The Breitling Watch Source Forums :: View topic

To me, the heaviliy modified ETA (like those used by IWC) sit firmly in between unmodified ETAs and in-house movements.

To use my usual car analogy, if we think of ETAs as say a standard Honda Engine, then it'll be reliable and will "do the job" just fine. Now if you modify that engine, you can massively increase performance and it will more than likely be more exclusive than the standard Honda engine. Heck you might even end up with something that purely on the numbers will be faster than a Ferrari engine. BUT it will never BE a Ferrari engine, as it will always be a Honda engine with bits swapped out or added on. Plus the Ferrari engine (the in-house) will be designed from the ground up and may therefore do things that the Honda simply never will because it wasn't designed to at a fundamental level.

I'm not saying either approach is right or wrong : you just need to look at the car tuning world to see that there are people who would rather spend Ferrari money tuning a city runaround than actually buying a Ferrari. Ultimately it just depends what you are looking for.

So my next question involves your definition of what constitutes an in-house movement? One that is entirely produced in-house (including the hairspring etc) such as Rolex and JLC, or one that is mostly (say 75% or more) in-house but maybe say acquires a hairspring from a 3rd party vendor...

I'm being pedantic I know but I thought I'd get to the nuts and bolts of the discussion :mrgreen:

Tim S wrote:

I would say designed and built by the company. That doesn't mean that all the parts have to also be made in house, but a lot undoubtedly will by virtue of the fact that the movement is a new design to what's already out there. Therefore -

- The B01 is a true in-house as it was designed and built by Breitling in Breitling's factory. That is enough for it to be an in-house. At the far end of the scale you have Roger Dubuis (and Seiko, as mentioned) where everything is made in-house. That's obviously the purest form, but IMO design and built is enough for a movement to be an in-house.

- If a company hasn't designed the movement then it can't be called an in house even if they make the parts and assemble them themselves. The Breitling B13 is an example of this as Breitling apparently machine the parts to make the base 7750, but the design isn't theirs.

- If a third party designs and builds a movement for another watch manufacturer (and only that watch manufacturer) then the movement is a "brand exclusive" but not in-house. The Omega 3313 is an example as Frederique Piguet make it for Omega, but only for Omega. (OK so Omega had input into the design of that movement too but that just muddies the water even more! :lol:

)

- If a company designs a movement but gets a third party to build it, then that's more trickey to categorise! I would certainly argue it's not a true in-house, but it's more than a brand exclusive. Difficult! :lol:

The movement in Roff's Louis Moinet falls into this camp.

Ultimately all of this is semantics and opinion, but this is what I go by.

I would make a distinction between in house and 'in group' such as the Omega / Lemania connection - I think we have to make that distinction because if we follow that train of thought then you could plop a 7750 into a Breguet and call it in house - and I don't think any of us would think that was right.

Author:	thomasenlow1 [ Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:50 pm ]
Post subject:	In house movements?
In the time I have spent on here I have noticed the premium that in house movements carry. I can understand the laws of supply and demand, and in-house movements being unique, there is an obvious demand for the few goods. However, as someone new to the hobby, I couldn't help but wonder how much more reliable, or accurate than the ETA movements. To me it seems like someone who produces more goods or services will have more experience and produce a higher quality product. Is this completely wrong? I assume that companies just beginning to make in-house engines will have some growing pains at first, while ETA has been producing theirs for years. Maybe I am just over thinking it Some wisdom from the board is much appreciated.

Author:	Driver8 [ Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: In house movements?
Here's a link to a thread that you may or may not have read where I wrote down my own thoughts about in-house movements - viewtopic.php?f=6&t=19932 If you read the above post I think I address a few of your questions, but to summarise, you are quite correct that in some cases ETA's are more accurate, and in some cases they may also be more reliable. The reason for that is easy enough to see. The ETA 2824 originated in the 1950's, while the ETA 2892 (and it's derivatives) originated in the 1970's, and as a result ETA have had 60 and 40 years respectively to iron out any problems. Compare that to most in-house movements and you can see that they've not been around long enough to guarantee either longevity or that all issues have been ironed out. That's certainly not to say that all in-house movements aren't reliable or long-lived : it's just that in many cases we don't really know yet. However, whether you want an in-house movement or not very much depends on what you want from a watch. To me, wanting an in-house over an ETA is a similar decision to deciding if you want a quartz or an auto. If you want metronomic accuracy at all costs, then a quartz will always win over an auto : if you want something perhaps more esoteric with more "soul", then the auto will win over the quartz. Choosing an in-house movement (to me at least) is saying that uniqueness and originality are more important to you than other considerations. Additionally many in-house movements offer different or more high-end features that the more standard "workhorse" ETAs. The B01 for example, while looking similar on the outside to many existing movements, nevertheless has unique features such as the quick-change date protection for example. I often use the car analogy here, but it seems to fit. If you just want a reliable car you might buy a Toyota or a Honda or a VW, but if you want something with more passion and soul then you might buy a hand-built sportscar. No doubt the Toyota will be more reliable, but if uniqueness and passion is important to you then you will get more from the hand-built sportscar. It all depends on what you are looking for. (Not much of summary this as I've waffled on again! )

Author:	Roffensian [ Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: In house movements?
I think that the car analogy that Driver8 uses is very apt here - few people will dream of owning a Honda or Toyota, the dream is for the Ferrari, or whatever - and that dreaming is not because of the Ferrari's reliability. To me, the in house movement is another step towards having something different - a combination of features and complications that aren't available elsewhere. In some cases that's incredibly practical - ETA / Valjoux will only offer you 42 hour power reserves while in house frequently go to multiple days and in some extreme cases can go to a month or more. In other cases it's esoteric and largely meaningless complications, but the exclusivity remains - let's face it, no one buys a tourbillon because of the (supposed) increase in accuracy, no one buys an equation of time watch because they use the complication at work, etc.

Author:	thomasenlow1 [ Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:23 am ]
Post subject:	Re: In house movements?
Those are two very helpful posts. Thanks guys. Thinking of it as the next step to make after the quartz/auto decision makes the most sense to me. I would bet that the laws of increasing returns, in a manufacturer's case-quality, level out at the high end of the spectrum. In other words, most high end brands that may be going to in-house have well established histories as manufacturers and are more than capable of producing a quality product that is completely vertically integrated.

Author:	Tim S [ Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: In house movements?
I've been thinking about this whole in-house movement concept for a while now and while I agree with most of the commentary I'd like your opinions on heavily modified base movements. Let's face it, a base ETA or Valjoux versus a heavily modified and refined movement with an ETA or Valjoux base aren't exactly the same thing. Plus you include the reliability factor of movements that are tried and tested. Do we put a brand new in-house movement, which doesn't have a decade or more of testing behind it in the same category as an in-house movement that has been around for a while? Probably not but they are both in-house. And then where does a heavily modifed ETA base movement fit into the picture. Which is preferable? I'm honestly not sure where I personally stand as in-house movements interest me but at the same time I don't mind a proven, modified base ETA/Valjoux movement either if the rest of the watch is of high quality. Interested.

The Breitling Watch Source Forums https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/

In house movements? https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=21087	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Driver8 [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: In house movements?
To me, the heaviliy modified ETA (like those used by IWC) sit firmly in between unmodified ETAs and in-house movements. To use my usual car analogy, if we think of ETAs as say a standard Honda Engine, then it'll be reliable and will "do the job" just fine. Now if you modify that engine, you can massively increase performance and it will more than likely be more exclusive than the standard Honda engine. Heck you might even end up with something that purely on the numbers will be faster than a Ferrari engine. BUT it will never BE a Ferrari engine, as it will always be a Honda engine with bits swapped out or added on. Plus the Ferrari engine (the in-house) will be designed from the ground up and may therefore do things that the Honda simply never will because it wasn't designed to at a fundamental level. I'm not saying either approach is right or wrong : you just need to look at the car tuning world to see that there are people who would rather spend Ferrari money tuning a city runaround than actually buying a Ferrari. Ultimately it just depends what you are looking for.

Author:	Roffensian [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: In house movements?
I'm not sure that there is any logic to it, but for me highly modified base movements still fall short of in house. I was offered a chance to name my own price on a Louis Moinet Jules Verne that had been used for reviews of the watch in North America. I chose to walk away because the movement was a modified ETA movement, and the price that I would have had to pay would still have been higher than I was comfortable spending on that movement.

Author:	RJRJRJ [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 9:03 am ]
Post subject:	Re: In house movements?
Driver8 wrote: To me, the heaviliy modified ETA (like those used by IWC) sit firmly in between unmodified ETAs and in-house movements. To use my usual car analogy, if we think of ETAs as say a standard Honda Engine, then it'll be reliable and will "do the job" just fine. Now if you modify that engine, you can massively increase performance and it will more than likely be more exclusive than the standard Honda engine. Heck you might even end up with something that purely on the numbers will be faster than a Ferrari engine. BUT it will never BE a Ferrari engine, as it will always be a Honda engine with bits swapped out or added on. Plus the Ferrari engine (the in-house) will be designed from the ground up and may therefore do things that the Honda simply never will because it wasn't designed to at a fundamental level. I'm not saying either approach is right or wrong : you just need to look at the car tuning world to see that there are people who would rather spend Ferrari money tuning a city runaround than actually buying a Ferrari. Ultimately it just depends what you are looking for. Ive always used the AMG analogy. Figure a 2824 or 7750 is a benz engine, and the modified versions are AMG engines. Same basic platform, just massaged and upgraded to look and perform better.

Author:	Tim S [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: In house movements?
So my next question involves your definition of what constitutes an in-house movement? One that is entirely produced in-house (including the hairspring etc) such as Rolex and JLC, or one that is mostly (say 75% or more) in-house but maybe say acquires a hairspring from a 3rd party vendor... I'm being pedantic I know but I thought I'd get to the nuts and bolts of the discussion

Author:	RJRJRJ [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: In house movements?
Tim S wrote: So my next question involves your definition of what constitutes an in-house movement? One that is entirely produced in-house (including the hairspring etc) such as Rolex and JLC, or one that is mostly (say 75% or more) in-house but maybe say acquires a hairspring from a 3rd party vendor... I'm being pedantic I know but I thought I'd get to the nuts and bolts of the discussion I would say it definitely has to be designed in-house. Other than that, I would just say that the vast majority of parts must be also made in house. It certainly doesnt have to be 100% since im pretty sure that the only company that would qualify for that would be Seiko. AFAIK, everybody else uses outside sources for something.

Author:	Driver8 [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: In house movements?
Tim S wrote: So my next question involves your definition of what constitutes an in-house movement? One that is entirely produced in-house (including the hairspring etc) such as Rolex and JLC, or one that is mostly (say 75% or more) in-house but maybe say acquires a hairspring from a 3rd party vendor... I'm being pedantic I know but I thought I'd get to the nuts and bolts of the discussion I would say designed and built by the company. That doesn't mean that all the parts have to also be made in house, but a lot undoubtedly will by virtue of the fact that the movement is a new design to what's already out there. Therefore - - The B01 is a true in-house as it was designed and built by Breitling in Breitling's factory. That is enough for it to be an in-house. At the far end of the scale you have Roger Dubuis (and Seiko, as mentioned) where everything is made in-house. That's obviously the purest form, but IMO design and built is enough for a movement to be an in-house. - If a company hasn't designed the movement then it can't be called an in house even if they make the parts and assemble them themselves. The Breitling B13 is an example of this as Breitling apparently machine the parts to make the base 7750, but the design isn't theirs. - If a third party designs and builds a movement for another watch manufacturer (and only that watch manufacturer) then the movement is a "brand exclusive" but not in-house. The Omega 3313 is an example as Frederique Piguet make it for Omega, but only for Omega. (OK so Omega had input into the design of that movement too but that just muddies the water even more! ) - If a company designs a movement but gets a third party to build it, then that's more trickey to categorise! I would certainly argue it's not a true in-house, but it's more than a brand exclusive. Difficult! The movement in Roff's Louis Moinet falls into this camp. Ultimately all of this is semantics and opinion, but this is what I go by.

Author:	RJRJRJ [ Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: In house movements?
Driver8 wrote: Tim S wrote: So my next question involves your definition of what constitutes an in-house movement? One that is entirely produced in-house (including the hairspring etc) such as Rolex and JLC, or one that is mostly (say 75% or more) in-house but maybe say acquires a hairspring from a 3rd party vendor... I'm being pedantic I know but I thought I'd get to the nuts and bolts of the discussion I would say designed and built by the company. That doesn't mean that all the parts have to also be made in house, but a lot undoubtedly will by virtue of the fact that the movement is a new design to what's already out there. Therefore - - The B01 is a true in-house as it was designed and built by Breitling in Breitling's factory. That is enough for it to be an in-house. At the far end of the scale you have Roger Dubuis (and Seiko, as mentioned) where everything is made in-house. That's obviously the purest form, but IMO design and built is enough for a movement to be an in-house. - If a company hasn't designed the movement then it can't be called an in house even if they make the parts and assemble them themselves. The Breitling B13 is an example of this as Breitling apparently machine the parts to make the base 7750, but the design isn't theirs. - If a third party designs and builds a movement for another watch manufacturer (and only that watch manufacturer) then the movement is a "brand exclusive" but not in-house. The Omega 3313 is an example as Frederique Piguet make it for Omega, but only for Omega. (OK so Omega had input into the design of that movement too but that just muddies the water even more! ) - If a company designs a movement but gets a third party to build it, then that's more trickey to categorise! I would certainly argue it's not a true in-house, but it's more than a brand exclusive. Difficult! The movement in Roff's Louis Moinet falls into this camp. Ultimately all of this is semantics and opinion, but this is what I go by. Add the Tag calibre 1887. Claimed to be in-house, but based on a design that was licensed to them by Seiko. For all intents and purposed, I think i still consider it to be in-house. Maybe in-house with an asterisk?

Author:	Otto [ Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:03 am ]
Post subject:	Re: In house movements?
Well put, D8. A few grey areas here! What about where the watch company owns the company that designed and built the movement? I'm thinking Omega Speedmaster/Lemania 861. IIRC, Omega owned Lemania at the time it designed the movement (somebody correct me on this if I'm wrong), and this is enough for some people to say the Speedy has an in-house movement. On the other hand, Omega doesn't own Lemania now, and the movement has been supplied to other brands as well.

Author:	Roffensian [ Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re: In house movements?
I pretty much agree with Driver8. I really see little point in obsessing over every last part. Screws and hairsprings are, well, screws and hairsprings, there's no differentiation there once you reach a certain quality level. Additionally, with advances in material science the most advanced work on hairsprings (and balance completes) is by independents these days - although sometimes financed by a particular company, which in turn leads to acquisition (I'm thinking UN). There will always be a need for 3rd parties in watchmaking - we aren't going to have Panerai owned corundum factories, iron ore mines, cattle farms, etc so as long as the watch is designed, assembled, and has the differentiating elements produced in house then it's an in house movement to me. I would make a distinction between in house and 'in group' such as the Omega / Lemania connection - I think we have to make that distinction because if we follow that train of thought then you could plop a 7750 into a Breguet and call it in house - and I don't think any of us would think that was right.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Driver8 [ Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:23 am ]
Post subject:	Re: In house movements?
Roffensian wrote: I would make a distinction between in house and 'in group' such as the Omega / Lemania connection - I think we have to make that distinction because if we follow that train of thought then you could plop a 7750 into a Breguet and call it in house - and I don't think any of us would think that was right. I completely agree, Roff. As you rightly said, if we don't make that distinction, then any Swatch Group watch running any ETA movement could then be called an in-house.