Project Reveal Black Stealth Wrist Watch

Posted by Andrew Tingle on September 14th 2007 | 9 Responses

Project Reveal Stealth Wrist Watch

For some strange reason the moment we set our eyes on this Project Reveal Black Wrist Watch we found ourselves thinking about the F117A and B2 Spirit stealth aircraft as the watch seems to convey a somewhat secretive ambiance – perhaps simply for rather base reasons such as it being almost totally black or because the numbers remain hidden behind a mesh when not applicable to the current time, though there’s something more to it than that.

Designed by Daniel Will-Harris – to whom MOMA referred as being ‘a computer graphics pioneer’, and with good reason as he acted to define computer typography as we know it – the Project Reveal Black Wrist Watch is of all stainless steel construction finished in matt black, lending it somewhat menacing overtones.

Project Reveal Stealth Wrist Watch and F117A

Project Reveal Watch and F117A

(F117A Photo Credit: Yours Truly)

We especially like how only relevant information pertaining to the moment is revealed thanks to the mesh/gauze which serves to obscure the remaining numbers and, in so doing, how the watch wholly dispenses with the use of hands. What you see is all you need – nothing more, nothing less.

Modern, minimal (though not quite as minimal as this) and positively oozing understated elegance the Project Reveal Black Wrist Watch, which retails for around $85 – is a fitting accessory for those of us with hidden depths who do not rely on bling or brash extravagance to make their presence felt.

Not quite what you’re looking for? Why not browse our previously featured wrist watches for further gems?

Looking for more? See Fashion Tech | TFTS Hot Picks | Wrist Watches or scroll down for carefully selected related items that may also be of interest to you.

Project Reveal Black Stealth Wrist Watch

9 Responses/Trackbacks concerning
“Project Reveal Black Stealth Wrist Watch”

RESPONSES

Response by Teckrieg | September 14th, 2007 at 3:31 pm

The art of simplicity, looks good.
Response by Teckrieg | September 18th, 2007 at 5:05 am

Hey,

There’s a mistake in the price. My readers notify me about it and the watch actually cost just $95 or $85 USD.

Anyway, the source site runs on Korean currency not yen. Hope that help, thanks.
Response by Andrew Tingle | September 18th, 2007 at 7:54 am

Teckrieg – thanks for the heads up, I appear to have got two posts crossed when posting which was error on my part. I have now amended accordingly.
Response by Teckrieg | September 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Andrew- No worries on that =)
Response by AV | April 2nd, 2009 at 8:37 pm

Too bad the purchase website has only superficial english on it. I have to say, what is the point in writing an article about watches that you can’t buy anyhow.
Response by Andrew | April 2nd, 2009 at 11:11 pm

You seem to forget that we have readers the world over, so there are those that could buy this without a problem. Moreover, even despite that, it’s a very cool watch and that’s good enough for me.

This is like asking very auto site why they’re posting about super cars, every lifestyle site why they’re posting about houses the size of small planets when most of us cannot have those either. There are many things that are out of reach for whatever reason but that’s no reason not to feature them if we believe them to be of interest.

Incidentally, the fact that you’re obviously upset that you cannot avail yourself of the watch kind of justifies, surely, that it does indeed have interest value and thus, does this not entirely underpin that the reason we initially felt it post-worthy was, and remains, wholly valid?
Response by AV | June 11th, 2009 at 6:19 am

Despite the long winded and pompus response, you missed the fact that an english article implies, english readers. If this article was in korean, you might have a point. Sadly you don’t. That said, you example of super cars is based on price, and price is not the issue here, availability is. Reviewing vapourware and similarly unavailable items is somewhat pointless, but I never said the article was without merit, it would be simply more valuable if it focused on items that were available to the audience reading it.
Response by Andrew | June 11th, 2009 at 6:51 am

OK, long-winded? Pompus? I’ll keep this brief then. You’re welcome to your opinion, AV – as I mine. I still don’t agree with you.