I realise this topic may be a bit controversial and is also subjective. I do not want to sound negative, rather I look for improvement.

When will Omega produce or are they on track to produce a totally in house movement? Of course prices will rise as Rolex have in house movements and high prices. Of course Rolex are more evolutionary than revolutionary and tend to have less product lines and greater model longevity. There was an article I read recently where the current head of Omega product development admitted, that Omega are moving towards having in house manufactured movements. However, it would be dangerous to call the 8500 totally an in house movement as it is assembled and part designed by Omega. There is of course input from other manufacturers such as ETA and Niranox.

It saddens me that IWC, JLC and Rolex are in house, why are Omega different? I remember as a kid my uncle showing me his Omega, then I was hooked. In 2004 I purchased a Seamaster unfortunately selling it a few years later, now I have a vintage Seamaster and a Geneve. One of the reasons I love vintage is that they all had Omega in house movements, from a time when virtually all Swiss watch companies had this benefit.

 

The 8500/9300 as you say have been designed for Omega only. They are assembled in the Omega factory only. In a 2007 press statement Omega called them in house. However, the current head of product development Jean - Claude Monachon stated it would be dangerous to say the movement is totally in house. Who can blame him? If these guys are not cautious in the statements they make it could backfire. On the flip side a 1120 cal is essentially a 2892 ETA with some upgrades. The 8500 is different as the movements were designed around the co axle and not the other way round, no other Swatch Group company has this technology apart from Omega. So this further supports the view point the 8500 is in house. This is a strange subject as we have manufacturing issues and economies of scale to consider also.

 

you open a can of worms....... I don`t even want to know, how many parts in the in-house movements from other companies, you mentioned before, are made in china now. who would ever know with parts? what I know, is that many obsolete spareparts from very expensive watchbrands are copied in china now. again: who would ever know? kind regards. achim

 

You guys, you guys, you guys!!!! You know your stuff, this has completely changed my understanding and perception. Rolex buying movements from Aegler SA in Bienne, only in 2004 they buy the who company. Did I read this correct? They market themselves as being totally in house standing head and shoulders above the others with JLC.

 

Your right who knows, it must be well hidden with expensive brands. In much cheaper brands like Victorianox you open the case back it says cased in Hong Kong. Expensive brands could even source tiny parts from the far east. Who knows.

 

I am in shock. I thought they apart from a few small parts manufactured everything. LOOOOOL

 

Mr Ash Dsio your feedback and continued feedback is much appreciated. You are one knowledgeable fellow, no doubt.

ANY OTHER FEEDBACK FROM OTHER MEMBERS?

 

Small nit to pick: it's the 92x from JLC. AP calls it the 2120 as a non-date and a 2121 with a date feature. And technically, it is in-house for AP now since they own the rights to it entirely. As part of the deal to sell their interest in JLC to Richemont, AP got all the tooling, blueprints, and rights to that caliber.

 

Also, the watch industry has always relied on outsourced parts even when everything was made in Switzerland. The Swiss farmers worked the fields in the warmer months, and specialized in making specific watch parts in the winter by agreement with certain brands.

 

So would for example a 600, 611 or 565 cal from the 1960s shall we say has more Omega DNA than a cal 1120 (ETA 2892) for example? It could be said the 1960s calibres were designed for Omega only (or at least I think they were?)

Not sure. I have learned more in the last two hours than the last two years.

 

I believe that Patek's 5070 and Vacheron's Les Historiques chrono share the same Lemania 2310 aka Omega cal.321.

 

No, we are quite happy to let the experts contribute. HOwever, like others, I am really enjoying reading this.

 

Me too, I am a novice. But have learned a lot in the last few hours.

 

So long as movements run and are reliable I haven't any need for specific in house movements. More shared movements allows for more shared parts and more spare parts for the future

 

I think it's deceiving. Rolex does have an all in house movement, wether they decided to buy that house rather than have a n exclusive agreement is irrelevant. Basically they found what they thought was the best house, or the best they could afford, and appropriated it. Whether you are hiring an individual like Genta, or buying a whole business it is still yours. The names will often remain different for the same reasons we layer LLC"s within a single business, it is the smart thing to do so no single piece of the ship can sink it.

As for Eta it is the opposite case. In a way Omega is owned by ETA, or by the same house that owns ETA. So it is not as much about wether Omega will have an in house movement but wether a specific movement will be assigned to a specific brand and model within the larger group.

Even though some would think this implies a lower prestige or quality it is not so, in fact ETA has or may have way more resources for advancement and quality than any single house, which explains why other great houses like Rolex are much more cautious and careful on movement advances than ETA is. Also as long as it is done with care you have a better chance of getting great results diversifying your research and production. That is, get the best movement you can, for the best case you can get, with the best ceramic or Metal alloy etc etc... What you may loose is an identity core that many purists may confuse with quality. But you can have a great identity and be stuck in the past. This is what scares me when too many lines appear at once that are a little gimmicky, very Swatch . But swatch makes good watches and saved the industry.

ETA has great, reliable, top of the line consistent movements, which is why I never mind if Cartier or Panerai or Omega uses ETA. I will always respect the artisanal approach of some brands, but I don't necessarily see it as a warranty of quality.

 

So the 8500 is turning out to be a great movement, but it needs to be exclusive to Omega and not be handed down to other Swatch group companies in the future.

Rolex even though they have used Aegler SA have only had total control from 2004, so when the 3135 came along in 1988 it was designed for Rolex by Aegler. At that time it was not in house as Rolex did not have total control, in a shape or form they had been reliant on Aegler.This leads me to believe I could be wrong, Rolex has only been in house from 2004 when they took total control of Aegler.

Mind you for the main part Rolex's quality, product continuity and credibility is assured that no one can argue with.

 

Appreciate the point Rolex had taken control of Aegler, it was the reverse for Omega as Swatch took control of them.