Drtymrtini wrote:
Omega, Rolex, Panerai - all have done a great job of sticking to their roots and making changes where it makes sense - typically to improve upon what they are already doing well - not changing for the sake of change.
I agree completely, and I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of what I and a lot of others find disconcerting about the changes Breitling is making. There's a difference between incremental improvements and change for change's sake. This year finds some of Breitling's most sweeping changes yet, and a lot of them are jarring and seem oddly random. Compare that to Rolex's update to the SS Submariner last year. It was the first update to that model in over 20 years. It stayed true to the model's DNA, while introducing some very good improvements, including a much better bracelet, a ceramic bezel, an improved mainspring, and a subtly chunkier look to the case. (Not everybody likes the change to the case, but I do.)
Omega, too, has shown it can balance innovation with tradition. When they made the switch to co-axial movements, they incorporated the new movements into existing designs, like the Seamaster Pro, rather than only putting the new movements in new designs and phasing out the older models. They also kept the Seamaster Pro in production right alongside the newer Planet Ocean. Breitling likely would not have done it that way. I don't understand their "clear the decks" attitude. They are forsaking tradition for innovation (and one can argue whether their changes are all that innovative), rather than balancing them, and they are losing core customers in the process. Whether they gain enough new customers to compensate remains to be seen.
Login
Register
FAQ
