The 9300 is not based on an ETA movement.
There is no universally accepted definition of what "in-house" actually means.
I am puzzled why the fact that Omega (part of the Swatch group as is ETA) using the resources available to them that being part of a big conglomerate offers, is such a contentious issue with some people. As a publicly traded company that is beholden to shareholders, taking advantage of the vast resources at your disposal to produce movements or parts of movements is the right thing to do.
Building a brand new facility to assemble movements when you have excess capacity at existing facilities would be bad business, pure and simple. It's all the same company - does it really matter who's name is on the building? Does this really make a big difference in the end product?
Up until fairly recently, Rolex used balance springs made by Nivarox-FAR, a Swatch group company - so did 90% of all Swiss watchmakers. Although the Rolex movement factory had Rolex on the outside, it was actually not owned by Rolex up until a few years ago...it was still owned by Aegler, who made the movements exclusively for Rolex.
This whole "in-house" craze is a marketing tool to create exclusivity, and has little to do with the actual quality of the product produced. It's a very recent thing in the context of Swiss watchmaking, which was built on small subcontractors making parts for the larger companies.
I've owned 3 BMW's that were assembled in North Carolina - they were still BMW's, still German cars, and were just as good as the other's I've owned that were built in Germany...
Cheers, Al
Click to expand...