. . . for even though it's certainly true that RM created perhaps the only truly original marque in recent memory, their level of originality in nominal aesthetic terms is not deeply profound - after all, there are scads of barrel-shaped designs littering the history of watchmaking. RM's claim to fame lies in the fusion of technically purposeful mechanics with an aesthetic that mimics scientific instrumentation; the shape and construction of their cases are derived empirically as well (at least, that's my understanding), and it is the cumulative effect of technically pertinent mechanics combined with purely functional form that create the basis for RM's claim to fame. The superficial similarities between RM and Cvstos designs are just that - superficial. I don't think anyone feels that Cvstos is anything other than purely derivative . . . they may well be a success, but few will ever accord any significance to them other than what is their due as a copycat. Cordially, Art