The SalonQP session that almost was, part II: Manufacture status and whether it matters
By The Prodigal Fool, published on 11 January 2011
We’re re-writing history this week folks. If you’re new to the series, you should read our introduction.
James Gurney, editor of QP Magazine:
Manufacture status: who has it; why and how has this changed?
The Prodigal Fool:
I can’t tell you who has it and that, in itself, is testimony to the fact that it’s not that important to most watch-buyers. I don’t think the great majority of serious watch collectors care.
Ken Kessler, world renowned watch journalist and audiophile:
As usual, The Fool’s bang on. I completely agree with him. I only wish I had half his insight and intellect.
James Gurney:
What does it mean / how do we define it?
The Prodigal Fool:
To me, the definition is fairly straightforward: the term applies to a watch brand that builds its own mechanisms. It’s simple.
Peter Roberts, veteran watchmaker and Technical Director at Bremont:
Indeed, The Fool is as succinct as he is correct.
James Gurney:
What is its value to the consumer / to the brand?
The Prodigal Fool:
I think that’s a very interesting question that draws to mind one of the many ‘learning curves’ you follow once you start getting drawn into the world of watches. It’s something of a three-stage process:
People who don’t know much about watches tend not to value or worry about the mechanicals much. They assume that a watch with a good brand name on the dial is going to have good internals. That’s stage one I guess.
Stage two happens after they’ve researched the subject matter a little and all of a sudden start getting very obsessive and – I think misguided – about the internals of a watch. At phase two, people are prone to saying silly things like, “your Breitling has an ETA movement and is therefore no different to a Swatch” or “the Rolex Cosmograph is insanely over-priced since Rolex doesn’t even make the internals for it and instead put a humdrum Zenith movement in there.”
The third stage, let’s call it ‘enlightenment’, is when you realise that there’s more – much more – to it than that.
Altering a watch movement is an art in itself. Many brands buy quality movements from very reputable suppliers and then improve them or rather adapt them still further.
Perhaps more importantly, the movements that are bought in can often be more desirable than anything the brand could have built itself. Let’s face it, no one complains that Aston Martin doesn’t make its own tires right?
People who really know about watches know that many of the most desirable models have movements manufactured by a third party. The Cosmograph with the Zenith movement that I just mentioned is one notable example.
And tell me this: who wouldn’t kill for a vintage Panerai with a movement bought in from a little company called Rolex?
Having said all of that, I have a confession to make. I’m not immune to this industry’s obsession with in-house movements and manufacture status. And I’m particularly attracted to an in-house movement if I know it to be high-quality. Breitling’s new Navitimer Calibre 01 caught my eye for precisely that reason. And Panerai’s move to in-house movements has left me looking at my PAM111 with a little buyer’s remorse. Yeah, I’m a sucker just like everyone else!
Elizabeth Doerr, one of the world’s foremost writers on horology:
I agree. I’d just like to add that I think The Fool is charming and witty in equal measure.
James Gurney:
Is there any danger of obsessing on this subject?
The Prodigal Fool:
Absolutely! I think that, ultimately, it’s a red herring for a number of reasons:
The mechanism is just one part of what makes a watch.
I’d rather have a great calibre that was bought in and perhaps adapted by the watch manufacturer than a mediocre one that the watch manufacturer had made itself.
To put it a different way, no one complained when Lamborghini started using Audi parts in its cars. In fact, most petrol heads will tell you that Lamborghinis have never been better and that they benefit hugely from having components like the interiors supplied by a company who actually build them with care and skill rather than cobbling them together with pasta as used to be the Big Bull’s habit.
Peter Roberts:
I think that, in just a few words, The Fool has perfectly summed up the most important points worth making as regards manufacture status. The man is nothing short of a horological genius.
James Gurney
Excellent. Well, let’s move on. Next, I’d like to talk about heritage and design.
Tune in tomorrow folks for the next instalment of ‘The SalonQP session that almost was’. In the meantime, why not join our fictional panel and let us know your thoughts on this topic by leaving a comment below? Does manufacture status matter to you or is it a red herring created by the brands and the watch press that cover them?
The SalonQP session that almost was, part II: Manufacture status and whether it matters
We’re re-writing history this week folks. If you’re new to the series, you should read our introduction. James Gurney, editor of QP Magazine: Manufacture status: who has it; why and how has this changed? The Prodigal Fool: I can’t tell you who has it and that, in itself, is testimony to the fact that it’s [...]
This section is supported by the patronage of:
10 Responses to “The SalonQP session that almost was, part II: Manufacture status and whether it matters”
-
I believe collaborations between movement makers, brands and designers can produce exciting new watches which push the boundaries. The important thing is purity. I am a firm believer in “form follows function” so as long as all the players and their contributions are in place for the sole purpose of an impeccably performing watch, what’s the harm? In my opinion, the real challenge with a watch brand that does not build its own mechanisms is after sales. A watch brand should ensure its manufacturers hold tools and parts for at least 15 years…..
BTW, how do I get my photo in the box. I am looking like a predator here….
-
Hi Carol – Two days in a row: we’re honoured!
To get an avatar in your profile you need to visit http://www.Gravatar.com; log in using your WordPress login details; and then upload a photo to your profile. You can also fill in some personal details that will appear whenever someone puts their cursor over your photo.
Incidentally, this is worth doing as it will be your identity not just on The Prodigal Guide but all WordPress-powered sites.
-
Your comment about after sales and servicing is an interesting one and in fact it is something that Straight-Six asked the panel from the audience during the actual session. Perhaps he’s like to chime in?
Straight-Six, Straight-Six, where art thou Straight-Six?
-
Straight-Six
12 January 2011
Carol,
Indeed, I raised the point about insufficient expertise within the watch industry to maintain adequate after-sales service levels and appropriate turn-around times during the panel session. It appeared there was a consensus among the esteemed panel members – Fool excepted – that this was indeed the case, leaving customers with the joy of having evermore watches to choose from and the pain of lengthy service times and and the policy of one particular brand (we’re not talking about you, Rolex…!) to generally not service watches older than a defined number of years. You’re being generous when you ask for parts to be available for 15 years…
So, let’s spell it out for the watch brands:
1. Watches represent sizeable investments for all enthusiasts out there, presumably coming a close third after their houses, cars and various, um, mistresses.
2. Given heritage is a USP for almost all watch brands, it is entirely appropriate for their customers to expect that their own timepieces will contribute to this through consistent, prompt and courteous after-sales service.
3. If a watch can last for generations with appropriate maintenance and care – by both owner and manufacturer – it is entirely appropriate for watch brands to provide parts, service and a smile for an equivalent period of time.Enuff said.
-
-
The SalonQP session that almost was, part I: Watches as jewellery « The Prodigal Guide
11 January 2011
[...] watches, Vintage watches, Watch events, Watches ← The SalonQP session that almost was The SalonQP session that almost was, part II: Manufacture status and whether it matters → LikeBe the first to like this post. 9 Responses “The SalonQP session that almost was, [...]
-
Ivan Y
11 January 2011
Would this be a good time to bring up TAG Heuer’s Caliber 1887 movement? If I understand correctly, they initially proclaimed to the whole world that it was the first movement they developed on their own even though in reality they just bought rights to a Seiko movement from 1990s and modified it slightly.
Not to say that Carrera 1887 isn’t a nice looking watch. I quite like it, but if I ever buy it, I might be very tempted to stencil MOV’T JAPAN on the dial
-
elizabethdoerrwatches
12 January 2011
Dearest Ivan, you have half the story right, and this is an interesting point. TAG Heuer made a severe marketing mistake by trying to pass on licensed intellectual property as their own. The movement design originated in Caliber TC78 by Seiko, which TAG Heuer licensed with the intent to produce in their own purpose-built facilities Switzerland. Please do remember that TAG Heuer is Switzerland’s third-largest luxury watch producer, and they did this at a time when they simply couldn’t source enough movements. It was a shrewd move, and one that can only benefit the consumer. Their mistake was one of hubris: trying to cover up the architecture as originating with the excellent Japanese producer. The end result — comprising reliable design and elegant Swiss manufacture — is an oeuvre.
The point here is that the “manufacture” part of TAG Heuer Caliber 1887 was only necessary because the brand needed to secure enough reliable movements in a time of shortage. I think they would have been just as happy to have continued securing enough ETA workhorses, but that train had left the station. It was a good solution that might have brought the brand even more renown with educated consumers had they handled it properly.
By the way, I totally agree with everything the Fool said during the panel session and now.-
Straight-Six
12 January 2011
Elizabeth,
You’ll find the stuffed-with-cash envelope just outside your door….:)
Always a pleasure to hear your ringing endorsements of The Fool. God knows, he needs them…
-
Ivan Y
17 January 2011
Thank you, Ms. Doerr, for giving more background on Cal. 1887. I hold Seiko and Citizen in high regard (esp. their more expensive JDM watches), but I just recall that the marketing people at TAG ended up with an egg on their face.
The part about movement shortage is interesting. Did ETA/Swatch cut them off or did they simply need more than they could get? Having said that, given the volume that TAG does, it certainly makes sense to produce in-house movements.
-
The SalonQP session that almost was « The Prodigal Guide
11 January 2011
[...] Tuesday: Part II – Manufacture status and whether it matters [...]