Why a $7,000 Difference?

[MeFromHere]

lol. where are you getting your info... more like 1-2 ounces of 18k gold... not even 24k which is $1200 per ounce. that edition watch is only worth ~800 worth of gold.

Your estimate is off by quite a bit.

Apple has published the weight of each gold case. They range from 55-69 grams.

At today's gold prices, that means the gold content of the cases ranges from about $1,510 to $1,930. This is just for the case and doesn't include the gold in the bands.

I haven't seen anything better than wild guesses for the gold weight of each of the Edition bands.

 

[chris975d]

Your estimate is off by quite a bit.



Apple has published the weight of each gold case. They range from 55-69 grams.



At today's gold prices, that means the gold content of the cases ranges from about $1,510 to $1,930. This is just for the case and doesn't include the gold in the bands.



I haven't seen anything better than wild guesses for the gold weight of each of the Edition bands.

Probably need to factor in that these Edition cases are made using the metal matrix composite patent that Apple holds, too. That industry experts say allows Apple to use up to 40-50% less actual gold by volume as a traditional watchmaker/jeweler would use to make the same size/shape case. And I'm assuming they are using that patent considering Apple is touting the strength and scratch resistance of this gold watch, which are properties of that patented method for making an "18K gold" watch case.

 

[ninethirty]

Even Louis stuff isn't this expensive. I've got a matching Lous shoulder bag and carry on set that cost about 1/10th what this costs.

Apple's kidding themselves with the whole watch thing. Sport is your market, not this luxury nonsense. For 17K you can buy a Rolex Daytona (highly sought after) and have enough left over for a great vacation. For just a little bit more, you can buy a white gold Rolex Daytona. I'm sure for 17k you could probably afford some of the cheaper Patek's as well. This is an absolute waste of money.

for a watch band? this isn't a Louis purse.

 

[MeFromHere]

Probably need to factor in that these Edition cases are made using the metal matrix composite patent that Apple holds, too. That industry experts say allows Apple to use up to 40-50% less actual gold by volume as a traditional watchmaker/jeweler would use to make the same size/shape case. And I'm assuming they are using that patent considering Apple is touting the strength and scratch resistance of this gold watch, which are properties of that patented method for making an "18K gold" watch case.

I calculated the gold content using Apple's published weights of 18k gold for each case. By definition, 75% of that weight is gold. It doesn't matter at all what the other 25% is made of -- the gold content is the same.

For what it's worth, Apple hasn't said anything about using a gold-ceramic composite for these cases. The "industry experts" noticed the patent and started speculating. Maybe Apple will use the patent someday; there's no indication they are using it in the Watch now.

Apple's video says their alloys contain gold, silver, copper, and palladium. No other material was mentioned.

But as I said at first, the material used for the 25% doesn't matter; we know 75% is gold.

 

[Gix1k]

Idiots!

 

[Arran]

apple y u do dis ?

2 dis u and I?

 

[OllyW]

Your estimate is off by quite a bit.

Apple has published the weight of each gold case. They range from 55-69 grams.

At today's gold prices, that means the gold content of the cases ranges from about $1,510 to $1,930. This is just for the case and doesn't include the gold in the bands.

I haven't seen anything better than wild guesses for the gold weight of each of the Edition bands.

Remember that weight also includes the sapphire display, electronics, battery and ceramic back.

My rough calculations estimate it to approximately $1100 worth of 18K gold in the 42mm.

 

[VFC]

i'd bet there will be a service someone will offer to plate "regular" ones in gold. now every tom, dick and harry will have a gold edition.

I'm tempted to buy the Sport for $350 and a bottle of gold paint from a hobby store. For < $400 I can have a watch that most people will think is the $10,000 version. The bands are similar enough to fool many people.

 

[C.O.T]

its made from unicorn leather, duh.

Love it!

 

[Caseynd]

it's made of midget skin leather

 

[MeFromHere]

Remember that weight also includes the sapphire display, electronics, battery and ceramic back.

My rough calculations estimate it to approximately $1100 worth of 18K gold in the 42mm.

I'm not sure about that point. In the watch world, "case" means just the case, not the crystal and movement. The difference is significant for a gold case, obviously.

You may be right; Apple's specs leave room for more than one interpretation. As soon as someone takes apart a SS watch and weighs the parts, it will be clear what Apple's specs really mean.

 

[OllyW]

I'm not sure about that point. In the watch world, "case" means just the case, not the crystal and movement. The difference is significant for a gold case, obviously.

You may be right; Apple's specs leave room for more than one interpretation. As soon as someone takes apart a SS watch and weighs the parts, it will be clear what Apple's specs really mean.

18K gold has a density roughly twice that of 316L stainless, but the case weights stated on the Apple web site are only around 40% heavier, which makes no sense at all if the weights are only referring to the metal case.

 

[chris975d]

Why a $7,000 Difference?

I calculated the gold content using Apple's published weights of 18k gold for each case. By definition, 75% of that weight is gold. It doesn't matter at all what the other 25% is made of -- the gold content is the same.



For what it's worth, Apple hasn't said anything about using a gold-ceramic composite for these cases. The "industry experts" noticed the patent and started speculating. Maybe Apple will use the patent someday; there's no indication they are using it in the Watch now.



Apple's video says their alloys contain gold, silver, copper, and palladium. No other material was mentioned.



But as I said at first, the material used for the 25% doesn't matter; we know 75% is gold.

This explains how there can be less gold in Apple's Edition case than one might originally expect, if they are using the metal matrix composite patent.

http://leancrew.com/all-this/2015/03/apple-gold/

Basically the material in the case would be less dense, meaning less gold per unit of volume. "Table 1" at near the bottom, taken from Apple's patent, shows the gold savings for different MMC compositions.

Just to clarify, I do understand that you used Apple's listed weight for the case, so 75% of that should be gold, as you said. I'm just stating that it's less gold than other manufacturers would have in their 18K cases. And yes, I think Apple is using this patent. They keep talking about their gold's increased strength and scratch resistance, which are both properties of this metal matrix composite method to make gold.

 

[inhalexhale1]

The real crime is selling a $10K watch with plastic band.

The fact they offered a 10k watch with the sport band is beyond hilarious.

 

[JordanNZ]

And yes, I think Apple is using this patent. They keep talking about their gold's increased strength and scratch resistance, which are both properties of this metal matrix composite method to make gold.

You need to watch the video here...

http://www.apple.com/watch/apple-watch-edition/


No sign of them using the patent yet. It's actually leaning towards them NOT using it from the way they describe the alloy.

 

[chris975d]

You need to watch the video here...

http://www.apple.com/watch/apple-watch-edition/


No sign of them using the patent yet. It's actually leaning towards them NOT using it from the way they describe the alloy.

If that's the case, then their gold is like everyone else's then. So Apple is lying when they say that their gold is stronger and more scratch resistant than others. Because is they are making it the same way as everyone else's, there's nothing special about it. The only way to make it stronger/more scratch resistant is to add the ceramic. So something doesn't jive with what ole' Timmy is saying, if they aren't using this patent.

 

[OllyW]

If that's the case, then their gold is like everyone else's then. So Apple is lying when they say that their gold is stronger and more scratch resistant than others. Because is they are making it the same way as everyone else's, there's nothing special about it. The only way to make it stronger/more scratch resistant is to add the ceramic. So something doesn't jive with what ole' Timmy is saying, if they aren't using this patent.

If you watch the video Jony says the gold is first cast, machined and then compressed to improve the material's properties.

 

[chris975d]

If you watch the video Jony says the gold is first cast, machined and then compressed to improve the material's properties.

I've seen the video. But my point is why is Tim Cook repeatedly saying this gold watch is stronger and more scratch resistant? Because the techniques in the video are standard to the watchmaking process. That alone wouldn't make it any stronger or scratch resistant.

 

[OllyW]

I've seen the video. But my point is why is Tim Cook repeatedly saying this gold watch is stronger and more scratch resistant? Because the techniques in the video are standard to the watchmaking process. That alone wouldn't make it any stronger or scratch resistant.

Most gold watches are cast into the basic case shape so that's one major difference in the techniques used.

Do you not also think Tim and Jony would be bragging about it if they were using special ceramic particles in the gold alloy?

 

[chris975d]

Most gold watches are cast into the basic case shape so that's one major difference in the techniques used.

Do you not also think Tim and Jony would be bragging about it if they were using special ceramic particles in the gold alloy?

Depends on the company. Rolex cases are initially stamped out of a forged bar of gold (Rolex has its own in house foundry, making all their metals, I think the only watch company to have such), then CNC machines into shape. That forging and stamping process is going to compress Rolex's gold to pretty high pressures as well.

And no, why would Apple brag about something that would, among watch people, be viewed as a negative? "We made a process that cuts the amount of gold in your watch by 40-50%". Not going to be a "plus" to anyone that actually values the gold.

I'm not saying definitively that Apple is using the patent. The video would show they aren't. But nothing in that video would really explain Apple's claim that their gold is so much stronger than anyone else's.

 

[MeFromHere]

I've seen the video. But my point is why is Tim Cook repeatedly saying this gold watch is stronger and more scratch resistant? Because the techniques in the video are standard to the watchmaking process. That alone wouldn't make it any stronger or scratch resistant.

Without knowing anything specific about Apple's materials or processes, I can think of a few things they can control that could improve the strength and/or scratch resistance...

• Adjust the alloy composition. 18k gold is 75% gold, but they can fiddle with the other 25%. Small changes in composition can have disproportionate effects on material properties. Changing the composition also changes the color; if you want to stay close to a specific color, your options are limited. Consult your favorite expert metallurgist for details.
• Carefully control impurities introduced during and after the casting process.
• Work harden the metal after casting.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_hardening
  http://technical-articles.hooverandstrong.com/wordpress/important-information-about-working-with-gold/
  Notice the large changes in the Vickers hardness and tensile strength in 14K gold, solely from work hardening.

----------

...
But nothing in that video would really explain Apple's claim that their gold is so much stronger than anyone else's.

They said stronger than "standard gold", not stronger than "anyone else's" gold or stronger than "Rolex's best" gold.

By "standard gold" they probably meant off-the-shelf cheap-quality 18K (or 24K) gold, turned into jewelry using cheap industry-standard methods.

 

[jnick]

Because more women/celebrities will want the leather band since it looks classy, elegant and not a cheap sports rubber band. Therefore, higher profit.

Look at the rose band and the midnight blue band. It's the same band, different color and there is, what - I think a $2k difference? It's all about marketing and profit. Period.

 

[MeFromHere]

Look at the rose band and the midnight blue band. It's the same band, different color and there is, what - I think a $2k difference? It's all about marketing and profit. Period.

I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

I see:

• 42mm yellow gold watch with midnight blue classic buckle, for $15,000
• 38mm rose gold watch with rose gray modern buckle, for $17,000

The watches and the bands are both different. The modern buckle clearly has more gold in the clasp than the classic buckle. The 42mm watch has more gold than the 38mm one.

With identical band styles, Apple is charging $2,000 more for 42mm watches than for 38mm. That suggests they are charging $4,000 more for the modern buckle than for the classic buckle.

I can't find an instance where Apple charges a different amount depending on the color of the gold.

 

[nebo1ss]

That's actually not that surprising to me, but I'm familiar with watches as a hobby. Here's a watch with a rubber strap that starts at around $15,000.

http://www.audemarspiguet.com/en/watch-collection/royal-oak-offshore/royal-oak-offshore-selfwinding

The real surprise to me is the $7000 up charge to a leather strap for the same model watch.

Its a Dive watch they invariably come with a high quality rubber strap.

 

[chris975d]

Its a Dive watch they invariably come with a high quality rubber strap.

Pretty sure I know it's a dive watch... That was part of my point. One reason was to show that expensive watches can come with rubber straps standard (most dive watches come on bracelets), and to also prove Apple doesn't know what they are doing. The expensive watches with rubber straps are dive watches. Apple's isn't even rated for swimming.