Oris Divers Sixty-Five Calibre 400 in-house

Fratello On Air: Is In-House In The Outhouse?

Word salad has entered the watch world with confusing claims about movements

October 01, 2024

comments 48

Welcome to another episode of Fratello On Air! This week, we discuss the increasing number of claims about movement production and wonder whether it all truly matters. “In-house,” “in-house-designed,” and “third-party” are only some explanations we hear about movements and their origin. It’s gotten a bit nutty! For our listeners, there’s horology content interspersed initially, but fast-forward to 23 minutes for uninterrupted watch talk.

Do you remember when life was simple and watch movements were either in-house or off-the-shelf? It was never the case, but we didn’t care so much — or we weren’t told to care. These days, we have a veritable buffet of descriptions for how a caliber ended up in a watch case. It’s all too much now, and in the end, does anyone give a rip? We’re not so sure.

Handgelenkskontrolle

This week, we kick off our episode on “in-house” and other movement descriptions with a load of banter. Balazs recounts his time at a Turkish airport. Mike mentions a friend who purchased a gray-market Rolex Submariner Date in London and how demand is alive and well. Then, both hosts failed in their quest to purchase the recent Travis Scott Nike shoes (Mike was trying for Balazs). Finally, Mike has had it with snarky, know-it-all commenters who want gold stars. For the Handgelenkskontrolle, Mike is wearing his Rolex Datejust Oysterquartz ref. 17000. Balazs is wearing the cool new Nivada Grenchen Chronoking Mecaquartz Interchangeable Bezel. Stay tuned for an upcoming review here on Fratello!

In-house, designed by, made by… whatever!

Recently, Mike reviewed the new Norqain Independence Skeleton Chrono models. There was nothing wrong with the watches, but the movements were peculiar with in-house design and production at AMT. It got us thinking: do people truly care about in-house, in-house-designed, or off-the-shelf movements? We discuss the topic. You’ll hear about mighty Rolex and the brand’s purchase of Aegler, its longtime exclusive movement manufacturer. We mention Oris and question whether the brand’s in-house strategy has been helpful to sales.

We hope you enjoy today’s episode, and thank you for listening! If you have ideas for future shows, please let us know.

Home
Watch Brands
Nivada Grenchen
Norqain
Oris
Rolex
Fratello On Air: Is In-House In The Outhouse?

Read next latest →

Hands-On With The New Yema Wristmaster Slim CMM.20 Limited Edition

Thomas Van Straaten

best affordable watches of 2024 article header Echo/Neutra Rivanera

Fratello’s Top 5 Affordable Watches Of 2024 — Featuring Seiko, Echo/Neutra, Nodus, And More

Jorg Weppelink

Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra Turquoise gradient dial header image

Introducing: The Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra With A Gradient Turquoise Dial

Daan de Groot

48 Comments

Leave a comment... Join the conversation

Post with fratello account
Login

Don't have an account yet?
Create one here, it'll only take 20 seconds

woodwork says:

Oct 01, 2024 at 12:22

Purchase of “Aegler”? There was never a company named Aegler. Rolex Geneva acquired Rolex Bienne. The latter was a company that exclusively made calibres for Rolex for 80 years, and the Aegler family had the majority ownership of it.
Equating Rolex Bienne to outhouse manufacturers like ETA who supplied (and continue to supply) multiple brands at different price-points is pretty underhanded. But like all underhanded tactics used over the decades to diminish Rolex, it also fails to sway consumers even slightly.
Why not take the example of outhouse ETA calibres used today instead? Never mind, we know why.

Reply
1. TW
  Berlin_Tony says:
  
  Oct 01, 2024 at 12:59
  
  Hmm, Aegler founded his firm in 1878 & certainly didn’t use the name Rolex at that point, indeed it wasn’t until 1914 that Wilsdorf bought his way into the firm
  
  As I’m not a Rolex owner but not a Stan I am quite happy with the reality that the company, in its early days, bought its calibres from a 3rd party, it’s not as if that was in any way unusual at the time
  
  Nor was it unusual to buy Valjoux movements for your 60s chronographs
  
  Nor was it unusual, by the time Rolex got round to doing it, to buy in automatic chronograph movements – you can argue that Rolex was the only company that substantially changed the one they bought if you wish
  
  Reply
  1. TW
    Berlin_Tony says:
    
    Oct 01, 2024 at 16:22
    
    That should read “As I am a Rolex owner but not a Stan”
    
    Reply
2. JL
  SXM says:
  
  Oct 01, 2024 at 13:12
  
  Right…
  
  That’s simply not true. The company’s legal, registered name was Aegler SA doing business under the trading name Montres Rolex. Wilsdorf’s participation as shareholder was brief in the company’s history and his shares were sold back to the Aegler and Borer families until the takeover in 2004. Until then, profits from Aegler SA flowed solely to those families, making it a distinct legal and fiscal entity apart from Wilsdorf’s foundation. That it chose to supply exclusively to Wilsdorf’s company is irrelevant to the fact that it was a separate entity with distinct financial beneficiaries. Hence, Rolex was not a true manufacture until relatively recently.
  
  For a time, Aegler SA made movements for Gruen watches as well and the Gruen family were also briefly shareholders in the movement manufacture.
  
  It is not dissimilar to many other movement and watchmaker relationships in the Swiss industry in its history.
  
  Reply
  1. Simon says:
    
    Oct 01, 2024 at 13:47
    
    Interesting, but did Rolex Bienne ever supply calibers to Gruen? It seems you don’t want to credit the fact that Rolex Bienne manufactured calibers exclusively for Rolex watches for 80 years like Woodwork mentioned. That is evidently dissimilar to any other arrangement in the Swiss industry. Or can you think of even other example that is similar?
    Even if you consider Rolex to only be a true manufacturer from 2004, what about the brands that are still supplied by ETA in 2024? Clearly they’re a better example to bring to this discussion than Rolex. Because ETA supplied many brands, unlike Rolex Bienne who only supplied one brand for eighty years. Wouldn’t you agree?
    
    Reply
    1. JL
      SXM says:
      
      Oct 01, 2024 at 20:57
      
      Yes, Aegler SA supplied identical calibers to both Gruen and Rolex for about a decade and a half. This is not opinion but historical fact. Using the Rolex name for two legally distinct and separately owned entities was a genius marketing sleight of hand. The legally registered name of the company, however, was Aegler SA (societé anonyme) but doing business as Montres Rolex.
      
      Indeed. Being exclusively supplied for 80 years is impressive. But what’s more impressive is exclusively making your own movements for 80 years. By that metric, contemporary Rolex still has about 60 years to go.
      
      Cheers.
      
      Reply
      1. Simon says:
        
        Oct 01, 2024 at 22:21
        
        Can you please share which years did Gruens get the same calibre as a Rolex, and what was the calibre in question? The historical fact is that it cannot be between 1924-2004. But I’m sure you can provide the details to clarify this, happy to be wrong.
        But it’s nice that you could admit there were no similar arrangements to Rolex Bienne in the entire history of the Swiss industry.
        I see that you also avoided the issue of choosing Rolex for this discussion instead of a brand that’s still supplied by ETA in 2024. I’m guessing you would have a pretty low opinion of such a brand, especially if it’s charging Rolex prices.
        
        Reply
        
        JL
        SXM says:
        
        Oct 02, 2024 at 04:19
        
        Certainly. I’m afraid you are wrong. Let’s start with the 1924 Gruen caliber 835, also known as the Rolex 200. There are also the Aegler Rebberg savonnette calibers that were found in both Rolex and Gruen branded watches of the era. Prior to that, Aegler supplied quite a number of movements to other watch makers in the early decades of wristwatches. I see that you were not aware of this part of Aegler’s history. Anyway. Happy to help.
        
        Fun fact: George T Gruen was trained at Aegler SA between 1927 and 1929. Like Wilsdorf, he also owned shares in Aegler SA and Gruen was a partner in the business model for a time, just as Rolex was.
        
        By about 1935 Aegler SA began to supply Rolex almost exclusively because it was its largest customer. By the start of the Second World War, Rolex was simply too small to supply the industrial needs of the Allies’ demands, and so the business of officially supplying the armed forces fighting to defeat Nazism fell to the big boys at the time, namely Longines and Omega.
        
        I always find it amusing that some are under the impression Rolex was some kind of proper manufacture from the get go. But that’s simply projecting the present onto the past.
        
        Reply
        
        Simon says:
        
        Oct 02, 2024 at 12:25
        
        Thank you for sharing all that. I see, so it was not 1924 but sometime in the 1930s when Rolex Bienne became the exclusive supplier for Rolex Geneva. This is news to me for sure, but seventy years of exclusive supply is not any less impressive than eighty years.
        You finally came around to mentioning the big boys of the 30s, Longines and Omega. What happened to them? Would love a history lesson on that too. From what I understand, they’re no longer big boys when it comes to manufacturing calibres, in fact neither have been a manufacturer of calibres for over 50 years. I always find it amusing how people project the very distant past onto the present, as if the 1930s could make up for a watch having a calibre supplied by ETA today. It’s like pretending the British empire still runs the world.
        
        Reply
      2. Cigars&Wine says:
        
        Oct 01, 2024 at 23:26
        
        SXM, I’m having trouble understanding your statements, please help me out here mate. You accept that the company you refer to as “Aegler” did business under the name “Rolex”, and you accept that for 80 years they only existed to manufacture calibres used in Rolexes. But you’re still calling it marketing?
        I think the real sleight of hand here is how you keep deflecting the point made by the two gentlemen above, regarding the brand that is still supplied by ETA. It seems you may have been a victim of marketing yourself, and not Rolex marketing for that matter.
        
        Reply
3. Beetlejuice says:
  
  Oct 01, 2024 at 14:03
  
  Would you mind explaining : « Why not take the example of outhouse ETA calibres used today instead? Never mind, we know why. » ???
  Should we suspect any kind of conspiration against Rolex ?? Why and from who?
  
  Reply
  1. MG
    maciej-g says:
    
    Oct 01, 2024 at 16:38
    
    I also prefer hearing, learning someone’s thoughts rahter than being made to assume based on vague implications.
    
    Reply
4. JW
  OldJohnBulova says:
  
  Oct 01, 2024 at 23:32
  
  @Woodwork
  It seems that if you take the quoted statement in with the context of the whole discussion (in of the podcast episode), that it wasn’t used as an underhanded tactic or an attempt to discredit Rolex at all. The more relevant point they were getting to was the same point as your own; well one of them, which is that the presence of outsourced movt’s has never had a negative effect on vintage Rolex and not their values that collector enthusiasts have assigned to the watches.
  Only if the podcasts were making points to the contrary, or opining about outsourced movt’s as if they were a bad/cheap/undesirable or lesser sort of thing, would your claims hold much weight.
  
  Reply
5. Pete_McConvill says:
  
  Oct 02, 2024 at 09:01
  
  Did you listen to the podcast – the rolex/aegler relationship was used as a specific example of how an outsourced supplier can become part of the primary supplier and it was never equated to manufacturers like ETA.
  
  Reply
6. MG
  maciej-g says:
  
  Oct 02, 2024 at 09:04
  
  Thanks to all for the educational conversation
  
  Reply
GD
1Gav1 says:

Oct 01, 2024 at 13:06

All that matters is quality, and what that entails as it increases – technical choices (free-sprung over index-regulated, column wheel over cam-and-lever etc), finishing level, effort made to make a slimmer calibre that is still robust, and so on. Two of the three ‘high-grade’ watches in my collection have movements that were not designed by the name on the dial, but are finer than the movements in my other watches which were designed by the brand.

One area I do think needs more focus, especially as Sellita calibres are becoming more ubiquitous, is a stress on the different grades of off-the-shelf movements used in various offerings we see on an increasingly regular basis. There’s a not-inconsiderable difference in cost between a ‘standard’ grade Sellita and a premium COSC grade one, for example.

Reply
TW
Berlin_Tony says:

Oct 01, 2024 at 13:08

Casio, Citizen & Seiko exclusively make watches with in-house movements

Oh, you’d rather have a Swiss watch with an in-house movement?

Buy a Swatch

Conclusion – it’s well past time to stop being precious about in-house movements

Reply
JB
MADDER says:

Oct 01, 2024 at 13:51

The long-time Longines CEO Walter von Känel made the difficult decision to close the Longines manufacture. A condition was ETA movements would be manufactured in those same on-site halls of the manufacture.

So now ETA assembles several hundred thousand movements a year, in the Longines halls, of two key calibers exclusively for Longines.

Make of that what you will.

Reply
1. JL
  SXM says:
  
  Oct 01, 2024 at 21:07
  
  Indeed. Longines made its first in-house caliber in 1867. 80 years later in 1947 it was still producing some of the finest chronograph calibers ever made. Not supplied by anyone but designed and made themselves. And it still had some decades to go before the gloom of the quartz crisis.
  
  That’s impressive.
  
  Reply
Richard says:

Oct 01, 2024 at 14:03

Thank you for the excellent work guys. Really enjoyed this one. And Mike, you get to punch back when commenters are rude. Kindness costs nothing. We’re not adversaries here – we’re all just enjoying the same hobby.

-Sad to hear you guys struck out on the Travis Scott’s. Hope you get them soon!
-Regarding CPO, I wasn’t aware that the watches sold that way could be less than all original parts. That’s good to know.
-I don’t think a 20% markup is too bad for a Submariner. It beats having to spend money on watches you don’t want and waiting for a year or two. As for flipping, I think it remains a bad practice, and that people who get the call twice for the same watch should decline one and let the next guy have a chance.

As for in-house versus stock movements, I don’t remember in house movements being held up as a tremendous virtue until about 15 years ago. For me, I just want my movements to work well, to have a long life, to be relatively accurate and to be serviced at a reasonable cost. If the movement looks great, then that’s a bonus.

Cheers, guys!

Reply
1. SC
  Tam O’ Banter says:
  
  Oct 02, 2024 at 03:38
  
  Was that before ETA decided to stop supplying ebauchés to third parties? I think it was. But ETA’s decision probably made an impact too.
  
  Reply
  1. Richard says:
    
    Oct 02, 2024 at 18:39
    
    I think it was before ETA’s announcement. But I agree with you – that announcement certainly encouraged in house movements.
    
    Reply
Richard says:

Oct 01, 2024 at 14:05

Also meant to add that I’m looking forward to Balazs’ review of the Nivada Grenchen ChronoKing. Any post-sale customization in the hands of the owner is a great thing.

Reply
Aurelius says:

Oct 01, 2024 at 17:00

Oris is an old brand. They seen really high highs and ditto low lows and they are still around. They made in-house movements at a time when “in-house” wasn’t a selling argument. Seeing them go back to designing movements, thinking about the engineering, coming up with clever solutions… Well, for me at least, that it is Phoenix rising from the ashes stuff.

Reply
DM
TacoPants says:

Oct 01, 2024 at 17:18

Agree on long term concerns for some of the “in house” movements. Particularly as this trend has been accompanied by fewer and fewer ADs or independent watchmakers being allowed to have official parts accounts. Brands seem to want to be the sole point for servicing. Which means these movements are only serviceable as long as the brand makes enough money from doing so.

My understanding is that Rolex and Omega cut off access to parts accounts to many watchmakers some years back. Despite that and probably because so many had parts accounts for so long, it’s still possible to find leftover NOS parts for most anything you might need from someone’s old inventory being sold online. It gives an especially long tail to the service life of these older models and movements, even “in-house” ones. That build up of parts in the hands of 3rd parties doest seem to be happening for current “in-house” movements. Doesn’t bode well for keeping local watchmakers in business, nor affordable use of mechanical watches from the big brands

Reply
MN
Mike says:

Oct 01, 2024 at 17:32

I don’t think in-house movements would have become as popular if common third party movements had kept up with the times. Not having the modern power reserves and antimagnetic features left the door wide open for in-house movements to become what they are.

Reply
1. Aurelius says:
  
  Oct 01, 2024 at 19:01
  
  Agree with antimagnetism. Never understood why ~40 hours of power reserve isn’t enough. When a watch stops, you get to fiddle with it. Most of us watch nerds do that anyway.
  
  Reply
Tristan says:

Oct 01, 2024 at 19:08

In the cases where an in-house movement is so delicate or obscure that service is impossible/silly money then I’d take the out-house.

A 360 Modena with broken timing belts stuck by the side of the autobahn is slower than a VW Passat diesel.

Reply
SC
Tam O’ Banter says:

Oct 02, 2024 at 04:05

Having read about a billion comments that read something like “$3,000 for an ETA? No way!” It seems that manufacture movements almost became inevitable. Perhaps this new attitude is little more than a re-adjustment? I mean a well-regulated, Top Grade 2892 is a very good calibre. Few movements at anything like the price give significantly better performance than that. Yes, Rolex, GS and Omega seem to be more accurate, but I wonder whether that is simply because these companies spend a lot of time setting them up properly.

I believe that the desire for in-house movements comes from a desire to get a better movement. The feeling is that X company simply drops in an ETA and slings the watch the door. And the smoke-and-mirrors that the Swiss get up to doesn’t help. Having “Calibre 5” emblazoned on a dial when we all know it’s a bog standard movement is insulting. If companies spend the time properly adjusting their third-party movements and letting potential customers know what they are doing to ensure the heart of their new watch operates properly, they would probably get more trust. And trust is the key component in any new purchase.

Those who spent significantly more on an in-house movement and saw little-to-no practical benefit have probably considered re-evaluating their future purchases.

Put simply, as others have said, performance matters. If your shiny new movement doesn’t offer more, what’s the point?

Reply
1. JB
  MADDER says:
  
  Oct 02, 2024 at 08:11
  
  Absolutely!
  
  To your point, the L888.4 in my Spirit Titanium, an evolved 2892, is running at +13s a month. Quartz-level accuracy.
  
  As per my comment above, just so happens to be assembled geographically in-house at Saint Imier, exclusively for Longines, by evil, evil ETA. (Hope I didn’t hurt anybody by mentioning that name).
  
  Reply
2. Aurelius says:
  
  Oct 02, 2024 at 08:49
  
  That’s good banter!
  
  Reply
3. GD
  1Gav1 says:
  
  Oct 02, 2024 at 10:19
  
  @Tam
  
  Agreed, well said.
  
  Reply
  1. SC
    Tam O’ Banter says:
    
    Oct 02, 2024 at 16:38
    
    Thank you all
    
    Reply
4. SM
  Spiros says:
  
  Oct 04, 2024 at 09:20
  
  I 100% agree with you.
  
  Reply
Pete_McConvill says:

Oct 02, 2024 at 07:29

I think if you look at secondary market prices for watches from brands such as breitling/oris/tudor(less so now to be fair) and compare the prices for watches with in-house vs 3rd party movements I think its pretty clear that people are rarely willing to pay much more for inhouse movements unless the differences are pretty stark.

However, when a brand goes all inhouse I think the brand does get a reputational ‘boost’ as being a ‘proper’ manufacturer (not saying thats right or proper just the way it seems to play out). So weirdly a brand that goes all in on a relatively straightforward inhouse threehander will get more ‘credit’ as a watchmaker than a brand that has an inhouse qp chronograph but uses selitta/eta three handers in more simple watches.

Reply
DK
Ayreonaut says:

Oct 02, 2024 at 15:24

I bought an Alpina with a manufacture movement. It soon broke and they were going to charge me $1000 just to look at it. But the watch was only worth about $1000 used. I quickly realized that mid-range in-house movements are not for me.

On the other had I have a Blancpain annual calendar that will probably cost at least $1000 to have serviced, but that one is worth it to me. I have no problem with high-end in-house movements.

I’ve also had a low-end Seiko diver that needed work. A movement swap was the cheapest solution in that case. Either that, or low-end mechanicals could be seen as disposable.

Reply
1. Tristan says:
  
  Oct 05, 2024 at 14:43
  
  Good point about mid-range manufacture. Sounds more trouble than it is worth (als0 if they go bankrupt down the line).
  
  Reply
Paul says:

Oct 02, 2024 at 15:38

Oris made a strategic miscalculation, and now they’re paying for it with a major decrease in sales. They raised prices to the point where they are now bumping up against Tudor, which is too formidable a competitor for Oris. Raising prices also distanced Oris from successful microbrands that are offering watches that are often better than Oris’s watches, and for less money. So, Oris now finds itself in a very tight spot, squeezed between the likes of Tudor and Longines just above them, and the likes of Christopher Ward and Formex just below them. It’s not a good place to be in. Oris hopes that its ecofriendly storytelling/branding will be enough to set it apart from its competition, despite the aggressive price increases and the addition of “in-house” movements that most of their customers don’t want. Time will tell whether or not Oris will survive.

Reply
1. SC
  Tam O’ Banter says:
  
  Oct 02, 2024 at 16:47
  
  There’s a look goodwill towards Oris, but as you say, as a high value, mid-range independent. An extra 2 grand for in-house is steep. It’s like going to your local Carvery and being asked to pay twice as much for Wiltshire beef. Some will pay, more will not.
  And when you factor in Longines’ new models….
  
  Reply
2. SC
  Tam O’ Banter says:
  
  Oct 02, 2024 at 18:21
  
  Apologies. “A lot of good will”.
  Voice recognition strikes again!
  
  Reply
3. Aurelius says:
  
  Oct 02, 2024 at 19:32
  
  Do we know that Oris’ sales are down? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but it would be interesting to know how you know.
  
  Reply
Douglas Waterbottom says:

Oct 02, 2024 at 18:24

Great pod and I completely agree with wondering who will be able to service all of these in-house movements. I think there is even greater risk to this when it comes to smaller watch brands – who is going to have the parts to replace handsets, bezels, etc. Take Monta for instance, who in their short history have seemly gone more bland from the

Additionally, I understand there is a need for moderation and I am honestly pretty surprised by some of the comments that are approved when there is zero positivity or new information provided, however, I will say being in the US and typically reading these in the morning/afternoon, I do feel like the conversation in the comments is halted by the approval process with all of the editors being in Europe. At times, it feels like my comment takes 15+ hours to be posted and by that time the conversation is over and people are focusing on the newer articles.

Lastly, I’ve never received an email when my comment is responded to whether I am logged in or just go with the “Your Name & Email Address” option.

Reply
EB
EDDI2142 says:

Oct 03, 2024 at 07:14

Thanks for another interesting discussion. I don’t always comment on your podcasts, but there’s always something that one can learn from you guys!

On the matter of the grey-market story. I think it’s sad that “standard” models are behind this ridiculous scheme where you need to have a good “relationship” with your AD. For non watch people this will always be surprising.

I think it’s great that you addressed the “snarky” comments and that more strict moderation will happen going forward. Sadly the anonymity of the internet allows people to just go haywire with their words.

Lastly the main topic. I agree serviceability should be the top priority and if you’re producing enough watches then that shouldn’t be an issue down the line. Also because of economies of scale, “in-house” can make sense again if you sell enough pieces. Looking at the prices, I agree that selling straight up out-house watches is better than going in-house and asking for high mark-ups.
I also always questioned whether Swatch’s move to limit providing ETA movements to others was a good move overall.

Reply
MG
maciej-g says:

Oct 04, 2024 at 08:08

Every time the in-out-house topic is raised–quite regularly–I notice a contradiction.

Many of us here claim to not care too much about the overrated in-house preferring good relable servicable engines. And yet we all seem to get high ove in-house prodductions. So which one is it?

As for my opinion–I do appreciate in-house. Sure not all in-house are equal. But my point is that what is watchmaking about if not “Watch making”? If all used the same movements all we are left is packaging: design and built quality ant this is not watchmaking, this is just design and production. Or fashion. Is that what it is supposed to be about? I say no–it is about creating useful time telling, engineered, innovative wearable tools/accessories which wear well, last, tell time as accurately as possible and stir our emotions.

Reply
Seb says:

Oct 04, 2024 at 20:50

Hi guys. Thank you once again for a great podcast. Please do go ahead and moderate the comment sections strictly. There are so many more people that appreciate your work and don’t say anything, than snarky people with nothing better to do than make petty comments. Keep up the good work.

Reply
RL
Rodney John Luckwell says:

Oct 05, 2024 at 15:21

Sellita are a subcontractor to ETA so their movements are similar,not better or worse.
No amount of fancy engraving makes a movement more accurate,that’s why Rolex never fell for it,but no mechanical watches are more accurate,and every large city has a Authorized Repair Centre with a guarantee.
They also hold their price,unlike most of their competitors.

Reply
Roy-65 says:

Oct 06, 2024 at 16:32

I’m late to the show again, but that gives me time to read through all the comments and enjoy the beef.
Btw, It’s a pity to hear Mike was a bit grumpy, but he was rightfully so.

Regarding opinions on in-house movements, I focus on my own experiences and expectations.
My first serious watch was an Ebel Sport 1911 quartz in 1990. Quartz was the way to go, so I didn’t really pay attention to the movement. Besides not caring, I also had no knowledge about the matter.

Sometime in the early 2000s, I bought a TAG Heuer Carrera Caliber 16. It’s a beautiful watch but relatively thick. You can clearly see that it’s a stacked movement, with the crown not centered in the case. Because of its thickness, I rarely wear it. I asked a watchmaker if it was possible to remove the automatic module and install a flatter case back.
I understand that the next Carreras will have a new, thinner in-house movement, making the watch smaller and much flatter. I see this as a nice improvement where in-house is indeed a benefit.

About 10 years ago, I bought a beautiful IWC Pilot Chronograph 43 mm “Le Petit Prince.” This watch is actually too big and thick for my wrist size. The movement in this watch is a modified ETA. Several years ago IWC made their own movement for this watch and made it 2 mm smaller in diameter. Reading about this upgrade I was willing to sell my old Petit Prince and buy this slightly smaller Pilot Chronograph.
But the watch turned out not to be thinner, rather thicker. That was a disappointment. They developed a new in-house movement, but didn’t make it thinner. Now the watch sat relatively higher on the wrist. In-house, in this case, was not an improvement for me.

I sold my Cartier Santos automatic because the movement was a disappointment. It just couldn’t keep time, was noisy and had a short power reserve. Why make the effort to design such a beautiful watch and then fit it with a cheap ETA?

As a last example, my most recent purchase, the Hermes Cut. I liked the size, the design, the numerals, and the straps. What ultimately justified the purchase was the “in-house” movement by Vaucher. If the movement was ETA, Selita or something not Swiss I wouldn’t have bought it. It’s a serious brand for serious money so I want a serious engine.
Okay, okay… it’s not really in-house, but you know….

In conclusion, in-house movements are important to me, but they must provide an improvement to the watch both mechanically and aesthetically.

Exceptions are, of course, watches with certain legendary Lemania and Valjoux movements. I’m proud to own a couple of those.

Reply
DC
PdxOm4me says:

Oct 08, 2024 at 07:25

Hi guys. Here’s a little story about the idea of a “Swiss” made watch.

My brother and I visited Switzerland last year to tour factories and watch museums. In Le Locle we rented a small apartment, as it was cheaper than two hotel rooms. The local landlady met us with the key and we enjoyed a friendly chat, when she told us a bit about Le Locle.

Le Locle has a history of many small work shops that make parts for many of the watch manufacturers, which it continues to do so today. She went on to say that many of the workers are from Portugal, as their are more work opportunities here and according to her, they can be paid less than a Swiss citizen. With a laugh she concluded that Swiss made watches should really be identified as Portuguese made watches. We all had a chuckle.

That’s all I got. : )

Keep up the good work

Reply