More on the "in-house" debate

[Cru Jones]

Interesting enough article in the NY Times on the in-house watch movement and whether we should care or not.

Traditionally, I have been more on the side of "what matters most is that the mechnical watch is robust, reliable and accurate"....

But, the last two paragraphs of the article helped me see that whether a movement is in-house or not should maybe matter to me.

Behind a Watch’s Elegant Face, Some Valuable Mechanisms

July 9, 2015

In 2012, a new IWC Portuguese Chronograph in stainless steel retailed for $7,990. A year later, a very similar looking Portugieser Chronograph Classic was $12,700.

Two explanations come to mind: a) a Weimar-style hyperinflation, as prophesied by Senator Rand Paul’s libertarian crowd, or b) the Classic was different in ways not obvious to the naked eye.

You can put away that copy of “The Tea Party Goes to Washington,” the 2011 opus by Senator Paul; the answer is “b.” The Classic contains what is known as an in-house movement, meaning that IWC manufactured the ticking, mechanical heart of the watch. The cheaper Chronograph has a movement made by an outside supplier, ETA, a subsidiary of the Swatch Group.

In the eyes of many watch aficionados, in-house movements carry an air of exclusivity and limited-production craftsmanship. As such, they are a key selling point for 2015 models like the Tudor North Flag and Pelagos, the Breitling Galactic Unitime and the TAG Heuer Carrera Heuer 01.

In recent years, other timepieces, like the Frederique Constant Classic Manufacture and the Cartier Calibre de Cartier Chronograph, have also earned bonus points from watch critics for their in-house movements.

In a sense, in-house movements are the selvage jeans of the watch industry: a signifier of authenticity and a symbol of indie craftsmanship oozing with insider cool, for which the cognoscenti are sometimes willing to pay a premium.

You know you’re a watch geek if you care. Should the rest of us? Let’s explore three answers: not really, sort of and definitely.

The “not really” argument goes like this. “There is no shame in a Swiss watch brand not making its own movements,” said Joe Thompson, the editor of WatchTime magazine. For generations, he said, Swiss watchmakers have relied on different suppliers for different parts, just like in the auto industry of today or the smartphone industry.

Even now, as in-house movements are in vogue, the majority of Swiss watchmakers rely on outsourced movements for at least some models. (Rolex and Zenith are among the exceptions.) Many of these outsourced movements are manufactured by ETA, which, in the watch world, mirrors Intel’s dominance in supplying microprocessors to computer makers.

There is nothing inherently second tier about an outsourced movement. ETA’s Valjoux 7750, for example, found in the IWC Portugieser Chronograph (the new name for the former Portuguese model), is considered something of a classic.

In recent years, however, ETA started to restrict the flow of movements to the watch companies that compete directly with Swatch-owned brands, which include Omega, Tissot and Longines.

Fear of a dwindling supply was one reason some watchmakers began to invest in movements of their own. Another was snob appeal. In an era of artisanal everything, tastemakers have come to prize the concept of “small batch” in seemingly every facet of life: cheese, bourbon, watch movements.

Which brings us to the “sort of” answer. The term “in-house” has become fuzzy, said Jack Forster, the managing editor of Hodinkee, the popular watch site, who recently wrote a post titled “Has The Term ‘In-House Movement’ Become Obsolete?”

In-house can refer to a movement in which every part is made in-house, or it can refer to a movement sourced from suppliers but assembled in house, Mr. Forster said. Also, as he wrote in his post, there is no clear correlation between in-house and craftsmanship: “A Patek Philippe Star Caliber 2000 is an in-house movement; so is a Seiko caliber 7S26 in a Seiko 5 bought for a hundred dollars on Amazon.”

“The perception among serious watch enthusiasts is that an in-house movement is more exclusive and interesting,” Mr. Forster said. “The reality is much more nuanced.”

Which, in a roundabout way, brings us to the “definitely” response. Exclusivity may only be a perception, but perceptions matter. Watch people care deeply about what’s under the hood. A movement is a key part of a watch’s back story, its DNA, its soul.

“People mostly buy watches as wearable art, as lifestyle or status indicators,” said Ariel Adams, editor of the watch site aBlogtoWatch. “Like car engines, there is a particular satisfaction in knowing that the exterior of the machine and its interior are built together by the same people. There is a sense of synergy.”

For an analogy, you could have a BMW with an Audi engine and it might perform the same. But would it really feel the same?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/fa...ment.html?_r=0

[locutus49]

Good article. It should be pointed out that, in general, repairs of in-house moments are best performed by the Brands' RSC, which increases overall service costs. to me, it is worth it.

[thomaspp]

Good read. I personally appreciate and value in-house movements, and have been trying to pick up watches that remain true to that, with a few exceptions, including the caliber 2121 in my jumbo and the ETA in my tudor heritage chrono.

More interesting to me, is trying to determine how I feel about brands that are just "recycling" movements in different cases, including caliber 324 in pateks (in the nautilus, 5205, etc.) and 3120 in AP (in the 15400 and the divers). Best.

[mikea]

Pretty interesting. I've generally fallen on the side of who cares as long as its reliable. However, more recently the perceived value of having the entire piece being manufactured "in-house" is intriguing me more and more.

[capote]

How about other parts of the watch not made inhouse? Like hands, dials, cases, crystals?
Anyway, take a look at the Royal Oak jumbo, it is a well known fact that JLC made that movement a long time ago, even though it is not inhouse it is alot more prestigious than the 15400 that uses an inhouse movement.

Vacheron Constantin didn't use any inhouse movements at all the last millenium, but they did finish the supplied kit ebauches to a very high standard. Others more or less drop an ETA movement inside the watch and calls it a day.

[wdin]

wow! thanks for sharing.
im in the 'definitely' camp

[Racerdj]

Thanks for posting this information. Some very valid points were made.

[jctrolex]

I think it depends on how much you are paying for the watch. If I am shelling out tens of thousands of dollars I certainly would be looking for and expecting an in house movement but if I am spending up to, say, five grand I wouldn't necessarily be expecting to see an in house movement. Like the article said there are in house movements and there are in house movements. Nothing wrong with a quality ETA movement especially one that has been modified by the manufacturer.

[swils8610]

Great read. I do prefer a watch with in an in house movement.

[Andad]

The article does pose another question.

Why is the Lamborghini engine in an Audi R10 not as powerful as the same engine in a Lamborghini?

[PJ S]

Lamborghini is the halo brand - it's inconceivable that a lower priced model from another of the Group's brands could be seen as 'better'.

[powerfunk]

If BMW made a reliable car with an Audi engine that cost half of what a regular 3-series costs, that car would have lots of enthusiasts and possibly become a classic.

Most articles/posts about the whole "in-house" fiasco don't mention that, a couple hundred years ago in Switzerland, it was basically frowned upon to make everything in-house. As I understand it, it was traditional for case makers, movement makers, etc. to be separate and do business together. The whole "in-house = better" mantra is mostly a marketing construct of recent times.

Many watch companies with rich histories build everything in-house, and that's cool; I think that's what originally caused the conventional wisdom that "in-house" is a basic indicator of quality and collectibility. Nowadays many watch companies with less horological history just buy ateliers so they can check off the "in-house" checkbox in their marketing literature. I'm sure many of these movements are less reliable than ETA's.

As a watch enthusiast, yes, the movement matters, but I'll never disregard a watch I find sexy just because someone else made its movement. Perhaps I'm biased as the proud owner of an AP with a JLC movement.

[J!m]

Originally Posted by powerfunk

If BMW made a reliable car with an Audi engine that cost half of what a regular 3-series costs, that car would have lots of enthusiasts and possibly become a classic.

Most articles/posts about the whole "in-house" fiasco don't mention that, a couple hundred years ago in Switzerland, it was basically frowned upon to make everything in-house. As I understand it, it was traditional for case makers, movement makers, etc. to be separate and do business together. The whole "in-house = better" mantra is mostly a marketing construct of recent times.

Many watch companies with rich histories build everything in-house, and that's cool; I think that's what originally caused the conventional wisdom that "in-house" is a basic indicator of quality and collectibility. Nowadays many watch companies with less horological history just buy ateliers so they can check off the "in-house" checkbox in their marketing literature. I'm sure many of these movements are less reliable than ETA's.

As a watch enthusiast, yes, the movement matters, but I'll never disregard a watch I find sexy just because someone else made its movement. Perhaps I'm biased as the proud owner of an AP with a JLC movement.

I sort of fal into this same catergory... Even with Ford or Chevy (for the 'marican crowd) "in house" engines are not made in the same house- in many cases not even the same country!

Omega (As part of Swatch) owns Eta so technically speaking, every Eta movement is an in-house Omega movement. Of course Omega takes the sub assemblies and parts and sends them out for unique treatment to enhance them* but it is still a very wavy line defining the two.

That being said, I have the deepest respect for Omega engineers to put the silicon typically reserved for chip chips to absolute perfect use as a hairspring. That is a brilliant piece of engineering regardless of your watch brand of choice, and far surpasses the co-axial escapement in improving the mechanical watch. But, they didn't hype it 1/10th what they did the escapement...

*The sister division of my company does the DLC coating in the new Omega barells. This allows the mainspring to operate for ten plus years with no issues due to near zero friction in the barell. That's cool stuff you can't get on any Eta movement.

[Rockrolex]

I have typically been more interested in a watch's functions (the more complications the better IMHO) than in the original manufacturer of the movement. OTOH, I like my 4 Rolexes with their in-house made movements because they are tough as nails and just as strong.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by Cru Jones

The term “in-house” has become fuzzy, said Jack Forster, the managing editor of Hodinkee, the popular watch site, who recently wrote a post titled “Has The Term ‘In-House Movement’ Become Obsolete?”

In-house can refer to a movement in which every part is made in-house, or it can refer to a movement sourced from suppliers but assembled in house, Mr. Forster said.

There is nothing fuzzy about the term "in-house" within the industry. What is fuzzy is the credibility of the company selling the watches.

Bremont comes to mind.

In no small measure, the Swiss are still struggling with the quartz crisis. Before the crisis, it was very common that companies bought movements from movement makers and either installed them in their cases or they spiffed them up some and then installed them. It was the way.

But, as a result of the crisis, ETA wound up in the hands of the Swatch Group and for a decade or two, things went along as usual.

Then, Nicolas Hayek, decided that he wasn't doing his brands any favors by selling movements to anyone who wanted one and besides, ETA movements were finding their way into the counterfeit trade.

There was also the issue in the Swiss industry where new companies were sprouting up with new names and some old names of companies that failed during the crisis and even before.

These companies were diluting the Swiss brand to some degree, because they weren't really invested in making watches, just assembling watches with just enough Swiss parts to meet the criteria for being called "Swiss Made" and thereby profiting from the reputation of the Swiss and the consumer's desire for Swiss watches.

Hayek thought two things would enhance the Swiss reputation for watch making. One was that by limiting the flow of watches from ETA, it would force watch companies to develop their own watch movements and also cause other movement makers to upgrade their businesses to fill the void left by ETA.

Yes, as the article implies, there are some smoke and mirrors used by the Swiss watch industry to give a certain impression to that portion of the consumer public that is impressed by the superficial, but for the real aficionados there is also substance.

There's another thing about this article that left me cold and that was the comparison between Patek and Seiko. Pretty much all of us in this community understand that Patek, with a few others, is at the pinnacle of watchmaking, partly because they inhabit a niche that most watch companies aren't even interested in, because not every watch company can get by selling as few watches as Patek and because not everyone is willing to pay enormous sums for what to most people is just a watch.

There is a lot of room for watch companies that build fine, heirloom quality watches in price ranges that fit the needs and budgets of the 99%.

Mr. Forster throws out the Seiko name to compare movements as if Seiko only builds inexpensive movements, when in fact Seiko builds movements for the Seiko 5 line all the way to the Grand Seiko line and has been incredibly innovative through the years and who is to be respected for what it does as Patek is respected for what it does.

Most of us here know all this, but most readers of the NY Times don't know from Shinola and leaving out the pertinent history of why the Swiss watch industry is where it is today and why it is moving ahead as it is, does the public a great disservice.

[PJ S]

Great relply Grady, but for Grand Seiko you should replace with Credor, as certain special models within only that brand's watches sees unique and bespoke movements - like the manual wound Spring Drive.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by PJ S

Great relply Grady, but for Grand Seiko you should replace with Credor, as certain special models within only that brand's watches sees unique and bespoke movements - like the manual wound Spring Drive.

Agreed.

[powerfunk]

Originally Posted by PJ S

unique and bespoke movements - like the manual wound Spring Drive.

I agree that Credor is awesome. Are the Credor Spring Drive movements really different from other SD's though? I'd always assumed they were basically just a manual version of the 5r65/9r65 (which are identical except for rotor finishing).

[PJ S]

Being Credor, they are more decorated than Grand Seiko, which fits in to how the brand/line is designed and marketed as.

http://seiko.watchprosite.com/show-f...-spring-drive/

[powerfunk]

Originally Posted by PJ S

Being Credor, they are more decorated than Grand Seiko, which fits in to how the brand/line is designed and marketed as.

http://seiko.watchprosite.com/show-f...-spring-drive/

Thanks; Just the type of link I was looking for.