Can no Omegas be considered to have in-house movements?

Posts
29,751
Likes
77,013
All Seiko's are "in house" movements? Try China and Malaysia. Open the case on the new Seiko's less then $500 and you will see China stamped inside. I now because I bought one. Even Orient brand that used Japan movements and in house cases has gone Chinese now, except its printed in ink on the interior case back so you can remove it. Oh, the inhumanity of it all!

Nothing you have stated precludes the watch from being "in-house" using the common definition of the term. We are not referring to country of origin here, but if the company itself makes all the parts and does all the work.
 
Posts
242
Likes
592
Again so much face palm. Define inhouse before you start saying someone is or is not inhouse.

People are making contradictory statements as everyone is using a different definition.
Question is do current omega watches have in house i.e. all movements made in house and not modified ETA movements ...What's ur answer ?
 
Posts
29,751
Likes
77,013
Question is do current omega watches have in house i.e. all movements made in house and not modified ETA movements ...What's ur answer ?

Define what "in-house" means?
 
Posts
242
Likes
592
Define what "in-house" means?
All the movements are built in the facility and not modified from known ETA movement a
 
Posts
999
Likes
1,678
All the movements are built in the facility and not modified from known ETA movement a

www.rolexforums.com is an awesome place to sell watches and it only require a $25 donation to become a pledge member to access the for sale section. You don't need to post 200x or anything....
 
Posts
242
Likes
592
www.rolexforums.com is an awesome place to sell watches and it only require a $25 donation to become a pledge member to access the for sale section. You don't need to post 200x or anything....
I'm not here to sell or buy anything ..Of u want to give ur email I can email you what I think or better yet I'll pm you..I don't see what the bug hoopla is about in house movements..I truly believe current omega have an on house movement..I don't know how to clearly define in house but I believe you don't either..
 
Posts
18,211
Likes
27,547
All the movements are built in the facility and not modified from known ETA movement a
So many Patek's are not inhouse? and the 861 is inhouse?

Do you see the problem yet?
 
Posts
18,211
Likes
27,547
.I don't see what the bug hoopla is about in house movements..I truly believe current omega have an on house movement..I don't know how to clearly define in house but I believe you don't either..
This is what we are trying to tell you, they are and they are not. Most people would call the newest calibers inhouse, while under that same definition the 861 is also inhouse, but most do not consider the 861 inhouse.

There was a hoopla starting a few years back with inhouse being important, and many people stretching what it means, and you got different definitions from different watch manufacturers which fit their marketing needs. Example Paneri might have the weakest claim to inhouse, and while many Patek movements do not meet the normal criteria, no one will call a Patek not an inhouse....
 
Posts
29,751
Likes
77,013
Posts
578
Likes
2,661
This is an interesting discussion as I've had questions about this myself. Although for me the only in house I care about is if the watch I want is in my house and in my watch box!
 
Posts
2,043
Likes
5,507
How far do you want to take this idea of "in house" and its definition?

At one extreme you could insist the manufacturer mines the ores, smelts the metals and makes it's own artificial jewels etc.

At the other, they might just stamp their name on a bought-in movement.

And there are a myriad of degrees in between.

Personally, I don't get hung up on where the movement originated - at it's most basic, all I want is that it's reliable and reasonably long-lasting. In fact, I tend to lean towards proven movements and their derivatives e.g. Valjoux 7750 or ETA 2892 that can be serviced by competent independents rather than more specialised "in-house" movements that lock you into the OEM's service network.

YMMV
 
Posts
1,059
Likes
2,431
Purely for the sake of my own academic fun, as well as to directly attempt a reply to the OP's question regarding his 9904 movement, I will posit a thesis. I am thoroughly a technical novice when it comes to watches. Ergo, I will let you guys tear me apart with ridicule for my naiveté or find some merit.

Preface Definition (very general): To use the term in house, most or all vital parts of a watch's mechanics must be developed, constructed, and produced by said manufacturer.

Thesis: The 9904 is based upon the 9300 movement. The 9300 takes George Daniel's coaxial escapement and combines it with twin barrels, silicon hairspring, column wheel, and vertical clutch. While the escapement was not invented by an employee of Omega, they purchased this technology and own it outright. Thus, it's built and utilized solely by Omega and falls under in house. Their twin barrel system is unique in that it was developed and is utilized more so for continuity of accuracy through its power reserve vs most multi barrel systems which are in place purely for prolonged reserve. Column wheel and vertical clutch systems are not unique to Omega but Omega does assemble their own during watch construction in house. Nivarox is owned by Swatch group and makes the silicon hairsprings used in Omega watches. Omega has constructed their new manufacturing, movements, and construction to comply with METAS certification (utilizing the 9300 backbone in this specific instance).

Conclusion: Based upon the above information, the 9904 movement can be considered as being "In House" by Omega. Unless one desires to practice a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Okay, that's my novice attempt at a stance for the 9904 to be considered falling under general "in house" guidelines by the varied reasonable working definitions. I will now prepare myself for the inevitable verbal flogging for missing some vital piece of information which turns my thesis into a collapsing house of cards...

Post Script: I sometimes ponder over if I were to spend this much time on paperwork vs watch forums. I'm thinking I would need go into work on the weekend to catch up on patient charting far less frequently. However, this is a lot more fun!
 
Posts
6,832
Likes
13,797
If it REALLY matters to you there is a simple answer that will blow your mind:

All ETA movements are in-house movements. In (ETA) House that is.

Now if you imagine a manufacturer of movements that is so efficient, so good, so reliable that a lot of prestigious brands will relay on them for their movements....If you can imagine that it would be ETA

If I told you Panerai used Rolex movements because they where the best and most reliable before switching to ETA ...What makes you think the ETA where worse? Did the watches become less reliable?

If Rolex used Zenith chrono movements for their Daytona and that was such a bad thing....Why are the Zenith Daytonas more valuable?

On a last note in house would be better perceived as ASSEMBLED in house or build exclusively for A house
 
Posts
9
Likes
16
They must state their movement ...u can find out if it I'd ETA vases or not
Where is your citation which identifies a regulation or law that compels Omega or any watchmaker to identify the origin of any movement or component of a movement? If Archer's statement is wrong, please identify the law or regulation which makes it wrong.
 
Posts
101
Likes
126
If the watch speaks to me and I can afford it, it's in house for me... get it, in "my" house 😉
 
Posts
16
Likes
16
Purely for the sake of my own academic fun, as well as to directly attempt a reply to the OP's question regarding his 9904 movement, I will posit a thesis. I am thoroughly a technical novice when it comes to watches. Ergo, I will let you guys tear me apart with ridicule for my naiveté or find some merit.

Preface Definition (very general): To use the term in house, most or all vital parts of a watch's mechanics must be developed, constructed, and produced by said manufacturer.

Thesis: The 9904 is based upon the 9300 movement. The 9300 takes George Daniel's coaxial escapement and combines it with twin barrels, silicon hairspring, column wheel, and vertical clutch. While the escapement was not invented by an employee of Omega, they purchased this technology and own it outright. Thus, it's built and utilized solely by Omega and falls under in house. Their twin barrel system is unique in that it was developed and is utilized more so for continuity of accuracy through its power reserve vs most multi barrel systems which are in place purely for prolonged reserve. Column wheel and vertical clutch systems are not unique to Omega but Omega does assemble their own during watch construction in house. Nivarox is owned by Swatch group and makes the silicon hairsprings used in Omega watches. Omega has constructed their new manufacturing, movements, and construction to comply with METAS certification (utilizing the 9300 backbone in this specific instance).

Conclusion: Based upon the above information, the 9904 movement can be considered as being "In House" by Omega. Unless one desires to practice a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Okay, that's my novice attempt at a stance for the 9904 to be considered falling under general "in house" guidelines by the varied reasonable working definitions. I will now prepare myself for the inevitable verbal flogging for missing some vital piece of information which turns my thesis into a collapsing house of cards...

Post Script: I sometimes ponder over if I were to spend this much time on paperwork vs watch forums. I'm thinking I would need go into work on the weekend to catch up on patient charting far less frequently. However, this is a lot more fun!

Well said!😀 Your logic makes sense to me, which certainly does answer my question.

It's clear to me that this question is without a clearly defined definition, which comes down to personal opinion.

Myself, an in-house movement is about showing the history and skill of a brand. As such I would expect the movement to be at a minimum designed in-house. That said, I'm not complaining that my Audi shares a Porsche engine. Though I might do if it was the other way around😀

Thank you everyone for a fasinating discussion!
 
Posts
101
Likes
126
That said, I'm not complaining that my Audi shares a Porsche engine. Though I might do if it was the other way around😀

Thank you everyone for a fasinating discussion!

Did you mean your Audi shares a VW engine?
 
Posts
16
Likes
16
Did you mean your Audi shares a VW engine?

Whatever the sales guy said 😀 Though he'd be better of convincing me I had a Lamborghini engine! Which is VW Group too.

VW Group shares engines between a variety of their car brands, which one could find similarities with the Swatch Group.
 
Posts
101
Likes
126
I call that leverage toward commonality thus increasing economies of scale. From a business prospective I do get it, but from a brand and marketing it makes top brands lose exclusivity.

Porsche announced it will share its Twin Turbo V8 with Bentley and VW! How does that make a Porsche owner with that engine feel when he spent an extra dime on the brand?
 
Posts
999
Likes
1,678
I call that leverage toward commonality thus increasing economies of scale. From a business prospective I do get it, but from a brand and marketing it makes top brands lose exclusivity.

Porsche announced it will share its Twin Turbo V8 with Bentley and VW! How does that make a Porsche owner with that engine feel when he spent an extra dime on the brand?

Inadequate? Pretty much why you buy a Porsche in the first place...

I kid! I kid... sorta