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?

 

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.

 

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

Tom

 

Yes this makes sense and was in the back of my mind. With the exception of Rolex, JLC and the haute horology guys it makes you think how much of the movements are in house and how much of the parts are made and outsourced elsewhere they assemble in house. It took years to go from Angler movements to Rolex taking total control. , How can Bristling,Tudor and others do it so fast.

 

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

 

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

 

Bingo. The brand name means a LOT to people, and to most 'success' is spelled R O L E X.

 

I got your point. I am interested how Tudor and Breitling manufacture their parts and assemble them. How much is done by them and how much is done by other people. Any ideas or do you know who may know? It is interesting to see how much of this in house stuff is marketing and how much is real.

 

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)

 

It was relating to Rolex and omega. To be fair Rolex are different as their transition to in house had been over a longer period. I am more interested in companies like Tudor and Breitling that have made the switch in a much shorter time frame. How much is in house and how much outside help did they receive from other manufacturers?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I am happy with Omega, it has been my nunber one brand since my uncle showed me his when I was in school. One day I may have a submariner from my number two brand or may end up getting another Omega instead

 

Thanks for this great insight. It reminded me it is about principles rather than individual brands.

 

I agree.

 

If you mean everything made by Swatch then they practically own 3 quarters of the markets with their ETA and Co-axial movements lol. That term is such doo doo in my opinion.

 

Yeah I agree 100% nothing is honestly truly "in house" you have Nivarox who makes the mainsprings for almost every watchmaker besides tag, also tri tech who makes the luminova for almost every watchmaker, it all comes down to who made it first, they all hold patents. Rolex gets its overcoils from Breguet and shock protectors from KIF. "In house" is used entirely out of context.

 

Tudors are not "In house" they use all ETA movements, not to say that it is a bad thing they're great movements but not definitely in house.
You should check out this book called Wristwatch annual, the latest one was just released I highly recommend you get it.

 

That's incorrect - the Tudor North Flag uses a manufacture movement, the MT5621...I assume they will be rolling these out to other models in the future.