
I Wish This $56,000 Mattress Wasn't So Incredible.
Most Presidents' Day deals are lousy. Our experts are rounding up the select few that are actually worth it.
As Wirecutter's resident sleep expert, I've tested nearly a hundred mattresses, including a dozen of those in my own home. I've slept on everything from affordable beds-in-boxes to $10,000 mattresses made from materials developed for NASA. While I have found decent, even wonderful, options across the spectrum, none have compared to the Hästens 2000T.
It also costs $55,780.
To be clear: Wirecutter, in general, is not in the business of recommending any product that would be so out of reach for so many. And I live in a basement in Brooklyn. So spending over $50,000 on anything is a massive ask, nearly comically beyond my general spending habits and those of many of our readers.
But the Hästens mattress had been a white whale, something I'd wanted to try since I had started testing mattresses for Wirecutter, nearly three years ago. I knew they were high-end pieces with a devoted following. Drake owns one that costs as much as a one-bedroom co-op. And I wanted to know: How good could these mattresses be? (Considering their price, they'd better be good.)
I figured Hästens would have more-accessible options that we could group test for our innerspring mattress guide. Not quite.
The more I learned about these mattresses—how they're crafted and maintained, along with their extraordinary cost—the clearer it became that they weren't suited to our typical mattress-testing protocol. So Linus Adolfsson, co-founder of the Sleep Spa, which sells Hästens mattresses, offered me a slightly different setup than usual. I would undergo a 'Sleep Spa Experience,' to pair me with the right mattress, which Hästens would lend me (along with a box spring and headboard, which brought the cost to over $75,000), so I could test it for a longer period of time.
As I do with anything I cover, I adhered to Wirecutter's ethics policy: I would return the mattress at the end of the testing period, and I made no promises of a review. Six months later, I'll just come out and say it: The 2000T turned out to be far better than I could have imagined. But it really made me wonder: What price can we put on our sleep?
Each Hästens bed is handcrafted and made from natural materials: horse hair, wool, flax, cotton, and steel coils. Marki Williams/NYT Wirecutter
Hästens (derived from the Swedish word for 'horse') was founded in 1852 as a saddle-making business, and it eventually shifted to luxury bed-making in the 20th century. All of its mattresses are handcrafted from the same base materials: horsehair (hence the name), wool, flax, cotton, and steel coils. The company claims that each mattress is 'sustainably produced and ethically sourced.' Though I couldn't track down where it sources its horsehair from to verify this myself. But a big selling point of this mattress is that it should last a lifetime, if not longer.
Horsehair is the star of the show in every Hästens mattress. The horse mane and tail strands are heat-treated, braided, and steamed to create a permanent curl—an expensive process, according to Hästens and a Chinese-based supplier, Tallie. The curls are dense enough to create a loose, springy structure that feels airy yet supportive. The fibers are hollow, which helps the mattress feel breathable by wicking away moisture and excess heat. Hästens isn't the only source for ultra-pricey horsehair mattresses; other companies include Vispring, Kluft, and the Bronx-based mattress manufacturer Charles H. Beckley, among others. But Hästens is arguably the best known of these status-symbol mattresses, recognizable by its peppy, royal-blue plaid ticking. The plush topper sits snugly on top of the mattress. Hästens recommends flipping and rotating it frequently to avoid depressions. Marki Williams/NYT Wirecutter
Because of the company's very specific dogma of matching you with the right bed, Hästens usually requires potential buyers to try mattresses in person before they buy one. So I embarked on a 'Sleep Spa Experience' at the company's flagship store in New York City's SoHo neighborhood. There are 13 mattresses in the line, ranging from $14,000 to $600,000. And I was able to try each mattress at my own pace, in a dimmed room, swaddled in a down comforter, with two pillows for my head and one for my knees (crucial for a side-sleeper). Ambient music played gently in the background. Adolfsson was lying on a bed across the room, guiding me to scan my body to assess the feeling in my hips and back. If the mattress felt unsupportive or too soft, we moved on to the next one. Compared with the fluorescent lights and eager salespeople of mattress depots, shopping at Hästens felt like a meditation session in a cool, quiet studio—relaxed, unrushed, fully focused on the internal sensations of my body.
After 45 minutes, I landed on the 2000T Soft. The mattress by itself is designed with a simple cotton cover; the tufting creates peaks and valleys that can't be felt through the topper. Marki Williams/NYT Wirecutter As a sleep expert, I have tried nearly 100 mattresses. None of them have come close to the cushion and support of the Hästens. Marki Williams/NYT Wirecutter
I know from years of mattress testing that comfort is subjective, and no single mattress will work for everyone. That being said, sleeping on the 2000T feels like nothing I've ever felt before. When I settle in, the mattress conforms just enough for my whole body to sink into it, while what feels like a thousand little hands support me from below. The closest comparison I can think of is floating in a sensory-deprivation chamber. When I lie on the Hästens, I feel weightless, like I'm bobbing in a pool of water calibrated to exactly my body temperature. I can barely tell where the mattress ends and my body begins, regardless of what position I'm in.
Unlike the slow-sink of memory foam or the cushion of a padded pillow top, the horsehair in a Hästens mattress has a natural springiness, but it is just as soft and far more breathable. I'm a hot sleeper, and I never once woke up sweaty in the 2000T. Below the horsehair, 2,340 individual springs offer a sensation that is as delightful to experience as it is difficult to describe—but imagine being suspended in a tide of soft, shifting air, cradled yet free. I tested the mattress and topper (which together cost about $56,000), plus the box spring and headboard, which brings the total to about $75,000 for a king. Marki Williams/NYT Wirecutter
I'm a loyal side-sleeper, so I've always preferred mattresses with a supportive foundation and a plusher topper for my hips and shoulders. My first great love as a sleep writer was the Stearns & Foster Estate PT Firm, a lofty, pillow-topped Wirecutter pick that allowed me to get comfortable on my side without my body feeling like it was being pressed up against the mattress. But even on that superb mattress, I often felt like I was sinking slightly downward, compressing its top plush layer until my hips neared the firm coils below. I never feel like that on the 2000T, which cradles my hips and shoulders while remaining supportive overall. Unlike memory foam, horse hair has a natural springiness that keeps you buoyant, even on the edge of the bed. Marki Williams/NYT Wirecutter
The edge support is also impressive, considering how soft the mattress is: Sleeping near the side doesn't feel precarious, and sitting directly on the edge simply causes it to gently sink, not slump. I was initially worried that those 2,000-plus springs (which are great for support) would mean the mattress would transfer motion. High coil counts tend to make you feel like you're sharing a canoe on testy waters—every movement your partner makes is felt. But with its layered construction, the 2000T mutes the motion across the bed. The 2000T is both cradling and springy, so it's comfortable to sleep yet still easy to shift positions throughout the night. Marki Williams/NYT Wirecutter
After a couple of weeks on the mattress, I could feel the materials start to compress together, creating lumps after I got up in the morning. But that's normal, assures Hästens, because its mattress requires regular, complimentary massaging . Yes, every mattress sold by Hästens comes with a 're-calibration program,' in which Hästens employees visit your home to loosen up the materials and redistribute them, to prevent the mattress from settling into a you-shaped valley. Each Hästens owner is entitled to this service for a decade or more. Marki Williams/NYT Wirecutter
They remove the topper, flip the mattress, and then systematically tread across the surface in weighted steps, like they're marching. Then they knead it with their fists, before reapplying the topper and systematically rolling the edges in to redistribute the materials in an even layer. After each 20-minute 'massage,' I could feel the difference. The mattress again felt like the first day it was delivered to my home. Hästens owners are entitled to the company's recalibration program. The company sends a team to routinely fluff up your mattress, for decades. Marki Williams/NYT Wirecutter
But the team can go even further, if needed. The 2000T felt a little too cushy at first, so I let Hästens know. In response, the next time the team came to my apartment to recalibrate the mattress, they re-tufted the entire thing by hand, functionally tightening each coil to adjust the bed to feel a little firmer than it was before. Again, I could really feel the difference, as if I'd swapped a soft mattress for a medium one without the hassle. The team members explained that they can do this procedure for only half of the mattress, too, which is ideal for couples with different firmness preferences.
After six months of sleeping on the 2000T, every night I crawl into bed, it feels like falling in love all over again. I get a rush as I slide in between the sheets, and sometimes as I snuggle in, I can't help but kick my legs in excitement, like a little kid. Then I drift off into another world and remain there, blissful, until my alarm goes off in the morning.
When you have a $56,000 mattress, word gets around. My bedroom became a destination. My mom and aunt drove four hours to sleep on the Hästens mattress, and said they would gladly make the trip again. My best friend, her sister, and her daughter (who has a particularly hard time falling asleep) all enthusiastically offered to house-sit—despite piling in three to the bed, they declared it the best sleep of their lives. Even my editor took the G train to my apartment one evening, heading straight to the Hästens to see what the fuss was all about. Although initially skeptical, she ended up lying flat on her back, remarking at how she felt like she was floating.
But ultimately, I can't tell you whether a Hästens mattress is 'worth it' in the same way Wirecutter might designate a nonstick frying pan or vacuum. I can tell you that the Hastens 2000T is the best thing I've ever slept on. But I'll probably never sleep on one again. Like the vast majority of us, I'll likely need to be content with any number of well-made, comfortable, even amazing mattresses that cost a tenth or even a hundredth of the price.
Instead, my experience with the Hästens made me think about the types of possessions we value the most.
I grew up with a piano, an upright Petrof with a rich mahogany finish that was the centerpiece of our living room. My parents came from families that couldn't afford non-necessities, and they wanted to give their children the gift of learning a musical instrument. The Petrof was a major investment for them, and, like the Hästens, it was one that required maintenance. I loved that piano, playing it for guests, marveling at its outer beauty and inner workings. But I played it for only a few years of my life before I inevitably grew up and moved away. Now, the piano is a silent relic, pushed into a corner of my parents' home.
We might stretch our budgets for a fancier car, marble countertops, an exquisite piano.
But we spend a third of our time on earth asleep. Our mattresses are among the most intimate, constant companions of our lives.
What if your most prized possession was your bed?
That's something to sleep on.
This article was edited by Christina Colizza and Courtney Schley.
What I Cover
Caira Blackwell is a senior staff writer covering sleep, and co-host of our podcast, The Wirecutter Show . She has spent countless hours testing more than 50 mattresses and has slept on nearly a dozen at home. Her work has been published in Nylon magazine, Okayplayer, and Narratively. When she isn't busy sleeping (for work), she's busy trying new recipes in the kitchen or reading in the sun.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo
When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator, it seemed like a brilliant choice. Business entrepreneur, private astronaut, Isaacman was just the man to revamp NASA and make it into a catalyst for taking humanity to the moon, Mars and beyond. Isaacman sailed through the confirmation process in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), by a vote of 19 to 9. He was poised to be confirmed by the full Senate when something so bizarre happened that it beggars the imagination. The White House suddenly and with no clear reason why, pulled Isaacman's nomination. After months of a confirmation process, NASA was back to square one for getting a new leader. Ars Technica's Eric Berger offered an explanation as to why. 'One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats,' he wrote. 'He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget.' But these facts were well known even before Trump nominated Isaacman. Trump himself, before he ran for president as a Republican, donated to Democrats and was close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Berger goes on to say that a source told the publication that, 'with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination.' The idea that Isaacman's nomination is being deep-sixed because of Musk runs contrary to the public praise that the president has given the billionaire rocket and electric car entrepreneur. Trump was uncharacteristically terse in his own social media post. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,' he wrote. 'I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America First in Space. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' CNN reports that Isaacman's ouster was the result of a palace coup, noting that a source said, 'Musk's exit left room for a faction of people in Trump's inner circle, particularly Sergio Gor, the longtime Trump supporter and director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, to advocate for installing a different nominee.' The motive seems to be discontent about the outsized influence that Musk has had on the White House and a desire to take him down a peg or two. Isaacman was profoundly gracious, stating in part, 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.' The idea that a man like Isaacman, well respected by the aerospace community, who was predicted to sail through a confirmation vote in the full Senate, could be taken down by an obscure bureaucrat in White House intrigue, motivated by petty spite, is mind boggling. Even Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has not been fond of Trump's space policy, was appalled. He posted on his X account that Isaacman 'ran into the kind of politics that is damaging our country.' 'Republicans and Democrats supported him as the right guy at the right time for the top job at NASA, but it wasn't enough.' NASA is in for months more of turmoil and uncertainty as the nomination process gets reset and starts grinding its way through the Senate. The draconian, truncated budget proposal is certainly not helpful, either. Congress, which had been supportive of Trump's space policy, is not likely to be pleased by the president's high-handed shivving of his own nominee. Whoever Trump chooses to replace Isaacman as NASA administrator nominee, no matter how qualified, should face some very direct questioning. Trump's NASA budget proposal should be dead on arrival, which, considering the cuts in science and technology, is not necessarily a bad thing. China must be looking at the spectacle of NASA being mired in political wrangling, a leadership vacuum and budget uncertainty with glee. Beijing has its own space ambitions, with a planned crewed lunar landing by 2030. It's possible that the Chinese will steal a march on NASA, with all the damage that will do to America's standing in the world. It didn't have to be this way. Isaacman could be settling in as NASA administrator, deploying his business acumen and vision to lead the space agency to its greatest achievements. Instead, America's space effort has received a self-inflicted blow from which it will be long in recovering, Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


The Hill
11 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo
When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator, it seemed like a brilliant choice. Business entrepreneur, private astronaut, Isaacman was just the man to revamp NASA and make it into a catalyst for taking humanity to the moon, Mars and beyond. Isaacman sailed through the confirmation process in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), by a vote of 19 to 9. He was poised to be confirmed by the full Senate when something so bizarre happened that it beggars the imagination. The White House suddenly and with no clear reason why, pulled Isaacman's nomination. After months of a confirmation process, NASA was back to square one for getting a new leader. Ars Technica's Eric Berger offered an explanation as to why. 'One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats,' he wrote. 'He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget.' But these facts were well known even before Trump nominated Isaacman. Trump himself, before he ran for president as a Republican, donated to Democrats and was close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Berger goes on to say that a source told the publication that, 'with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination.' The idea that Isaacman's nomination is being deep-sixed because of Musk runs contrary to the public praise that the president has given the billionaire rocket and electric car entrepreneur. Trump was uncharacteristically terse in his own social media post. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,' he wrote. 'I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America First in Space. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' CNN reports that Isaacman's ouster was the result of a palace coup, noting that a source said, 'Musk's exit left room for a faction of people in Trump's inner circle, particularly Sergio Gor, the longtime Trump supporter and director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, to advocate for installing a different nominee.' The motive seems to be discontent about the outsized influence that Musk has had on the White House and a desire to take him down a peg or two. Isaacman was profoundly gracious, stating in part, 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.' The idea that a man like Isaacman, well respected by the aerospace community, who was predicted to sail through a confirmation vote in the full Senate, could be taken down by an obscure bureaucrat in White House intrigue, motivated by petty spite, is mind boggling. Even Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has not been fond of Trump's space policy, was appalled. He posted on his X account that Isaacman 'ran into the kind of politics that is damaging our country.' 'Republicans and Democrats supported him as the right guy at the right time for the top job at NASA, but it wasn't enough.' NASA is in for months more of turmoil and uncertainty as the nomination process gets reset and starts grinding its way through the Senate. The draconian, truncated budget proposal is certainly not helpful, either. Congress, which had been supportive of Trump's space policy, is not likely to be pleased by the president's high-handed shivving of his own nominee. Whoever Trump chooses to replace Isaacman as NASA administrator nominee, no matter how qualified, should face some very direct questioning. Trump's NASA budget proposal should be dead on arrival, which, considering the cuts in science and technology, is not necessarily a bad thing. China must be looking at the spectacle of NASA being mired in political wrangling, a leadership vacuum and budget uncertainty with glee. Beijing has its own space ambitions, with a planned crewed lunar landing by 2030. It's possible that the Chinese will steal a march on NASA, with all the damage that will do to America's standing in the world. It didn't have to be this way. Isaacman could be settling in as NASA administrator, deploying his business acumen and vision to lead the space agency to its greatest achievements. Instead, America's space effort has received a self-inflicted blow from which it will be long in recovering, Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.


Politico
13 hours ago
- Politico
Trump and Musk aides have spoken amid pause in hostilities
The shaky detente in the social media strife between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk is holding following a call between representatives for both sides Friday, according to two White House officials. 'He's stopped posting, but that doesn't mean he's happy,' one of the officials said about Trump's Truth Social hiatus with Musk. 'The future of their relationship is totally uncertain,' added the official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. Both men have paused their war of words that included Musk suggesting the president be impeached and Trump threatening to cut off federal contracts for the billionaire's companies. But neither wanted to, according to the two officials familiar with the reaction of both men. A spokesperson for Musk did not return a message seeking comment. Trump was particularly peeved by Musk insinuating the president was tied to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, claiming Trump was 'in the Epstein files.' It's long been public that Trump and other prominent figures are referenced in documents released in court cases surrounding Epstein, though Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein. But Musk's boast that Trump couldn't have won without his support, including over a quarter-billion dollars in political contributions – is what really set the president spinning, the two officials continued. 'Such ingratitude,' Musk wrote on X after taking credit from Trump's victory in November. The feud came as the president and Republican leaders tried to shoulder through a major package of domestic policy legislation, which could be the biggest legislative achievement of Trump's second term. Musk criticized the so-called megabill for having a 'MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK.' When reached for comment, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told POLITICO, 'As President Trump has said himself, he is moving forward focused on passing the One Big Beautiful Bill.' The relationship began to sour before the dueling social media posts erupted last week. Trump was upset about what he saw as Musk overselling DOGE's inability to make massive cuts in the federal bureaucracy. Then the White House pulled the nomination for Jared Isaacman, the billionaire's pick to lead NASA, which was one of the final tethers in a tenuous alliance. White House personnel director Sergio Gor, who was behind that move, has had a long-simmering tension with the billionaire, according to both White House officials. Musk refused to work with Gor after a March Cabinet meeting where the president told his agency heads they were in charge of their departments — not Musk, who was in the room. That meeting happened after the Tesla founder set off a series of mass firings and warnings to government workers that in turn triggered lawsuits and criticism from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. While most lawmakers and Republican operatives agree that Trump ultimately has the upper hand should their feud reignite, there's never been an adversary quite like Musk: the world's richest man with an online megaphone to rival the presidential bully pulpit.