I saw this quote in the recently posted article by Fratello on this new watch: "...each watchmaker will be responsible for an entire watch."

So it got me thinking - is this actually something to brag about?

There are likely folks on the forum who have a firm idea how watch assembly is usually done, how many people are involved, and what tasks they are responsible for. But even without knowing the intimate details, we can still discuss whether one person doing everything is really preferable.

Certainly, we have advanced and evolved towards specialization in a variety of fields, the obvious concept being that those that focus and specialize in an area, and do this repeatedly, are more expert than those that do the same job on a more occasional or let's say less regular basis.

Does the opening quote about the new SS cal. 321 mean that each watchmaker puts the finish on the case themselves? Would not the "case" expert do a more consistent, accurate job? In the past, were there final, timing experts that tweaked the watch and got it prepared for delivery, and would they not have garnered a certain skill set over the folks that perhaps just installed the wheels and pivots?

No dogmatism here, since I don't know how it's usually done...but you get my point: is it really better to have one person do everything, and is it a legitimate selling point?

 

When I visited the new building of Omega, at the highest floor, at the end of the assembly were the bracelet/bandfitters. If my memory serves me well, the ladies had 6 months training before they actually can make the final touch to the finished watches : fit the bracelet/band without marking the case.

Folks, you might get a brand new Ed White with already re polished lugs after the master watchmaker scratches it while fitting the bracelet

 

I thought that it was just the movement assembly that was done by one watchmaker? I.e. no manufacturing work is done by the watchmaker, just put everything together, with oiling and possibly adjustment?

 

It's the same thing Mercedes does with their engines. Regular engines get mass produced in an assembly line, AMG engines are assembled by one person then it gets a little plaque bolted on it with a signature.

Does it make it better? Nah fam, it's their way of trying to justify the price by making you think it's handmade by an artisan. Either that or they need an excuse as to why supply will be limited to lift it to Daytona status.

Also, when you think about it, it's the same thing every watchmaker does when servicing minus the disassembly, cleaning, and repairing before reassembly. So it's actually less impressive.

 

Marketing hype.

 

It's a risky path for Omega… Either you believe that having only one person do everything does not add any value and you could feel that the firm and its ambassadors are trying to con you, or you actually truly believe that it adds value, and you could now start thinking that you would have been better off saving the 32K€ you just spent on the 50th moonlanding anniversary gold speedmaster.

 

I see it as half the job my watchmaker does when he services one of my watches...difference being he has to disassemble the entire watch into constituent parts and clean the movement/case first...before building it up.

Regarding ‘one person doing everything preferable’ : For whom?! For us it makes zero difference. For them they lose the efficiency and speed/volume-output of their beautiful high tech modern production line...but they raise the price. Question is, with low volume, If the price-vs-time thing is preferable for them...who can say?!

 

"...each watchmaker will be responsible for an entire watch." could mean anything from complete assembly and finishing to final QC checks and signoff.

Either ask Omega directly what they mean or believe whatever interpretation you find most comforting/realistic.

 

I see what you did there

 

Right -- being responsible for something is definitely not the same as fabricating and assembling it all yourself (and I seriously doubt that person would be out mining the ore and other raw materials as well). I think it just means if there is anything f---ed up on one of the watches, the cost of fixing under warranty will be deduced from the responsible person's next paycheck

 

This is the story put out by Blancpain as well, that each of their watches is made by one watchmaker. They do have a very low output compared to the big boys like Omega and Rolex. Their serial numbers are simply the order of production for a particular model in a particular metal. Does it make it a better watch...not really I suppose, although you could argue it makes it at least a little more special. Disclaimer, one of my 3 is a BP (with a two digit serial number). I do think that BP make very high quality watches, regardless of how many people are involved.

 

These watchmakers are not finishing cases or printing dials...they are simply assembling the components into a finished watch and doing the final adjustments.

As I’ve said before, for anyone who is used to servicing the sort of old, worn out Cal. 321 watches that I see on my bench on a regular basis, this is a gravy job simply putting together a movement with new parts...

This is just marketing for the consumption by people who don’t know any better.

 

"Watchmaker" is a word that really doesn't apply except to the likes of Roger Smith, Philippe Dufour and the late George Daniels who actually design a movement and make the parts themselves. Workers who assemble pre-made, pre-finished watch parts is hardly a maker. But that is just how we use the word 'watchmaker' when they are really watch assemblers or watch repairers. Skilled, obviously, but a far cry from a real maker. I see no benefit from having one technician assemble a watch from beginning to end. Watch repairers do that every day, and that includes diagnosing movements that have worn or broken parts and bringing it back to spec. That's a far more skilled job than being given a tray of perfect, new parts and assembling them according to a plan. To me it's just marketing BS, but plenty of people are lapping up the idea of a single man or woman assembling and adjusting their watch, making it something special.

 

Certified Master Watchmakers had to build a timepiece out of raw materials such as brass sheets, steel rod, and so forth. So in that respect, you're being insulting.

"Watchmaker" is a traditional term that just describes a certain set of skills. "Instrument makers" are, for example, more highly skilled than "machinist'.

Don't get bent about it. If Omega wants one person in charge of the watch from start to finish, some people might find that desirable. You might be right, it might be marketing BS.

But your "far cry" does not always apply. I have a friend I've never met who "only" has CW certification who manufactures or remanufactures obsolete parts. The term "watchmaker" certainly applies.

Tom

 

I think the Ed White thing is BS anyway. That era has passed, these are new watches that have no real tie to the era, for the thing that made an Ed White desirable was its special niche in production at a certain period in history. This is just more marketing poop from a company that has no limit to what it will do to sell their watches, because they don't sell well enough on their own. Right, 007?

 

What Rolex forum did you come from?

Since they don't come with hookers and blow, clearly there are limits.

Tom

 

Not so sure, Tom. My inside contact at Omega tells me that they're working on a "Shaft" limited edition that will include these very items. But I understand there's been some difficulty with the packaging...

 

I have a Seamaster Cosmic that was put together by a single watchmaker who was individually responsible for the entire watch.
@Archer service

 

Is Omega still having trouble sourcing glittery boxes with fake gold accents from Invicta?