Using a modified calibre designation
Discussion
If in doubt ask the collective wisdom of pistonheads…
At what point is it reasonable to change the calibre designation of a movement to reflect the modifications that have gone into it?
I’m thinking along the lines of 775M2; 775 to show it is most certainly built from a 775x family base movement and retains the internal architecture, M2 to show that, outside of the drive and timing chains, it’s been modified.
From a watch industry point of view, changing the calibre designation is very common and often done with only the smallest of modifications (ie custom self-winding rotor), but from a ‘keeping it clean and honest’ point of view is this reasonable?
At what point is it reasonable to change the calibre designation of a movement to reflect the modifications that have gone into it?
I’m thinking along the lines of 775M2; 775 to show it is most certainly built from a 775x family base movement and retains the internal architecture, M2 to show that, outside of the drive and timing chains, it’s been modified.
From a watch industry point of view, changing the calibre designation is very common and often done with only the smallest of modifications (ie custom self-winding rotor), but from a ‘keeping it clean and honest’ point of view is this reasonable?
Sounds fine to me; you're not seeking to pass it off as your own.
Strikes me that companies only really run into trouble when they actively conceal/market a movt. as their own work when it is (or substantially) not. I recall the recent Bremont drama which was vastly overblown but nonetheless highlights my point.
Strikes me that companies only really run into trouble when they actively conceal/market a movt. as their own work when it is (or substantially) not. I recall the recent Bremont drama which was vastly overblown but nonetheless highlights my point.
Depends.
On the one hand, it’s no different to what a lot of brands do - some doing little more than affixing a branded rotor/oscillating weight as a cherry on top, whereas others make quite significant modifications that maybe justify claiming it as their own. On that rationale, do what you like. At least you’re doing better than most by retaining the ‘775’ aspect as a transparent nod to the movement’s roots.
However, I tend to think there’s too much obfuscation generally in the watch industry as it is, in an effort to convince buyers that they’re about to take ownership of something really special, hand-crafted by Swiss elves and the ghost of Abraham Breguet on a remote mountain-peak. I appreciate it more when brands are transparent about such things. But then I’m maybe in a minority, as the entire industry trundles along on a hefty amount of ‘smoke & mirrors’.
I’m not suggesting for a second that you’re attempting to hoodwink or mislead anyone, by the way, probably just seeking recognition for the input made.
It’s a fine balance. Bremont, Panerai & TAG Heuer have all been pilloried in recent years in this area, yet Sellita make virtual carbon-copies of ETA’s (patent expired) movements and call them something entirely different. A lot of movements have been adopted by others and changed over time to their needs – it’s all a question of degree, and a grey area.
Also, a large part depends on what ‘modified’ really means. Additional rate regulation, decoration or faffing with the shape of bridges (as opposed to complete re-arrangement) might very well add genuine, praiseworthy value in their own right, but usually not enough to justify calling it a new movement in my book. Making the parts yourself, up-rating the shock absorber, regulation system, escapement, balance, hairspring, auto-winding unit etc., or subbing-in better-quality or anti-magnetic parts (to the movement itself, not a soft-iron cover or similar) are more profound changes that might legitimise a change in nomenclature.
Ultimately, though I give definite kudos to a transparent approach, I don’t think it matters a great deal provided there’s no outright misleading – everyone seems to do it, and any savvy buyer with an interest in watches should be able to suss the origins of the movement by its layout and performance specs, and buyers with little knowledge of horology aren’t likely to care much anyway. So much of watches is branding & marketing as it is, mostly based on the same old technology, and it’s a rare brand that does everything itself.
On the one hand, it’s no different to what a lot of brands do - some doing little more than affixing a branded rotor/oscillating weight as a cherry on top, whereas others make quite significant modifications that maybe justify claiming it as their own. On that rationale, do what you like. At least you’re doing better than most by retaining the ‘775’ aspect as a transparent nod to the movement’s roots.
However, I tend to think there’s too much obfuscation generally in the watch industry as it is, in an effort to convince buyers that they’re about to take ownership of something really special, hand-crafted by Swiss elves and the ghost of Abraham Breguet on a remote mountain-peak. I appreciate it more when brands are transparent about such things. But then I’m maybe in a minority, as the entire industry trundles along on a hefty amount of ‘smoke & mirrors’.
I’m not suggesting for a second that you’re attempting to hoodwink or mislead anyone, by the way, probably just seeking recognition for the input made.
It’s a fine balance. Bremont, Panerai & TAG Heuer have all been pilloried in recent years in this area, yet Sellita make virtual carbon-copies of ETA’s (patent expired) movements and call them something entirely different. A lot of movements have been adopted by others and changed over time to their needs – it’s all a question of degree, and a grey area.
Also, a large part depends on what ‘modified’ really means. Additional rate regulation, decoration or faffing with the shape of bridges (as opposed to complete re-arrangement) might very well add genuine, praiseworthy value in their own right, but usually not enough to justify calling it a new movement in my book. Making the parts yourself, up-rating the shock absorber, regulation system, escapement, balance, hairspring, auto-winding unit etc., or subbing-in better-quality or anti-magnetic parts (to the movement itself, not a soft-iron cover or similar) are more profound changes that might legitimise a change in nomenclature.
Ultimately, though I give definite kudos to a transparent approach, I don’t think it matters a great deal provided there’s no outright misleading – everyone seems to do it, and any savvy buyer with an interest in watches should be able to suss the origins of the movement by its layout and performance specs, and buyers with little knowledge of horology aren’t likely to care much anyway. So much of watches is branding & marketing as it is, mostly based on the same old technology, and it’s a rare brand that does everything itself.
The most obvious change when you look at the dial is that I've moved the day and date display from its traditional 3-digit/ 2-digit rectangular boxes along the 3 o-clock line to 2-digit circular ones slightly above the 4 o-clock line. This 'double O' arrangement and it's positioning is important to keep the whole design quite tightly bound to Fibonacci ratios. Using 3-digits for day of the week anyway annoys me a little as it's completely pointless. All days of the week can be clearly expressed with just 2 digits. It's only a move by a few mm and rotation by a few degrees, but required a building a new day/date arrangement and mechanism. Other changes are generally within materials and how I fix the movement to the inner movement holder and compression support it from the dial. Materials changes are aimed at shifting the stress ranges of cycling components to below their lower fatigue levels (background is engineering), and the fixities are aimed at improving shock resistance (in offshore engineering!). Patek Phillip use the tag line, “You never actually own a Patek Philippe. You merely look after it for the next generation.” I like to build things that can actually deliver on that kind of a promise.
I've also been playing with a few changes that might (or might not, depends on what they look like when I've done one) make the whole movement look a little different and more bespoke when viewed through the rear display back sapphire.
A key thing I haven't changed though is the fundamentals of the drive and power chains. ETA have had 40 years of tinkering and fettling them which out trumps any level of smart engineering and calculations.
Also of course, custom self winding rotor, but everyone except kickstarter companies does that.
I've also been playing with a few changes that might (or might not, depends on what they look like when I've done one) make the whole movement look a little different and more bespoke when viewed through the rear display back sapphire.
A key thing I haven't changed though is the fundamentals of the drive and power chains. ETA have had 40 years of tinkering and fettling them which out trumps any level of smart engineering and calculations.
Also of course, custom self winding rotor, but everyone except kickstarter companies does that.
ceebmoj said:
I would be intrested to see what goes in to the watch. Out of intrest, at what point does an in house modification become an in house complication? Also is there a family tree of movments any where that thouse who are not in the know get up to speed with this sort of stuff?
Who knows when a modification or changing parts of a movement counts as an in-house complication or a modified calibre designation. It's why I asked the question. Any competent watchmaker looking through the back of one of mine will immediately identify it as a 7750. If he takes the movement out he won't notice the main spring has a 5% iron content in its alloy to move it's cyclic stress range below the lower fatigue level, but he will see the day/date system isn't standard and has a slightly weird looking washer type thing sitting on top of it made out of some unidentifiable material. He'll be able to service and re-oil it though, and probably do it for an awful lot less than one of the swiss houses that send their watches back to the factory for a service.
The development of different complications, self-winding, pocket watch to wrist watch, pendulum time keeping to balance spring, and all the way back to why we designate a day as being composed of 24 hours is covered in a 10 minute read at http://www.classicchronographs.co.uk/technical-inf...
24 hours a day is very interesting and all to do with being able to count up to 60 on your fingers if you bend them. Bend a finger and you'll see it has three parts to it.
I'll photograph a movement and watch build, timing and testing etc when I get around to doing a full website upgrade.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff