Robertus61 wrote: Still if I have to do it I would make only two groups: one with the mechanical in-house calibers (B01 and offsprings) the other all the others, regardless of carats of metal and diamonds.
If Breitling gets to a point where they are consistent with their movements per range (i.e., higher-end ranges are all in-house, lower-end ranges are not), this would be a fair mode of categorization. The problem is, Breitling isn't there yet. Prime examples are the Galactic 44 and Transocean three-hand models. The Galactic 44 is the only Galactic model to have all the trim characteristics of the Chronomat Airborne - same case style (slightly thinner), same bezel, and same hinged endpieces on the Pilot bracelet. It is, for all intents and purposes, a three-hand Airborne, except that it has an ETA-based movement, as opposed to in-house. The same goes for the Transocean line. The Transocean chronographs are in-house; the three-hands are not. Regardless of movement manufacture, there is no question in my mind that these models are in a higher luxury bracket than ranges like Colt and Avenger; the three-hand models in these ranges are certainly closer to their in-house brethren on the luxury scale than to those lower-end models, non in-house movements notwithstanding.
That said, these would seem to be the outliers in Breitling's lineup. Increasingly, we are seeing alignment between range stratification and movement stratification. For instance, as I said, the Galactic Unitime features Breitling's first in-house non-chronograph movement, and it would not surprise me if we saw versions of it "trickle down" to the other higher-end three-hand Breitling models, to the point where all higher-end three-hands are in-house. If or when that happens, your binary categorization based on movement manufacture will be apt. Until then, I believe some recognition has to be given to these "in between" models.
|
