There's been a few occurrences in threads recently about in-house movements and how some people really value them while others don't at all, so I just thought I'd put down a few of my own thoughts on the topic. It's also fairly topical for myself as I have finally decided to commit to a decision that I've been toying with for the best part of a year now. Basically over the course of the next year or so I am going to move my entire collection to in-house movements, and sell off the rest.
Now I fully realise that there will only be a tiny percentage of you (probably <1%) that would ever consider doing the same, and I'm absolutely fine with that. I also realise that while quite a few of you appreciate the value of an in-house movement, I fully understand that there will be a percentage of people who either simply just don't "get" the whole in-house thing, or "get it" just fine but decide it's not important enough to pay the premium. I'm absolutely fine with that too.
I also want to say right up front, that this is in no way a diatribe against ETA movements in general, or watches with ETA based movements in them. It's just a collection of my rambling thoughts on why I particularly like manufacture movements and why I'm going to make such a radical change to my collection. So anyway, these are my thoughts on the subject -
I've always liked watches right back from when was given my first analogue Timex watch as a kid of about 5 or 6, if I remember correctly. From then on, the watches I liked were those that basically looked cool! Back in the late 70's/early 80's that meant a black Casio digital watch (the forerunner of the G-Shock, if you will!). In my early teens, cool meant a big chunky analogue/digital Zeon, so that was the type of watch I had. In my mid-teens, cool and classy was a TT Seiko, until finally around 20ish I "graduated" to a quartz Omega SMP. In all that time, I simply liked watches because of what they looked like on the outside. They were a just a cool thing to wear, that also had the added bonus of making sure I was home in time for tea! What was going on inside meant nothing to me - in fact the only thing I knew that had remotely anything to do with the internals of a watch was that, "Rolex's are the best 'cause they have a sweeping hand!"
But that Omega SMP triggered something within me - basically it started to get me interested in more than just what a watch looked like, but also how it worked, and as I looked into it I became a whole of a lot more interested in mechanical movements. The way you power them yourself with either your own movements or by manually winding them, the way they have a "heart-beat" (of sorts) of their own, the amount of skill required to construct something using just cogs, wheels and springs that can still be 99.9% accurate, etc, etc. I also love the fact that in a world where new technology comes along all the time, in a mechanical watch there is essentially no modern technology (e.g. circuits, or batteries) at all.
Thus started my costly addiction to mechanical watches, and for more than a decade I bought and owned a lot of watches watches that 9 times out of 10 always had a mechanical movement. And as I've now come to realise, every single mechanical watch I've ever owned (except one notable exception) contained a movement that originated in the factories of ETA/Valjoux.
Every.
Single.
One. Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing per se, but when somewhere in the region of 15 to 20 Breitlings and probably another 15 or so by other brands all used a variation of either the ETA 2824, the 2892, or the Valjoux 7750, it doesn't show a lot of variety......
But in the last 2 or 3 years, I feel my watch appreciation has developed in such a way (not least encouraged by this forum) to the point where what is going on inside a watch is
EQUALLY as important to me as what it looks like on the outside. Some of you may find this very difficult to understand, but just as I won't buy a watch if I don't like the design, nor will I buy one if the movement's not what I'm looking for either.
Anyway, as I mentioned above, my one non-ETA powered watch is my IWC Big Pilot which houses the in-house IWC 7 Day automatic movement. Now I'll be honest here, I have had a few issues with it in terms of timekeeping - it does gain a little more than it should, but there are plenty of owners out there who can attest to fine timekeeping from that movement, so I put it down to IWC's (or rather the Richemont Group's) patchy customer service and inability to regulate it correctly.
That said, it's also a slower beating movement at 21,600 vph which means it's tougher to regulate than something with a faster beat. But then again, if atomic-clock timekeeping was my primary goal, I'd have spent all my money at the altar of Superquartz long ago, instead of spending money on automatics. No - living my life to the accuracy of less than a second is not my "thing", so a daily gain of a few seconds I can live with.
To me, the very idea that a movement is TOTALLY unique to a brand if pretty important these days. For example, I personally wouldn't want a watch that was made up of an Omega case, a Breitling bezel, a Rolex bracelet and a Seiko dial. That's kind of how it's become for me with the movement too. And before anyone says it, yes I know that even in in-house movements, component construction such as hairsprings is usually outsourced (with the exception of a very elite few like Roger Dubuis who make everything themselves
), but that's fine by me as the movement and construction is still brand specific. So much about luxury goods is about how they make you
feel, and I personally love knowing that the movement in my Big Pilot isn't found anywhere outside of IWC. I know it's daft, and it's hard to explain, but I'ma WIS and it just feels good to me. As I say, some people love the accuracy of SQ : for me, it's know that the entire watch is unique to the brand.
In my opinion, ALL mechanical movements are works of art in their own right, and the in-house movement is just (dare I say) a higher example of that art form IMO. I read today on another thread here when the topic of a watch being an art-form cropped up, that someone said that unless you can see a movement through a display back then who cares if it's well decorated or not. While I don't personally agree with that, the statement is
understandable IF you define art purely as something you look at, but to me it misses the point entirely. In my opinion the artwork is not really about the decoration, it's about the function and work that went into creating that function. Of course, it could
also be very nicely decorated, but when it comes to something mechanical, the functionality, design and craftsmanship is where the art-work is. It's like a car - you don't say it's got a great engine only if it looks nice when you pop the hood. No, you have to use it to feel and know what it's about : the art is in the performance and knowing the attention to detail that went into creating that performance. At least, that's how it is for me.
Some people say that in-house movements are generally more untested and can be temperamental, and in lots of ways that can be true. The ETA 2824 has been around since the 1950's so it's not remotely surprising that they've managed to iron out any issues over the past 60 years. However, to use the car analogy again, the potentially temperamental nature of a Ferrari engine doesn't stop people buying Ferraris..... and loving every minute of ownership. You won't find many car enthusiasts aspiring to own something that's not unique, exquisitely constructed and beautiful at the same time....... and that's how I feel as a watch enthusiast. To me it's logical to aspire to in-house movements because they represent the more unique, interesting and high-end aspects of watch-making. And if they ever happen to be temperamental and need repairs - frankly, who cares! At the end of the day, no matter how passionate we are about these things, they're still
just watches. Heck if I'm without one for any length of time I can tell the time on my mobile phone!
Lastly, I just want to reiterate that this post is in no way meant to berate ETA or any watches that house their movements. And it is CERTAINLY not intended to berate anyone who owns one. ETA movements are great quality and extremely reliable..... it's just that for me, they aren't exclusive enough for what I want from a watch. ETA have carved a niche (well, more of a massive cave really!) in the market that has allowed them to both dominate the movement industry, and (on the plus side) also allow mechanical movements to be made available to large numbers of people for pretty reasonable prices. Heck, I wouldn't have ever gotten into mechanical watches myself if it wasn't for ETA, so for that I am immensely grateful. It's just that now I'm now looking for something different in my watches, just like some people may insist on the accuracy of SQ, or insist on a certain level of water resistance, etc. Therefore this post is merely a (pretty long) monologue to explain my own motivations behind my love of manufacture movements, and hence why I will be selling off my ETA-powered pieces in due course.
I realise by taking this course that I'll be cutting out a huge swathe of quality watches from my "potential purchase" list, but I'm fine with that as there are around 10 pieces with in-house movements out there that I consider to be absolutely superb (and more importantly, attainable price-wise!), and obtaining those will keep me pretty busy for the foreseeable future!
It's definitely a case of quality over quantity for me from now on.
Anyway, those are my musings, and congratulations if you've stuck with them this far!
Login
Register
FAQ
