Reply With Quote
That must really hurt- owch 😱
I heartily endorse this product and/or service.Originally Posted by GrandS
That must really hurt- owch 😱
To my mind that is a reasonable first product. One step at a time, and all that.
Whether it's 28K worth, well, that's up to the buyers. Someone must buy Loomes watches. Will they be the sort of people who'd buy this one? I guess Mr. Loomes knows.
Isn't it the case, though, that it's not "a first product"? It's 'a modification of an existing product'.
So, although Loomes says that it's "a completely new movement" and "the Stamford Original", it's neither new nor original.
I'd just like to say thanks for your posts, and please keep them coming. I'm finding them very informative. I'm sure no one is thinking you're anti anything, just stating your opinions.
I'm gonna have to say out loud what a few have hinted at. It looks like a dog's dinner.
It most certainly is Loomes' first product of this sort. In terms of design it may well appear to be largely be a copy of an earlier movement but that doesn't make this particular product any less new. It would seem that it is not made with any pre-existing tooling, for example.
I would say that all this definitely fulfils the meaning of the word "new".
As such, I applaud them for doing it. Maybe someone else could have done better. This is what they did.
As I say, one step at a time. Iterative development needs a return on investment to be able to continue. Could it have been better? Probably. Could have been worse, too. Perhaps the next iteration will be better; hopefully it will be. The market will decide if it this one is worth what they are asking.
Last edited by markrlondon; 6th November 2016 at 21:20.
I think they need to follow the lead of the Swiss and implement a massive price increase.
Nah.Your distinctions are too fine. "New" means 'new' and "original" means 'original'.
The lugs are definitely both new and original.Nah.
I do find it a little odd that we (the Brits) seem to go in for such self destruction. Bremont got it, Schofield got it, Loomes, hell even RW Smith. It is an odd phenomenon i think.
Agreed. It's not a healthy mindset.
It can be justified or rationalised in all sorts of ways but, ultimately, it just holds us back as a nation. Thankfully foreign buyers are not affected by this malaise.
The scepticism of some is balanced by the blind chauvinism of others
The "malaise" is Loomes'.
If he had been transparent in this matter and said, 'We took the architecture of an old Smiths movement, re-cut the plates & balance cock to make them look different from the original, arranged for the parts to be manufactured by micro-engineering companies in Britain and then assembled them into a case of our own design with sapphire crystals of our own manufacture", he would have received praise for several of those activities.
However, for him to claim that 'his' movement is "new" and "original" is to invite criticism, because it could be construed as misleading.
me23dc's expert posts in this thread are, when read carefully, conclusive.
When I (naively) enquired about creating my own movement back in 2002, I was told it would cost 1 million Swiss francs just to get a working prototype so you have to admire the vision and commitment of somebody who has actually done this. Whether they would have done it differently if they had known what they know now, only they can say but I applaud them for trying.
Eddie
Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
And if Loomes had created his "own movement", rather than modifying someone else's and claiming it was his own, I would applaud him for it.
Last edited by Tinker; 7th November 2016 at 12:10.
have to agree with Jason except about the hands and dial which are as dreary as the case - aesthetic fail !
Blimey, I hadn't noticed this before...
Is that right? A 29mm case?
I know some watches are stupidly big, but that seems tiny - I've got a 34mm watch and find that a bit dainty and I'm not built like "The Rock".
M
No that's the movement size. The movement is the achievement being publicised as much as the watch itself. The watch is 39.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If Bremont can produce very appealing watches at ~3K, how the hell can they ask nearly 30K for this ugly thing??? There is nothing innovative nor exclusive in that, the movement is not decorated either...might as well stick a cheap quartz movement in it to match the rest.
Would I spent 30K on a Patek or this Loonie idea ...let me think
He is certainty guilty of hyperbole....but hes done something. And lets be frank...this is a British disease. People on her coo over Montblanc pens and their "precious resin" is they very embodiment f hyperbole but that gets a pass?
What about "Superlative Precious Resin, Officially Certified"?
Seriously though, Loomes(*) is to be applauded for making a truly British Watch(TM), if that is indeed what has been achieved. However, the watch produced begs one or several questions. Why does a British watch have to have off-centre screws and weird lugs and no shock protection and an outrageous price? Is it necessary for something to be slightly weird, tangibly eccentric, behind the times in technology, and over-priced in order to be truly British? It seems to me that the watch under discussion echoes some of the worst stereotypes about the nation, ones that are largely undeserved in actuality.
(*) How's that pronounced BTW? Loom, Loo-miss, or Looms?
Loo-mess: as in 'an all over the lavatory floor, missed the porcelain, whoopsy'.
Perhaps there will be a new synonym for 'dog's dinner' in the horological thesaurus: 'Crikey mate, that's a right Loomes, no mistake!'
______
Jim.
[QUOTE=seffrican;4138135]What about "Superlative Precious Resin, Officially Certified"?
...... Is it necessary for something to be slightly weird, tangibly eccentric, behind the times in technology, and over-priced in order to be truly British? .......QUOTE
Well, I quite like Morgan cars.
Glad I'm not the only one who doesn't understand the British aptitude for self destruction. Whilst the styling of the watch won't appeal to many here it is ultimately subjective.
As Eddie has recounted manufacturing a movement from scratch is a massively expensive endeavour. Even the most basic are after all ridiculously complicated pieces of mechanical magic and the result of years worth of development and refinement. Remember the 1 million Swiss Francs was a just for a prototype, the tooling for serious production will be a lot more. So anyone who thinks about making a new movement must have very deep pockets and, more than likely, private backing. In other words it's a huge undertaking and an even bigger risk.
Whilst it looks like the Loomes movement is heavily influenced by the Smiths movement you have to remember that unlike the Smiths it won't be mass produced. It sounds like all the jewels will be set and adjusted by hand, which in itself is a time consuming process. The irony is Loomes are sticking to time honoured processes that effectively killed British watchmaking when the Swiss and Americans introduced automation and mass production.
Perhaps the bigger irony is how we now seemingly covet mass produced watches and how the Swiss have so effectively marketed them. However that's probably a debate left to another thread.
I sincerely hope Robert and family are successful with this endeavour even if the watch doesn't appeal to me personally.
Cheers,
Gary
I'm all for supporting our home grown watch makers and don't agree with the slagging that Bremont, Schofield etc tend to receive but even looking at it charitably this comes off as half-cocked. To have invested so much and with the extremely optimistic pricing, the product should have been better or, at the very least, not publicly displayed until it could justify its price tag based upon design and quality not just country of origin. I wish Loomes well but many new start ups in many fields have rushed products to market before they were ready and have paid the price. Maybe the money has run out before the product could be perfected...
Very much agreed.
I haven't seen the watch in the flesh as yet, so I can't comment on its appeal as I find pictures of all watches a little misleading (I'm no doubt limited!).
No doubt also the watch could have been better made and the cost lower. But then again Bremont made very nice watches at a reasonable (?!) price and they still got it.
Where as Superlative Officially Certified Resin can do no wrong even though they are mass produced by machine...
In a world we all tacitly agree is non-sensical it's hard to square the attitudes on here between big money marketting budgets (IWC for example?) and those which are a little more home spun (Schofield et al).
The watch might not be to everyones taste...I do get that but there is a glee to the hammering that i find distasteful and rather odd.
To put my comments above on Loomes' work in context, I want to say that I'd rather have any of Eddie's watches than any of Loomes', gold and all, not least because when you put one of Eddie's on your wrist, you know what it is.
What i'd like to happen...
I do recall Mr Platts once mentioned a confernece of British watch makers he was not invited to (which I think he certainly should have been I say!).
Wouldn't it be nice if Mr Loomes work was just the start of something...
A British made ETA if you see what i mean, or a modular movement that could support a chrono module etc.
It's not actually (I hope) chauvanism, perhaps just a "why not" rather than gleeful bashing and defaulting to the same old same old. Not everyone wants a Montblanc/Rolex/Audi default existence (nothing against the default choices at all) and that's all good. So is choosing a default watch, people have their own reasons.
So the more the merrier.
If this were the start of something (and the reasonable observations re lack of shock resistance etc were listened to) then I am very much in favour of it.
I like some of what Schofield has done, innovative design. I'd some of Mr Platts' work too...and some of Bremont. With a British made movement I'd like them even more because it brings variety to our WIS world.
I liked the Quartz thread too.
It's not all about one thing, or the default thing. I don't think we should blindly support British work, but nor should we feel the need to crow uselessly from the sidelines.
My expectation had been that the next truly British maker would be one of Roger Smith's employees setting up on their own. He's making sure that all of them have the same full of skills that he has, and appears to be keen for this to happen.
I love the fact that they have done it. However, I really don't like the watch that they've produced with it, and as others have said that's a fairly crucial element.
Regarding the price, if Habring can do it for a fraction of this price, why not Loomes? Genuine question.
Will Habring2 be ordering their parts from established component producers in Switzerland?
Never heard of them but the pictures on their website front page are of a modified 7750 so yes I would say they are ordering from Switzerland
They now make their own movements, using a design derived from the 7750, a move necessitated by Swatch no longer supplying base movements. It's an interesting company, I would encouraged to read on them / him.
I don't know but this article - http://www.ablogtowatch.com/habring2...facture-visit/ - suggests they are using a lot of small suppliers, many Austrian, some Swiss, some German to supply parts, so it seems likely.
It seemed to me that there were many similarities between what Habring have done and what Loomes have done - start from a known base movement; use small suppliers; tiny volumes; etc. - but both the result and the price seem wildly different. Hence my question.
They dont seem to have commissioned as much new manufacturing as i read it? A worthy effort no doubt but a slightly different proposition....perhaps a little closer to the way Bremont are doing things at the moment?
Not sure I follow the Bremont reference - I haven't looked in any detail but I thought Bremont had gone to a third party movement manufacturer.
Habring appear to have actually designed a new movement, albeit starting from a known base; whereas Loomes have recreated a known movement with little/no changes? I would have thought the amount of "new" manufacturing was very similar, though perhaps I misunderstand what you mean.
The problem Loomes will have had is that all their suppliers will have been starting from stratch too. No economies of scale anywhere
Well, that I am sure is true, but equally given they are only making 24 of the things, I'm not sure there were many economies of scale to be had anyway!
I also thought this might be the case.
F.T.F.A.
Perhaps they weren't needed.
Loomes is making 12 of this watch in white gold and 12 in yellow. At £28,500 a pop, that's £684,000.
Last edited by Tinker; 9th November 2016 at 10:28. Reason: .
Robert Loomes' premises, St Mary's Hill, Stamford.
Photographed Feb 2 2017. Several R. Loomes' watches can be viewed in the window displays.
dunk
Last edited by sundial; 3rd February 2017 at 11:26.
"Well they would say that ... wouldn't they!"
^^^ Hehe, definitely suits the company.
Their world is even in black and white!
Thanks for this thread everyone.
Even with my untrained eye the first thing I saw was that off-centre screw . . .
Looking at this as a Smiths fan I think it is very clearly a riff on the cal. "1215" (12 linge / 15 jewels; sub seconds ) -- first designed and made during the war. It was revised slightly during its 20+ years of production: early iterations were plain nickel and had smooth balance wheel; later were gilt and screwed respectively. Some higher grade versions were made with 16 jewels for J W Benson or even 18 jewels for Gerrard and Asprey.
Re the shock proofing, or lack of, Smiths did add that to the "1215" movement in about 1957-ish. But for the first ten years (from 1947) the Smiths' balance looks very very much like this one from Loomes . . .
Which made me wonder whether Loomes was using old "1215" parts?
Then I read this:
"The watch’s escapement, for which Loomes has applied for a patent, was tested within watches sent on an expedition to Everest with the Royal Gurkha Regiment last year and demonstrated improved performance in extremely cold environments, where many conventional escapements are susceptible to oil becoming sticky."
OK, so maybe the whole thing is brand new and no old Smiths components are being used -- or maybe not? As for the oil, surely low-temperate lube has been around for ages? (No jokes about "low-temperate lube" and frigid women, please.) I know Smiths themselves used special oils in the watches they supplied to Hillary et al for the Everest climb in 1953.
As a Smiths fan I think Loomes would have been better off copying one of their later movements: the cal. 27CS (17 jewel 12 linge centre seconds first introduced in c. 1954) or, better still, the lovely cal. 0104 from the late '50s (19 jewel centre seconds with the option of a rotor on top converting it to a 25j automatic).
But I do wish Loomes well. And I quite like the watch (even the lugs) although the Roman numerals are a pet hate of mine (is Latin more British than Arabic? I guess so. We say "Romano-British" and we fear / loathe all things Arab so . . . )
I also loved this: "The watch’s case will be cast, as all of Loomes’ gold watches are, in London of Scottish river-panned gold and Cornish tin, available in both 18ct white gold and 18ct yellow gold."
Come on, that is pretty cool!
It's a shame the whole things looks like a very small run of watches made by the massively inefficient process of outsourcing. And you can still buy a 100% English Smiths watch (actually the jewels were made at Carfin in Scotland) housed in a "made in Birmingham" Dennison case for about 1% of the price of this. Looks nicer, too.
Just does nothing for me the thickness of the bezel doesn't help with any elegance. Wow and the price . I would expect to have to pay for true craftsmanship but just seems too rich.
Loomes unveil an entirely English made watch mechanism
We are proud to announce the birth of our new movement
The Stamford Original will be revealed on Thursday at the Saatchi Gallery.A staff of fifteen machine and jewel the plates, cocks and bridges in small batches and machine cases and dials. Even the screws and jewels are made in England.
Weighing in at 29mm diameter and just 4.6mm thin the movement is designed to suit our own watch cases and dials.
The Stamford Original is a completely new movement. Every component is manufactured in England. Much of the turning work is outsourced to around twenty middle-England precision engineering companies. From there the watches are slowly built up in our Stamford workshops.
We were driven on by those in the industry who said this "couldn't be done" (the manufacturing of all the components in England). Robert stubbornly believed it could and has spent the last few years working towards this moment.
We will be exhibiting at Salon QP and the watch will be available for 2017. It is being made in a series of twelve in white gold and twelve in yellow gold cases, 39mm diameter. The price of each is £28,500.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For everyone who said it was the perfect Brexiteer's watch (Made In Little England) and would look good on the wrist of Nigel Farrage I think it's funny that Loomes got a grant of a quarter of a million quid from the EU to make these.
So the EU (i.e. the taxpayer) is now subsidising high-end luxury watchmaking? Obsolete technology for rich people?
I don't know whether to laugh or cry but either way it's another reason why I won't be buying one (unless I get a grant from the EU to fund my watch collecting hobby).
"Well they would say that ... wouldn't they!"
Robert was on Radio 2 the other day...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08wd1rw
You could look at it as the grant being used for the sunk costs which in turn kick starts the paying of tax by a new / expanded business and it's employees? I work in an industry with a lot of grant funding and in my experience it's borderline as an argument, but that still means it works in some cases.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Posting Permissions
