Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: In house movement v one outsourced!

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Gloucestershire, UK
    Posts
    860

    In house movement v one outsourced!

    While we wait to see what is in store for us on February 11th thought I would share this fascinating debate from ablogtowatch.com. For me the arguments are finely balanced and there is some Bremont related comment at the end. Personally I would rather the company spend it's resources and energy on getting the basics right rather than invest heavily for the prestige of having it's own 'in house' movement. If that movement is demonstrably superior to that which can be bought in, and the on cost is not prohibitive then all well and good - more power to the elbow I say! At present I am not convinced that this is the time for Bremont to be making that journey, it is still a relatively new brand and time spent in improving reliability and building up infrastructure will not go amiss.

    Enjoy the article it is well thought out on both sides of the argument.

    http://www.ablogtowatch.com/point-co...ement-watches/

    Gavin

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bournemouth
    Posts
    644
    Thing is with in-house movement is they will end up with the monopoly of charging what they like for repairs outside of warranty. I'm still very cautious about the quality control with Bremont and wouldn't dream about gambling on an in-house movement at present. They should stick with making good wearable watches which theirs are .

    Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    17
    My view on in house movements. Look at F1 Redbull have used a Renault engine to great success. They could of tried to fit a Redbull engine but would of failed spectacularly. It is so important to get the whole package right and if that requires fitting a non in house movement so be it. Surely the key element is to quality, innovation and to be in control of your destiny.

  4. #4
    What are the differences? Other than the ability to tell time, everything else is different.

    They are apples and oranges, there is no comparison as a different breed altogether built for different applications.

    Most in house movements are pieces of art that so happen to function to tell time and they are to be admired in an equally beautiful dress watch. The movement should demonstrate the watchmakers skill and have unique characteristics from where the movement is made such as a three quarter plate.

    For rugged sports watches, going in house is somewhat pointless unless the company doesn't outsource. A rugged watch needs to be reliable, durable and accurate, for this application, outsourcing is a smart choice.

  5. #5
    I like this article for the discussion it has inspired. When talking about cost (I am in no way saying that ETA or anyone is or is not price gouging) consider this:

    ETA created the 2824-2 in 1961 and Rolex created the 3135 in 1988. Even at Rolex volumes I think they come nowhere near ETA 2824-2 volumes. So ETA has had a 20 year lead and a much larger scale to recoup R&D costs.

    Also an analogy for watches might come from the auto industry. Toyota Corollas. They are made in volume, cheap and reliable and they will get you there. Ferrari Enzo. Small quantity, all custom, and sometimes even reliable. There costs are more in-tune with how they make you feel when you drive them.
    Last edited by kaufen; 05-26-2016 at 02:35 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Top Watch Sites