Holy trinity - who should be there

[Eva123]

Just recently I saw a very interesting thread which was discussing why Rolex is not a part of "Holy Trinity". I absolutely agree with arguments that Rolex is not in a league with PP, AP and VC.

However, there is one particular brand, Breguet, which is also excluded from that Holy Trinity. I am not very good specialist in horology, however:

1) Breguet is very very old company and definitely is not younger than PP, VC and AP.
2) This company made many inventions (e.g. tourbillon, etc.) and left a very deep sign in the whole horology.
3) The old elite, tsars, princes, kings were wearing these watches.

Somehow Breguet is not included in the list. Maybe someone can explain me why?

Also, i found interesting article about this: https://wristreview.com/holy-trinity...-change-minds/

[ap1]

Pp, ap, als

Honorable mention on past performance, VC

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by ap1

Pp, ap, als

Honorable mention on past performance, VC

this is my list as well

I would throw in RM as well. Honorable mention, but too new of a brand to be in the club yet. On merits they deserve it, but they have to show that level of watchmaking for a longer period of time to be on the list.

The small independents who do primarily hand made pieces are amazing but are too much of a niche market to be on a more mainstream list which is why i count them separately. They should have their own list which would be more appropriate to recognize them for what they do.

[returntorolex]

Which of these are still independent companies. In other words, have had enough business success to stick around through the generations?

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by returntorolex

Which of these are still independent companies. In other words, have had enough business success to stick around through the generations?

i don't think that applies to ALS though. Circumstances not success are why they are not independent. WWII happened then soviet occupation. They reformed with the help of JLC and IWC and that group (LMH) was sold to Richemont.

Personally i have no issue with any company that isn't independently owned but even if i did, i would give ALS in particular, a pass.

Objectively they are on a Patek level with high end, complicated, dressy watches

[singe89]

Originally Posted by ap1

Pp, ap, als

Honorable mention on past performance, VC

This is mine too. I would say RM is up there but lack history and since their high end movements are made by AP (APRP) I don't think they qualify.

[texex91]

Originally Posted by singe89

This is mine too. I would say RM is up there but lack history and since their high end movements are made by AP (APRP) I don't think they qualify.

I'd take a APRP movement any day...it's really the RP side of the house that is the creative powerhouse. Very few AP's movements come from APRP (just high end movements...just like many RM's).

Plenty of AP watches with no in house movements as you know.

I like AP either way.

[GB-man]

The trinity is and always will be PP AP VC.

The trinity doesn't mean jack squat but I see not point in editing it.

I think ALS is walking all of them in one regard or another but then again they aren't and never will be Patek, Audemars or Vacheron.

[singe89]

Originally Posted by texex91

I'd take a APRP movement any day...it's really the RP side of the house that is the creative powerhouse. Very few AP's movements come from APRP (just high end movements...just like many RM's).

Plenty of AP watches with no in house movements as you know.

I like AP either way.

Totally agree AP was smart enough to fund/buy up RP when they could. All also add that because they started their careers at AP that helps too.

I don't consider any of the low end APs or Pateks as "holy trinity" type watches. When talking about holy trinity I really only consider the high end pieces (tourbillons, grande comps, grande sonnerie and maybe skeletons) as well as long history of the company. RM is tops on movements and innovation. They just need the long history to be on the top of my list.

[GSDLover]

I want a Richard Mille. I think they look like fancy swatch watches. But I want one.
Clearly I have some kind of disconnect. I still want one. :)

[explodingtaco]

Regularly producing new and advanced models:

Patek
Richard Mille
A. Lange & Söhne

For ALS and Patek you have to go to their high end to get true innovation. RM on the other hand has no "low-end"

[Psmith]

Blancpain

[adnjoo]

I know people say holy trinity is VP AP PP but I reckon in 21st century it's more like:

Rolex founded in beginning of 20th century (1905) - reigning king - many innovations like oyster case, GMT/diving bezels, helium escape valves, movement + case testing, etc.
Patek founded in mid 19th century (1839) - old king - innovations like keyless winding system (Adrien Philippe), Gyromax balance, Spiromax, Advanced Research, amazing dials, time-less designs like the 96 Calatrava,
FP Journe founded in end of 20th, beginning of 21st century (1999) -upstart prince - so many innovations like the resonance movement, COSC grade haute horology movements, tantalum case, lacquer dials, gold movements, remontoir d'egalites, tourbillons, haute horology quartz finishing with time restart on 'shaking', aluminum movements, different ways to show month/ day etc.

all independently owned vertical manufacture.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by adnjoo

. AP is a one trick pony and can only sell the Royal Oak .

I hear that a lot and don't understand. Rolex is an oyster case company if AP is a Royal Oak company.

The GMT II, Explorer 1,2, yachtmaster, sub, sea dweller, deep sea, DJ, etc are all basically the same watch with minimal changes to the case design. They are great watches but all those variations don't lead to any more complications and 99% are just time and date. I know everyone likes to debate should i get a sub or a GMT or a sea dweller, but lets be honest, they look like pretty much the same watch.

The Rolex oyster case looks pretty much the same across the various product lines as the different royal oaks do within their product line generally. The only difference is Rolex labels the watches as different product lines when they are all variations on the same idea, AP doesn't.

RO has chronos, date/time, ultra thin, minute repeaters, openworked, grand complications, etc in their case. Rolex doesn't have many of these.

[hugs]

The only reason Breguet is not a Holy Trinity piece is because it is (was?) French. Same for ALS (German). I think being Swiss is a requirement.

It is a bit like cognac .. if you produce the highest quality brandy, better than cognac, outside of the Cognac region it still can not be called cognac.

[breitlings]

Rolex
Rolex
Rolex

Seriously though RM should be in there.