[tony20009]

So, I think after a decade of marketing, the Swiss watch industry has successfully convinced folks that watches that use movements made by the same folks whose name appears on the dial is better than buying a watch having a movement made by a third party. The marketing to that effect was largely a means for the likes of Rolex, Patek Philippe, and others like them to rebuff Swatch/ETA, seeing as all those makes cost a great deal more (to buy and to maintain) than a typical ETA-inside watch and, quite frankly, for uncomplicated watches and chronographs, don't perform materially better.

Also, at least one Chinese watchmaker is 100% in-house: Seagul. Nobody ever seems to complain about that brand's products being not tough enough or not accurate enough either, although I don't believe they have any watches that have been shown the equal of the chronometer standard. (That's not to say they have none, just that I'm not aware of any.)

So here we are now and that in-house story has proven for many brands hard to live up to; moreover, it's showing itself to be a double edged sword. Yes, Rolex is 100% in-house, but among the pricey brands they are one of the very few who are. PP isn't. ALS isn't. VC isn't. AP isn't. Many others aren't either. Almost without exception (Rolex is one), Swiss watch companies have to buy their springs (without which one doesn't have a working watch) from an external supplier. On the other hand, Seiko and Citizen both are, and have been for longer than has Rolex, 100% in-house for every watch they make, be it pricey or not.

Now, I cannot imagine anyone actually wanting to be a watch snob, but there's no shortage of folks who are. Well, if one has a Seiko or Citizen, one can be just as much a snob about watches. Seiko has the history, the quality, the reliability, wide assortment of styles and market penetration to hold its own against any of the smaller, pricier Swiss makes. Plus, they best every one of them on the in-house-ness of their products, quartz or mechanical. Whereas Rolex took nearly 100 years to achieve the 100% in-house manufacturing capability (they didn't start making their own chrono movement until the early 2000s), Seiko all but started out that way.

Just an interesting observation I thought I'd share. It remains to be seen how much longer the Swiss will keep harping on about "in-house." Sooner or later, they are bound to realize that saying in-house is better necessarily pits the Swiss pricey brands against many a far less dear watch. I wonder what they are going to say when the general public starts to realize that one can get in-house fabrication in a watch costing a couple hundred bucks? Knowing the Swiss, they'll, despite the learnings of the Industrial Revolutions, try to convince us that some production inefficiency with which they all suffer is better than having a tightly controlled and consistent, automated manufacturing process. Who knows?

All the best.

[Brady1984]

I think the quality, the style and the panache of a GTE (Green Timex Explorer) on a NATO strap says it all. There are many holes which I can use as my wrist changes size throughout the day. The precision analog adjustment allows me to synchronize the semi-reliable quartz movement with my phone and it prevents me from getting poor service pretty much anywhere I go. In fact I get a-lot of pity which I always play up by keeping a cup filled with a small amount of pocket change handy for donations. Win-win...

[URBAN LEGEND]

Cool. Another watch thread.

[kscarrol]

Brady1984... Well played!

[954Stealth]

Originally Posted by URBAN LEGEND

Cool. Another watch thread.

Well, it is the watch subforum...

[consolidated]

Originally Posted by URBAN LEGEND

Cool. Another watch thread.

In the watch forum no less, crazy how that works.

[URBAN LEGEND]

Originally Posted by 954Stealth

Well, it is the watch subforum...

I know. That's why I'm watching this thread. Get it?

[URBAN LEGEND]

Originally Posted by consolidated

In the watch forum no less, crazy how that works.

Like clock work.

[954Stealth]

Originally Posted by URBAN LEGEND

I know. That's why I'm watching this thread. Get it?

Lol nice timing

[DocMick]

Glashutte is in haus

[bing240sx]

similarly irrelevant arguements could be made for any number of luxury items... Hermes or LV handbags, any expensive wine etc. etc.

waste of a thread

[Z K]

I like my Seiko 5. Works flawlessly and looks great. They have many a homage design and some good original ones as well.

With the Swiss brands these days, it seems like most of it is marketing. I do find higher end watches to have better QC on little details (dial aligned, bezel, markers, emblems perfectly straight etc) but is is worth paying thousands more for that?

And if someone really cares about accuracy of time, get a quartz. No automatic will be exactly right.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by bing240sx

[similar] arguements could be made for any number of luxury items... Hermes or LV handbags, any expensive wine etc. etc.

waste of a thread

I don't really see how.

Watches, fancy ones that folks get all "uppity" about, are pretty uncommon in the sense that the thing about which folks get on their "high horse" over is the extent of direct effort the maker puts into creating the watch. Did s/he make this part himself or did s/he buy it from an external supplier? I don't think that sort of thing goes on with any other kind of luxury good.

All the best.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by tony20009

I don't really see how.

Watches, fancy ones that folks get all "uppity" about, are pretty uncommon in the sense that the thing about which folks get on their "high horse" over is the extent of direct effort the maker puts into creating the watch. Did s/he make this part himself or did s/he buy it from an external supplier? I don't think that sort of thing goes on with any other kind of luxury good.

All the best.

This got me thinking. What if a cell phone manufacturer came out with a phone and decided to use their own "in-house processor" as opposed to one from a real cpu maker? It definitely would not make it more desirable. So I was quick to agree.

But then I thought, what if a car company like BMW or Chevy couldn't make a flagship model using an engine they made themselves? I think it speaks to the capabilities of the brand. It's possible a third party engine may be a better fit but may not be as good for image? I may be way off on that, as I'm sure there's high end cars and Super Cars with borrowed engines.

But I do think that line of reasoning is applicable to watches. I think it says something about the prestige of a watchmaker if they make an in-house movement. That's not to say any mediocre company isn't capable of just putting out a shite movement but I think that it may be expected of the big players now a days - i.e. Having an in-house doesn't mean you're respected but being respected means you're expected to have an in-house.

Not knowing a great deal about watches (relative to people like you or hardcore enthusiasts), I think I'd be more comfortable investing in an expensive watch knowing that the brand had an in-house movement even if that was not the model I was buying.

[bing240sx]

use of in-house movements is only one of many aspects of watch design and manufacture that factor into desirability and value. it's a notable aspect but there are so many other factors that go into it that focusing solely on this one is not grounds to take up any perspective.

i'm going to quote a recent post that is along these lines but more narrowly focused on the Rolex Daytona that was made on Styleforum the other day by a resident watch snob.

I apologize for the delay in responding. *I actually started responding to this yesterday, and then lost my response and so I'm starting over. *Please forgive me for this being a bit jumbled but I don't have time to organize everything, its just sort of how it comes to me. *

First, I would state there is no right or wrong, both the 16520 and 116520 are great watches. * Many of my preferences for the 16520 are subjective, not from a practicality stand point. *The 16520 and the 116520 both represented great values especially when they were first released. *When I first started looking at a SS Daytona in 1994 the list price was approximately $3,850. *The demand for was insane with AD's having 5 year waiting lists. *One was considered lucky to get them at MSRP when you could find one, because many ADs and Grays were selling them with 50-100% mark ups and people continued to buy them. *I was diligent in my search and after a few years...I found one in each color at their MSRP. *These were far rarer than the 116520 is today, because from roughly 1988 though about 2000, Rolex was dependent upon Zenith for a supply of El Primero ebauches to be used in various models such as the tutone, all gold on a strap, and all gold bracelet models...and the SS had the smallest profit margin for Rolex. * The world was also a "Smaller place" back then...there were not as many watch internet sites and other than in maybe NYC or a handful of really large cities, you rarely saw new Daytonas on people, much less in a store. *

When one thinks about it there really wasn't much that offered what the 16520 offered particularly at its price level. *You have to keep in mind it was in production well before the public was beginning to insist on in house movements. *The 16520 was the first automatic Rolex chronograph, it was water resistant to 100m, and it was very rugged. The bulk of chronographs on the market back then were using Val 7750s, some modified more or less than others. *A few brands like Patek, VC and Breguet, were using Lemanias as chronograph bases in their higher end chronos, and a few companies, BP, Breguet, VC were using F. Piguet 1185s in their more modestly priced chronographs that listed for say $7,000 +. *It should also be noted that it wasn't until the late 1990s that AP released the RO chronograph and VC released the Overseas chronographs (both had 1185 base movements) and were in excess of $12,500 and $11,000 respectively. *So most of its competition was significantly more expensive, used the 1185 movement, and most depreciated significantly compared to the 16520. *

The use of the El Primero in a 16520 is often oversimplified in the minds of people. *Many think its was just popped in and it was the same movement that was found in a Zenith or Chopard St. Mortiz chrono. *That couldn't be further from the truth. *I have a list of changes that Rolex made to the El Primero, some are small some are large, *but there were well over 100 changes made to the El Prirmero base, before it became Rolex Cal 4030. *By some, its movement is considered the last Rolex movement to truly have a great deal of hand workmanship. * Furthermore, in my own personal experience, I wore one for 5 years as a daily wearer, beat the heck out of it, and it was the most accurate watch I ever owned. *It was dead on accurate, not fast, not slow...right on time. *So for $3800 -$5,100 (price I paid for my last one), one was getting an automatic chronograph, with a movement that was not commonly found in other watches, and which was highly modified by Rolex, and performed flawlessly in day to day life. *My first in-house movement 116520 Daytona had to go back to Rolex for 2 warranty repairs. *After a about 6 months or so I noticed one of the links on the bracelet (which was not removable), was uneven in terms of thickness compared to the other links (and this was on their new solid link SS bracelet). Rolex replaced the bracelet under warranty. *Then I didn't wear it for about 8 months. *The next time I went to wear 116520, when I went to use the chronograph function, one revolution of the large sweep second hand would result in the minute subdial hand advancing anywhere from 4-7 minutes with one revolution of the large sweep second hand. *So it went back and their repaired the movement under warranty. *These may have been teething issues, as I bought this 116520 within its first year of being released. *A few years later I traded it for a newer model, which has had no issues. *

As for the styling, for me the 116520 is a great watch, but there are nuances that I prefer about the 16520. *First the 16520 has fewer polished surfaces, the lugs are brushed and on the 1st year or 2 of production the bracelets are brushed (although the do not have the Oysterlock safety latch). *Then there is the dial. *The hour markers and lum are more delicate, a bit dressier and are perfectly matched to the hour and minute hands. *I think they give the watch a bit more versatility making it a bit dressier. *So IMHO it works just a tad better with a suit (although neither is a true dress watch). *Many people may not remember, but there are 2 versions of hands for the 116520. *The early ones, like my first 116520 are now known as "Thin hand" Daytonas. *What Rolex did was simply use the same hands that had been used on the 16520 and put them on the 116520, which sounds ok, until you consider how much larger the new hour markers and lum are on the 116520...IMHO they were very mismatched and awkward. *This was corrected around the end of 2004 when Rolex revised the Daytona hands, which became wider, the black line down the middle became wider and the lum markings became wider...and it became a known as the "Fat Hands" Daytona. *Then they were better suited to the revised dial, and gave it an even sportier look. *

Another, nuance I prefer on 16520 the subdial and subdial hand alignment which is more symmetric and in line with the hour and minute hands. *On the 116520 all of the subdials were moved I think 12 degrees upward (it was partly to make it tougher for people to make fakes...as most movements used in fakes have the hands and subdial hands level). *On the 116250 the subdials shifted upward and the hands on the subdials at 3 and 9 sit slightly above the centrally mounted hour/minute/large second hand. *I also prefer the classic black and white dials/subdials of the 16520. *

In the end the 116520 is a fantastic watch and today its the more practical choice, with its SEL bracelet (only the last year of 16520 production have SELs), bracelets that have solid center links, and it has a 72 hour power reserve. *Belligero and I were chatting a while ago, and his friend who is a watchmaker recently completed Rolex service training. *IIRC, he came away with new found respect for the engineering that went into the movements of the Daytonas (I believe he worked on both the cal 4030 El Primero based and the current 4130). *He clearly would have an understanding and appreciation that goes beyond what most of us would consider, but both are superb movements.

I think that both the 16520 and 116520 are great watches and I enjoy both of them. *I do prefer the 16520, however, other owners may feel differently and there are good reasons to favor the 116520. *Cheers!

link: http://www.styleforum.net/t/36253/th...0#post_7284361

he said it better than i could have.... and even then the movement is only one aspect... the design, tradition, heritage, quality, complication, distribution, branding, use of precious metals, style, etc. etc. all factor in as well.

[Harlequin]

Originally Posted by Devious21

This got me thinking. What if a cell phone manufacturer came out with a phone and decided to use their own "in-house processor" as opposed to one from a real cpu maker? It definitely would not make it more desirable.

Have you heard of the iPhone?

[MrRoboto]

^^^Processor manufactured by Samsung.

[Harlequin]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

^^^Processor manufactured by Samsung.

Designed by Apple.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

^^^Processor manufactured by Samsung.

Apparently, Samsung won't be making the chips for the iPhone 6: http://www.macrumors.com/2014/03/05/...underway-tsmc/ .

Originally Posted by Harlequin

Designed by Apple.

Well, damn near every branded product is designed by the people whose name is on the label; even if they specifically engage non-employees to effect that design, they have the right to claim it as their own. I don't the matter of who designs a "thing" has ever been in question or challenged. What's unique about watches is that designing them isn't enough, whereas in pretty much every other industry, that act alone is sufficient.

All the best.

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by Harlequin

Designed by Apple.

Point stands...it not an 'in-house' processor.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by Harlequin

Have you heard of the iPhone?

I was actually considering that when I posted it. If Apple ended up making a huge investment to acquire or build infrastructure needed to produce CPUs and ended up making them in-house - that's what I would consider in house. I think people would still see it as desirable but I don't know it would be financially viable to do so unless it gave them some kind of freedom from other manufacturers.

In contrast, imagine if a lesser mobile manufacturer, let's say Huwawei, announced their new mobile device was going to be powered by a chip they made from scratch. I don't think it's going to have the same effect.

[grimlock]

^
Whether something is in-house or external manufactured I think is determined by the relative investment required to be the #1 producer of that component.
Take BMW: what does bmw actually produce in-house vs. outsourced to a company outside the capital umbrella?
Engines, bodywork, painting, assembly..
outsource: nearly every component that is assembled into the car

Why engines produced by themselves, but very few other components?
Because engines are the largest, most expensive individual component - a start-up automaker buying engines from someone else, if they are successful, will eventually buy-out the engine maker or reproduce the process themselves, because the % business that the downstream (automaker) versus component maker (engine) is large - in other words, the engine maker is at the mercy of the automaker.
This is why low-production run/ marquee productions like Pagani use amg engines, because neither would produce a Zonda but themselves.