Belligero
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,423
- Reaction score
- 2,595
Yes, there's certainly a difference between the old-school tradition of starting with an ébauche from a high-quality movement supplier and hand finishing/decorating it to a Geneva Seal standard, and the common practice of lazily tossing in a ready-made ETA movement or one of its generic clones.[...]Even as recently as 20 years ago there were more high end companies using outsourced movements. I think the idea that a watch using an inhouse movement is better than an outsourced movements often overlooks the idea that not all are created equally. Sales people tend to emphasize this fact as they often are just sales people who know little beyond what the sales brochure tells them.
I've never felt that having an inhouse movement was the end all be all of a watch or a reason to buy a particular watch. Sure it can help justify the cost of a watch, or be an example of commitment to horology, and the level of quality that one gets when buying watch X. In more modest price ranges, it might also be nice to know that the movement powering your $5K watch isn't largely similar to that found in a $700 watch. However, there have been some outstanding outsourced movements from brands like Lemania, JLC, Piaget, AP etc. For example Patek used Lemania CH27 movements in the 5070 and 3970. You probably wouldn't have found the Lemania base that was used in those Pateks in anything else that had an MSRP that was under $20K (so you might find the base also used in some higher end Breguets, VCs and maybe one or two others). In addition, there are collector who will tell you that the calibers used in those Pateks were of such high levels of quality and workmanship, that they rival any inhouse movements made by major high end manufacturers. I've even seen some say, that Patek's newer automatic inhouse chronograph movements are simply not finished to as high a standard was what was used in the 5070 and 3970. Patek developed their in house chronograph because then they could control costs and supply.
None of my dress watches use an in house movement. However, I chose watches which used high grade base calibers from JLC, F.Piguet, and Piaget. In fact one watch I own in a rectangular case uses a rectangular movement. In watches made around 2005 or so, most rectangular watches that used movements (even Patek and AP ) that were small round movements (sometimes from ladies watches) because it was cheaper than developing a movement specific to a particular case. I'm not saying that the movements used in the rectangular Patek or AP weren't nice...merely that they were used as a cost saving measure so they are not anything really special.
There are great watches with movements that were outsourced and great watches with inhouse movements. Its important to remember that there can be vast differences in quality and price and that one shouldn't lump all in house movements or all outsourced movements into a single category of either being in improvement or a downgrade to a watch or a brand.
In-house can be desirable if it's done right, but it's no guarantee of superior quality in and of itself; you have to consider each movement on its own merits instead of by a simplistic term that's often misunderstood and misused. Also, having ETA, Valfleurier or one of the other specialist producers to design and manufacture a movement with a different company's name on it shouldn't really count as in-house.
Using the example of Patek Philippe, I generally prefer the older outsourced movements to the new "Patek Seal" ones that lack independent quality checks and are far more mass-produced than their predecessors. (That, and their older watches tend to be better-looking.)