Alain Silberstein

The contribution

His documented contribution concerns forms, colour, display curvature and the visual treatment of the balance support. The underlying calibre retains the explicit Mojon and Voutilainen credits. This separation allows the design to be taken seriously without promoting the designer into sole authorship of the movement. 1

The account identifies the transparent bridge as a development challenge rather than a decorative colour substitution. Its reported two-year realization should be retained as manufacturer testimony, not converted into an exact calendar schedule. The current page also contains unrelated LM FlyingT text, which has been excluded from this model's record. 1

How it works

Silberstein was reinterpreting an already developed watch, not solving the same brief as its original movement designers. The design opportunity was to change how a viewer encountered the suspended balance and two time displays. The transparent bridge is central because a structural support also occupies the owner's field of view. 1

The watch presents two time readings that can be set independently. Around them, the moving balance is made visually prominent. A transparent support lets the viewer see through a part that still has to perform a supporting function; transparency changes the view, not the need for mechanically sound support. 1

Research limit: The final sentence is a functional interpretation of the documented bridge, not a stress-test result.

Concave subdials sit beneath domed glazing, while geometric hands and the blue-cone, red-cube and yellow-sphere reserve structure extend the design vocabulary into depth. MB&F gives a 14 mm balance and 45-hour reserve for the manually wound calibre. The sapphire-bridge effort is reported as two years, but machining tolerances and load calculations are not published. 1

What the evidence shows

MB&F's specific technical record and the inspected front-and-back image establish the realized design. They support discussion of its configuration and appearance. They do not demonstrate improved rate, durability or legibility under controlled conditions. 1

Compared with the preceding LM1 support arches, the transparent bridge changes how much structure interrupts the view of the regulator. The movement's credited foundation remains in place. The redesign therefore illustrates an interaction between industrial design and engineering without evidence that Silberstein re-invented the whole calibre. 1

A clear support can reduce visual obstruction while adding a material and fabrication problem. The source documents development effort but supplies no comparative impact or fatigue data. No claim is made that sapphire is mechanically superior to the original support simply because it is transparent. 1

Research limit: Engineering tradeoff interpreted from design; quantitative tests unavailable.

Why it matters

This is a strong example of a designer changing the spatial reading of a complicated watch while retaining visible credit for its technical authors. Its relevance within Silberstein's work is more precise than an undifferentiated claim that he used bright colours. 1

Research limit: Editorial assessment.

What to look for

In the Black Ti image, compare the balance support's attachment points with the transparent span over the dial. Then compare the concave time displays with the raised geometric reserve forms. The back view provides a useful authorship check: the movement carries Mojon and Voutilainen's names, not evidence that every mechanism originated with Silberstein. 1

The contribution

Silberstein's contribution was the exterior. MB&F records his design account separately from the engine credit. This is not lesser work because the calibre existed already: it is a different task, with choices about massing, colour, surface and the relationship between case and displays. 2

The later MB&F page dates this collaboration to 2009. The available material records the brief and completed design but not a full prototype schedule or separate dates for initial sketches, case tooling and customer deliveries. The announced eight-piece edition is not a substitute for those dates. 12

How it works

The brief was to reinterpret an existing horological machine without discarding its recognizable display arrangement. The twin circular apertures and lug architecture supplied constraints. A distinctive new case could change the object's character while leaving the technical engine's authorship intact. 2

The right-hand display presents jumping hours and a minute indication that returns along its scale. The left presents date and moon information. Those functions belong to the engine's documented arrangement; the Black Box case turns their two-window layout into a coherent exterior design. 2

The specified titanium case is 59 mm by 38 mm by 13 mm with a silicium PVD coating. It should not be described as carved from silicon. Camera-like proportions and the retained portholes and flying-buttress lugs are design elements; internal jumping and retrograde mechanisms retain the Wiederrecht/Agenhor and Sowind development context. 2

What the evidence shows

The official model record establishes a realized design and an announced eight-piece edition. It does not demonstrate an improvement in accuracy or supply audited delivery numbers. The contribution is properly assessed as a design interpretation of an existing engine. 2

The comparison is with the existing HM2 platform. The exterior changes while recognizable apertures and lug forms remain. A future article should avoid importing an inconsistent base-HM2 launch date from one page without checking its original chronology; 2009 here dates the Silberstein collaboration. 21

Research limit: Base-model first-launch chronology not independently reconciled.

Keeping the existing display arrangement constrains the case designer. The source demonstrates a solution to that design brief, not a measured ergonomic advantage. No wearer study, weight comparison or strap-comfort assessment was conducted. 2

Research limit: No firsthand wear or ergonomic testing.

Why it matters

HM2.2 is useful evidence of Silberstein's collaborative method: recognizable visual authorship without a false claim to the mechanism. It also precedes the LM1 reinterpretation, giving the later design an identifiable earlier collaboration rather than an invented continuous story. 12

Research limit: Editorial assessment.

What to look for

Use the official HM2.2 photographs to identify the black rectangular mass, two circular displays and retained lug structure. The functions come from the corresponding model text; no image of a later HM2 variant should substitute for Black Box. 2

Research limit: Published description, not a separate pixel-inspection session.

The contribution

Silberstein is explicitly named as the designer, and La Semaine's face-based weekday interpretation is singled out. The record does not name him as constructor of the base movements or sole industrializer. A design contribution can be explained through actual display and case decisions without assigning unsupported engineering credit. 34

The official archive dates the Triptyque article to 8 June 2021. The project contains three named models and an announced allocation of individual watches and sets. Sketch dates, prototype revisions and individual supplier responsibilities were not established. 34

How it works

The project offered a common identity across three different display types. The design opportunity was to make the watches related without pretending that a weekday watch, a regulator and a chronograph answer the same reading task. Shared case forms and recurring shapes provide that connection. 34

La Semaine replaces written weekday names with changing faces. The regulator separates readings through distinct hands and positions. The chronograph adds an elapsed-time reading, including a thirty-minute counter. The three watches share a visual language while asking the wearer to read different information. 3

Vertical brancards frame the case, with a conical crown and contrasting titanium finishes. Grade 2 and grade 5 titanium are both specified, but this record does not assign an undocumented grade to each component. The regulator's blue arrow, red triangle and yellow serpentine hand are concrete identifiers of its display design. 3

Research limit: No later colourway dimensions or movement specifications imported.

What the evidence shows

The manufacturer documents the realized three-model project and announced edition structure. That is evidence of an organized design release; it is not an independently audited statement that every announced piece was manufactured or sold. 34

Unlike the MB&F projects, this contribution extends one design vocabulary across several reading systems in a coordinated release. This is an editorial comparison of documented projects, not proof of a commercial accessibility claim or a claim that one movement is technically superior to another. 34

Research limit: Comparative interpretation; prices and audiences not independently studied.

Replacing a written weekday with a face changes what the owner must learn to read. Whether that improves use or emotional engagement was not tested. The source supports a design decision, not a measured usability benefit. 3

Why it matters

The Triptyque demonstrates consistency without reducing Silberstein's work to one repeated colour treatment. Its individual displays make specific decisions visible, while the shared exterior establishes the programme as one contribution rather than three artificially separated rankings. 34

Research limit: Editorial assessment.

What to look for

In the official model photographs, compare the common brancards and crown with the changing display centres. On La Semaine, identify the face rather than a written weekday; on the regulator, trace the arrow, triangle and serpentine hand. These are version-specific features from the original Triptyque account. 3

Research limit: Description tied to official photographs; separate pixel inspection not recorded.