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:
You're correct that everyone starts from nowhere, but not all start from nowhere and immediately co-opt history to claim their place. Omega built their history and thus has every right to trade on their connections to space flight and sport etc, but Bremont had nothing to do with the Enigma Machine or the Wright Flyer or British rocket-ejection-seat makers etc.
I mean, look at Nomos - started in the 1990s, just making good products (like Omega did at first) without any gimmicks, and now they enjoy a well-earned reputation as builders of great watches.
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.
