Is Ball's "in-house" Traveler's GMT movement really an "in-house" movement?

I’ve never seen anything to stipulate it is a modified 9075. I see your point though, it is strongly close in resemblance.

Simple answer, nope. I trust they are as Swiss as I am Martian. I personally would not trust anything from them for a multitude of reasons. Bought heritage, Chinese conglomerate, etc, aside the owners who have them tend to really like them.

The real question is, does it matter?

"In-house" has no real definition, so if they are making the movement based on another movement it's still "in-house".

It’s hardly an “in-house” movement if they are using a generic design and just happen to be putting it together themselves. That’s how Bremont and TAG got in trouble. If nothing else, the term “in-house” strongly suggests that the movement was both designed and built on a proprietary basis, and is not generally available outside of the brand.

A 9075 isn't a "generic" design, it's a Miyota design.

What if they changes aspect of a base 9075 to make it different, but visually similar, or had Ja Joux Perret make a movement based on the 9075 specifically for them? Kenisi makes movements for other brands, does that now mean Tudor doesn't have "in-house" movements? Is the Oris Cal. 400 "in-house"? Oris doesn't make it themselves? Rolex bought out it's movement manufacturer, does that mean Rolex doesn't have "true in-house" movements?

The point I am getting at is there is no real way to define "in-house", so while you may think it means one thing, others will interpret it differently, meaning it is a nearly meaningless term.

I said something like this yesterday and got a response indicating that someone thought that I was making it up. 45 minutes on the internet later and I found that I was right. I have no animus towards Ball, it is just that they always appear to be hiding something.

I hear what you’re saying, but there’s a massive difference between claiming a movement has been manufactured “in-house” to purchasing and decorating an ebauche supplied by an outside company like Sellita, ETA, Miyota, SII, TMI, etc. to any company that wishes to purchase them.

As for your examples, Tudor owns a majority stake in Kenissi in partnership with Breitling and Chanel (go figure as to that last one), but Tudor spent the money to develop their movement designs, which no other with the exception of the B01 chronograph, which Breitling developed. Tudor owns the intellectual property associated with those movements and has control over which companies may incorporate them into their watches.

As to Oris, I have never seen anything that indicates that Oris doesn’t manufacture the Cal. 400 themselves, but even if they outsourced that aspect of the movement, they designed the whole of the movement, and own the rights to the intellectual property, much in the way that Tudor does for its movements.

As for Rolex, they bought out their longtime movement manufacturer in 2004. Once they did that, their movements went in-house also, and no other company uses the same movements as Rolex.

After a little research I found the answer.

The 7309 is a “proprietary” movement developed by Ball with the aid of Soprod. The 7337-C movement adds a traveler GMT module.

So is this a manufacture movement? Maybe. Proprietary means only Ball can use it (or any patented design features) and is that enough? Depends on your definition.

That’s the thing, the mor owners love them, but many simply don’t trust them because of how they handle things. If they were more up front, people would not care, but no one like ms being deceived. Or, blocking people on their social media feed when asked “how come my watch my serviced watch came from China?” It’s a fair question, but nope, blocked.

At this point, enough fans don’t care about that, but they should care about brand perception.

when u look at the Soprod A100 it looks like the base is same. It also has the same stamp of 612 onto the movement itself. below you can view the Soprod movement

Yes, I agree with your point that trying to hide the sourcing/manufacture of their movements just causes people to distrust the company. I asked the Ball USA sales director who the in-house movement manufacturer is. He acknowledged that Ball didn't make the movements, but the movements were designed and manufactured specifically for Ball. He wouldn't tell me if it's Chinese, Japanase, Swiss, etc.

If it's Soprod, that's fine. I just don't understand why there is a need to hide it. When they hide the manufacturer it makes people feel like the movements could be Miyota, or other cheap Chinese manufacture as Ball is a Chinese owned company. Many of the other components come from China as well.

There's just no need to hide the manufacture.

Thing is that their movement manufacturer had an exclusive or primary relationship with Rolex for many years

Allison has had a contract with GM to make transmissions for their trucks for many years, that doesn't make Allison transmissions "in-house" with GM.