Forums Latest Members
  1. GaryUFM Apr 17, 2016

    Posts
    120
    Likes
    59
    Found these stocked in a jewellers in Chester the other day, and enjoyed handling a few and trying them on. I walked away with the catalogue, and having gone through it last night, I have to say, there is not one watch in there I didn't like the look of, or would be unhappy to own.

    In particular, their GMT versions with the internal rotating 24hr bezels, like the ALT1-ZT; or the Supermarine dive watches.

    Anyone got a Bremont? And what are your thoughts? Would you recommend them?
     
    Edited Apr 18, 2016
  2. STANDY schizophrenic pizza orderer and watch collector Apr 17, 2016

    Posts
    16,311
    Likes
    44,718
  3. tyrantlizardrex Apr 17, 2016

    Posts
    8,881
    Likes
    27,410
    The marketing is clever and relentless.

    The movements are ETA and Vaijoux with some tweaks.

    The prices should be about 75% less than what they are charging, given what you're actually getting.
     
  4. ryanpatrick Apr 17, 2016

    Posts
    73
    Likes
    104
    I love the asthetics of their watches. Great build quality and Mike, who runs their US operations, is a great guy. Their watches are just so dang big.
    That said, I do love the watches they've done for Team Oracle/Americas Cup.
    [​IMG][​IMG]


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  5. w154 Apr 17, 2016

    Posts
    2,532
    Likes
    5,454
    Bremont made a big mistake in the past when referring to in house movements, and they justifiably got a beating on many forums and blogs. It seems that this hasn't been forgotten by many... just take a look at the comments on any post about Bremont on Hodinkee. This means that a large percentage of watch collectors are currently viewing them as overpriced, all marketing, and no substance.

    So my advice would be definitely not to buy one at retail price. The used market for them is probably non-existent, so I reckon you could pick one up at a fraction of full price. And maybe the negative views that people have will soften over time.
     
  6. GaryUFM Apr 18, 2016

    Posts
    120
    Likes
    59
    I did see this thread, which tends to hinge around the brand/marketing/'faux' history, etc. I was more after an understanding of how they actually wear and what they're like to live with.

    However, having read through that thread again, I feel a lot of the flak is undeserved. I get the cynicism with regards the marketing and 'history' they are trying to buy-in from the outset, but there are a couple of things I would challenge, having read through their brochure, and some on-line research. And I know the brochure is designed to sell me on this stuff, but I don't think I'm a complete mug (leaving myself vulnerable here, I know!).

    For instance:

    Bremont *had* nothing to do with Martin Baker (the ejection seat makers) but now they do: their MB range of watches were tested and developed with MB to withstand the shock one would experience if one had to use an ejection seat. Not only that, but the MB1 is only offered to those that have actually survived using an MB ejector seat 'in anger'. I can see how this might not float a particular boat, but how is this not 'authentic'? Meaningless to most of us, but then so is the ability to take a watch into space.

    Isn't it exactly the same as Omega trying to co-opt the James Bond mythology for their own marketing needs by chucking thousands to be seen on screen in place of the 'authentic' Rolex that Ian Fleming was originally very specific about? (And if we're on the subject of gimmicks, 007 imagery on watch face and hands of various Seamasater LEs...?)

    Rolex's 'history' with motor racing and it's Cosmograph/Daytona? The motor racing link is no stronger than any other chronograph of the era (i.e. before computer timing rendered manual stopwatches obsolete). The name simply comes from a race it sponsored (i.e. bought into), after trying out the name Le Mans. And why change? Because Daytona resonated more with the bigger American cash cow than Le Mans did, possibly?

    The only real difference I can see between these two examples of 'history' and Bremont's apparent nouveau riche-ness, is that the buy-in happened a long time ago. Hence, I feel Bremont are hard done to, just because they're doing it now.

    As to their more general connection to aviation, well, they are working in conjunction with all the right people: developing with/supplying to specific flights/squadrons/manufacturers. This is probably as strong if not stronger than Breitling's claim to be the watch of choice to the aviation community based on that horrendous recent advert that could well have been a Don Simpson production: skimpily clad women, servicing a plane, with the watch playing some sort of role in timing the pit-stop...

    Not that I intend to buy a watch because I can put it on and pretend I am a pilot/James Bond/an astronaut/Jacques Cousteau or anything else. I buy them because they perform a task (or several) under certain conditions, conditions that generally go far beyond my needs. But, as with most men, a certain amount of pleasure comes from simply knowing that you could, if you wanted to. Those conditions tend to be proven in the real world, and if proof of real-world performance for a new brand comes from 'shamelessly' embedding themselves with modern organisations & businesses in those fields, instead of accidental history, is this really so bad?

    The comparison with Nomos is a fair one, but perhaps they work to two different business models: one to develop a brand that is respected for its craftsmanship within the watch cognoscenti, slowly, subtly, quietly; the other to develop a high-volume brand that are as well-known to otherwise ignorant status-symbol seeking purchasers as Omega, Rolex & Breitling.

    Having said that, I don't dispute the argument about cost - though they do sell in volume, so it certainly represents a certain value for money to a certain amount of people. In any case, this can easily be circumvented by buying second-hand. Beyond that, as with any watch made by any manufacturer, they are still going to be subject to people's personal preferences. Which brings me back to my reasons for starting this thread: I think they look pretty darn tasty. Movements may not be in-house, but I think they do a decent job of making them look nice and individual.
     
    Atalien2005 likes this.
  7. STANDY schizophrenic pizza orderer and watch collector Apr 18, 2016

    Posts
    16,311
    Likes
    44,718
  8. tyrantlizardrex Apr 18, 2016

    Posts
    8,881
    Likes
    27,410
    Having tried them on, they do wear nicely.

    And if they were half the price... Well frankly they'd still be too expensive.
     
  9. GaryUFM Apr 18, 2016

    Posts
    120
    Likes
    59
    @STANDY I did read your post about this watch, and I think it looks cracking! Chapeau!

    @tyrantlizardrex Fair dos!
     
    tyrantlizardrex and STANDY like this.
  10. abrod520 Apr 18, 2016

    Posts
    11,218
    Likes
    35,254
    @GaryUFM you make fair points about buy-ins, but do keep in mind that in the 1960s racing drivers still needed chronographs (though through the decade, dedicated timing staff were added to teams) and Rolex wanted part of that market, that Omega and Heuer had already made a bunch of money on. NASA needed a mechanical backup timer, and bought Omegas, not the other way around. The invention of SCUBA equipment meant divers newly exploring the depths needed a watch that would be able to withstand the attendant pressures, so that they could keep an eye on how much time and oxygen they had left before they needed to surface.

    So those watches have a history based around a need, hence the term "tool watch." Today, divers have digital dive computers, pilots and astronauts have (reliable) digital mission timers, and racing teams have official Timing & Scoring staff at each event. Nobody really needs a watch anymore, much less a pilot ejecting from an aircraft.

    (Now to be sure Rolex, Omega and others certainly do get as much mileage out of these past needs and achievements as they can! Whether or not you think that invalidates the fact that they once were necessities is up to you :) )

    OTOH, Omega buying into the Bond franchise was and remains 100% marketing fluff, as Bond is a fictional character with fictional watch needs (such as gadgets, gizmos, bombs etc) and can wear whichever model the IP holders decide is worth the marketing money. Pilots who have ejected from aircraft are not fictional characters, and to be issued a watch after the fact which is then called "the watch for ejected pilots" seems to me to be too tenuous a connection.

    Like I said though, nobody needs a watch anymore - we all wear them because we like them. Some of us prefer a watch with some history behind it, but that doesn't mean that collectors and enthusiasts who just like the aesthetics of a model or brand are wrong. If you like the way Bremonts look and feel, go ahead and buy one if you think their prices are worth it. Spend a ton of money on a watch with a tiny swath of the Wright Flyer or a bit of code from the Enigma Machine if you like; I may take umbrage with the company itself for calling it "historically important" but have no big problem with it on someone's wrist :)
     
    tyrantlizardrex likes this.
  11. erpin9 Apr 18, 2016

    Posts
    1,088
    Likes
    2,990
    I almost bought a Bremont Code Breaker. Its a beautiful DNA watch but my feeling also is that its overpriced.
     
  12. Darlinboy Pratts! Will I B******S!!! Apr 18, 2016

    Posts
    8,727
    Likes
    69,007
    All new watches are overpriced.

    Even for a (relatively) inexpensive G-shock or Seiko 5 you're paying for marketing costs & perceived brand benefits.

    That's how it works.

    Buy what you like, Bremont included, if it is worth it to you.
     
    Atalien2005 likes this.
  13. chunkythebulldog May 8, 2016

    Posts
    1,635
    Likes
    13,190
    Tried a couple of the Bremont Baselworld releases on yesterday. Good looking watches and were well finished and made.
    The strap quality was excellent, far superior to an Omega strap

    image.jpeg image.jpeg
     
  14. Fritz genuflects before the mighty quartzophobe May 8, 2016

    Posts
    3,817
    Likes
    15,989
    Its a boutique watch with a lot of desperate marketing hype trying to give it some history it just doesn't have. Nice watches yes, but does stuffing a piece of old (and yes, historic) aircraft fabric in the back make it worth the money. No.

    Will they hold their value, I doubt it. It you like it buy it, but consider it money lost, like buying a Speedmaster made from parts of a Seamaster Chrono, a used case, mixed hands and a service dial, Sure its all Omega, but its also a bit of a lie isn't it.

    I like the reference to Nomos. Build your watches reputation on honest quality and value and you'll be taken seriously.
     
    Edited May 8, 2016
    erpin9 likes this.
  15. jens0125 knows that watches were made to be worn May 8, 2016

    Posts
    1,199
    Likes
    9,731
    I like the ones based on the Jaguars ... But I'll never buy one
    Also like the mb1 and 2... Maybe pick up one if the prices fall more for 2nd hand
     
  16. ulackfocus May 8, 2016

    Posts
    25,983
    Likes
    26,968
    Bremont is in the same league as Hublot and Bell & Ross.

    Bush league, that is. See below:

    Maybe the OP would enjoy a nice Jonny Sonbul or Aximum? :confused: :rolleyes: :D

    Shazam! :thumbsup:
     
    STANDY and Fritz like this.