Reply With QuoteMechanical watches are a mature technology. FWIW, although I'm a Rolex fanboy, I think the current line-up are, without exception, completely repulsive.
Well, this has developed into something it was not supposed to be.
My point was the endless threads about "will they finally, is the no-date sub coming this year" etc.
Rolex have made some fine watches and innovations over the decades, but it's about two movements (maybe three), and a different color bezel, slightly blown-up case etc.
It's a bit out of proportion, that's my point. Seiko invents a totally new movement (spring-drive) not much people are getting excited, Rolex sticks a green bezel on a standard Sub, and threads start popping-up all over the place.
Daddel.
Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!
Mechanical watches are a mature technology. FWIW, although I'm a Rolex fanboy, I think the current line-up are, without exception, completely repulsive.
I count 8 movements plus variations... but I agree to an extent. The thing is though, Rolex is such a secretive company, always managing to keep a lid on things until the very day before Basel... I think that creates the buzz more than anything else, people love guessing. Then once the news is out, a few weeks or months follow where everyone explains what and how much they dislike all the new offerings...Originally Posted by Daddelvirks
Also, everyone secretly hopes that just their Rolex will become the new Daytona/milgauss/redcomexkilly or whatever all the models inside the current bubble are called.. . Hence the speculations on discontinuation.
I dont think any newish model will rise in value the same way the old ones have.
I think I might be to blame. All was sweetness and light until I inadvertently compared Bremont favourably to Rolex. I had no idea it would be so contentious :twisted:
What a good picture and what a watch, some day I need to post a picture as good as this on the forum 8) .Very content....
Hardly contentious, just wrong. Bremont are a fashion brand.I think I might be to blame. All was sweetness and light until I inadvertently compared Bremont favourably to Rolex. I had no idea it would be so contentious :twisted:
Hardly. Now you're just trolling. :roll:
Thats harsh old boy. Bit quick to pull the trigger there IMO.Hardly. Now you're just trolling. :roll:
:laughing3:Hardly contentious, just wrong. Bremont are a fashion brand.I think I might be to blame. All was sweetness and light until I inadvertently compared Bremont favourably to Rolex. I had no idea it would be so contentious :twisted:
Not even slightly trolling.
Bremont are not a watchmaking company. They repackage generic ETA calibres. That's the definition of a fashion brand in my book.
Thats harsh old boy. Bit quick to pull the trigger there IMO.Hardly. Now you're just trolling. :roll:
Perhaps everyone's having a harsh day, but I suffered the same eye rolling response earlier.
Bremont absolutely are a watchmaking company. They just happen to be a very young watchmaking company. Hence currently using ETA (and other) movements.
But let's not forget that they do have their own 'in house' movement. It's just currently a bit hefty for wearing on a wrist. :wink:
To my mind, a fashion brand is any brand which makes the majority of it's revenue away from watches. (Ralph Lauren, Gucci etc etc). Bremont obviously aren't a fashion brand.
Excuse me while I snigger.
Repackaging off-the-shelf movements is not watchmaking. Bremont are a fashion brand, and no better than Gucci, etc.
So all brands who use eta are fashion brands then?
Snigger away, troll. :roll:Excuse me while I snigger.
Repackaging off-the-shelf movements is not watchmaking. Bremont are a fashion brand, and no better than Gucci, etc.
I'm not trolling, I am a serious watch enthusiast, and Bremont are not watchmakers by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes. Apart from Omega, obviously.
Ahhh.
Tudor the fashion brand.
Nice.
How about patek when they were using lemania?
Or Rolex when they were using zenith?
Or JLC when they were using valjoux?
I sincerely hope that the hallmark of a "serious watch enthusiast" isn't to sneer and scorn with monotonous regularity.
None of those brands was using off the shelf movements exclusively.
Bremont are.
Anything else?
But they still re-cased movements which were not their own.
Cheating is cheating, whichever frock you dress it up in.
I agree completely, and all of my watches have exclusive in-house movements. The problem is that if you go to a company like Bremont, they have nothing whatsoever to offer.
If you are looking at the sub-£1k bracket, then ETAs are fine. But then why not Seiko?
Or Seagull, Citizen, Orient, Vostok & Raketa 8)
You've said pretty much what I was going to , after having gone through this thread.Spot on. Funny thing is the Microsoft haters loved Apple because it was once the underdog and considered alternative. Now Apple is successful a new group of Apple haters has formed. It gets quite tiresome and is the exact same form of "sheep following sheep" that many of the haters say is why they hate Rolex. Quite bizarre really.
to add:
Some things in life you just can't fight against. They just are. Women are beautiful but can also be the biggest PITA. Rolex are a solid brand with fans and haters in equal measure. But at least understand what you are hating. There are many things to commend Rolex for...it has helped shape and influence our watch industry and likely will for a long time to come. I don't get why anyone would be ashamed to wear one in case someone thought negatively of them. Maybe they are exactly the sort of people who may also wear something for the wrong reason? (to garner praise from others). Wear what you like. The feeling I get from wearing a nice watch makes me feel good all the time it's on my wrist. If someone thinks I'm crass for wearing a Rolex, let them judge me. I know why I wear them and people who know me know that I'm not that way.
That said, even I have been taken aback by the volume of Rolex chat and threads in the past couple of months....not that I mind. :D
The problem is that brand trashing offers nothing whatsoever except a degree of unpleasantness which is quite unecessary.
this applies to both eta and exclusive in house movements.
Why not live and let live?I agree completely, and all of my watches have exclusive in-house movements. The problem is that if you go to a company like Bremont, they have nothing whatsoever to offer.
If you are looking at the sub-£1k bracket, then ETAs are fine. But then why not Seiko?
(quietly)
The Swiss watch industry was traditionally horizontally integrated. Cases, dials, bracelets and other parts were supplied by outsourced manufacturers. Even brands with in-house manufacture capability used outside movements in some of their watches. This was all perfectly normal and respectable.
It is only in fairly recent years that there has been a shift to vertical integration. Consequently many of the dial makers, case makers, bracelet makers, and other component manufacturers have over the last ten years or so been acquired by the big watch brands with deep pockets, such as Rolex, that can afford to buy them up.
I don't see much moral difference between buying components from a supplier, and buying the whole supplier company. It is still importing outside expertise.
Perhaps there were also watch snobs in the last century that looked down on Rolex as a fashion brand when it repackaged third party movements in outsourced watch cases.
Free pass for Omega, then? ;)Yes. Apart from Omega, obviously.
They bought their differentiating expertise in from outside; ETA still makes their movements, even. You are trolling for comments, and I claim my £5!
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I'm not trolling, actually. ETA supplying Omega is very different from them supplying Bremont, IMO.
Can you buy an ETA movement 'off the shelf' with a Nivaflex 1 mainspring? Also, the Soprod movement within the Alt1-C is modded as well. If you're going to make comments, much better to restrict them to factual ones!Excuse me while I snigger.
Repackaging off-the-shelf movements is not watchmaking. Bremont are a fashion brand, and no better than Gucci, etc.
Finally, a watchmaker makes watches, they don't have to make movements. The cheapest watches made by an independent with its own staff I'd say are the German brands like Damasko and Stowa; start to have non-standard components in the movements (ie the Durowe movements) and even Stowa go up by at least double, and they use Fricker cases IIRC. If either Damasko/Stowa sold in shops (which tend to cause a 40% markup) then the prices would rise. Look what happened to Sinn, then add the finish you want and try to assemble in the UK (which is what Bremont are doing increasingly now) and the prices rise more.
Simply because they share consolidated financial statements? Seems a strange incentive to denigrate brands which 'buy' rather than 'make'.
If Bremont put a stake of some sort into Soprod or Technotime, thus establishing some sort of balance-sheet connection, would that supply the necessary mystique?
Do you own Omegas, or only other watches from companies with fully vertically integrated supply chains...
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Live's easy in Japan, at least you know where your movements come from :)Simply because they share consolidated financial statements? Seems a strange incentive to denigrate brands which 'buy' rather than 'make'.
If Bremont put a stake of some sort into Soprod or Technotime, thus establishing some sort of balance-sheet connection, would that supply the necessary mystique?
Do you own Omegas, or only other watches from companies with fully vertically integrated supply chains...
Upgraded parts?, own mainspring and balance?.................... :lol: :lol:
Daddel.
Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!
ETA movements could be regarded as "in-house" for modern Omegas.Simply because they share consolidated financial statements? Seems a strange incentive to denigrate brands which 'buy' rather than 'make'.
If Bremont put a stake of some sort into Soprod or Technotime, thus establishing some sort of balance-sheet connection, would that supply the necessary mystique?
Do you own Omegas, or only other watches from companies with fully vertically integrated supply chains...
I have a 1954 Omega Seamaster, a JLC, and the remainder are Rolex/PP.
So you would forgive modern Breguet and modern Blancpain if they started putting 'in-house' ETA movements in their offerings?
Yeah, why not? They've got more of a claim than Bremont, they of the propellor-shaped rotor. :lol:
Bit different. The ETA movements typically used by Omega are made for them to their own specs and are not available to any other company.
Breguet and Blancpain can do what they like - just because they are also Swatch doesn't mean they don't also have to find their own market - I would suggest their movements help with this.
All this refinishing nonsense is just that - nonsense - anyone can engrave a rotor or change a few bits (and too many £5k plus watch brands were doing just this!) - that is exactly why ETA stopped providing part ebauches and would only sell complete movements and only because they were forced to.
Now I do not see anything different with Porsche/Yamaha or many other building engines and selling them specifically to companies such as Seat or Audi - or do we not consider an engine virtually rebuilt by Porsche and housed in an Audi (again put together by Porsche) not to be an Audi? To me quite clearly it is. Which is a lot different to buying any old engine and sticking it in your kit car! :twisted:
It's just a matter of time...
No member of the general luxury watch buying public gives a monkey's chuff whether the movement is in-house or not. The obsession of some WIS's is driven by two factors:
1. a post-hoc need to rationalise the expense and
2. the relentless search for rarity (e.g. COMEX, DRSD etc. etc.) - this can be seen across collectors of anything, be they watches, carpets, stamps, whatever.
I don't criticise it, we all attach differing emotional value to such intangibles but that's what they are, intangible, and the value we attach to them tends to increase with time invested in the subject. That's all good.
If I have a beef, it's when in-house is used to justify huge price differentials across brands and lack thereof is used as a stick to beat the ETA-based watches. In terms of quantifiable measures, can anyone demonstrate that such movements outperform the best, off the shelf, COSC-certified movements? The same goes for cost, at this stage of the game, given production volumes and length of service, a movement such as the 3135 cannot of itself justify a huge difference in RRP. So we're left with the warm, fuzzy glow some derive (or convince themselves they derive - see point 1) from in-house. Again, that warm fuzzy glow has great value to some and I don't knock it, but acknowledge it for what it is, a warm, fuzzy glow rather than anything else.
Disclaimer: I'm talking here about "standard", high(ish) volume in-house movements rather than one-offs / the super complicated or very limited editions where, clearly, cost will become a more important factor.
I think the point is that there actually isn't a huge difference in price between Rolex and Bremont.
In general, a free-sprung balance should outperform a movement with a regulator.
What the general public think, or don't think, is not of any interest.
What the public do or don't think is of overwhelming importance to the manufacturers when they set their prices.
Looked at either in percentage or absolute terms, 3.5k for an SM500 vs 7-8k for a Sub is significant.
Because they have consolidated financial statements? Could the same apply to a plastic Swatch, or a Hamilton? It's certainly not a "house" in the manner espoused here.
ETA still makes the Omega-designed movements. "Contracted", perhaps. Something about only ETA having the scale to make enough movements for Omega to feed the Chinese market...
Well at least that Omega does have an Omega movement. The rest of us intellectual paupers will get on with the job of just buying watches we like - and you're right, the general public, with the economic clout thousands of times that of WIS - isn't at all interested in this arcane and rather abstract argument. Good for them!I have a 1954 Omega Seamaster, a JLC, and the remainder are Rolex/PP.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
How will a free-sprung balance outperform a movement with a regulator, and how will the performance increase be measured?
On the other hand, what exactly has justified the exponential rise in Rolex watches over the past five years?
If this question is genuine: do your own research. If it's a test of my knowledge: do your own research!
The general public probably don't care (or even know) about in-house movements. However, 15% consume 85% of the product, and these are the people who in general do know about these things.
Whether you like it or not, and I can tell that you don't, an in-house movement is more desirable than a generic one.
A combination of:
1) Currency movements - a matter of fact
2) Rolex greed
3) Other manufacturers' greed (Rolex need to increase prices to keep their market position)
4) Mental prices being achieved by some new brands with no history - think Bremont, Hublot, etc.
No matter if its ETA or in house both Rolex and Bremont are COSC certified, there is nothing in them when it comes to time keeping. Personally I buy a watch for the way it looks, its function and its feel on the wrist. I have 2 Bremonts by the way and I am finding it difficult to justify an additional £2-3K for a Rolex no matter what movement it has, its something I can't see.
Just my 2ps worth.
No matter if its ETA or in house both Rolex and Bremont are COSC certified, there is nothing in them when it comes to time keeping. Personally I buy a watch for the way it looks, its function and its feel on the wrist. I have 2 Bremonts by the way and I am finding it difficult to justify an additional £2-3K for a Rolex no matter what movement it has, its something I can't see.
Just my 2ps worth.
Since when is a Sub £7-£8k?? a little over £5k.What the public do or don't think is of overwhelming importance to the manufacturers when they set their prices.
Looked at either in percentage or absolute terms, 3.5k for an SM500 vs 7-8k for a Sub is significant.
One loses half it's value - or could be bought in a sale in some guises for 50% off the other couldn't.
There is not enough in it for me - the SM500 was around £3.5k and the sub was around £3690 at one stage and that I am afraid underlines why Bremont rightly or wrongly gets a hard time!
I think Rolex can be easily justified as a new purchase - you may get your money back - Bremont for all it's ETA COSC techofancy will lose you 50% - take your pick.
It's just a matter of time...
Well I would do my own research on your knowledge if the search function was operational, so how would you measure the performance increase?If this question is genuine: do your own research. If it's a test of my knowledge: do your own research!
If I were you, I would Google.
It's a great business model Tony, but as with most business models the desire for income/profit is driven by varying degrees of "greed". They've got to pay for those Ferraris and jets somehow! 8)
It's ok, I'll take your response as my answer! :PIf I were you, I would Google.
Posting Permissions
