"In House"

No, not the TV show.

Recent discussions have made me think about the in-house v. purchased/modified movement issue. I'm not sure there is a good definition of what in-house really means. Does this mean all the "major" items are made by the maker in question (or at least by factories owned or shared within a group) or does it mean that they make every single plate, screw, crystal, spring, etc.

The former, I think there are a few out there. The latter I can only think of one for sure, and that's Seiko.

But how important is it to have an in-house watch? That's a question only you can answer for yourself, and my view on this is changing over time. The phenomenon of in-house being the most desired is quite a new thing. It's come with the recent resurgence in mechanical watches, and I can certainly see the desire of having a watch that's in-house. But the history of Swiss watches is quite different. Most places did not make everything themselves, and quite frankly it wasn't valued as it is now.

So, what about ETA - I'll use it as an example since it's the most prolific maker of ebauches. First, ETA makes several levels of movements. The base movements have little or no finishing, but they also make higher grade movements as well. I recently restored an old ladies watch, and the grade of ETA movement was quite high:



It had more jewels than a lesser grade that I bought for spare parts - 17 in the spare compared to 21 in the movement I was restoring. The restored movement was also finished differently with a copper colour. Just one example.

I would not mind having a watch with an ETA movement in it - quite the contrary as I want a UN 1846 Marine Chronometer that has an ETA base. UN reworks it of course, and adds a power sererve function to it among other things. I think most major manufacturers do rework the base movement to some degree, but that of course varies. I guess my concern would be owning several watches that were different, but all using the same base engine as it would go against my desire to have a varied collection.

Anyway, just wanted to start a discussion on it outside of the other threads. What's your take on in-house?

[Launch Mini]

Not overly important to me.
Just about any "luxury item" we buy is not fully "in house"
Take TV's ,cars, audio components etc.
They out source most of their components & then assemble as see fit.
Same with high end clothing. I'm sure they "shop out" the fabrics.
They may have higher standards for accepting certain parts etc.
I think it is this overall "higher standards" that attract us to the "luxury items"

It doesn't drive my desire to purchase any given watch. I'd rather have a high-end ETA movement than an unreliable or low-grade in-house movement in my watch.

ETA gets a bad rep from a lot of wannabe WIS' who haven't done their research and in-house snobs. Fact is, they make really solid movements, most of which have been around for years and are time tested (lol) over the years. The Unitas movement in my nine year old 01 was designed over 50 years ago and it currently runs as accurately as my in-house 3185 driven watch. Just as good as 'in-house' rolex.

I think I wouldn't want and ETA driven watch if the watch house didn't pretty up the movement (if it had a displayback) and also do a little tweaking to things like the PR or to improve the accuracy.

Bottom line is, you buy a watch cuz you like the way it looks. if it's in-house, great... if it isn't... great.

[Calogero1]

I hate the fact that it is used as a marketing tool. You pay a premium for it.
It's like everything else I guess.

It gets way too confusing. it would be nice if the industry set a standard to follow.

I remember reading an article about the wine grown in Canada. In order to qualify to be "Canadian" it needed only a certain percentage of Canadian Grapes something like 12%. I can not recall the exact numbers but the explanation was just horrible.

Makes you think twice when you need to decide on a purchase.

Carlo

[padi56]

Well this is how I understand the watch industry today regarding in-house not in-house.And like John said give me a good ETA over a mediocre in-house any-day.And to me in-house movements today is not my first buying factor.




1.Mainly own designs and manufactures all major components of every watch in-house.

Rolex. (out sourced crystals still as far as I can research.?)

Glashütte Original/Union Glashütte (not sure about the crystals)

Harry Winston Fine Timepieces (with collaborators help)

Seiko. make everything in-house.

Urwerk. (even crystals designed all in-house)

2.Design and manufactures every movement in-house, but uses suppliers for cases, dials,crystals, etc.

A. Lange & Sohne. (big date mechanism designed by JLC)

Blancpain.

Breguet.

Citizen.

Philippe Dufour.

Girard-Perregaux.

Jaeger-LeCoultre.

F.P. Journe.

Richard Mille.

Patek Philippe.

Piaget.

Zenith.

3. Designs and manufactures most movements in-house, but also uses supplied movements mostly ETA Based and Lemania.

Audemars Piguet.

Parmigiani.

Roger Dubuis.

Vacheron Constantin.

4.Designs and manufactures some movements in-house, but mostly uses supplied ebauches then rework movements.

Chopard.

Ulysse Nardin.

Panerai.

5.Manufactures who use supplied ébauche or base movement, but do extensive and substantial in-house modification to movement, that a unique finished movement, only to that said manufacture results.
IWC now state they have designed a new movement.

Svend Andersen.

D. Dornblüth & Sohne.

IWC.

Paul Gerber.

Nomos.

Daniel Roth.

6. Designs and manufactures at least most movements in-group, but uses other suppliers for cases, dials, etc.

Jacquet Droz.

Longines.

Omega.

Tissot.


7. Begins with supplied movements, but does additional finishing in-house or in-group.

Stowa/Jorg Schauer

8.Designs a few movements, receives completed movements, and assembles at least some watches in-house, but most out sourced.

Chronoswiss.
Tag Heuer.

9.Outsources all aspects of manufacturing.

All fashion brands.

10.Poljot. now produce all in-house movements,for chrono
range.

The Chronograph P3133 is based on the Swiss Valjoux 7734 movement,they bought the old tooling and rights.The Val 7734 was
in production from 1969-78 less than 2 million were made.Then the
Russian Poljot firm modified the Val 7734 into the P3133


But most movements that Poljot uses are based on popular Swiss movements,plus today in some of there watches,they use full ETA movements like the 2824.

The P3133 is based on the Valjoux 7734 movement.

The P2612 is based on the AS 1475 (alarm) movement
17-18 Jewel M/W




Below are the technical data of the Valjoux 7734, and a comparison with the Poljot 3133 after the modification.


Valjoux 7734-------------- Poljot 3133
Winding. Handwind.----------- Handwind.

Jewels. 17. ============ 23.

A/h. 18000. ---------- 21600.

P/R 36 hours-------------- 42 hours

[Lol-x]

Some of the most expensive vintage Daytona Chronographs had out sourced movements, so I don't mind that. Also I want a Lemenia 5100 sooo much.

It doesn't have to be in-house for me to like, but it depends on the quality of the workmanship and the movement.

[Rockrolex]

In house or out sourced is not critically important to me. I do like the fact that Rolex is a complete manufacture. I think that's one reason it maintains such high quality. On the other hand, that hasn't stopped me from buying other brands that out source their movements. They also have high quality and offer features that Rolex does not.

[Prince Tudor]

It does not bother me.
I own 3 Tudors. They are Rolex made except for the movement. Which is still specially made for Tudor.
Although, my oldest Tudor a Large Rose has a 17 Ruby movement that if I am not mistaken was an original Rolex movement. Probably circa 1950's.

[roadcarver]

Doesn't bother me... whether inhoue or not. As long as it is reliable.