Right. Can it be Done?

[MattHall91]

I have basic knowledge of the Swiss watch industry, however I am very keen to draw on people's extensive knowledge to see if a complete list of 'true' Swiss manufacturers can be compiled.

Ideally, it would only include makers who currently make, and have only ever used, their own in-house movements with nothing outsourced. Failing that, I will settle for makers who now only use their own, even if they used outsourced bases at some point.

Reluctantly, I will include companies who manufacture their own movements for their higher end pieces, but outsourced inners for their cheaper watches, such as IWC.

Hopefully a decent list can be put together collectively!

Thanks.

[anonymous-user]

Rolex, thought I'd start with a difficult one...

This is most of them, I suppose it
depends how you define it exactly.

Audemars Piguet
Greubel Forsey
H Moser & Cie
Richard Mille
Girard Perregaux
Vacheron Constantin
Montblanc's higher end stuff
Hublot if you really have to
Parmigiani Fleurier
Omega
Breguet
De Bethune
Roger Dubuis
Tudor now
MB&F
IWC
FP Journe
Zenith
Patek Philippe
Arnold & Son
Jaeger Le Coultre
Blancpain

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 23 September 22:35

[glazbagun]

MattHall91 said:

Reluctantly, I will include companies who manufacture their own movements for their higher end pieces, but outsourced inners for their cheaper watches, such as IWC.

Hopefully a decent list can be put together collectively!

Thanks.

A problem you may have with this is that many of the special complicated watches are made by specialists like Christophe Claret, but whilst it's easy to see that a certain automatic is really a 2824, it's a bit harder to tell where a limited run tourbillon came from.

Additionally if, say, Breguet actually imported the Fusee chain in their Tradition piece from a small Swiss manufacturer, does that make it any less a Breguet than if Swatch Group just bought the small company out and assigned it's output to the Breguet division? Much of the work on silicon parts has been shared within the swiss industry, there's not too many companies out there making mainsprings, hairsprings or synthetic ruby, for example.

On top of that, the guys like MB&F who make watches like noone else absolutely rely on small companies for many of their components (hence the F in MB&F), so rather than a black & white logic box, it's probably going to end up a shades of grey thing. It might be easier to remove the "in house" requirement and come up with a list of manufacturers who offer exclusive calibres that aren't based on anything else you can buy cheaply.

Edited by glazbagun on Wednesday 23 September 22:53

[MattHall91]

Days Like These said:

Rolex, thought I'd start with a difficult one...

This is most of them, I suppose it
depends how you define it exactly.

Audemars Piguet
Greubel Forsey
H Moser & Cie
Richard Mille
Girard Perregaux
Vacheron Constantin
Montblanc's higher end stuff
Hublot if you really have to
Parmigiani Fleurier
Omega
Breguet
De Bethune
Roger Dubuis
Tudor now
MB&F
IWC
FP Journe
Zenith
Patek Philippe
Arnold & Son
Jaeger Le Coultre
Blancpain

Edited by Days Like These on Wednesday 23 September 22:35

Thanks.

I thought Omega used modified ETAs? I may be wrong.

[MattHall91]

glazbagun said:

MattHall91 said:

Reluctantly, I will include companies who manufacture their own movements for their higher end pieces, but outsourced inners for their cheaper watches, such as IWC.

Hopefully a decent list can be put together collectively!

Thanks.

A problem you may have with this is that many of the special complicated watches are made by specialists like Christophe Claret, but whilst it's easy to see that a certain automatic is really a 2824, it's a bit harder to tell where a limited run tourbillon came from.

Additionally if, say, Breguet actually imported the Fusee chain in their Tradition piece from a small Swiss manufacturer, does that make it any less a Breguet than if Swatch Group just bought the small company out and assigned it's output to the Breguet division? Much of the work on silicon parts has been shared within the swiss industry, there's not too many companies out there making mainsprings, hairsprings or synthetic ruby, for example.

On top of that, the guys like MB&F who make watches like noone else absolutely rely on small companies for many of their components (hence the F in MB&F), so rather than a black & white logic box, it's probably going to end up a shades of grey thing. It might be easier to remove the "in house" requirement and come up with a list of manufacturers who offer exclusive calibres that aren't based on anything else you can buy cheaply.

Edited by glazbagun on Wednesday 23 September 22:53

Good point, thanks.

I hadn't thought of smaller companies relying on certain parts. From your example, I would put Breguet on the list without a doubt. Hardly the same as buying in a base movement and changing a few parts then sticking your name on it.

As long as the makers who do this are not listed, that is good enough for me!

[grumbledoak]

I cannot find it now, so hopefully this is an appropriate thread to ask - did I read/remember correctly that Rolex's movements are in-house because they bought the maker, so even "the easy one" is in the grey zone?

So if you want to be really strict on

MattHall91 said:

only include makers who currently make, and have only ever used, their own in-house movements with nothing outsourced.

no-one qualifies?

[Whitean3]

Surely Swatch should be included? Might not be high end, but a Swatch watch has a Swatch movement, non?

Both Carl F Bucherer and Oris now have their own movements in some of their watches

[MattHall91]

Whitean3 said:

Surely Swatch should be included? Might not be high end, but a Swatch watch has a Swatch movement, non?

Both Carl F Bucherer and Oris now have their own movements in some of their watches

Which Oris modes have their own movement? I didn't know they had started using their own. Keen to know which ones.

[ellroy]

If it's ONLY ever used inhouse don't Rolex fail on the basis of the Zenith movements in certain Daytona's??

[Foliage]

MattHall91 said:

Thanks.

I thought Omega used modified ETAs? I may be wrong.

But ETA SA is owned by swatch group and so is omega, sooo errr yeah.

[Foliage]

How do I know if a watch I wanna buy is off the shelf movement or in house?

[MattHall91]

Foliage said:

MattHall91 said:

Thanks.

I thought Omega used modified ETAs? I may be wrong.

But ETA SA is owned by swatch group and so is omega, sooo errr yeah.

In my book (righty or wrongly) that is not 'in-house'.

[glazbagun]

MattHall91 said:

In my book (righty or wrongly) that is not 'in-house'.

This is why it's a difficult question.

The Omega 1120 is pretty much an ETA 2892. I'm not sure if Omega have done anything other than order some perlage and a slighty different auto, so that's definitely not in house IMHO.

The Cal 2500 was an ETA2892 Modified with a coaxial escapement. The coaxial escapement was exclusively available to Omega (who got the rights from George Daniels), but because the swatch group own both ETA and Omega,they made the movement whilst pumping out 2892's.

The new Omega Cal 8500 is a twin barrel automatic with the co axial escapement. No one else has it and they've actually gone to the trouble of making an exclusive production line for large parts of it now that this whole 'in house' thing has taken off with marketing, but even if it was ETA all the way, I can't really see an argument for it being anything other than an Omega movement.

Here's a not very technical discussion of the three movements:

http://www.ablogtowatch.com/watchmaker-compares-om...

Edited by glazbagun on Friday 25th September 11:55

[MattHall91]

glazbagun said:

MattHall91 said:

In my book (righty or wrongly) that is not 'in-house'.

This is why it's a difficult question.

The Omega 1120 is pretty much an ETA 2892. I'm not sure if Omega have done anything other than order some perlage, so that's definitely not in house IMHO.

The Cal 2500 was an ETA2892 Modified with a coaxial escapement. The coaxial escapement was exclusively available to Omega (who got the rights from George Daniels), but because the swatch group own both ETA and Omega,they made the movement whilst pumping out 2892's.

The new Omega Cal 8500 is a twin barrel automatic with the co axial escapement. No one else has it and they've actually gone to the trouble of making an exclusive production line for large parts of it now that this whole 'in house' thing has taken off with marketing, but even if it was ETA all the way, I can't really see an argument for it being anything other than an Omega movement.

Here's a not very technical discussion of the three movements:

http://www.ablogtowatch.com/watchmaker-compares-om...

Thanks for that info.

I suppose it's to be expected and hence the 3 mentioned are priced accordingly. I would agree that with the movement in the 8500, it can't be grouped with other 'ETA base' watches.

[lostkiwi]

How about Romain Jerome and Urwerk?
And if Urwerk weren't off the wall enough how about HYT?

Edited by lostkiwi on Thursday 24th September 20:49

[MattHall91]

lostkiwi said:

How about Romain Jerome and Urwerk?
And if Urwerk weren't off the wall enough how about HYT?

Edited by lostkiwi on Thursday 24th September 20:49

I'd go with those. The design of Urweks pretty much guarantees nothing is bought in and stuck together!

[TheJimi]

lostkiwi said:

How about Romain Jerome and Urwerk?
And if Urwerk weren't off the wall enough how about HYT?

Edited by lostkiwi on Thursday 24th September 20:49

Had to laugh at the idea of Urwerk not being "off the wall enough"