In-house vs. Standard Movements

[Timber Loftis]

So, in my most recent effort to pick up another timepiece to add to my collection I became horrified -- yes, stunned -- the the "OP" reference movement in my Pam was just a modified valjoux regular old run of the mill movement.

The trajedy! The humanity!

So, I went on a quest to get a new timepiece that is in-house for its movement, but that I also like and fits my style. Well, was I in for a surprise.

Bremont was the first bug that bit me. But Bremonts are all about case and housing and ruggedness features to protect the movements -- which are standard. I looked briefly at Titumi -- Valjoux one and all. Brand after brand, these movements kept turning up and I couldn't catch a company that was making actual in-house stuff.

Well, I ran across this interesting quote from an interview from Bremont's Nick English in TimeZone, and though I'd share it:

Most of our range however currently uses a mixture of Sellita, Soprod and ETA movements which are then finished in-house with a few other tweaks. The reason for using a Valjoux base in our watches was a very simple one. Let's go back to flying. We have flown a number of different aircraft over the years from wartime to modern day aircraft - and there are probably 3 or 4 key western manufacturers of reliable aero engines. The same Lycoming and Continental engines used in aircraft in the 1940's, for example, are still being used in today's aircraft - with very few, if any, modifications. Would you fly over the North Sea during winter with a recently released "in-house" engine produced by a new aircraft manufacturer? I wouldn't, and there many examples of fatalities where people have tried. It takes many years to refine and test an engine. Look at Pagani Zonda, Lotus, McClaren, AC Cobra, Red-Bull Racing and many other leading car manufacturers/racing teams and you will find that the same reasoning is being used motor industry.

This is the approach Bremont and many other luxury watch brands have taken over the years. There are countless examples of this. Take some of the major "credible" brands out there - the most desirable Rolexes ever made were the pre-1999 Daytonas which used Zenith movements, and before that Valjoux. Every Patek Philippe chronograph before the 21st Century had an outside movement, including Lemania. Breitling, IWC and Panerai all use versions of the Valjoux or Unitas movement. Whilst this is true, it must be remembered that there can be an enormous difference in quality between an entry-level and top execution chronometer rated 7750, for example. Materials in the movement can differ substantially and the finish can be very different too. It is for this reason, which many chat-rooms fail to consider, that the 'same' 7750 can be found in a £600 watch or a £15,000 watch. In many examples are just not comparing like with like.

The other point to consider is that the vast majority of the apparent "manufacture" brands buy-in parts like rubies, screws, hands, dials, and balance/main-springs in any case. Where do you draw the line for a movement to be classified as being totally 'in-house'? Consider this point - virtually all of the world's luxury mechanical watch brands use balance springs produced by one manufacture - Nivarox. Nivarox is the name given to a metallic alloy that is very wear-resistant, non-magnetic and virtually immune to temperature variations. It just so happens that the only company making these springs is owned by the Swatch Group. The balance spring is really the heart-beat of any mechanical watch and so this is quite a integral part for a "manufacture" not to be producing.

Recently there has certainly been a large drift towards in-house movements by luxury watch brands - especially over the last 3 or 4 years. The catalyst for this, however, is really the threat of non-supply of movements from the Swatch/ETA stable from which many brands are dependent. This has been on the horizon for a while.

So are Bremont heading down the 'in-house' movement route? The answer is yes and no. No because we will undoubtedly continue to use movements like the Valjoux 7750 base for our chronographs in some form. They are so robust, precise and well proven.

Yes, because as we mentioned before, it is a real desire of ours to make our watches even more British. They are designed, finished and assembled (depending on the model) in England, but still have a Swiss heart-beat. There would be something very satisfying and special about producing a movement in England, in a country that once led the world in the field of horology. The form and finishing of a classic English movement is very different from the Swiss equivalent and it would be a tremendous accomplishment to be able to produce a movement that once again competed with the Swiss. The Germans have done it with Lange & Sohne and Glashutte, and so there is no reason why the British cannot do the same. Great British watch-makers like George Daniels and Roger Smith are making beautiful truly hand-made British movements but only in very limited numbers. We would like to do the same but on a larger scale. It is a huge challenge but one worth trying.

Ok, so maybe I'm obsessing over the wrong thing, and it's no big deal.

That being said, maybe once Swatch actually puts the stanglehold on these movements, it will leave Swatch group makers, like Titumi, in a much better position than their non-group competitors, like Bremont.

Anyone else have thoughts on in-house vs. standard movements?

[Zed Homme]

An in house movement is preferred, but only if it can perform as well as an eta valjoux etc etc. Eta and others get a bad rep around here because they can be found in many different watches. However, top of the line eta movements perform as well as our beloved 3135 variants. I own many watches with eta movements and I like all of them. Many companies like panerai will take the movements and dress them up in house to make them prettier to look at (something that cannot be said for any Rolex movement).

In house covers a lot of ground. Rolex is ugly but it sure gets the job done and you don't have to wonder if there will be someone to service it down the road. Zenith, jlc, iwc and so many others also create excellent movements in house that make their brands unique (something an eta powered watch cannot provide). However, in the case of panerai, there is an example of how not to do in house movements as they seem to be nothing but trouble. If I were buying a panerai I'd prefer the type you are looking at.

[Dan Pierce]

All Swiss movements are in house. Maybe not the same house that makes the case. Rolex outsourced many parts including their bracelets until sometime in the 70's. Does that mean all those pre 70's vintage beauties are garbage? I guess those Valjoux powered PN Daytona's are just not worthy.
dP

[LI Matt]

I take exception to this:

the most desirable Rolexes ever made were the pre-1999 Daytonas which used Zenith movements, and before that Valjoux.

While the Newman certainly is up there, IMO the "most desirable Rolexes ever made" are the specialty Subs, the COMEXes and the Milsubs.

[GradyPhilpott]

I guess it all depends on whose house.

[Mar122]

While the article has some valid points, I feel that for a watch company to be considered as such, they need to make some effort in producing something unique. Otherwise, they'll just be a case and dial manufacturer.

Companies like IWC and Omega are doing things correctly in my opinion. They have their own in-house movements for some of their watches and they use modified high grade eta/ valjoux movements for others. Both of these types of watches are wholly considered to be IWC or Omega.

I am also a very big stickler for in-house movements but they are not available at every price-point and I think a modified eta or valjoux does the job just as well.

[Demosthene]

I dislike paying 7-8 grand for a watch using a $250 ETA movement.

If I wanted reliability and accuracy I would buy quartz, what I’m after is impeccable engineering and design.
I’d prefer to reward a company taking the initiative and time to do in house movements, over those that are simply overpriced case manufacturers.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Mar122

While the article has some valid points, I feel that for a watch company to be considered as such, they need to make some effort in producing something unique. Otherwise, they'll just be a case and dial manufacturer.

But, there are case and dial innovations that are important to horologie, no? Look at the Bremont MB. That watch has gone through more testing than any before, and the second most-tested was the moon watch. Totally divorcing the movement from the typical screw-down to the case and leaving it independent of the housing, while also enclosing it in a faraday cage and making it probably the most shock-resistant watch on the planet is pretty impressive. So, is this invention to be given no value in the consideration as to whether or not they are a "watch company?"

Conversely, what about Titumi's watch where they have held an 80-year contract to be the sole licensee for one of the Swatch movements? One that Swatch has never developed itself? The only place you can get that movement is from Titumi (as I understand it). Doesn't that hold value? I mean, I concede it doesn't make Titumi a movement maker, but if they're the only way to get the movement, and they do the case/dial/finishing well, doesn't that have value?

And what about modifying movements. One of the companies -- I think but won't swear it was Hublot -- takes standard valjoux movements but then not only modifies them, which is common, but also spends a great deal of time anodizing, coloring, etching, and refining most of the parts. Does that count? Or is it just fancy engraving?

[Mar122]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis

But, there are case and dial innovations that are important to horologie, no? Look at the Bremont MB. That watch has gone through more testing than any before, and the second most-tested was the moon watch. Totally divorcing the movement from the typical screw-down to the case and leaving it independent of the housing, while also enclosing it in a faraday cage and making it probably the most shock-resistant watch on the planet is pretty impressive. So, is this invention to be given no value in the consideration as to whether or not they are a "watch company?"

Conversely, what about Titumi's watch where they have held an 80-year contract to be the sole licensee for one of the Swatch movements? One that Swatch has never developed itself? The only place you can get that movement is from Titumi (as I understand it). Doesn't that hold value? I mean, I concede it doesn't make Titumi a movement maker, but if they're the only way to get the movement, and they do the case/dial/finishing well, doesn't that have value?

And what about modifying movements. One of the companies -- I think but won't swear it was Hublot -- takes standard valjoux movements but then not only modifies them, which is common, but also spends a great deal of time anodizing, coloring, etching, and refining most of the parts. Does that count? Or is it just fancy engraving?

I wasn't disregarding the whole fact that cases aren't at all important. A watch is a sum of its parts and the case is as much a part as the movement but what I was saying is that just as the case is integral, so is the movement. Now, not every company is like Rolex nowadays that manufactures its own movements, but the more serious of watch companies are either already producing some of their own movements or making attempts to get there one day.

And no, I don't think what Hublot does is just some fancy engraving. Their level of craftsmanship is commendable just as is a lot of other companies that put a lot of time in preparing a watch for market.

[slcbbrown]

Originally Posted by Mar122

While the article has some valid points, I feel that for a watch company to be considered as such, they need to make some effort in producing something unique. Otherwise, they'll just be a case and dial manufacturer.

Companies like IWC and Omega are doing things correctly in my opinion. They have their own in-house movements for some of their watches and they use modified high grade eta/ valjoux movements for others. Both of these types of watches are wholly considered to be IWC or Omega.

I am also a very big stickler for in-house movements but they are not available at every price-point and I think a modified eta or valjoux does the job just as well.

Lots of watch companies make inhouse, junky movements. ETA and Valjoux (as well as, others) make first rate movements along with lower grade versions. They all sell with the ETA or Valjoux name, though. If you buy a watch from a company that buys a top grade ETA movement, you've got a fine movement.

Many watch companies are buying ETA movement packages that are then significantly changed. The changes may include adding lots of non-ETA parts and major upgrades to the finishing and regulation. The quality of the movement is controlled by the watch brand that you are buying.

[Zed Homme]

Originally Posted by Demosthene

I dislike paying 7-8 grand for a watch using a $250 ETA movement.

If I wanted reliability and accuracy I would buy quartz, what I’m after is impeccable engineering and design.
I’d prefer to reward a company taking the initiative and time to do in house movements, over those that are simply overpriced case manufacturers.

I hear you but disagree with the first part of your post. The eta movements found in watches like panerai or Cartier are quite different than the $250 eta movements that you refer to. I sincerely doubt that the movement found in the platinum DD costs any more to manufacture than the base movement that panerai will purchase from eta.

[Demosthene]

Originally Posted by Zed Homme

I hear you but disagree with the first part of your post. The eta movements found in watches like panerai or Cartier are quite different than the $250 eta movements that you refer to. I sincerely doubt that the movement found in the platinum DD costs any more to manufacture than the base movement that panerai will purchase from eta.

I understand that the movements are often heavily modified from the stock versions. I also don’t doubt that a Rolex movement costs a similar amount to manufacture.
But I still wish to reward the company that’s taken the time and R&D expense to further the watchmaking industry by designing their own movement.

[johnswatch]

This argument has been done to death many times before but here's my take on it...

I generally agree with Bremont's statement. New in-house movements are often simply not better design or engineering than the 'generic' eta replacements.

The Unitas movements used in the classic Panerai are to my mind some of the most beautiful 3 hand movements ever made.

I'll only pay extra for in-house if it has some advantage other than being exclusive.

[speedo]

in some watches i prefer in-house in some standard.
rolex is a well proven manufacturer so i am happy with its robust in-house movement but eg panerai for me is to be loved because its cases so i wouldn't pay any extra for a panerai with an in-house movement.
similar with omega, where i prefer the speedy with its old hand winding mov and not the coaxial gimmicks.

[ohfivepro]

In the shop I work for we have Audemars - £11000 will get you a basic steel Royal Oak on a bracelet with 3hz automatic in-house movement that's hidden behind a steel case back. It's not COSC certified but will keep good time.

At the bottom end of my collection I have a Seiko Orange Monster. It's a steel watch on a bracelet that has a 3hz automatic in-house movement that's hidden behind a steel case back. It's not COSC certified but keeps good time.

It's movement won't be as well finished as the AP but as you can't see them that's not a problem. It does have have a uni-directional bezel (smoother than my Subs) and a greater water resistance to the AP so clearly it's the better watch?!? I think anyone on this forum would take the AP over the OM everytime though, even if cost wasn't a factor.

An in-house movement is nice to have but it's not the be all and end all. I only mention AP here as even if you disregard all ETA, Valjoux etc movements (more fool you) and only look at brands that use 'proven' in-house movements then there is still a massive gap between what people consider to fantastic and merely OK, even though the end result of the actual timekeeping is basically the same.

What bugs me the most is established brands (Breitling, Cartier) who are only just starting to use in-house serially produced movements. Their ad campaigns revolve around their long, prestigious histories and their love of accuracy, so why the change to in-house all of a sudden. Were their previous movements junk? Are their new movements a huge leap forward into quartz-like accuracy? Of course not and we all know it's because Swatch are restricing movement sales to non-Swatch brands. probably best to keep that out of your ads though as it makes you look a lot less prestigious that brands that have been doing it for themselves for years. Joe Public will think you're doing something amazing though which might bring you some sales if he dosn't do any research.

Bottom line - mechanical watches are fundamentaly daft in this day and age but we love them anyway - just do some research on what you're buying and don't pay over the odds for something that can't justify it's price in comparison to its competitors.

[kilyung]

I generally prefer in-house because they tend to be more interesting to stare at than your ETA movements. I always ask myself how many ways are there to build a mouse trap? It's fascinating to see how every company solves the same design requirement.

[Submarino]

I don't mind modified ETA movements but I prefer in-house fully developed caliber. I like IWC and AP because they have both types. Now when it comes to AP I will always treasure the cal. 2121 inside my Royal Oak Jumbo as it is a masterpiece of horlogerie.

[BH13GMT]

I have had many ETA powered watches over the years ranging from £300-£5000. Never had an issue with them and the bread and butter 2824 is very reliable an accurate for a date movement. Lets not forget that the IWC 7922 calibre chrono movement has its DNA in the valjoux 7750 movement.
I dont think an in house movement is the be all and end all for a watch, however it its nice to have one. The list of inhouse watchmakers is a lot shorter than people think, of the top of my head we are looking at Rolex (of course), JLC, PP, AP, Breguet, Zenith, Vacheron, Richard Mille. I am sure there are others which the guys can chime in on.

[capote]

Originally Posted by BH13GMT

I have had many ETA powered watches over the years ranging from £300-£5000. Never had an issue with them and the bread and butter 2824 is very reliable an accurate for a date movement. Lets not forget that the IWC 7922 calibre chrono movement has its DNA in the valjoux 7750 movement.
I dont think an in house movement is the be all and end all for a watch, however it its nice to have one. The list of inhouse watchmakers is a lot shorter than people think, of the top of my head we are looking at Rolex (of course), JLC, PP, AP, Breguet, Zenith, Vacheron, Richard Mille. I am sure there are others which the guys can chime in on.

The list is even shorter, the Vacheron Overseas chrono has a JLC movement, AP RO chrono has a Frederic Piguet me thinks and Patek has manuell wound chronos that is not inhouse either. IWC has some inhouse movements though as well as ETA.

[BH13GMT]

Originally Posted by capote

The list is even shorter, the Vacheron Overseas chrono has a JLC movement, AP RO chrono has a Frederic Piguet me thinks and Patek has manuell wound chronos that is not inhouse either. IWC has some inhouse movements though as well as ETA.

Thanks for the info Daniel

It seem my Rolex is an even more exlcusive club than I thought, only one of 900,000 units sold per annum

[Mockingbird]

Originally Posted by BH13GMT

I have had many ETA powered watches over the years ranging from £300-£5000. Never had an issue with them and the bread and butter 2824 is very reliable an accurate for a date movement. Lets not forget that the IWC 7922 calibre chrono movement has its DNA in the valjoux 7750 movement.
I dont think an in house movement is the be all and end all for a watch, however it its nice to have one. The list of inhouse watchmakers is a lot shorter than people think, of the top of my head we are looking at Rolex (of course), JLC, PP, AP, Breguet, Zenith, Vacheron, Richard Mille. I am sure there are others which the guys can chime in on.

PP used a Lemania movement in their chronograph until recently, now it's in house. Breguet still uses a Lemania movement, and has used JLC movements. AP still uses JLC movements in many of their watches, and uses Dubois Depraz chronograph modules. Vacheron currently uses both JLC and Lemania movements, and Richard Mille's movements are produced by AP.

You're forgetting quite a few manufactures though, off the top of my head I can name Lange, Glashutte Original, GP, and as of recently Blancpain who are all exclusively in-house.

There are many more.

[yachty 1]

the 7750 is a workhorse beast that proves itself time in and time out........I believe chrysler owns Mercedes or vice versa... Do you believe parts arent mixed together ?

[BH13GMT]

Originally Posted by yachty 1

the 7750 is a workhorse beast that proves itself time in and time out........I believe chrysler owns Mercedes or vice versa... Do you believe parts arent mixed together ?

Daimler benz sold Chrysler a few years back. Chrysler used Mercedes second generation technology in their cars which was an improvement on the original Chrysler components. Anything new from Mercedes went into Mercedes models only, such as 7 speed auto box, 260hp diesel V6 engines etc. for exmple, if you look at the crossfire engine, dash, floorpan and gearbox, you are looking at the mk1 SLK with a different body attached. So the answer is yes a lot of shared knowledge and products.

[GradyPhilpott]

Mercedes was hemorrhaging money like a stuck pig, until they unloaded Chrysler and they still had to pay a huge bundle of money to get out of the deal.

It calls to mind when Maserati teamed up with Chrysler to make a car that looked like a LeBaron, except for some leather appointments and the trident badge.

It was one of the most laughable automotive venture in history.

Chrysler is best left out of any comparison of synergistic corporate relationships.

[lorsban]

In my opinion, if the same company makes the watch in an in-house movement and also with an outsourced one, I'll go outsourced because it's going to be far cheaper.

I don't see why watches with in-house movements costs far more if the movement works just like the outsourced version.

Nothing wrong with eta/soprod/lemania/unitas/sellita etc...as long as they're fit, tested, regulated and improved on by the watch company - like what Breitling and other companies do. They get the job done just as well as any other movement from patek, rolex, jlc etc...if you ask me.