Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Star Wars Prequels The Almighty Buck Idle

The Force Awakens With Devon's $28,500 Star Wars Limited Edition Watch 112

MojoKid writes: If the Force is strong in your bank account and you're looking for a new timepiece, luxury design firm Devon Works has come up with a limited edition watch that's perhaps more advanced than the Death Star. It's the new "Star Wars by Devon" co-branded watch with a patented system of interwoven "Time Belts" and hybrid electro-mechanical power. The watch is a celebration of Devon's fifth anniversary. It combines glass-reinforced nylon belts (same as used in the gauges on the original 747 aircraft) with multiple high-tech optical recognition cells, micro-step motors, and no less than 313 electrical contacts. Materials used in the construction of the Star Wars timepiece are sourced from an aerospace company located in California. Keeping true to the Star Wars franchise now owned by Disney, the watch incorporates elements of Darth Vader and the TIE Fighter. Only 500 of these watches are being made. If you want one of these timepieces, you'll need a $2,500 down payment towards its $28,500 retail price.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Force Awakens With Devon's $28,500 Star Wars Limited Edition Watch

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    313 electrical contacts


    • Re:K.I.S.S. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Monday September 14, 2015 @02:31AM (#50517061) Homepage

      313 electrical contacts... what does that even mean?
      Does it mean they didn't know how to make a simple PCB?

      It uses the same glass-reinforced nylon belts used in a 45+ year old aircraft... how is this a good thing?

      Also; the watch is garish and gaudy. A casio calculator watch looks more stylish than this..

      • Re:K.I.S.S. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Monday September 14, 2015 @02:48AM (#50517101)

        It means this watch has AT LEAST 313 single points of failure.

        • by GTRacer ( 234395 )
          At least? Yup. Point of failure #1 isn't even in the case, it's in the brain of the person thinking about buying this garish monstrosity.

          Bear in m mind, I LOVE the belts and the seeming use of electromechanical elements. But the visual design is so... painful to look at with its dragon's worth of scales, ridges and pointy bits.
      • This watch is nothing more than a miniature Rube Goldberg machine.

        A functional, reliable watch is dirt cheap and has no moving parts.

        • A functional, reliable watch is dirt cheap and has no moving parts.

          True, but I admit to disliking digital watches. I'm willing to pay a little more to get a watch with moving hands. Thousands of dollars never made any sense to me, though. This, of course, is ridiculous (and manages to be digital while having moving parts more complex than most watches with hands).

      • I'm in my late 40s now and this has got to take first place as the ugliest watch I've ever seen in my entire life. I wouldn't pay $5 for it, let alone $28,000. I would consider wearing one if they paid me $10,000.

        • Seriously??!?! You are cheap! We would be talking at least $50k before I would leave the house with that folly strapped to my wrist.

  • ...although a BMW 1 Series is also attractive for that price.
    • Yeah, but some tacky/nerdy Dubai prince can't show off his BMW 1 at next years ComicCon.

  • looks like somebody ran over Vader's face--not a chick magnet

    • by Anonymous Coward

      i doubt that your choice of timepiece is what's holding you back in that area.

    • by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 ) on Monday September 14, 2015 @06:03AM (#50517467)
      I now, right? When I buy Star Wars memorabilia the first> concern is how much of a panty dropper it is. My light sabre collection, for example, oh that gets them going. I'll bring a girl home and just five minutes into explaining the Han Solo grip she's just SWOONing. They're so anxious to get to bed they start pretending to be sleepy. And my full collection of Princess Leia mugs, they love those. And they're a great conversation piece! You can tell them how it shows your respect for women. But what really does it is my set of costumes. I had a girl here just last night BEGGING me to get out of the Wookie costume. She wanted my body that bad. It sucks that her brother called right at that moment.

      This watch? nah, it just won't pull them in like a good Vader voice.
      • by synaptik ( 125 ) *
        Han Solo didn't use a light saber. I'm starting to think you didn't really bed all those SW groupies...
      • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        I had a girl here just last night BEGGING me to get out of the Wookie costume. She wanted my body that bad.

        "I am already out, darling. I'm just hairy."

    • by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Monday September 14, 2015 @07:13AM (#50517661) Homepage

      looks like somebody ran over Vader's face--not a chick magnet

      It's almost as if you've never googled "star wars chicks"...

      (Or been to one of those conventions where half the girls are dressed in Princess Leia outfits and the other half are dressed as the bounty hunter. With that watch you can take your pick!)

      • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        Those are planted. Most are not there to date real fans, only pretend, for money. And if they are wearing a mask, there is probably a good reason. Paint me skeptical.

    • Regardless of the design, showing that you can afford a $30,000 watch will make it quite an effective chick magnet.

      • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        A watch patterned after the Naboo Royal Starship could look attractive AND have "nerd cred".

    • From TFA: "Made from 100% melted down chick magnets."

      Ok, I might be extrapolating.
    • looks like somebody ran over Vader's face--not a chick magnet

      "Druish princesses are often attracted to money, and power, and [this watch lets you know] I have BOTH!!!"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14, 2015 @02:39AM (#50517075)

    When other electromechanical watches last years.

    Sounds like some great engineering there.

    • Most "electromechanical watches" watches don't have pulleys and rubber belts inside them.

      • Nylon is a type of plastic, not rubber.

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Beats Apple Watch by 13 days.

  • astoundingly ugly (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Wow that's an astoundingly ugly excuse for a wristwatch. On the bright side, it is so large that you could scrap it and recover about 50% of it's value by recycling the aluminum.

  • If you want one of these timepieces,

    then you've got more money than sense and should give me the cash instead.

    I'm not just saying that because it's $28,500. I'm also saying it because it's fugly and looks like it's made out of LEGO.

    • I wonder how difficult would it be to 3D-print a Star Wars watch case and fit a regular watch in it.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Don't give in to marketing. That leads to the dark side.

  • At the heart of the watch beats the same quartz crystal that operates those cheap £2.99 watches from the supermarket, and with equal precision.

  • by Tomahawk ( 1343 ) on Monday September 14, 2015 @03:27AM (#50517189) Homepage

    I can think of an awful lot of other things I'd prefer to spent $28,500 on (even if I were in a situation where $28,500 was back pocket change, which unfortunately I'm not) that would be much more preferable than that rather garish watch that I'd probable pick up, for a laugh, if it was maybe $10...

    What were they thinking? Like, I don't think even Apple would go so far as to sell one of their products for that amount of money (and they _know_ that the apple fanboys would buy them at any price) -- apart from, maybe, the overly ridiculously priced gold apple watch.

    Yeah, they made 500 of them, and there are probably enough people out there to buy them. And if I even meet one of them, I'll probably just laugh in his face.

    • by Cederic ( 9623 )

      But will you laugh in their face when they auction it for $150k in 20 years time?

      Don't bet against it..

  • It looks just like something you'd expect from a Disney branded watch. Something an 8 year old would wear.

    It's butt ugly!

    And that promo video sounds like a remake of the Turbo Encabulator [] video.

  • by unami ( 1042872 ) on Monday September 14, 2015 @04:27AM (#50517301)
    obviously a lot of work went into this. what a pity, that it turned out so ugly. but, no problem, just make it a star wars collectible and only make 500 pieces - it'll sell, eventually. as if they knew beforehand, that it won't be pretty...
  • by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <> on Monday September 14, 2015 @04:45AM (#50517325)
    "You made it ugly enough and expensive enough that tales of the new Star Wars enterprise will be ejaculated into the face of every human on the planet who has access to some kind of social or mass media provider?" "Yes, Captain". "Well done, Marketron V. The Farce is strong in you."
  • by fatquack ( 538774 ) on Monday September 14, 2015 @05:54AM (#50517453)

    on the included picture. This is one of the ugliest watches I have ever seen.

    • I was just coming here to say that. It would seem every watch ever advertised on Slashdot costing over $1000 has been a race to the bottom in terms of ugliness. The other recent one being the gold Apple watch. An expensive watch is supposed to be a piece of designer jewelry.

    • Really? You can't read the very plain to see "12:23:40"? I find that hard to believe.

      I won't dispute that it's crazy expensive and a little over the top ... but it's not like it's hard to read the damned thing.

      It's more of a feat of technology than anything, but let's face it ... you could slap Star Wars on a butt-plug and people would buy it.

    • Looks to be 12:23. Yes, it's digital. Yes, it's an amazingly ugly watch.

  • Writing... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Afty0r ( 263037 ) on Monday September 14, 2015 @06:23AM (#50517517) Homepage

    Did anyone consider re-writing this blatant advert into something a little less... like an advert?

  • by Carewolf ( 581105 ) on Monday September 14, 2015 @06:58AM (#50517603) Homepage

    Is that like an Edition Watch with less features?

  • If it's so scratch resistant, why don't they use it for the whole watch casing?

    Polycarbonate is plastic. Plastic is soft. It will resist scratches from your shirt sleeve and not much else.


    • I've got polycarbonate glasses. Even with a scratch-resistant coating, they don't stay in immaculate condition for long...and I'm good with glasses.

  • That is quite possibly the ugliest watch I've ever seen.
  • "...create products...that bend reality. I'm excited to introduce our latest...", droned the robot with far less personality than any droid.

    Also, for that kind of money there should be no fewer than 17 pictures on it of Daisey Ridley.

  • I thought ads were supposed to be clearly marked?

  • Thats one heck of a porn star watch!

    Once upon a time, male porn stars wore huge dive watches, and this is reminiscent of that.

  • Why do people pay thousands of dollars for watches? I suspect that watches retain an unwarranted cachet from the time when it was extremely difficult to craft an accurate watch (ditto pens). You can buy an attractive and extremely accurate watch for a few hundred dollars.

    • For men at least, its one of the few forms of acceptable jewelry, and thus can be seen as a status symbol.

    • by Cederic ( 9623 )

      Because nobody's successfully made a Urwerk UR-202 for less than several thousand dollars.

      Forget mere accuracy, ignore the jewellery element entirely, that's a mechanical masterpiece.

  • ...that some people just have too much money.

  • And here I thought NTP was an overly complicated way of keeping time. Just because you can engineer something complicated doesn't mean you should.
  • Hop on over to [] and take a look at the high-priced items available there.

    Not that there aren't plenty of seriously ugly watches under $200...

  • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday September 14, 2015 @01:07PM (#50519647) Homepage Journal

    that's $28,500 for a badly designed prop, except that it's not actually a prop, it's just an ugly and impractically cluttered commemorative watch.

    The belt time indicator is an interesting idea, but it's not really impressive. Of course you can make series of mechanical belts tell time, and if you make only a few thousand of them a year by hand of course they'll cost like crazy. If you want to make it *impressive* you've got to make it small -- say 12mm thick by 45mm across at a minimum. 6mm thick would be better.

    The humblest Chinese-made mechanical watch movement is a marvel of miniaturization. You can get one from a watch materials company like Esslinger or Otto Frei for under $15; self-winding movements for as little as $22. Typically the movement will be 11.5 ligne wide (that's 25.6 mm; "ligne" is a length unit used to measure watch movements and buttons); and about 5mm thick. If you look though a magnifier at the tiny gears running in their almost microscopic jeweled cups, it's astonishing that you can buy something like that for the price. For about 15x as much you can get a fine Swiss ETA movement that shaves 1.5mm off that thickness.

    For less than half the price of this monstrosity you could have a Jaeger LeCoultre Master Ultra Thin Jubilee, a watch that is only 4mm thick fully assembled. The movement is 1.85 mm thick, which is exactly halfway between the thickness of a quarter and a nickel.

    Of course I understand that the market for *this* watch is not the market for fine watches; I'm not part of that market either, I collect *cheap* watches. But design should be more about separating customers from their money -- which by the way is the dominant design philosophy in the cheap watch market segment. That's what makes it challenging to find well-designed cheap watch. The technology in that price range is more than good enough, in fact on an objective level the technology in cheap watches is *better*. What's hard to find in a cheap watch is good taste.

  • You're better off buying MG-43s, STG-44s, Mauser C-96s, and Sterling SMGs and recreating the blasters sued in the movies. But please don't. As a collector of antique military firearms, I die a little inside every time I imagine someone welding a random scope and muzzle break onto a C-96. And defacing a working STG-44 or MG-43 is just heresy
  • For 30,000$ it better have force projection allowing me to at least force choke someone...

"Remember, extremism in the nondefense of moderation is not a virtue." -- Peter Neumann, about usenet