Reply With QuoteYou may be able to run it through an OCR that scans images. I used to have the right software but the PC which had it set up with the right drivers blew up and I can't get it to work on this new one for some reason.
With the ongoing discussion of in-house movements and specifically the "shortcomings" of Bremont I think it's quite ironic that this article has been published in the August edition QP Magazine. I think this was mentioned in one of the other threads but I just spotted this on their Facebook page so thought it worth posting in full:
Anyone have a copy of the mag and could scan the pages bigger? Would love to be able to actually read it!!
You may be able to run it through an OCR that scans images. I used to have the right software but the PC which had it set up with the right drivers blew up and I can't get it to work on this new one for some reason.
For my money, I think any watchmaker with ambition does need to have an in-house movement. Brands that do not are merely exercises in packaging. And the best watchmakers are so much more than that.
Very true, but Maurice Lacroix went down that route and still don't hold their value even though they represent superb VFM even for the low end quartz watches.Originally Posted by Corporalsparrow
Yup. Because there are still too many El-Cheapo Maurice Lacroix quartz watches to be seen in display windows. The SEIKO effect.Very true, but Maurice Lacroix went down that route and still don't hold their value even though they represent superb VFM even for the low end quartz watches.
And, Maurice Lacroix just sounds gay and cheap imho. Nice watches, though!
Thanks for putting this online Jon, very much appreciated! :)
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
Interesting. Perhaps ML should rebrand to Lacroix for their more upmarket movements. Bit like Lexus and Toyota.
:lol:
It's funny because it's true!
Next, you'll be telling me Klaus Kobec isn't the pinnacle of horological development.
I think if you ask any watch company if they would like an in-house movement, they would almost all say "yes". If you asked them if they need an in-house movement, they would say "no".
It's no different to most of us; "do I need another watch? No.". "Do I want another watch? Yes.".
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
Save it as a JPEG and just zoom in.
I think it depends on where they wish to position themselves in the market. If they want to market themselves as high end horology yes, if they don't, no.
A kind member has sent me the PDF :)Save it as a JPEG and just zoom in.
I think they do need their own movement to make it, but that's not the only thing like we see from the ML.
Speaking of ML watches though, I quite like some of their models and the used prices are very affordable.
No they don't. And I think it will all end in tears.
Divide the cases in three: high volume watch production (e.g., Rolex), medium volume watch production (e.g., Patek) and low volume watch production (e.g., independents, such as Roger W. Smith, Kari Voutilainen, or Volker Vyskocil).
The advantages of having in house movements for the high volume maker are obvious: quality control, control of costs in production, and, as important I think, control of the repair chain. Since they are producing lots of watches, they can spread the cost of movement design out over the watches. But, you'll notice that even then, they generally change the movement design in only very incremental ways. For them, it is simply an additional economic advantage to have "in-house" movements become important. They can also make sure that they get all or nearly all the repair work. So, not so good for watchmaking in general.
The medium volume watch producers are in the difficult area. The very high end ones, such as Patek, have the wherewithal to underwrite movement design. But, even here, they make incremental changes, and new calibres are based on old ones. And their watches cost a bomb. If in house movements become seriously important, there are going to be very few options for the middle value, medium cost watch producers. They are either going to have to produce "in-house" movements at great cost, or be left behind. Now, these "in-house" movements will probably be of little interest horologically. Indeed, I would suspect that the design will be farmed out to specialist watch design places anyway, pushing everything back a step. I also suspect that the movements so designed will be mediocre variations on a theme. And, more importantly, are going to be difficult to sell, because one can't rely on a supply of parts for repair. So, they are going to be throw-away watches. Not so good for watchmaking. I would much rather see interesting in-house alterations to base movements designed elsewhere.
The low volume manufactures probably don't care. They are probably happy to use other calibres as a base, such as Voutilaine, who used an old, reworked JCL ébauche in the design of his award winning repeater. Even if he made every part by hand, he still found it useful to have at its base a known design. Very good for watchmaking, I think.
To top it all off, we are going to get the same games with "in-house" as we get with "Swiss made". Each is supposed to be a guarantee of quality and gnome driven workmanship, but, as with most things, you've got to look beyond the label. (Unless, of course, you are just interested in labels.)
Best wishes,
Bob
@rfrazier : excellent post! I think the variations to a theme will be needed. Or at least some deep pockets to fund the initial design costs but I think firms will struggle to get cheap long term funding at a reasonable rate so will discourage people on the edge of doing so from making the jump. No way of getting 25Y credit at the moment :(
A very interesting post, but the other thread I've started where Peter Roberts reviews the new TAG and Breitling in-house movements shows that you can rework a Seiko base calibre to the extent you've only got one original part left and still come in at the same price as a 7750. So is conventional thinking still valid in a changing marketplace?
I'm not sure. What do you take to be the conventional thinking? I take it to be that there is something magical about a movement being designed/made "in-house". Isn't that TAG/Breitling movement denigrated for not being "in-house"?
Best wishes,
Bob
I do sort of wonder what people feel they get extra from an in-house movement if they have no unusual functions. This is particularly true for me with non-chrono's where the ETA movement is highly reliable and accurate and does not exhibit any annoying traits.
Yes the 7750 is a little bit tall and prone to wobbling your wrist, but as blokes we should be use to it.
Not being dismissive, but while I have made lots of horological leaps, I have not found the need to lock myself into a specific manufacturers service costs (especially when we are all known for buying older used watches) just because of the movement. I may buy a Rolex knowing it to have good resale and being iconic, but I certainly will not buy one because it's got a home grown movement in it.
Well, I could read the article just fine in spite of the small print (you old farts :lol: )
Interesting indeed, but does it not just boil down to what Eddie has said else where; that of course Bremont WANTS an in-house movement, but it is prohibitively expensive to develop hence they do not have one (I did not quote Eddie verbatim here, but you get the drift).
Yes, the in-house movements have a certain allure. I can how ever live without them. What I can not abide is a hyped watch with a 2824 inside (not jabbing at any particular brand here).
That being said, I bought a Gerard-Perrgaux and absolutely loved it. A very high quality watch. The thing just oozed quality in waves and sported a GP 'in-house' movement.
How ever, from what I have read, that movement is not especially robust and might in reality not be up to the job, in what is supposed to be a rugged sport watch albeit in the high end without being the pinnacle of horology. Must be said, the GPGGYC is the best timekeeper, I have ever owned.
The TAG movement has been dismantled by Peter and found to be almost a new movement, so he deems it in-house. He's also stated in the article that the Breitling movement is a new movement and designed from scratch and also in-house. Conventional thinking is that to be in-house costs lots of money and not conducive to large-scale manufacture, the TAG movement now show this to be false.I'm not sure. What do you take to be the conventional thinking? I take it to be that there is something magical about a movement being designed/made "in-house". Isn't that TAG/Breitling movement denigrated for not being "in-house"?
Best wishes,
Bob
The conclusion from Peter's article and the recent reply to another member from Bremont regarding their movements leads me to believe that next year could be a VERY interesting year for Bremont, one to keep an eye on for sure :D
I'm not sure. Here's the important quotation. "The company has redesigned it completely and makes every significant part of it. What it doesn’t make – the jewels, the balance, the mainspring, etc – most manufacturers don’t make these, either.”The TAG movement has been dismantled by Peter and found to be almost a new movement, so he deems it in-house. He's also stated in the article that the Breitling movement is a new movement and designed from scratch and also in-house. Conventional thinking is that to be in-house costs lots of money and not conducive to large-scale manufacture, the TAG movement now show this to be false.I'm not sure. What do you take to be the conventional thinking? I take it to be that there is something magical about a movement being designed/made "in-house". Isn't that TAG/Breitling movement denigrated for not being "in-house"?
Best wishes,
Bob
What's the difference between designing and redesigning? I suspect that designing is more expensive than redesigning. Fine. Call it "in-house" if you want. On my view it doesn't matter. It is a debate that diverts attention from that which does matter. What matters is the quality of the movement when it is completed (and whether it is worth the dosh).
Best wishes,
Bob
+1 8)
(also one of the reasons why I like JLC so much 8) )
Most F1 cars don't have an in-house engine, they start with a tried and tested engine and then modify it. In my opinion, this is the way to go.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
+1A very interesting post,
Ferrari and Mercedes have there own the have both performed well in F1 :roll:
Mercedes? That's an Ilmor engine. The company was bought outright by M-B a few years ago. Well, that's one way to make it in-house ;).Ferrari and Mercedes have there own the have both performed well in F1 :roll:
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Anything that demonstrates a desire to move away from ETA is to be applauded, and if TAG does this at low enough cost for it to replace things like 7750s and 2894s without charging serious in-house money for a chrono (that's £5-6000 these days), then even better.
Of course, it pisses a lot of people off that TAG did this since it doesn't fit their unyielding, unchanging worldview.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Ilmor was in the old Peter Sauber days don't think there is any more left of that in the AMG engine they use today,
because they use a complete other set-up today then back then but OK :wink: 8)
Back on track I think watch brand see a in-house movement as the shortest way
to get a higer status in the watch wold,so for them it is the way to go 8)
Even better. :)A kind member has sent me the PDF :)Save it as a JPEG and just zoom in.
Pass it on. :wink:
I like a remark made by a Seiko engineering chief made in the context of the developing the FEM LCD technology in-house. It enabled them to ´scratch where it itches´.
This adresses the issue neatly imo. In-house is only better if there is an itch ánd one has better scratchers in house.
No they don't. What they do need is high quality and interesting movements, but not necessarily in-house.
http://www.timezone.com/library/cjrml/cjrml0030Within the ranks of the gourmands, are cognoscenti that focus at least in part upon the appreciation of fine movements. It is perhaps this group that is most prone to the growing in-house fanaticism as the idea of "in-house manufacture" has become a kind of safe assurance of quality, value, and exclusivity. This obsession is reaching a point where only in-house manufacture is accounted to be "real" watchmaking. A brand is not taken serisously unless it is a part of the in-house elite.
...
Let us start with the Patek Philippe calibre 315, an excellently crafted but technically and aesthetically unremarkable automatic movement. In turn let us consider the premium automatics of two specialist makers: Lemania's 8815 and Frederic Piguet's 1150. I submit that either of these ebauches with their dual mainspring-barrel designs, if fitted and finished by Patek Philippe to their standard (Gyromax balance, solid-gold rotor, Geneva hallmark) would result in a finer watch at a lower price than one equipped with the in-house 315. A radical notion to be sure.
The elegant Jaeger-LeCoultre 888/889 series automatic is, as an ebauche, a technical and quality equivalent of the aforementioned 315/330 SC series. The larger production volume of the 888 movement through sales to IWC (seen as calibre 887 above), Audemars Piguet, Vacheron Constantin, and through Jaeger-LeCoultre's inhouse label bring price levels down to much more accessible levels (Patek Philippe Calatrava 3998, $11,500; Audemars Piguet Millenary 14908, $8,800). This inhouse premium can be quite severe for low production movements, and considering the merits of the 315 relative to its technical superiors and equivalents, what does it offer at this premium? Exclusivity.
Great article! Thanks for sharing!
I'm not as think as you drunk I am.
As stated many times before, including in this thread, what is the aim of going in-house, is it to provide a better movement than before, which is a long shot as things like the 7750, 2824, 2892, etc are all top notch and proven over several decades. Is it to give the watch more function, i.e. added complications, i don't think so as not many have anything that couldn't be done already with an ETA. Is it to reduce costs, again i'm not too sure on this one, the first thing they do is stick another £500-1000 on the price.
Overall i think companies feel they need to do this for the prestige and kudos of producing an in-house movement, but most of these don't really do anything more than the ETA's they replace, and they cost a lot more, so the consumer isn't really getting any added value either. The likes of Rolex and Omega have in-house due to work done decades ago, Rolex don't really create new movements, they rework their own ones, so for them making in-house movements would be the cheapest option, they have the tooling, the staff and the design, same with Omega, same with a lot of companies, so why new companies try to do in-house when it's not really needed is something i wonder about, the only reasons are the ones mentioned before, as well as companies trying to move the brand up the ladder, i.e. by turning their range from £1000-2000 into a £2000-4000 watch range.
In the old days, when a watch was just a watch, there where literally hundreds of watch companies that bought stock ETA, AS and/or FHF movements and stuck them in stock TK or EPSA (there were a few others whose names escape me) cases and sold fine, sturdy, reliable watches at reasonable prices.
I guess the watch has passed on into a form of jewelry, where the process of making it, and who does the making, counts as much, if not more, towards the prestige and price, than just how well end-product preforms its job....
They are getting added value through exclusivity and at that end of the market prestige and kudos are very important.
Let's face it at the prices most of these firms charge you want something different from the herd movement-wise.
Omega haven't had any in house movements for decades. It is only recently they are getting back into it.
I agree.
What I am not keen on are watches in the top bracket of your pricing with slightly modified ETA's.
Cheers,
Neil.
Whenever I hear talk about discerning fine cognoscenti, or even fine discerning cognoscenti, I get a sort of word-association overload. "Wank" is one of those words.
BTW gourmand is defined as "a person who is devoted to eating and drinking to excess" and that about sums it up. It is, or was, useful to distinguish between people who genuinely were capable of detecting, differentiating and defining taste in food, and basically fatsos who gorged themselves on riches. Gourmet was once a useful and descriptive noun before it was appropriated by various supermarkets and now it means something to do with hummus.
Mr Creosote was a gourmand, for example.
Yup. "Look how much money I've got" is another MAJOR factor.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I get Jon's question is specific to Bremont. Omega sells a 8500 AT at 3000 pounds. Then yes, brands playing in this ballpark need in-house movement.
Talking about top grade ETA with "esotic" materials/treatments for the case, Damasko clearly set the standard at 800 pounds for the DA36/37. I don't like their numerals and some could prefer higher WR, hence Bremont is filling a niche in the market that I cannot see other makers to care of. Maybe Sinn, but at 44mm.
That said, who will buy a DA46 at that price, against a "simple" DA36?
Does Maclaren need to make its own engine - etc. etc. It is all down to quality and performance for me and that does not have to be in-house - but luckily Rolex and Omega are already about as close as you can get for my liking so no problem for the majority of my collection. The other ETA watches I still like though :)
It's just a matter of time...
Well, no, because not all other things are equal. Not all watches costing £3,000 "need" an in-house movement just because one or two players have in-house movements. In-house movements are vital for some, but not others. (Or, I suspect, most.)
The Omega has a conventional case that cost nothing to make and even less to develop. The watch is not the movement alone.
That's a good point but Damasko doesn't advertise, market or distribute. I mean it doesn't even distribute in the distribution channels it does have :roll:. We can look at Sinn as an example of a watchmaker with more advanced case tech, but what does a tegimented Sinn cost these days? £1200? £1400?Talking about top grade ETA with "esotic" materials/treatments for the case, Damasko clearly set the standard at 800 pounds for the DA36/37.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Something i do think is missing these days is the way that the Swiss market seemed to work together in the 70s and 80s, where 3 or 4 companies could work together to reduce the costs and then all use the movement, of course this wouldn't be classed 'in-house', but it gives the watches better movements through a lot more input and reduces costs so should reduce the price being added to the watches.
This is the thing that's being stopped by the whole cult of 'in-house', if companies like Bremont, Sinn, etc worked together they could come up with a good plan that would involve new movements and share the R&D and manufacturing costs.
:mrgreen: True.. True!!!
I also think that having in-house production will help a lot considering the advertising effects, but it is by no means a requirement!
- Morten
I think Walt is known for being rather facetious from time to time.
I think there's room to brand's to develop something horologically interesting rather than something the same as any other movement just for the sake of putting 'in house' on the marketing materials.
For example, Wempe's CW1 with Nomos movement. A manual wind movement with a 3+ day power reserve, gold chatons, and swan neck regulator with great decoration. For about £3500-£4000 I think. Expensive, yes. Will it perform better than an ETA chronometer? Perhaps not. But it is definitely more interesting, and not because it is hugely superior in terms of performance or unique to that watch. And it doesn't even have any complications.
All it takes is some sort of innovation, a little twist to make it the brand's own. An interesting winding system. A slightly higher beat. Interesting materials for the balance. Or even just a unique layout for complications, such as a small second hand at 10.30. An identity, in other words.
Fair assessment but you have to be very into watches for the interest to be piqued, and more importantly, wealthy enough to take a punt on it, to the extent that you won't cry over £3,500-£4,000 spent on something you don't much like.
The problem with all this movement tosh is that is suggests people of more modest means aren't allowed to join this so-called club of gen-u-ine enthusiasts, because we cannot enjoy the feeling of handing over several grand to a pomaded man in a fine suit for a shiny new watch. WISdom does not start with, or end with, in-house (there's more to it than the movement) and there are some perfectly good brands out there that don't, or won't play that game. Oris, Breitling until recently, and despite the purchase in 2000 of ebauche manufacturer Kelek, Longines, Baume, Union, Eterna, Fortis spring to mind, all popular with watch enthusiasts. Just not sponsored-lunch enthusiasts with a penchant for blue blood.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
That argument might run if you couldn't buy a in house movement for under £1000 and the comparison with other brands wasn't so interesting.Fair assessment but you have to be very into watches for the interest to be piqued, and more importantly, wealthy enough to take a punt on it, to the extent that you won't cry over £3,500-£4,000 spent on something you don't much like.
The problem with all this movement tosh is that is suggests people of more modest means aren't allowed to join this so-called club of gen-u-ine enthusiasts, because we cannot enjoy the feeling of handing over several grand to a pomaded man in a fine suit for a shiny new watch. WISdom does not start with, or end with, in-house (there's more to it than the movement) and there are some perfectly good brands out there that don't, or won't play that game. Oris, Breitling until recently, and despite the purchase in 2000 of ebauche manufacturer Kelek, Longines, Baume, Union, Eterna, Fortis spring to mind, all popular with watch enthusiasts. Just not sponsored-lunch enthusiasts with a penchant for blue blood.
Rigorous comparison is the root of all Wisdom :wink:
Hamilton, Heuer and Buren. It's too bad only Guinand has the license on the movement. I'd like to see more watches using this movement probably to make it more affordable.
You're funny Andrew.
Pomaded man. :lol:
If you are interested in in house movements you don't need the pomaded man or spend a fortune.
I bought this in- house beauty a week ago from a scruffy man with a beard and glasses (no pomade in sight) for the price of a new Seiko.
Again you are talking about pomaded man new products. :wink:
You know very well that Longines and Eterna were famous for their in house movements in the past.
You can still easily buy that stuff very reasonably, far more reasonably in fact than their latest ETA filled models.
Just because you like/prefer in house movements doesn't put you into the province of your pomaded man. :P
"Pomaded man"................. I love that phrase. :D
Cheers,
Neil.
Nomos do in-house for £1000-£2000, Air Kings can be had new for £2000 and change, Omega does rather re-worked versions of the 2892 for under £2000, Frederique Constant has a manufacture movement watch for under £2,000, Zenith Elites can be had for £2500 brand new. And those are all MSRP. DJR, Eberhard, JLC, GP, etc have all been offered with manufacture variants for under £2500 on the SC.
I personally sold an IWC Ingenieur still under warranty with 88110 in-house pellaton on bracelet for under £2300, and offered a GP with in-house 3300 in solid gold for £2800, as well as an Omega with exclusive Piguet coaxial chrono for under £1500.
Well, throwing used and/or vintage watches into the mix does rather change the scenery. And the smell (from hair oil to movement oil). I am thinking of the luxury boutiques run by the exquisite fine manufacturers, and the fans who think that's where it starts and stops. I'd certainly be very happy with a vintage Longines, particularly as their movements were (IIRC) the equal of many of today's super-duper brands as long as I didn't have to go anywhere "exclusive" to buy it (all that stuff puts a huge hike in the price tag).If you are interested in in house movements you don't need the pomaded man or spend a fortune.
I bought this in- house beauty a week ago from a scruffy man with a beard and glasses (no pomade in sight) for the price of a new Seiko.
...
Just because you like/prefer in house movements doesn't put you into the province of your pomaded man. :P
As for pomaded man...
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Good thread this. My feelings are that there has been a bit of a shift away from the more traditional, old money buyers of in house movements towards the nouveau riche, if you will. Manufacturers read the market & adjust strategies accordingly. Seeing the potential customer base in the former Russia & China, for example, it becomes easy to understand why brands want the marketable cachet of an in house movement. My main worries over new in house movements from less established companies would be reliability, longevity & easy availability of parts.
.
.
______
Jim.
Posting Permissions
