The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Frankly, I have been surprised by all the commotion regarding the introduction of the “first in-house” Breitling movement, the B01. I had always understood Breitling to have been instrumental in the technical development of automatic chronographs. I understood it was a question of the corporate structuring of the Swiss watch industry that certain aspects of design and production were handled by separate companies. A bit like luxury power boats – they all have ZF gearboxes.

I was sort of right – but the full story is more interesting. I was browsing the web and discovered this article at www.onthedash.com/docs/Project99.html the other day, and read perhaps the most interesting watch article I’ve come across, which I understand was originally published in International Wristwatch magazine.

It’s a fascinating piece of modern history which nicely captures the behind the scenes manoeuvring from the mid sixties to the early seventies – when automatic chronographs represented the apex of mechanical watch development before the quartz re(de)volution.

On a side note, Seiko was a serious player in the development of automatic chronographs too. I bought a 1976 Champaign dialled 6138 0030 Seiko automatic chronograph on ebay for $150 the other day. A very well made piece with an “in-house movement” – and a bargain!

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that whilst the new B01s may be cool, don’t be caught up in the hype of “in-house movements” – its not that big of a deal.

Good find - that's a great article!

However I kind of disagree a little with your last line about in-house movements. Personally I think they're very much a good thing as it allows watch-makers to create something that's entirely unique to their brand. Admittedly, as I've said a number of times, Breitling's new B01 is not exactly ground breaking in any particular area (i.e. power reserve, or dial layout, or funcationality, etc, etc), but if does offer a few interesting things like zero-ing seconds and quick change date protection.

The "problem" (if you want to call it that) with ETA based models is that they just lack a certain exclusivity. It doesn't mean the performance is bad or anything, but in the world of high-end watches, exclusivity counts for something (rightly or wrongly). Call me a sad git, but I kind of like the fact that my IWC Big Pilot movement is exclusive to IWC. When the B01 is eventually put in a case that I like, I'll be pleased to buy one knowing that the whole watch is completely exclusive to Breitling. I guess it's just a personal thing - some people buy in to it while others don't. No-one is necessarily right, no-one is necessarily wrong.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

Very interesting read, thanks for the link.

Yeah, for sure, in-house movements are cool. I guess what I really took away from that article was how the development of the automatic chronograph was a big deal in that ’65-’75 era. In 2009, some of the in-house movements on offer are astounding – from IWC Big Pilots (awesome watch man) and JLCs to those crazy Urwerks.

But back in 1969, the first Breitling automatic chronographs were powered by a movement which was very much a Breitling concern. The corporate history just makes me wonder about what the term “in-house movement” really means in relation to Breitling chronographs.

Apart from the whole branding aspect, its interesting to consider what “in-house” means from a corporate and technical perspective. I wonder, for example, how many companies manufacture the steel used to produce mainsprings?

Breitling is positioning the B01 as the first modern in house movement. The calibre 11 led by Heuer and Breitling with others was a major initiative, as of course was the Zenith El Primero, but the calibre 11 series never went anywhere after the turbulent 70s.

I see that as slightly different though - that was trying to solve an engineering challenge - an automatic chronograph, where as now in house movement are trying to do (essentially) the same thing in a different and unique way - different features, improved efficiency, innovative materials, etc.

In terms of what constitutes in house, the problem is that there isn't an accepted standard unlike say COSC. The general consensus is that the movement has to be designed and assembled in house with a large number of parts being fabricated in house. It doesn't make sense for a watch manufacturer to make things like springs, screws, steel sheets, etc - that's just going to extremes - should they also have their own foundrys to make the steel?

However, more and more manufacturers are partnering with specialist materials companies on innovative processes and products - just look at the work that UN are doing around silicon. They are leading the design and the concept, but not the fabrication piece. Interestingly, some companies (including UN with silicon) are investing in / acquiring these companies to provide the financial means to scale from development to production, and potentially sell the technology to other suppliers.

Remember also that there are very few companies capable of making some of these things - there are less than a handful of companies with the expertise to make a grand sonnerie minute repeater, but a heck of a lot of manufacture companies selling them - and they certainly aren't producing them on their own.