the same way.

True.

Now, the rear of the case also has the material (e.g. "Stainless Steel") stamped in it.

If someone filled that in and re-engraved it, we could start seeing gold iwatch fakes, made from cheaper models, showing up on eBay.

Sorry. Thinking like a thief today :eek:
 
Come on dude.
12.5/10.4 is not a big difference.
Do you even use the metric system?
2.1mm is a very small amount of thickness.

Have a little perspective.
Don't compare the apple watch to some piece of **** battery watch.
Compare it to most mechanical sport watches, which have a little engineering in them.

Omega Planet Ocean (left) and Rolex Sea Dweller (right)
Image
both around 14.5mm

Rolex GMT Master 2
Image
12.5mm

PAM 111
Image
15mm thick

Vacheron Constantin Overseas Date: ? mm
Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore Diver 15703ST: 13.90mm
Image

Breitling Navitimer B01
Image
17mm thick

RM11
16mm thick
Image

Patek Philippe Sky Moon Tourbillon
Image
16.25mm

Forgive me for this ****** picture but these are my watches: Patek Calatrava 5127 and Rolex GMT Master
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/09/11/thumbnail/ragy5amy.jpg
Top: ~12.5mm
Bottom: ~8mm
But that's a dress watch.

Maybe you like think watches but that's a personal preference.
Apple Watch is not thick.

Very nice watches. I myself own a PAM 104 and a Vacheron Overseas Deep Stream. The Apple watch isn't thick by most modern sport watches but could you see wearing an iWatch with a suit? Tacky imo.
 
In one if the photos the watch seems flat, in the other it looks curved. I'm confused... Surly solid gold can't bend?
 
Very nice watches. I myself own a PAM 104 and a Vacheron Overseas Deep Stream. The Apple watch isn't thick by most modern sport watches but could you see wearing an iWatch with a suit? Tacky imo.
I don't even think that being tacky would be the main deterrent from buying the watch...what i think is that how many people would want to see the same watch they are wearing on every other person they run into.
Apple doesn't make products to sell them by the thousands they mass produce into the tens of millions and beyond, if the watch were to be a huge seller just imagine how often you would see your watch on other people.. A watch is much more personal than a phone.
Just look at it this way, how many iphones do you see daily? Personally I wouldn't want to walk around with the same watch that everyone else is wearing Including every kid at Starbucks. What makes watches so cool is that they are personal and you don't see the same watch every 5 seconds.
 
Come on dude.
12.5/10.4 is not a big difference.
Do you even use the metric system?
2.1mm is a very small amount of thickness.

Have a little perspective.
Don't compare the apple watch to some piece of **** battery watch.
Compare it to most mechanical sport watches, which have a little engineering in them.

Omega Planet Ocean (left) and Rolex Sea Dweller (right)
Image
both around 14.5mm

Rolex GMT Master 2
Image
12.5mm

PAM 111
Image
15mm thick

Vacheron Constantin Overseas Date: ? mm
Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore Diver 15703ST: 13.90mm
Image

Breitling Navitimer B01
Image
17mm thick

RM11
16mm thick
Image

Patek Philippe Sky Moon Tourbillon
Image
16.25mm

Forgive me for this ****** picture but these are my watches: Patek Calatrava 5127 and Rolex GMT Master
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/09/11/thumbnail/ragy5amy.jpg
Top: ~12.5mm
Bottom: ~8mm
But that's a dress watch.

Maybe you like think watches but that's a personal preference.
Apple Watch is not thick.

Nice watches. We only have one Rolex, my wife's. Obviously she'll take it in the divorce too. Meh.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    942.8 KB · Views: 96
went to amazon and found this review on a 110k patek phillippe. it made me chuckle

"Instead of the Jaeger-LeCoultre Hybris Mechanica à Grande Sonnerie that I asked for, my mum got me this hunk of junk when I turned 16. Talk about embarrassing. I couldn't show my face at the Bellagio for a week.

This thing is so pedestrian. I could feel it draining the equity away from my second home. I smashed it with my Tanino Crisci and tossed it over a bridge before I was spotted with it.

I hate my parents so much."

There are plenty of phoney reviews at Amazon.

----------

Come on dude.
12.5/10.4 is not a big difference.
Do you even use the metric system?
2.1mm is a very small amount of thickness.

Have a little perspective.
Don't compare the apple watch to some piece of **** battery watch.
Compare it to most mechanical sport watches, which have a little engineering in them.

Omega Planet Ocean (left) and Rolex Sea Dweller (right)
Image
both around 14.5mm

Rolex GMT Master 2
Image
12.5mm

PAM 111
Image
15mm thick

Vacheron Constantin Overseas Date: ? mm
Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore Diver 15703ST: 13.90mm
Image

Breitling Navitimer B01
Image
17mm thick

RM11
16mm thick
Image

Patek Philippe Sky Moon Tourbillon
Image
16.25mm

Forgive me for this ****** picture but these are my watches: Patek Calatrava 5127 and Rolex GMT Master
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/09/11/thumbnail/ragy5amy.jpg
Top: ~12.5mm
Bottom: ~8mm
But that's a dress watch.

Maybe you like think watches but that's a personal preference.
Apple Watch is not thick.

And just to add, the Patek Phillipe pictured is over $1,000,000.
 
Come on dude.
12.5/10.4 is not a big difference.
Do you even use the metric system?
2.1mm is a very small amount of thickness.
Yes I routinely use the metric system. Did you notice I said 12.5mm = 0.5". Kind of answers your question, doesn't it?

And I routinely work in numbers like 0.01mm (and smaller).

I know how large a mm. I have a drawer full of metrology equipment for measuring down to 0.002 mm accuracy.

I get it. You like large watches.

I don't.

No offense.

But the difference between 12.5 and 10.5 is HUGE! 12.5 is 19% larger than 10.5.

And don't tell me you can't visible see the difference, because I know you can. And you can definitely feel it.

But the apple watch isn't just too dang thick, but the bezel size is huge. Even the "smaller" 1.5" screen has too large a bezel.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.