Tudor are in house manufacturers why are Omega only i house design?

U ulackfocus

Omega has movement makers in the Swatch Group, so why bother to spend all that money to tool up when you have the capability already in group? With the global market, "in-house" is becoming an anachronism.

VetPsychWars

I'll bet most people don't care, either. If it's shiny! on the wrist and it keeps time, all that matters.

Tom

P PatrickJ

This is true. There are many omega and rolex owner that have no idea of the technology.

al128

(or b/c it comes with a crown on the dial) ;-)

al128

yeah ... i got the feeling that by hanging out with the watch freaks ... we tend to skew our perception. People walk into ADs and buy watch x ... because "they like it better"

(or b/c it comes with a crown on the dial) ;-)
cheers

STANDY

You were in the thick of a rather interesting post not long ago that answer,s all the questions your asking ( don't quiet remember the thread)

Nobel Prize

Not knowing the details of those houses I can guess of course in the Case of Tudor not much as they are made by Rolex and often with Rolex parts.

Most importantly, who really cares? it's all marketing really.

As you go deeper and deeper into any in-house you will find that either parts, or materials, or of course equipment are not in-house...in many cases it is also a fallacy to believe in house guarantees any kind of quality. It does not, and in many cases it actually means LESS quality. Why?, because the advantage to sourcing is that you can get the "best" you can get from a specialized maker, rather than the best "YOU" can make. Ig there is a specialist on, for example, Saphire crystal...why would you invest enormous amount of money on development and resources to make your own...which will most likely not be as good?...and this applies to most parts.

Companies like Panera or Cartier are better off using ETA movements than in house movements that may not be as reliable.

Another strategy (Rolex) is to actually buy third party companies and thus making their product "in house" is that accurate? I don't know, the parts are now made exclusively for them but the companies are the same they use to source from.

The most important part of "in house' for me is to have a cohesive in house product design, development and Brand control. THAT is what makes Rolex Rolex, they have full control over their Brand, as opposed to Omega who is part of a larger company, and a public one at that, and bound to commercial agreements and boards of investors that have business rather than brand or watchmaking in mind. Fortunately to date Omega splits their lines between the more commercial, Swatch like, gimmicky and endless LE's and the development of new technologies, movements and higher end pieces (within their segment) So you have 10 versions of the dark side of the moon on one hand, and Bond and Snoopy....and you have the Sedna panda, and the antimagnetic movements etc etc etc

Nobel Prize

Not knowing the details of those houses I can guess of course in the Case of Tudor not much as they are made by Rolex and often with Rolex parts.

Most importantly, who really cares? it's all marketing really.

As you go deeper and deeper into any in-house you will find that either parts, or materials, or of course equipment are not in-house...in many cases it is also a fallacy to believe in house guarantees any kind of quality. It does not, and in many cases it actually means LESS quality. Why?, because the advantage to sourcing is that you can get the "best" you can get from a specialized maker, rather than the best "YOU" can make. Ig there is a specialist on, for example, Saphire crystal...why would you invest enormous amount of money on development and resources to make your own...which will most likely not be as good?...and this applies to most parts.

Companies like Panera or Cartier are better off using ETA movements than in house movements that may not be as reliable.

Another strategy (Rolex) is to actually buy third party companies and thus making their product "in house" is that accurate? I don't know, the parts are now made exclusively for them but the companies are the same they use to source from.

The most important part of "in house' for me is to have a cohesive in house product design, development and Brand control. THAT is what makes Rolex Rolex, they have full control over their Brand, as opposed to Omega who is part of a larger company, and a public one at that, and bound to commercial agreements and boards of investors that have business rather than brand or watchmaking in mind. Fortunately to date Omega splits their lines between the more commercial, Swatch like, gimmicky and endless LE's and the development of new technologies, movements and higher end pieces (within their segment) So you have 10 versions of the dark side of the moon on one hand, and Bond and Snoopy....and you have the Sedna panda, and the antimagnetic movements etc etc etc

al128

if you want REAL in house ... than you might also look into the Grand Seiko ... They are rumored to even produce their own lubricants ... and their lume is so good that the actually franchise off the watered down version of it to swiss companies ;-)

iow they are extremely vertically integrated ... nice looking watches, too

I have a weak spot for Breitling (i know - but it was my first good watch long before you could read up stuff on the internets) ... but I am fairly sure that their in-house stuff is basically a bunch of BS (the claim, not the movement as such) ...

cheers Al

Nobel Prize

Not knowing the details of thosindividual senderdual brands. I can guess of course in the Case of Tudor not much as they are made by Rolex and often with Rolex parts.

Most importantly, who really cares? it's all marketing really.

As you go deeper and deeper into any in-house you will find that either parts, or materials, or of course equipment are not in-house...in many cases it is also a fallacy to believe in house guarantees any kind of quality. It does not, and in many cases it actually means LESS quality. Why?, because the advantage to sourcing is that you can get the "best" you can get from a specialized maker, rather than the best "YOU" can make. Ig there is a specialist on, for example, Saphire crystal...why would you invest enormous amount of money on development and resources to make your own...which will most likely not be as good?...and this applies to most parts.

Companies like Panera or Cartier are better off using ETA movements than in house movements that may not be as reliable.

Another strategy (Rolex) is to actually buy third party companies and thus making their product "in house" is that accurate? I don't know, the parts are now made exclusively for them but the companies are the same they use to source from.

The most important part of "in house' for me is to have a cohesive in house product design, development and Brand control. THAT is what makes Rolex Rolex, they have full control over their Brand, as opposed to Omega who is part of a larger company, and a public one at that, and bound to commercial agreements and boards of investors that have business rather than brand or watchmaking in mind. Fortunately to date Omega splits their lines between the more commercial, Swatch like, gimmicky and endless LE's and the development of new technologies, movements and higher end pieces (within their segment) So you have 10 versions of the dark side of the moon on one hand, and Bond and Snoopy....and you have the Sedna panda, and the antimagnetic movements etc etc etc

Archer

Yes that's accurate - it was only a few years ago that Rolex bought out Aegler completely, even though the building had a Rolex sign on it long before that happened. And I agree that "in-house" (whatever that means), does not guarantee you anything in terms of quality. It's more about exclusivity than anything, and it's a fairly new marketing contrivance IMO and not how the Swiss industry has traditionally worked.

Cheers, Al

Archer

Yes that's accurate - it was only a few years ago that Rolex bought out Aegler completely, even though the building had a Rolex sign on it long before that happened. And I agree that "in-house" (whatever that means), does not guarantee you anything in terms of quality. It's more about exclusivity than anything, and it's a fairly new marketing contrivance IMO and not how the Swiss industry has traditionally worked.

Cheers, Al

P PatrickJ

Tudor claim their new movement is in house manufactured.

The 8500 and above are Omega designed but still manufactured and put together in ETA granges. Is this right? It is what I have read.

Omega have done a great job with the 8500 and its variations, no doubt. However, if others are manufacturing and assembling on their own why the hell is Omega taking forever to do this?