back to top

Kate Winslet And Longines Collaborate On Limited Edition Watch Release

Kate Winslet And Longines Collaborate On Limited Edition Watch Release Sales & Auctions Sponsored Post written for aBlogtoWatch by advertiser.

On June 10, 2017, Swiss watchmaker Longines and the brand’s ambassador Kate Winslet joined together at the brand’s Paris boutique to launch an exclusive and very limited timepiece collection: The Flagship Heritage by Kate Winslet. The occasion also marked the start of Longines’ online auction to benefit the Golden Hat Foundation, co-founded by Kate Winslet in 2010. Proceeds of three of these highly limited timepieces will directly benefit the Foundation, whose mission is to change the way people on the autism spectrum are perceived.

The online auction at began on June 10th with an opening bid of $25,000 USD on each timepiece, and the auction will continue until June 30, 2017 at 5:59pm CEST. Three fortunate winning bidders will have the opportunity to receive their new timepiece directly from the British actress at her next public appearance with Longines.

Kate Winslet And Longines Collaborate On Limited Edition Watch Release Sales & Auctions

Kate Winslet has been a Longines Ambassador of Elegance since 2010, the same year that the British actress co-founded the Golden Hat Foundation. The Swiss watch brand is proud to join with Kate and The Golden Hat Foundation to support their worthy mission: changing the way people on the autism spectrum are perceived by shining a light on their abilities and emphasizing their great potential. The foundation works to ensure that autistic individuals have access to an appropriate academic education, social support, and job training based on their abilities. To that end, the organization plans to establish innovative post-high school campuses designed to support individuals on the autism spectrum in an environment built around their individual needs and strengths. Proceeds from the three timepieces at auction will directly benefit the charity’s mission.

Kate Winslet And Longines Collaborate On Limited Edition Watch Release Sales & Auctions

During a visit to the Longines headquarters in Switzerland in 2016, the actress was drawn to one piece in the Longines Museum – an original Flagship model. Taking this piece as an inspiration, Kate collaborated with Longines to create a limited-edition watch to benefit her Foundation. Like the new Flagship Heritage 60th Anniversary 1957-2017 timepiece, the Flagship Heritage by Kate Winslet limited edition is a contemporary homage to this original museum piece, this time presented in a distinct golden tone that also pays tribute to the Golden Hat Foundation.

Longines sold its first Flagship in 1957, and ever since, the collection has been met with lasting success. This timeless watch, with its white dial, thin profile and fine fasteners, quickly won over Longines collectors. A perfect blend of technical mastery and subdued elegance, the Flagship owes its name to the ship upon which the flag of the fleet’s commander in chief snaps in the wind. A symbol of Longines’ wishes for this new collection, this caravel is stamped on the back of Flagship watches.

Kate Winslet And Longines Collaborate On Limited Edition Watch Release Sales & Auctions

The Flagship Heritage by Kate Winslet is a 35mm ladies’ watch that features a brushed dial, 18 karat gold case, and camel calf leather strap. Each of the timepieces is inscribed on the case back with an edition number alongside the distinctive engraving of the Flagship Collection. The Flagship Heritage by Kate Winslet is equipped with a self-winding mechanical movement, caliber L609, along with a 42-hour power reserve. The sophisticated timepieces are also finished with a sapphire crystal and dauphine hands coated with Super-LumiNova®.

Kate Winslet And Longines Collaborate On Limited Edition Watch Release Sales & Auctions

The award-winning actress, who joined Longines in the French capital to unveil the new watch model, shared her enthusiasm about their common initiative for the Golden Hat Foundation: “I was given the permission to choose a watch, which was designed specifically for the Golden Hat Foundation. The style of the model really appealed to me and I instantly fell in love with it. All the profits of the selling of the model are going directly to the foundation. This project with Longines is helping raise awareness about a particular cause dear to my heart. Thanks to Longines’ involvement and the generosity of the donators, the foundation will keep on working towards achieving its goals.”

Sponsored Posts are a form of advertising that allows sponsors to share useful news, messages, and offers to aBlogtoWatch readers in a way traditional display advertising is often not best suited to. All Sponsored Posts are subject to editorial guidelines with the intent that they offer readers useful news, promotions, or stories. The viewpoints and opinions expressed in Sponsored Posts are those of the advertiser and not necessarily those of aBlogtoWatch or its writers.

Read more about

Watch Brands



Disqus Debug thread_id: 5940228179

  • Nice watch. Needs higher WR 😉

  • William & Falcon

    If she truly did have a hand in the watch’s design, I’d say she did a pretty darn good job. Best of luck to the whole operation. And Kate, if you’re reading this, feel free to drop a line with my falcon. He’ll get the message to me. No lewd messages please.

    • Gokart Mozart

      Kate could probably raise more money for the charity if she auctioned herself instead.

      • egznyc

        Well, sure, but some folks might have an aversion to prostitution – even for a good cause where she retains none of the cash she’s earned.

        • #The Deplorable Boogur T. Wang

          poor bidness model.

        • Gokart Mozart

          I forgot to put in the smiley, winky face. Obviously, I was not being serious. Just a humourous comment, or though it would be a humourous comment.

          • egznyc

            I did not mean to suggest that your comment was taken seriously (it was not; and if it had been, I would still not have taken any offense). Of course it was meant to be humorous.

            But now that you’ve censored yourself, I must protest your censorship. Not on any First Amendment grounds, but just because I cannot recall what inappropriate words you used to express your inappropriate idea. 😉

  • MEddie90

    Not an unattractive watch by any measure, classic case, nice dial and hands plus a re-badged 2895-2 under the (nicely engraved) caseback means it’ll be easily serviced or repaired in 50 years due to an abundance of spares. I’m glad Longines are reaching into their past to bring us classic designs with a little more authenticity and with a sense of heritage (while keeping the price manageable).

    If I were to nitpick i’d say the “Automatic” text is pointless and adds another type face to the dial, it isn’t required but it’s pretty harmless. Plus the hands are too short, the hour hand should be hitting the inside of the indexes and the minute hand at the edge of the track.

    Regarding the price it’s high but this is a charity watch and in a limited run of three (the caseback says x/5 so i’m assuming the other two are for Kate Winslet and Longines) so it isn’t exactly representative of what a watch like this would normally go for. Lucky bidding.

    • JCRV

      “Proceeds of three of these” So there are more than three and I guess you’re right about their owners.
      I don’t want to fault this watch, because how can >I< not stand behind this charity, but…
      A 35mm watch and still the seconds subdial is to high! If you look at the drawing, you can see the designer agrees with me. Is it really that expensive for a company as large as ETA to "stretch" these calibers with a larger baseplate and bridge?
      Why do I care? I might very well have bought a watch like this (don't have the money for this one) had that subdial been lower. It feels unbalanced like this.

  • Mikita

    I believe that 99.99% of women don’t care about the movements; actually they want a good looking watch which just works, so I always suggest quartz watches for ladies.

    • Yojimbo

      sexist much?

      • Mikita

        No, just fact.

        • Yojimbo

          Based on your empirical evidence with a sampling pool size of……? Try looking up Sandrine Stern, Caroline Scheufele or Helene Poulit-Duquesne sometime smarty pants. Your fact is bullshit, sorry that hanging out with your regular D&D club didn’t expose you to the broader world.

          • Mikita

            So what? You told me a couple of names, and now this IS a sampling pool! Your words are no less bullshit than mine

          • Yojimbo

            You clearly didn’t look them up bud, they are major league stars in the field of watchmaking who are all proud owners of XX chromosomes, and they are not the only ones out there.

            Your anecdotal evidence based on fun and frolics in the basement with your sexist D&D crew does not make something “true” man.

          • Mikita

            You cl have drawn the wrong conclusion. And now you persist in trying to prove to me that I’m a sexist from my mother’s cellar, instead of trying to understand the meaning of my commentary (as Mark did).

          • Yojimbo

            Buddy, you said 99.99% of women are something, something that you based on nothing but the lint in your bellybutton essentially. From that, you refused to refine or expand your alleged appropriate remark.

            You’re a fucking clown.

          • Mikita

            Fortunately, women are not idiots like you.

          • Yojimbo

            do you base that remark on the fact that your grandma and mom still love you?

          • Sheez Gagoo

            Your last two paragraphs proved, that you don`t care about sexism and second you`re a troll. No more points? Use “douchebag” and “clown”. You have lost all your credibility. I love a good argument but you ran out of bullets and now you`re insulting.

          • Yojimbo

            He made an incredibly sexist remark that’s right up there with the generic remarks you find about female engineering students and I called him on it, it’s all downhill from there and someone that just keeps repeating himself is 100% going to get called a douchebag, that you don’t agree with that means nothing to me.

            I am not struggling to obtain credibility here for my remarks. I am definitely going
            to call him a douche and clown when he keeps repeating the same thing
            over and over. I truly give zero fucks what you think.

          • Sheez Gagoo

            First, I don’t take any orders from you, second, upvotes from women Mikita.1, you: 0. You wan’t to kiss some female ass, proofing you’re such an anti-sexist? Wen’t wrong. So you stay virgin for another year until you can afford a journey to Thailand, which means: NEVER.

          • Yojimbo

            That would be the same Mikita who very clearly is not a woman? I gave him the names of major league executives in the watch world who are all WOMEN after he said 99.99% of all women don’t care about mechanical watches and he just blah blahed ‘who are they?’

            but sure, you go on keep supporting that clear champion of women.

          • Sheez Gagoo

            I give you the grammar one, if you feel better then. Yes, I support Mikita. He`s not mysogyn, and he`s not a sexist. What he stated is simply a fact. WOMEN ARE LESS INTERESTED IN MECHANICAL WATCHES. LIKE IT OR NOT. I work am a watchmaker, when I did my apprenticeship and even now: there are much, much less female apprentices than male! When I talk with women about horology you`ll annoy the hell out of most of them. There are female watch afficionados and watchmakeresses, but not that many. Look at the comment section of this fucking blog! ARE YOU BLIND? But I think I kind of get your point, I think you ask the very wrong question. The very question is: WHY IS IT LIKE THAT?? Is it because our culture forces them to give a fuck about man stuff? Is it because men wouldn`t take them seriously, even when they are much better in any kind of way? Is it because there female colleagues would consider them as manly lesbians and men too? Is it because in typical men-businesses they are exposed to much more sexism than in female jobs like nurse? THIS IS THE SEXISM; THESE ARE THE IMPORTANT QUESTION!! What you consider as sexism is simply (maybe) THE EFFECT OF SEXISM, NOT SEXISM ITSELF!! A fact! You can`t argue with facts! A=A (Ayn Rand). Sexism is a bad thing, that`s for sure, but your synthetic anger about the wrong thing is ridiculous and embarassing. Drops da mic!
            (If you find any grammar mistakes you can keep them).

          • Yojimbo

            You are HILARIOUS, you are doing the exact same thing as him and using your anecdotal personal experience to make a generalization about an entire gender. You then proceed to talk about there being “man stuff” and “men-businesses” wow wow wow, thank you for making all points for me.

            That you are quoting Ayn Rand really says everything about you that I need to know. Synthetic anger? Wasn’t angry once bud, I think you’re both laughable.

          • You sure express a lot of hostility and use a lot of crude language for someone who “isn’t angry”.

          • Yojimbo

            If I think someone is a joke or swear that equates to angry? You can take it as hostile all you like, I am actively hostile to his sexism, I think the other guy is more a clown than an OP and I think you just hold on to hostility to when I insulted your pricing a year or two ago.

            I feel like I’m in a conversation with in order: a casual sexist who is blind to it, an aggressively self denying sexist and pedantic old uncle Al here. Thank god I have my job to keep me actually intellectually stimulated. OP was most def sexist, #2 is a dingbat and you’re just a tad unfocused or I think you’d think twice with half of what you’ve written.

            My saying those things does not render me angry, me thinking that casual sexism is worthy of contempt is hardly novel, I’m not the outlier here dude.

          • Honestly I had no recollection of you having commented on my pricing – so you are totally wrong about that being any factor for me in this conversation. So let me get this right – you are hostile but not angry. Hey, whatever works for you.

            BTW – you are obviously an outlier here in terms of decorum (and it seems on other fronts based on the lack of support for your comments).

          • Yojimbo

            Mark, do you get angry every time someone says something grossly intolerant, racist, sexist or xenophobic? Maybe you just think “boy that guy is hella fucking stupid” instead?

            Being in opposition to something and going one further and taking the time to insult them if you feel the inclination that does not now or ever equate to “anger”.

            Reliance on the observance that someone is less than gentlemanly simply betrays the absence of anything else to remark upon in my experience. I have zero problem calling someone a fucking idiot if that’s what I think about them, you I think are just busy with your head up your ass for whatever reason, these other two are in the case of OP casual sexist and in the other case, someone with just enough brains to be stupid. References to Ayn Rand in the same breath he goes ad hominem after giving me grief for going ad hominem. Lulz, fucking lord gave me nowhere near the patience needed to suffer idiots like that without remark.

            You and the sexist echo chamber can keep re-affirming yourselves all you like. I’m one of those people quite comfortable that simply knows they are right. Please tell me somemore how it’s okay to make sweeping bald pronouncements about one or the other gender or intersex people on the basis of an unsupportable premise; it gives me the giggles. If I still taught legal reasoning I’d give you all D’s

          • Do I get angry every time someone says something grossly intolerant, racist, sexist or xenophobic? No, I recognize that everyone is entitled to their opinions, even when I don’t agree with them. Do I think less of them for opinions or statements that I disagree with? Sure, but that is not “license to insult at will” – for me anyway.

            That you so casually insult others says volumes about you as a person. What’s so funny here is that you defend your right to be profane and insulting and you went on to say:

            ” I’m one of those people quite comfortable that simply knows they are right.”

            Yet you refuse to extend that same right to others. In my experience, “knowing you are always right” is a sure sign of often being wrong. And being insufferable in the process.

            Anyway, we no longer seem to be talking about watches anymore, so I think this thread has about burned itself out.

            One more thing – I think you made a comment about my age (yes, I’m 64 years young) and if so then you are guilty of ageism. Feel free to insult yourself for the next 20 comments.

          • Mikita

            I’m sorry to say, but me, you and Sheez Gagoo have just lost some of our time and energy on a blatant troll.

          • No doubt true.

          • Having seen what sells at watch stores, I agree with your contention but I don’t have actual stats. For that matter, outside of use watch geeks, a lot of men also don’t care if a watch has a quartz movement. May the issue here is not sexism but rather quartzism.

          • Mikita

            True. I had hard time trying to explain to my non-WIS friends why I’m so obsessed with mechanical watches 🙂 They usually ask same trivial questions like: “if it’s working worse than quartz, then why?..”

          • Yeah, just today, I was talking with a bench jeweler and when I showed him the back of the Rpaige Skyscraper I was wearing, he asked where the battery was. I mentioned that it was mechanical and then the light went on for him. The point being, many people just assume that all watches are battery powered – hence they usually don’t have our “prejudice” against quartz. Cheers.

          • egznyc

            That’s pretty funny! And a jeweler no less. Yeah, I guess that’s the default in most people’s experience. As for the enthusiast’s prejudice, let’s just not call it “antiquartzism” – ’cause I don’t want to be labeled an antiquartzite. 😉

          • William & Falcon

            You’re a raving anti-quartzite!

          • At least we aren’t anti-dentites (like in the Seinfeld episode).

          • Yojimbo

            given that many millennial don’t wear watches period, you’re going to be hard pressed to make any generalized comment about women regarding watches. His remark was and remains sexist however.

          • Questioning his source/numbers is fair. Where are your refuting numbers BTW?

          • Yojimbo

            Mark, I gave the name of three ladies you should well recognize, you’re in a position where you should know full well that saying 99.99% of women don’t care about mechanical movements is lazy sexist horseshit. I do not need to provide competing research to disprove a blatant falsehood. Should I have to provide a photometric study to say a “blinding parking lot light” outside someone’s apartment is hyperbole?

            I didn’t say it wasn’t a hotdog party to a certain extent, but casual sexist/bullshit comments just serve to exclude women in the long run.

          • Three ladies (all of whom are compensated by the watch industry) is not a compellingly large number of women to support your position (numerically). You attack Mikita for having no supporting data and you now admit that you also have none. So we are left with opinions rather than facts.

            Please note that Mikita started his comment with “I believe”. This is in contrast to your statements such as “a blatant falsehood” which is presented as an (unsupported) fact.

            If he had said 99.99% of men didn’t care about mechanical movements, I might not argue with that assertion either based on the number of quartz watches sold worldwide all across the board.

            But to get to the heart of his claim – that women care EVEN LESS than men do about the movement is consistent with both YOUR and my casual observations. I didn’t read his comment as sexist (meaning discriminatory or belittling). What if he had said that women are on average shorter than men? Is that a sexist statement? I will agree that he is making an assumption about women but again, he states this is his opinion and I read into it that this is based on his personal experience.

            I fail to see how his observation (even is the exact number is unknown to all of us) excludes women in any way. He did not say that he discourages women from buying/wearing watches. So I’m not sure why he lit you up.

          • Mikita

            Thanks for helping me to explain this, Mark. Yes, this is what I actually meant. That, from my experience, women care even less than men about the mechanical movements. I don’t know how this assumption could be treated as “sexist bullshit”. Maybe I can’t say that women use lipstics more often than men – to not be bashed as a sexist…

          • Well yeah, a simple exaggeration does not invalidate a point. Especially one stated as a belief (not an unassailable fact).

            What’s funny is that Yojimo mentioned Helene Poulit-Duquesne who was the only one of the 3 ladies I was not familiar with. Her current position is with what is basically a jewelry company. But she has a long history in the watch industry – specifically Cartier.

            So just for fun I went to the Cartier website to see what movements are in their watches. From their base of around $4K USD to well over $20K virtually all of them have quartz movements. And yes there are mechanical movement watches offered (more than 0.001% it seems). But they are skewed towards the more expensive watches. From what I’ve seen, lower priced watches outsell the higher priced ones from any manufacturer in terms of units sold.

            So I’m going out on a limb here and ASSUMING that Cartier sells more quartz watches to women than mechanical. Are they sexist in offering more and cheaper watches to women? Or are they just responding to the market segment in ways that you alluded to in the first place (with a bit of exaggeration)?

          • Mikita

            Cartier must be blatant sexists from Yojimbo’s point of view 🙂 But these facts just validate the assumption that women’s focus of attention may be slightly different (on a broader scale) from men’s. I think that companies such as Cartier invest their time and money in studying such aspects, which can give them benefit in sales over long run. I once asked the sales lady in the multibrand watch boutique –
            which particular models women where mostly buing for themselves – she named around ten and all of them were quartz.

          • Yojimbo

            Mark how is the sales of watches from any given brand going to indicate what the “interests” of 99.99% of women are either? This guy just doesn’t want to back down, he reminds me of the people who used to say that women weren’t any good at engineering because of low enrollment rates. Bald generalizations that diminish women are offensive and should be spat upon from a great height at every opportunity.

          • Sales do equate to interests of a given market segment – business don’t have sexist agendas – they have profit agendas – they will sell what people want (that old supply & demand thing).

            And let’s stop focusing on the “99.99%” portion of his statement because that was obviously an exaggeration and not a data backed statistic (not that you have presented any data either, nor any personal anecdotal accounts).

          • Yojimbo

            Mark, the statement was sexist exactly because of the 99.99% portion. The statement is exactly analogous with an untold number of similar “women are THIS because THAT” remarks made by the casually sexist. Even if you CAN find a statistical discrepancy between total number of female watch owners who have an avid interest in mechanical movement over design, that does not make his bald claim any less sexist.

            How you are suggesting that were I unable to say honestly that one of my aunts has a raging lady boner over her Tag, my mom over a particular Patek Phillipe or that my grandmother spent thousands of dollars keeping a couple grandfather and coo-coo clocks going for decades (all anecdotal evidence) would somehow be evidence of me being incorrect baffles me.

            How about I make it more evident for you?

            Ariel “culturally jewish” Adams can very likely draw parallels to any obscene number of equally inappropriate “Jews are THIS because THAT” type of casually racist remarks he’s encountered over the years. So if OP was making a remark about a religion, or about blacks, or mentally disabled people would it be more or less or equally wrong as the one I took exception to?

            If you can’t bother to recognize that I’m right and would rather nitpick it to death by saying I should somehow have to come up with answerable #’s to bolster my position that OP is full of shit and a casual sexist, I can’t help you man, but you need it. You have OP and the guy ranting about “men business” squarely in your corner.

          • Sheez Gagoo

            Internet times…
            By the way: I think I`ve noticed two woman in the comment section of this blog. Long time ago.

          • Mikita

            I’ve noticed only one, I think. Perhaps they are afraid to comment because of such a sexist like me 🙂

          • William & Falcon

            A woman upvoted Mikita’s “No, just fact.” a few comments north of here.

          • Sheez Gagoo

            Help Mikita! Woman all over the horological world, a stupid advocate tries to speak in your name without asking you! Look what`s happening here! Enjoy the discussion and present YOUR opinion!

          • Mikita

            Finally, I’ve come across a blog to ladies’ watches!

  • DanW94

    You could say it’s a collaboration of Titanic proportions….

    • William & Falcon

      Longines’ sense + Kate Winslet’s sensibility = a winning combination. They definitely didn’t go down a revolutionary road, but at least it’s not hideous or kinky. I’d say it’s handsome, but not a knockout. More of a collateral beauty.

      • DanW94

        Show-off 🙂

  • Jeffrey Wong

    Nice that it goes to charity. The watch looks OK for ladies watch. Not sure how that raised case back feels when it is on your wrist. Now to be cheeky, if there was a male version with her nude silhouette from Titanic on the case back…wow.

    • William & Falcon

      You perv…I totally agree!

    • Word Merchant

      A bet the smart watch version with the dual heart sensor window would use your design to great effect. Imaging them – green and flashing… gets no better.

  • SwissMatic

    The best part about this watch is the ship imprint it will leave on your wrist.


    great work from that foundation that helps autistic kids. this is certainly to be supported. the autism rate is growing at an alarming rate and something to surely be paying attention to.

  • IG

    Yeah I guess the “collaboration” went like this:
    – Here’s the design of the watch.
    – I like it!
    – Thanks, bye.

    • Gokart Mozart

      That’s a bit unfair.

      The words “by Kate Winslet” were clearly written in Kates handwriting.

      Luciano, are these sold out?

    • Word Merchant

      Slight correction:

      – Here’s the design of the watch.
      – I like it!
      – The super-large cheque is in the post.

  • simon

    I have a pressing question…..what did she say to keep Longines from putting a date somewhere on this watch? They surely do not listen to anyone else when it comes to their historical re-editions.

  • 200 Fathoms

    Band name: “The Ambassadors of Elegance.”

    • Sheez Gagoo

      “Xanax in champagne”

  • SuperStrapper


  • Phil leavell

    I’m pretty sure I seen that exact face on a Baume Mercier. Something darn close to it

  • Yanko

    Who cares

  • #The Deplorable Boogur T. Wang


  • Word Merchant

    This watch is a sh*tter! It’s a f*****g sh*tter!

    (sorry, couldn’t resist.)