What is it about Bremont?

[theancientmariner]

In order to earn a reputation you need to do something outstandingly or novelly — or well-enough for a long time. Bremont doesn’t seem to be able to pull any of these out of its hat, and to make matters worse, the world is calling out for smaller watches and Bremont perpetuates with its big cases and avoids doing anything interesting with its smaller cases

Bremont’s rep will likely improve over the years, as they don’t make a bad product. But they do need to pay their dues — which I don’t believe they are. Omega’s new Bond thing, the NTTD watch has already sparked a number of homages from smaller brands — and it largely uses a pre-existing case design. What they’ve done is put some actual thought into the dial and handset and the balance of the watch. Then they’ve paired it with a novel mesh (because what use is leather on a watch that is meant to dive). Bremont have ignored their bracelet option for too long — the damn thing doesn’t even match their case colour unless you get the watch in titanium.

Do you not think that Bremont has been doing a good job for a long time? In watch historical terms, possibly not but creating exceptional watches for over a decade deserves some praise.

This is a subjective comment but I disagree about the new Omega Bond watch, I think it's very cluttered and seems to copy (quite late) a fashion for vintage looking watches. I agree about the bracelet, that's a nice looking addition but what does intrigue me about divers watches is that practically, wouldn't rubber be a far better option than either leather or metal? Salt water isn't great for metal and I"ve never thought a metal bracelet should be a practical addition for a genuine divers watch. Just my ten cents.

I do agree however that Bremont should be making more of an effort with their bracelets. Having a stainless steel bracelet not match a stainless steel watch just seems odd. The Endurance mix in titanium work very well together, I'm not quite sure why they haven't managed that with the steel watches.

I'm also intrigued about the thought of the world wanting smaller watches. I don't think that's the case. I have a feeling that there was a discussion about this on another forum and opinions were very much divided. I have small wrists but don't suit a small watch. I have a friend who does suit small watches. I think there's enough room for both smaller and slightly larger watches, just not oversized 'bling' type watches.

[shedlock2000]

I’m not sure that 10 years is a long time by horological standards. When I think about what I class as dependable movements, I think of calibers with 30+ years of service — but I’ve a bent towards the styling of vintage pieces, so I’m mindful of movements that have been able to achieve that kind of duration without much issue (my 1675 movement was very tired when It was opened up two years ago, but it also hadn’t been opened up since it was made in 1970). At 10 years, I’d expect a quality movement to be just about bedded in — not the entire age of a watch company!

That said, I do give Kudos to Bremont for coming up with a novel shock absorbency system — though why it’s not used across the range, I can’t fathom! If you want to be ‘tested beyond endurance’, then all your range (perhaps, at least, of tool watches) should be so outfitted. I also give kudos to Bremont for pushing the British watch industry to success, but they’re not capitalising on opportunities that lie right before them.

The watch size thing is disparate. I belong to the average size group: 40mm is spot on; a 13mm case thickness is acceptable. Almost everyone I know belongs to this group — I know only two people who like larger watches. While I haven’t read the post you refer to, I have noted a lot of posts complaining about the size of Omegas and so on. This stat likely suffers from collection bias and confirmation bias — but it seems a common refrain. I temper that comment with the understanding that pilot’s watches tend to be on the larger size on purpose — but that returns me to the opportunity that Bremont have missed in adapting their S301 to suit the needs of people like me who prefer average case-sized pieces.

In addition, Bremont don’t really capture the refined aesthetics that they purport to represent. As a British diesel engineer, I am very aware of the kinds of aesthetic and engineering design proportions that British engineering has developed; there’s something ‘appropriate’ about the proportions of Brunellian engineering (as there is to all good engineering) and Bremont seem to miss the balance. For instance, the bezel thickness of the Endurance is unnecessarily thick, aesthetically displeasing, and practically cumbersome; and what happened on the ion-bird, god only knows — nothing on that piece fits.

I tried the Endurance on in Chester, very excited about a bezel Bremont. It was unwearable on the nato, as it was over 18mm thick and so designed that the nato picked the watch up off the wrist permitting everything to get caught under or on it. In addition, the bezel was clearly just shoved onto a slightly modified case — there seemed little consideration to how the bezel should be integrated to the case. In addition, the bezel movement was cheap and plasticy compared to pretty much every bezel operation I’ve ever felt; frustrating, considering the feel of the Roto-click ring is so pleasing. It seems as though they’d simply given up once the basic ALT1 case was constructed.

Bremont’s bracelet is, frankly, an aberration. It’s far too thick to be comfortable, it has no micro clasp adjustment, doesn’t match their case colours, isn’t well designed to avoid skin pinching, has a moderately pleasing (but all too bulky clasp) and primitive aesthetic design. The Rolex oyster bracelet, by comparison, has a timelessness that remains sleek, rugged, strong, and (more recently) outstandingly well constructed. I get that Bremont think that pilots watches should be on leather, but half the world dislikes leather straps. Rubber, straps, which are likely better suited to the sea, are short in lifespan, prone to breaking, almost always pinchy, not suitable for dressy occasions, and (subjectively) uncomfortable and ugly. Moreover, Bremont offered some sort of silicon/rubber affair which I though cheapened the watch considerably. £150 Seiko’s and Casio’s come on such bands — not £6000 chronometers.

There are micro-brands constructing 39mm vintage styled watches with modern functions such as bezel lume and top hat sapphire crystals. These watches are a function of a well-vocalised need; so whether or not the forums are calling for more traditional case sizes, it’s a clear fact that there is a high demand for them and for the vintage aesthetic — made, perhaps, no more clear than by Yema watches and Baltic’s new gmt offerings; Mido has even gone to the trouble to produce a ‘traveller’s’ modification to the base ETA gmt to ensure that calls for traveller’s style watches — a function ignored by many watch manufacturers large enough to mod movements.

Bremont have completely missed all of these quite clear and well identified market trends in preference to Oris, Flieger, and Zenith styled queues in an already over-saturated market. I think that many of us who own their pieces have bought them because we wish to support British industry and quite like for what Bremont purports to stand — rather than because their offerings meet our requirements and aesthetic preferences.

I want a British version of the Rolex GMTIIC — while I know that’s not what everyone is looking for, a part of the success of that reference is in its ability to suit many circumstances: it’s at once a dressy professional watch, casual tool watch, working timepiece, and sports watch; it’s business appropriate, multi-function, comfortable, shirt-cuff sized, clearly legible, practical, hard-wearing, and timelessly well designed. I’d buy one if I could find or afford one, but I want to support British industry (I buy my suits and shirts in the U.K., buy British pens, wear British hand-made shoes, and own British vehicles). I’d love Bremont to make a similar time piece with similar care and attention, but the Endurance shows that they’re a long way off understanding balance and the one-watch individual’s needs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andyg156]

I tried the Endurance on in Chester, very excited about a bezel Bremont. It was unwearable on the nato, as it was over 18mm thick and so designed that the nato picked the watch up off the wrist permitting everything to get caught under or on it. In addition, the bezel was clearly just shoved onto a slightly modified case — there seemed little consideration to how the bezel should be integrated to the case. In addition, the bezel movement was cheap and plastics compared to pretty much every bezel operation I’ve ever felt; frustrating, considering the feel of the Roto-click ring is so pleasing. It seems as though they’d simply given up once the basic ALT1 case was constructed.

Bremont’s bracelet is, frankly, an aberration. It’s far too think to be comfortable, it has no micro clasp adjustment, doesn’t match their case colours, isn’t well designed to avoid skin pinching, has a moderately pleasing (but all too bulky clasp) and primitive aesthetic design.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I own 3 Bremont bracelets (all different), but only wear the titanium that came with my RNCD2. The others I bought when purchasing my Alt1-C and S300 75th airborne watch.

Yes i do agree the micro adjustment would be a great addition, my partners son has one on his omega seamaster .

My 3 issues with the Bremont bracelets are:-
The shade/colour difference is a major disappointment with the brushed stainless steel. Yes we know the change is caused by the hardening process.of the cases.
The lug ends are deeper engraved than the bracelet . In short the lug ends do not match the bracelet.
The price for what just looks like a £100 OEM bracelet. If they managed to produce a bracelet to match exactly, then maybe the bracelet price would not be so hard to swallow.
But I don't find them any less comfortable than any of my other brands bracelets.

On the Bremont bezel. I actually find the one fitted to the RNCD2 very pleasing and useable. In fact I think it is better than my my Rolex 14060m or my seamaster . But that is my preference choice.

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

[SuperRichieM]

^^^ That's interesting about the bracelets. I've been wondering about getting one for my 'C but they are very expensive new.

For the same price as a Bremont bracelet I bought a Christopher Ward C65 Auto Vintage Divers watch with a quick release, micro adjustable, tapered and very comfortable bracelet. I think I'll stick with that and keep my Toshi leather straps for my 'C.

[Andyg156]

^^^ That's interesting about the bracelets. I've been wondering about getting one for my 'C but they are very expensive new.

For the same price as a Bremont bracelet I bought a Christopher Ward C65 Auto Vintage Divers watch with a quick release, micro adjustable, tapered and very comfortable bracelet. I think I'll stick with that and keep my Toshi leather straps for my 'C.

I've always worn Toshi straps. But I am now a convert to Heritageleather straps. Same sort of price but quality is better in my opinion.

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

[nellydog]

I agree about the bracelet, that's a nice looking addition but what does intrigue me about divers watches is that practically, wouldn't rubber be a far better option than either leather or metal? Salt water isn't great for metal and I"ve never thought a metal bracelet should be a practical addition for a genuine divers watch. Just my ten cents.

Yes rubber is better for diving. I've dived a lot with my Omega SMP on its bracelet, and although it works, the watch becomes loose at depth and rubber is better: the strap should be a little tight on the surface so that at depth, the stretch in the rubber takes up the slack when the pressure compresses the neoprene wetsuit, or wrist. This why some straps have a "corrugated" section - to make the stretch fit easier. Bremont's Supermarine strap is superb quality and very "heavy duty", but which makes it uncomfortable and less functional as a practical dive strap. In my experience, the best OEM rubber dive straps are Breitling's: soft, pliable and with enough stretch to function at depth

Salt water won't have any more adverse effects on a bracelet than on the watch case itself; everything, including dive equipment, needs a thorough rinsing in fresh water, after which it should be fine as long as it's done each time.

[SuperRichieM]

I've always worn Toshi straps. But I am now a convert to Heritageleather straps. Same sort of price but quality is better in my opinion.

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

Thanks - I'll look up Heritageleather straps.

[theancientmariner]

I’m not sure that 10 years is a long time by horological standards. When I think about what I class as dependable movements, I think of calibers with 30+ years of service — but I’ve a bent towards the styling of vintage pieces, so I’m mindful of movements that have been able to achieve that kind of duration without much issue (my 1675 movement was very tired when It was opened up two years ago, but it also hadn’t been opened up since it was made in 1970). At 10 years, I’d expect a quality movement to be just about bedded in — not the entire age of a watch company!

10 years isn't a long time in horological standards but there are two points to raise here. Firstly, it's not the movement that is 10 years old. The movements used are tried and tested although slightly modified. Secondly, the rest of the watch is something that changes on quite a frequent basis even amongst those brands that have been around for decades. If a part is manufactured to a standard, whether the brand is 1 year old or 100, the part will perform no differently. The idea of something 'bedding' in simply doesn't apply any more. May be once upon a time but we're not in a modern era with technologies that were unheard of even ten years ago.

The watch size thing is disparate. I belong to the average size group: 40mm is spot on; a 13mm case thickness is acceptable. Almost everyone I know belongs to this group — I know only two people who like larger watches

It's interesting that you consider a 40mm watch case to be spot on. That's the size of the Bremont Airco which I think is tiny. Very nice dress watch but very small. Everyone I know barring one person wears a watch larger than 40mm. Interesting comparison.

In addition, Bremont don’t really capture the refined aesthetics that they purport to represent. As a British diesel engineer, I am very aware of the kinds of aesthetic and engineering design proportions that British engineering has developed; there’s something ‘appropriate’ about the proportions of Brunellian engineering (as there is to all good engineering) and Bremont seem to miss the balance. For instance, the bezel thickness of the Endurance is unnecessarily thick, aesthetically displeasing, and practically cumbersome

That's a very interesting comment. I recall a comment from a senior engineer in the car industry who said that designers come up with the aesthetics, engineers tell them that it can't be done and to go back to the drawing board. This happens multiple times until a compromise between and aesthetics and engineering is found. I'm curious about what 'appropriate' proportions are and those that British Engineering has developed. Surely every manufacturing company will have their own designs and many won't conform to an 'appropriate' standard. That's what British Engineering is all about, not conforming but moving forward and breaking barriers?

I tried the Endurance on in Chester, very excited about a bezel Bremont. It was unwearable on the nato, as it was over 18mm thick and so designed that the nato picked the watch up off the wrist permitting everything to get caught under or on it. In addition, the bezel was clearly just shoved onto a slightly modified case — there seemed little consideration to how the bezel should be integrated to the case. In addition, the bezel movement was cheap and plasticy compared to pretty much every bezel operation I’ve ever felt; frustrating, considering the feel of the Roto-click ring is so pleasing. It seems as though they’d simply given up once the basic ALT1 case was constructed.

About the only thing I agree with in this comment is about the Nato. On the Endurance it does make the watch sit very high but there again. Natos aren't designed to wrap around a wrist, they're designed to go over clothing. On the bracelet, the Endurance is beautiful. It's a tall watch but not overtly so and its so light due to the full titanium build that it's very easy to wear. The bezel movement is light but solid, I'm not sure why the watch you tried felt plasticky, may be that you're used to a heavy steel bezel and weren't prepared for a lightweight titanium bezel? That shouldn't affect the operation of the mechanism, strange.

Bremont’s bracelet is, frankly, an aberration. It’s far too thick to be comfortable, it has no micro clasp adjustment, doesn’t match their case colours, isn’t well designed to avoid skin pinching, has a moderately pleasing (but all too bulky clasp) and primitive aesthetic design. The Rolex oyster bracelet, by comparison, has a timelessness that remains sleek, rugged, strong, and (more recently) outstandingly well constructed. I get that Bremont think that pilots watches should be on leather, but half the world dislikes leather straps. Rubber, straps, which are likely better suited to the sea, are short in lifespan, prone to breaking, almost always pinchy, not suitable for dressy occasions, and (subjectively) uncomfortable and ugly. Moreover, Bremont offered some sort of silicon/rubber affair which I though cheapened the watch considerably. £150 Seiko’s and Casio’s come on such bands — not £6000 chronometers.

Is the Rolex bracelet not priced at about double that of the Bremont one? That could explain why a number of Rolex owners choose cheaper alternatives despite its timeless appeal.

If half the world dislikes leather straps then half the world must like leather straps. So Bremont are catering to at least half the world. Not a bad market share. The other half must be split between metal and rubber. So in short, more people like leather straps than either metal or rubber. That would suggest that Bremont are targeting their straps correctly? I like all three types, depending on the watch. Mostly leather and occasionally a bracelet or rubber strap. I agree that rubber isn't dressy but it is designed for a sports watch which is inherently not a dress watch.

There are micro-brands constructing 39mm vintage styled watches with modern functions such as bezel lume and top hat sapphire crystals. These watches are a function of a well-vocalised need; so whether or not the forums are calling for more traditional case sizes, it’s a clear fact that there is a high demand for them and for the vintage aesthetic — made, perhaps, no more clear than by Yema watches and Baltic’s new gmt offerings; Mido has even gone to the trouble to produce a ‘traveller’s’ modification to the base ETA gmt to ensure that calls for traveller’s style watches — a function ignored by many watch manufacturers large enough to mod movements.

In a completely different price range to Bremont and hence targeted at a completely different audience.

We obviously have different tastes as you seem to like Rolex and I think they are the most bland and overrated watch band on the planet. Your comment about people buying Bremont purely for the British Engineering and not for the aesthetics is an interesting one as the vast majority of Rolex owners buy the brand simply as a status symbol and an investment and not the aesthetics. There are far cheaper and very similar looking watches to most Rolex and yet Rolex still command high prices. If that's not an indicator of why people buy them I don't know what is.

British vehicles - now there's a rare thing!

[theancientmariner]

Salt water won't have any more adverse effects on a bracelet than on the watch case itself; everything, including dive equipment, needs a thorough rinsing in fresh water, after which it should be fine as long as it's done each time.

True but there's also a very good chance that the various 'crevices' on a bracelet will hold some of the salt water even after rinsing where as a watch case is (hopefully) sealed and has very few crevices. I can also imagine that some people won't give the watch a thorough rinse after each visit to the ocean. On their own heads be it of course.

[shedlock2000]

We obviously have different tastes as you seem to like Rolex and I think they are the most bland and overrated watch band on the planet. Your comment about people buying Bremont purely for the British Engineering and not for the aesthetics is an interesting one as the vast majority of Rolex owners buy the brand simply as a status symbol and an investment and not the aesthetics. There are far cheaper and very similar looking watches to most Rolex and yet Rolex still command high prices. If that's not an indicator of why people buy them I don't know what is.

British vehicles - now there's a rare thing!

I have no preference for Rolex in particular, I’ve owned many other makes. I like the Rolex GMT because of its proportions, it’s functionality, and it’s reliable movements and deviation rates. I’ve no interest in it as a brand name (I own Bremont, and I can’t give it away because it’s resale value is non-existent). In particular, I like the styling of the earlier 1675s (but appreciate the functionality of the 16710s and 116710s). The bezel proportions from the 1675 are preserved on the 116710, but the case became bulkier and the dial less clean. The most important things though (for me, at least) is that the proportions are not dissimilar — that is to say Rolex didn’t throw the 3186 in a 16mm thick case.

In addition, I like their bracelets — which are more money than Bremont’s, but actually match the case, have a security clasp, and a glidelock micro adjustment function. I find Bremont’s bracelet to be much too chunky and unsophisticated — though it’s not terrible to look at. Sadly, though, it really doesn’t suit most of the models Bremont produces because of their lug styles. The cases are geared to straps — which is fine, given the overarching focus of Bremont on pilot’s watches (I would argue that 1/2 the world likes bracelets and the other half like NATO’s, straps, bands, and so forth — not that half the world like bracelets, NATO’s, and so on).

I’ve tried on and operated hundreds of bezel watches. Without being hyperbolic, Bremont’s external bezel function is one of my least favourite — including those on Raymond Weil (which are equally bad). I’ve seen $50 Chinese reps with more quality to them. The titanium construction has nothing to do with the feel; the feel is a function of the mechanism, which feels cheap and plasticy. I am not the first to note this: Steve (TooMuchTalk) also noted the same when he viewed the Endurance.

I would say that yours and my preferences are diametrically opposed. Not that this is a bad thing — there are many preferences the world over, and most are perfectly reasonable preferences. Bremont’s are increasingly (with each new release) not mine. I was really hoping the ion-bird would meet my needs, but again it’s not going to work — I hate the fact that my Alt1 won’t fit under my shirt cuffs and is pushed down my wrist; the ion-bird would be worse still because of that god-awful bezel design. Were Bremont to have put the movement in the S301 case, and you’d have been half-way there. Put it in the solo case and add an external bezel and you’d have been closer still.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk