Latest news with #Yoshida
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
Boston Red Sox' Masataka Yoshida provides injury update
BOSTON — Red Sox outfielder Masataka Yoshida had a cortisone shot Sunday after he has continued to feel pain when he throws. 'When I stretch out to 120 feet, that's when I kind of feel the pain,' Yoshida said through translator Yutaro Yamaguchi in the Red Sox clubhouse Tuesday. Advertisement The 31-year-old underwent a right shoulder labral repair on Oct. 3 in Boston. He will not throw for at least another three days after receiving the shot. 'I'm going to have to let it sit and see how I feel,' Yoshida said. He said the trainers told him post-surgery that he would have to tolerate some pain throughout the 2025 season. 'That's something that I kind of have to be dealing with throughout the year,' Yoshida said. 'At least this year I will have to deal with the pain.' Yoshida said he still has no issues with hitting. He would be able to be activated from the IL if he only had to hit. He spent last year as Boston's DH. But the Red Sox plan to use him in the outfield this season with Rafael Devers serving as the primary DH and playing no third base. Boston also has no plans to ask Devers to play first base following Triston Casas' season-ending surgery Sunday. Advertisement 'As far as the hitting, no problem,' said Yoshida who appeared in 11 Grapefruit League games during spring training and batted .286 (10-for-35) with a homer and double. Yoshida had hope at the beginning of spring training that he would be ready for Opening Day. He said there have been no real setbacks. 'But I'm not recovering or making the progress at the pace that I wanted to,' Yoshida said. 'Let's put it that way.' He's in the third season of the five-year, $90 million contract that he signed with Boston in December 2022. He has batted .285 with a .343 on-base percentage, .433 slugging percentage, .775 OPS, 25 homers, 54 doubles, three triples, 128 RBIs, 116 runs, 61 walks and 133 strikeouts in 248 games for Boston. Advertisement 'I just want to go back out there as soon as I can,' Yoshida said. 'That's my hope.' Manager Alex Cora added, 'I know he's frustrated. I think we all are. It was major surgery. It was. We haven't rushed him through the process. We've been very patient. And we will stay patient with him. He wants to play. And we've gotta get it going throwing-wise. It's been a challenge. But it's not lack of effort. It's not lack of resources. I think our guys have done an amazing job. Just it hasn't happened yet.' More Red Sox coverage Read the original article on MassLive.
Metro
19-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Metro
People shouldn't complain about £80 games says ex-PlayStation boss
Sony veteran Shuhei Yoshida has defended the rising costs of games, as he supports the idea of variable pricing. Between the anger around Nintendo's £74.99 price tag for Mario Kart World and increased costs across Xbox games, it's clear game prices will be a big topic for months to come. GTA 6 looks set to become a key talking point in this debate, with analysts predicting it could cost upwards of £100 when it launches on May 26, 2026. Rockstar hasn't officially announced the price, but Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick recently stressed its commitment to variable pricing, with Mafia: The Old Country launching at £44.99 later this year. In a new interview, former PlayStation executive Shuhei Yoshida, who recently expressed his disappointment with the Switch 2, has addressed concerns around rising game prices – and he doesn't think it's a bad thing. Speaking to Critical Hits, Yoshida expressed his support for variable pricing: 'I don't believe every game has to be priced the same. Each game has different value it provides, or the size of budget. I totally believe it is up to the publishers – or developers self-publishing – decision to price their product to the value that they believe they are bringing in.' While he believes there should be no standard price for games, Yoshida states that the most expensive titles – now priced at $70 or $80 (UK prices are expected to work out as £80, based on prior conversion rates) – are still a bargain when compared to other forms of entertainment. 'In terms of actual price of $70 or $80, for really great games, I think it will still be a steal in terms of the amount of entertainment that top games, top quality games bring to people compared to other form of entertainment,' Yoshida said. 'As long as people choose carefully how they spend their money, I don't think they should be complaining about [it].' While defining a game's worth based on its length is always messy, if you use this metric, most games outclass film and television in terms of value for money. More Trending Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, for example, is moderately priced at £50 and takes around 30-40 hours to beat. When compared to the average £15 cinema ticket for a two hour film, there's no contest. In terms of franchises like Mario Kart, which releases new games very infrequently, there's an argument the £74.99 price point for Mario Kart World is justified, based on its quality and staying power as a multiplayer title; especially given £70 titles like EA Sports FC and Call Of Duty are released every year. However, the acceptance of these price points has perhaps become difficult to swallow due to the influx of free-to-play titles. When you can play Fortnite or Apex Legends for free, the idea of paying £80 for a game suddenly looks outdated and unappealing. It remains to be seen if these increased price points will actually affect sales, but it's easy to see Yoshida's point of view – even if it's not one that will be greeted with much enthusiasm by the average gamer. Email gamecentral@ leave a comment below, follow us on Twitter, and sign-up to our newsletter. To submit Inbox letters and Reader's Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use our Submit Stuff page here. For more stories like this, check our Gaming page. MORE: Marathon delay predicted as concerns mount over the future of Bungie MORE: Games Inbox: Should there be a GTA 6 spin-off on Nintendo Switch 2? MORE: Nintendo Switch 2 is going to be a third party port machine – Reader's Feature
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The first federal court hearing on Trump's tariffs did not go so well for Trump
A federal court held the very first hearing on President Donald Trump's wide-ranging, so-called Liberation Day tariffs on Tuesday, offering the earliest window into whether those tariffs — and potentially all of the shifting tariffs Trump has imposed since he retook office — will be struck down. The case is V.O.S. Selections v. Trump. It is unclear how the three-judge panel that heard the case will rule, but it appears somewhat more likely than not that they will rule that the tariffs are unlawful. All three of the judges, who sit on the US Court of International Trade, appeared troubled by the Trump administration's claim that the judiciary may not review the legality of the tariffs at all. But Jeffrey Schwab, the lawyer representing several small businesses challenging the tariffs, also faced an array of skeptical questions. Many of the judges' questions focused on United States v. Yoshida International (1975), a federal appeals court decision which upheld a 10 percent tariff President Richard Nixon briefly imposed on nearly all foreign goods. That is understandable: Yoshida remains binding on the trade court, and the three judges must take it into account when they make their decision. It is not, however, binding upon the Supreme Court, whose justices will be free to ignore Yoshida if they want. Ultimately, that means it is unclear how much influence the trade court's eventual decision will have over the Supreme Court, which is likely to have the final word on the tariffs. At the heart of V.O.S. Selections are four key words in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), the statute Trump relied on when he imposed these tariffs. That statute permits the president to 'regulate' transactions involving foreign goods — a verb which Yoshida held is expansive enough to permit tariffs — but only 'to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' It is likely that the trade court's decision will turn on what the words 'unusual and extraordinary threat' means. While Yoshida offered guidance on 'regulate,' there appears to be few, if any, precedents interpreting what those four words mean. In his executive order laying out the rationale for these tariffs, Trump claimed they are needed to combat 'large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits' — meaning that the United States buys more goods from many countries than it sells to them. But it's far from clear how this trade deficit, which has existed for decades, qualifies as either 'unusual' or 'extraordinary.' Schwab seemed to flub several direct questions from the judges asking him to come up with a universal rule they could apply to determine which 'threats' are 'unusual' or 'extraordinary.' When Judge Gary Katzmann, an Obama appointee, asked Schwab to name the best case supporting his argument that a trade deficit is neither unusual nor extraordinary, for example, Schwab was unable to do so. That said, some of the judges sounded outright offended when Eric Hamilton, the lawyer for the Trump administration, claimed that the question of what constitutes an unusual or extraordinary threat is a 'political question' — a legal term meaning that the courts aren't allowed to decide that matter. As Judge Jane Restani, a Reagan appointee, told Hamilton, his argument suggests that there is 'no limit' to the president's power to impose tariffs, even if the president claims that a shortage of peanut butter is a national emergency. The overall picture presented by the argument is that all three judges (the third is Judge Timothy Reif, a Trump appointee) are troubled by the broad power Trump claims in this case. But they were also frustrated by a lack of guidance — both from existing case law and from Schwab and Hamilton's arguments — on whether Trump can legally claim the power to issue such sweeping tariffs. Early in the argument, Schwab appeared to be in trouble, as he faced a barrage of questions about how the Yoshida decision cuts against some of his arguments. As Restani told him at one point, the argument that a statute permitting the president to 'regulate' does not include the power to impose tariffs is a nonstarter, because Yoshida held the opposite. That said, all three judges proposed ways to distinguish the Nixon tariffs upheld by Yoshida from the Trump tariffs now before the trade court. Restani, for her part, argued that the Nixon tariffs involved a 'very different situation' that was both 'new' and 'extraordinary.' For several decades, US dollars could be readily converted into gold at a set exchange rate. Nixon ended this practice in 1971, in an event many still refer to as the 'Nixon shock.' When he did so, he briefly imposed tariffs to protect US goods from fluctuating exchange rates. Yoshida, in other words, upheld temporary tariffs that were enacted in order to mitigate the impact of a sudden and very significant shift in US monetary policy, albeit a shift that Nixon caused himself. That's a very different situation than the one surrounding Trump's tariffs, which were enacted in response to ongoing trade deficits that have existed for many years. Restani and Katzmann also pointed to a footnote in Yoshida that said Congress enacted a new law, the Trade Act of 1974, after the Nixon shock. This footnote states a future attempt to impose similar tariffs 'must, of course, comply with the statute now governing such action.' Whatever power Nixon might have had in 1971, in other words, may now be limited by newer laws. Reif also made a similar argument, pointing out that there is a separate federal statute dealing with trade practices such as 'dumping,' when an exporter sells goods below their normal value. He questioned whether the president could bypass the procedures laid out in that anti-dumping statute by simply declaring an emergency, and then imposing whatever trade barriers the president wanted to impose under IEEPA. That said, none of the judges — and neither of the lawyers — were able to articulate a rule that would allow future courts to determine which presidential actions are 'unusual' or 'extraordinary.' Hamilton's suggestion that courts can't decide this question at all sunk like a pair of concrete shoes, with Katzmann arguing that the IEEPA's 'unusual and extraordinary' provision would be entirely 'superfluous' if Congress hadn't intended courts to enforce it. Schwab, meanwhile, earned a scolding from Restani when he kept trying to argue that Trump's tariffs are such an obvious violation of the statute that there's no need to come up with a broader legal rule. 'You know it when you see it doesn't work,' she told him — a reference to Justice Potter Stewart's infamously vague standard for determining what constitutes pornography. The three judges, in other words, expressed serious concerns about the Trump administration's argument for the tariffs. But it's not clear that they have figured out how to navigate the uncertain legal landscape looming over this case. Though the bulk of the argument focused on the four key words in the IEEPA, it's not clear that a narrow decision holding that this law does not permit these tariffs will have much staying power. Trump could potentially try to impose the tariffs again, using the somewhat more drawn out process laid out in the 1974 Trade Act, which permits the government to 'impose duties or other import restrictions' after the US Trade Representative makes certain findings. So if the courts issue a narrow ruling against these tariffs, they may have to go through a very similar dog and pony show in a few months. There are, however, two controversial legal doctrines popular with conservatives — known as 'major questions' and 'nondelegation' — which could lead to a more permanent reduction of Trump's authority. Broadly speaking, both of these doctrines empower the courts to strike down a presidential administration's actions even if those actions appear to be authorized by statute. Late in the argument, Restani seemed to latch onto the nondelegation theory. Under current law, Congress may delegate power to the president or a federal agency so long as it 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform.' This 'intelligible principle' test is famously very deferential to Congress. Nevertheless, Restani asked some questions indicating that she may think that the IEEPA is the rare law which provides so little guidance to the president that it must be struck down. She noted that the law does permit Congress to pass a resolution canceling tariffs after the fact, but argued that this kind of after-the-fact review is not a substitute for an intelligible principle letting the president know how to act before he takes action. The major questions doctrine, meanwhile, establishes that Congress must 'speak clearly' if it wants to give the executive branch authority over matters of 'vast 'economic and political significance.'' By some estimates, Trump's tariffs are expected to reduce real family income by $2,800, so that's certainly a matter of vast economic importance. Thus, to the extent that the IEEPA's language is unclear, the major questions doctrine suggests that the law should be construed to not permit these tariffs. Hamilton's primary argument against this line of reasoning is that the major questions doctrine does not apply to the president at all, only to actions by federal agencies that are subordinate to the president. But none of the three judges appeared sympathetic to this argument. Restani, in particular, seemed incredulous at the suggestion. Overall, the judges seemed interested in exploring the nondelegation and major questions factors, and repeatedly rebutted suggestions that ruling on the tariffs was beyond their power. And that suggests the trade court will likely rule against the tariffs. That outcome is far from certain, however, and the trade court is highly unlikely to have the final word on this question. But the legal case for the tariffs appeared weak before Tuesday's hearing, and nothing that happened on Tuesday changes that.
Vox
13-05-2025
- Business
- Vox
The first federal court hearing on Trump's tariffs did not go so well for Trump
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. The three-judge panel on the US Court of International Trade seemed troubled by the Trump administration's claim that the judiciary may not review the legality of President Donald Trump's tariffs at all.A federal court held the very first hearing on President Donald Trump's wide-ranging, so-called Liberation Day tariffs on Tuesday, offering the earliest window into whether those tariffs — and potentially all of the shifting tariffs Trump has imposed since he retook office — will be struck down. The case is V.O.S. Selections v. Trump. It is unclear how the three-judge panel that heard the case will rule, but it appears somewhat more likely than not that they will rule that the tariffs are unlawful. All three of the judges, who sit on the US Court of International Trade, appeared troubled by the Trump administration's claim that the judiciary may not review the legality of the tariffs at all. But Jeffrey Schwab, the lawyer representing several small businesses challenging the tariffs, also faced an array of skeptical questions. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Many of the judges' questions focused on United States v. Yoshida International (1975), a federal appeals court decision which upheld a 10 percent tariff President Richard Nixon briefly imposed on nearly all foreign goods. That is understandable: Yoshida remains binding on the trade court, and the three judges must take it into account when they make their decision. It is not, however, binding upon the Supreme Court, whose justices will be free to ignore Yoshida if they want. Ultimately, that means it is unclear how much influence the trade court's eventual decision will have over the Supreme Court, which is likely to have the final word on the tariffs. At the heart of V.O.S. Selections are four key words in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), the statute Trump relied on when he imposed these tariffs. That statute permits the president to 'regulate' transactions involving foreign goods — a verb which Yoshida held is expansive enough to permit tariffs — but only 'to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' It is likely that the trade court's decision will turn on what the words 'unusual and extraordinary threat' means. While Yoshida offered guidance on 'regulate,' there appears to be few, if any, precedents interpreting what those four words mean. In his executive order laying out the rationale for these tariffs, Trump claimed they are needed to combat 'large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits' — meaning that the United States buys more goods from many countries than it sells to them. But it's far from clear how this trade deficit, which has existed for decades, qualifies as either 'unusual' or 'extraordinary.' Schwab seemed to flub several direct questions from the judges asking him to come up with a universal rule they could apply to determine which 'threats' are 'unusual' or 'extraordinary.' When Judge Gary Katzmann, an Obama appointee, asked Schwab to name the best case supporting his argument that a trade deficit is neither unusual nor extraordinary, for example, Schwab was unable to do so. That said, some of the judges sounded outright offended when Eric Hamilton, the lawyer for the Trump administration, claimed that the question of what constitutes an unusual or extraordinary threat is a 'political question' — a legal term meaning that the courts aren't allowed to decide that matter. As Judge Jane Restani, a Reagan appointee, told Hamilton, his argument suggests that there is 'no limit' to the president's power to impose tariffs, even if the president claims that a shortage of peanut butter is a national emergency. The overall picture presented by the argument is that all three judges (the third is Judge Timothy Reif, a Trump appointee) are troubled by the broad power Trump claims in this case. But they were also frustrated by a lack of guidance — both from existing case law and from Schwab and Hamilton's arguments — on whether Trump can legally claim the power to issue such sweeping tariffs. What the Nixon precedent tells us about Trump's tariffs Early in the argument, Schwab appeared to be in trouble, as he faced a barrage of questions about how the Yoshida decision cuts against some of his arguments. As Restani told him at one point, the argument that a statute permitting the president to 'regulate' does not include the power to impose tariffs is a nonstarter, because Yoshida held the opposite. That said, all three judges proposed ways to distinguish the Nixon tariffs upheld by Yoshida from the Trump tariffs now before the trade court. Restani, for her part, argued that the Nixon tariffs involved a 'very different situation' that was both 'new' and 'extraordinary.' For several decades, US dollars could be readily converted into gold at a set exchange rate. Nixon ended this practice in 1971, in an event many still refer to as the 'Nixon shock.' When he did so, he briefly imposed tariffs to protect US goods from fluctuating exchange rates. Yoshida, in other words, upheld temporary tariffs that were enacted in order to mitigate the impact of a sudden and very significant shift in US monetary policy, albeit a shift that Nixon caused himself. That's a very different situation than the one surrounding Trump's tariffs, which were enacted in response to ongoing trade deficits that have existed for many years. Restani and Katzmann also pointed to a footnote in Yoshida that said Congress enacted a new law, the Trade Act of 1974, after the Nixon shock. This footnote states a future attempt to impose similar tariffs 'must, of course, comply with the statute now governing such action.' Whatever power Nixon might have had in 1971, in other words, may now be limited by newer laws. Reif also made a similar argument, pointing out that there is a separate federal statute dealing with trade practices such as 'dumping,' when an exporter sells goods below their normal value. He questioned whether the president could bypass the procedures laid out in that anti-dumping statute by simply declaring an emergency, and then imposing whatever trade barriers the president wanted to impose under IEEPA. That said, none of the judges — and neither of the lawyers — were able to articulate a rule that would allow future courts to determine which presidential actions are 'unusual' or 'extraordinary.' Hamilton's suggestion that courts can't decide this question at all sunk like a pair of concrete shoes, with Katzmann arguing that the IEEPA's 'unusual and extraordinary' provision would be entirely 'superfluous' if Congress hadn't intended courts to enforce it. Schwab, meanwhile, earned a scolding from Restani when he kept trying to argue that Trump's tariffs are such an obvious violation of the statute that there's no need to come up with a broader legal rule. 'You know it when you see it doesn't work,' she told him — a reference to Justice Potter Stewart's infamously vague standard for determining what constitutes pornography. The three judges, in other words, expressed serious concerns about the Trump administration's argument for the tariffs. But it's not clear that they have figured out how to navigate the uncertain legal landscape looming over this case. Will the decision be broad enough to matter in the long run? Though the bulk of the argument focused on the four key words in the IEEPA, it's not clear that a narrow decision holding that this law does not permit these tariffs will have much staying power. Trump could potentially try to impose the tariffs again, using the somewhat more drawn out process laid out in the 1974 Trade Act, which permits the government to 'impose duties or other import restrictions' after the US Trade Representative makes certain findings. So if the courts issue a narrow ruling against these tariffs, they may have to go through a very similar dog and pony show in a few months. There are, however, two controversial legal doctrines popular with conservatives — known as 'major questions' and 'nondelegation' — which could lead to a more permanent reduction of Trump's authority. Broadly speaking, both of these doctrines empower the courts to strike down a presidential administration's actions even if those actions appear to be authorized by statute. Late in the argument, Restani seemed to latch onto the nondelegation theory. Under current law, Congress may delegate power to the president or a federal agency so long as it 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform.' This 'intelligible principle' test is famously very deferential to Congress. Nevertheless, Restani asked some questions indicating that she may think that the IEEPA is the rare law which provides so little guidance to the president that it must be struck down. She noted that the law does permit Congress to pass a resolution canceling tariffs after the fact, but argued that this kind of after-the-fact review is not a substitute for an intelligible principle letting the president know how to act before he takes action. The major questions doctrine, meanwhile, establishes that Congress must 'speak clearly' if it wants to give the executive branch authority over matters of 'vast 'economic and political significance.'' By some estimates, Trump's tariffs are expected to reduce real family income by $2,800, so that's certainly a matter of vast economic importance. Thus, to the extent that the IEEPA's language is unclear, the major questions doctrine suggests that the law should be construed to not permit these tariffs. Hamilton's primary argument against this line of reasoning is that the major questions doctrine does not apply to the president at all, only to actions by federal agencies that are subordinate to the president. But none of the three judges appeared sympathetic to this argument. Restani, in particular, seemed incredulous at the suggestion. Overall, the judges seemed interested in exploring the nondelegation and major questions factors, and repeatedly rebutted suggestions that ruling on the tariffs was beyond their power. And that suggests the trade court will likely rule against the tariffs.
CNA
12-05-2025
- Entertainment
- CNA
Better together: Why these watch collaborations stand out
Fine watchmaking has a reputation for being a little aloof. Blame the eye-watering price tags, the never-ending heritage flexing, and the kind of technical jargon that makes you wish you'd paid more attention in physics class. But horology also has a friendly side; there are brands that delight in collaboration – both within and beyond the watch world – and while the results can be unexpected, they are always a great deal of fun. ZENITH X PORTER Leaving the country is, ironically, something of a national pastime, and you'll want this Zenith and Porter collaboration for your next weekend escape. Porter is the cult Japanese label under Yoshida & Co, known for its well-crafted, functional bags, and this partnership yields two models in Zenith's longest-running collection: The Pilot Automatic Porter and the Pilot Big Date Flyback Porter, both clad in a ceramic case of olive green – or 'khaki', as Porter devotees would recognise. The time-and-date model comes in at 40mm and is powered by the El Primero 3620, while its complicated cousin measures 42.5mm and runs on the El Primero 3652. Both feature grooved dials co-signed by Zenith and Porter, with bright orange hands – a nod to the cheery linings of Porter bags, which themselves are inspired by high-visibility interiors of aviation jackets. Each watch comes with two straps: One in military-leaning nylon (complete with orange Velcro accents and Porter's stitched logo), the other a Cordura-effect rubber strap with a black PVD steel folding buckle, and these can be switched easily thanks to a quick-release system. Naturally, the packaging is part of the experience: The watch box nestles inside a Porter messenger bag, khaki on the outside and Zenith blue within. Each model is limited to 500 pieces. ULYSSE NARDIN X AMOUREUXPEINTRE Kyrgyzstan-born designer Vsevolod Sever Cherepanov – a name as layered as his resume – has done the rounds in fashion and interiors, collaborating with the likes of Nike and Alyx, launching his own brands Sever and Genesis, and overseeing his own creative studios Home 2.0 and Solutions 2.0. His aesthetic? Stark minimalism, monochrome moods, and a deep commitment to upcycling. Now he's taken his pared-back philosophy to the world of horology with the Ulysse Nardin Blast [Amoureuxpeintre], a limited edition of just 29 pieces. The 42mm case and bezel are rendered in sandblasted titanium, and the sapphire crystal is frosted front and back using a precision laser technique, with a smoky fume effect achieved through delicate metallisation. It took two years of development to get the effect just right, and the result is a kind of intentional blur, like a half-remembered dream. Beneath the veil is the skeletonised Calibre UN-371, though you'll probably have to squint to see it. MB&F X BVLGARI When MB&F and Bvlgari first teamed up in 2021 for the LM FlyingT Allegra, it was a feminine fever dream of flying tourbillons and rainbow jewels. But don't expect a sparkling sequel – their second collaboration, though inspired by the jewellery brand's Serpenti, is a far more technical looking piece. The case resembles a streamlined automobile – no accident, given that both MB&F founder Maximilian Busser and Bvlgari's watchmaking chief Fabrizio Buonamassa Stigliani are self-confessed petrol heads. Curved sapphire crystal 'windows' offer clear views of the movement inside, which is based on MB&F's HM10 calibre. The serpent's 'eyes' double as domed hour and minute displays, machined from aluminium to keep things light, while its 'brain' is the oversized 14mm flying balance wheel, held in place by a balance bridge engraved with both brands' names. The movement has also been decorated with the Serpenti's hexagonal scales, giving the impression of a car grille. At the rear lugs, two crowns styled like car wheels let you set the time and wind the movement respectively. Three versions are available, each limited to 33 pieces: One in titanium with blue eye domes, another in 18k rose gold with green, and a third in black PVD-coated stainless steel with red accents. LOUIS VUITTON X KARI VOUTILAINEN Louis Vuitton may be a fashion juggernaut, but when it comes to watchmaking, it has a soft spot for the little guys. In 2023, the maison launched the Louis Vuitton Prize for Independent Creatives, a biennial award complete with a cash grant and a one-year mentorship at La Fabrique du Temps Louis Vuitton. That same year, it kicked off a new series of high-profile collaborations, debuting with Rexhep Rexhepi and a wildly complicated double-faced chiming chronograph. For round two, Louis Vuitton reached out to Kari Voutilainen, another horological maverick and a jury member of said prize, making this collaboration feel a little like a 'here's how it's done, kids' demo. The watch is the LVKV-02 GMR 6, a globe-trotting GMT with roots in last year's Louis Vuitton Escale watches and all the visual opulence one can expect when Vuitton and Voutilainen shake hands. While mechanically not in the same league as Rexhepi's monster of a movement, the LVKV-02 GMR 6 is a visual show-stopper. The dial alone is a four-part masterclass in craft. The outer hour ring features 28 colours and took 32 hours of painting and another eight hours of kiln time to achieve its stained-glass glow – all courtesy of Louis Vuitton's metiers d'art workshop. The centre dial bears Voutilainen's signature guilloche, riffing on LV's iconic Damier pattern and executed using 18th-century machinery. Voutilainen's team was also responsible for the hand-engraved sun and moon of the day/night indicator, as well as the design, assembly, and finishing of the movement, though Louis Vuitton contributed a final psychedelic flourish with the hand-painted mainspring barrel. Only five pieces will be made, and yes, each one will arrive in a custom Louis Vuitton travel trunk, hand-painted to match the dial and cheerfully signed off with: 'Louis cruises with Kari.' SARPANEVA X MOOMIN Five years ago, Finland's most poetic watchmaker paid tribute to Finland's most beloved fictional family. To mark the 75th anniversary of the Moomins, Stepan Sarpaneva created a charming homage under his more accessible SUF Helsinki label to sell-out success. So he turned up the horological volume the next year, releasing a higher-end version under the Sarpaneva name, complete with layered, hand-painted dials and his signature scalloped case. Now, with the Moomins turning 80, Sarpaneva returns with yet another endearing edition, available in two variants: A monochrome dial or a multi-coloured version. Both feature a three-part dial depicting a scene from Comet in Moominland (1946), an odd choice for an anniversary tribute given its slightly apocalyptic plot, but is charming nonetheless. Especially since the model adds a 'shooting star' aperture between 11 and 1 o'clock that houses a dragging hours display that sweeps the heavens in slow motion. The fairy tale feel intensifies as night falls. Thanks to 10 different shades of Super-LumiNova hidden throughout the scene, both versions transform after dark into miniature, glowing dreamscapes. Each version is limited to just 30 pieces. LOUIS ERARD X SYLVIE FLEURY It's practically de rigueur for an artist to subvert everyday notions of everyday things. For Swiss artist Sylvie Fleury, she's directed that irreverent spirit into contemporary sculptures featuring everything from makeup to shopping bags. As it turns out, makeup palettes also make excellent watch dials. Especially when paired with the clean, vertical 'three in line' layout of Louis Erard's Le Regulateur. In the Le Regulateur Palette of Shadows, the glossy black dial serves as a dramatic backdrop for two recessed subdials: In coral for the hours and magenta for the seconds. Each subdial features a matching hand, while the central minute hand stays black. The case is 39mm in black PVD-coated steel, paired with black calf leather strap. Limited to 178 pieces, and not for the beige-of-heart. RADO X TEJ CHAUHAN When Rado launched the DiaStar in 1961, it looked like it had been teleported from the future. We're now in that future – and it still looks like something from another timeline. That's part of the charm: It has never quite fit in, and doesn't plan to start now. For this new limited edition, British industrial designer Tej Chauhan brings his signature retro-futurist flair to the DiaStar, dialling up the fun without sacrificing its oddball appeal. It's the perfect sequel to bright yellow Rado True Square he reimagined in 2020, which had a radar-patterned dial and plenty of popping colour. Now, the DiaStar gets a yellow gold-coloured PVD-coated steel case, a Ceramos bezel, and a pillowy light grey rubber strap. Between 9 and 12 o'clock, the scale is highlighted in bright cyan – Chauhan's creative peak (or, depending on your lifestyle, peak party hours). The day-date display at 3 o'clock is wonderfully eccentric: Each day of the week appears in a different custom font and colour, while the date glows in neon red. Flip it over and you'll find Chauhan's logo on the caseback, along with a peekaboo sapphire window showing the R764 automatic movement.
