We want to be lied to and have bogus parts in our watches
This comes up routinely and sure enough a bunch of folks have said variations of this again.
That is words to the effect of "if a movement was derived from an ETA or Sellita a brand shouldnt give it a new number".
You know that's probably a crime right? If I took a company's product, changed it a bit but then went to market telling everyone I used that product, even referencing the OEMs part number in the promotional material I'm a dirty filthy liar.
And yet when it comes to watch movements that exactly what we want.
I've got a 100 year old Alpina with an Alpina movement inside - except its not - its a renumbered Unitas. Why did they do this, because even in 1920 we knew that if you change something it gets a new part number - otherwise its a bogus part.
A collector, I think of watches as art where the story and aesthetics are everything and function isn't that important. Into Seiko, Breitling, JLC, German independents , got a Chopard and I think I ne...
More from pete.mcconvill.watches
I'm convinced most watch complaints are made up, just to signal that the complainer is "in the know".
Never in the history of watches has a pressed clasp failed because the pressed metal failed, but complaining about a "cheap" pressed clasp is a sure win in watch social media. Same with movements, I mentioned the Damasko A-26 on a Canadian watch forum, and people dismissed it as "just a 2824 clone" with a clone Seiko winding mechanism.
So.. essentially a better hybrid of two proven movements. That's hardly the "diss" the poster thought it was.
I'm convinced most watch complaints are made up, just to signal that the complainer is "in the know".
Never in the history of watches has a pressed clasp failed because the pressed metal failed, but complaining about a "cheap" pressed clasp is a sure win in watch social media. Same with movements, I mentioned the Damasko A-26 on a Canadian watch forum, and people dismissed it as "just a 2824 clone" with a clone Seiko winding mechanism.
So.. essentially a better hybrid of two proven movements. That's hardly the "diss" the poster thought it was.
Exactly.
I'd also add a paradox - that the desire to focus on things like in-house or pressed clasps or signed crowns (yes, thats how petty we've become) is that you dont actually have to know much to sound like you are in the know.
A little nugget that comes to mind was Teddy B comparing two watches, one had a higher water resistance than the other and he basically said 'this makes no difference but if you cant find another point of difference you could use this'.
Nice, easy, facts - whether they have any meaning or not, whether they have any actual import, are so much cleaner and less demanding than analysis and judgement about things that really matter.
I think the hobby is full of lots of people that know more than they understand.
Exactly.
I'd also add a paradox - that the desire to focus on things like in-house or pressed clasps or signed crowns (yes, thats how petty we've become) is that you dont actually have to know much to sound like you are in the know.
A little nugget that comes to mind was Teddy B comparing two watches, one had a higher water resistance than the other and he basically said 'this makes no difference but if you cant find another point of difference you could use this'.
Nice, easy, facts - whether they have any meaning or not, whether they have any actual import, are so much cleaner and less demanding than analysis and judgement about things that really matter.
I think the hobby is full of lots of people that know more than they understand.
I think a lot of reviewers shy away from subjective criteria like design because it might alienate some viewers, so they stick to spec sheets, as they can easily "defend" their conclusions.
It's easy to say G-Shocks are best because they have 200m WR, but it's harder to say an A168 or Timex Atlantis is likely a better everyday/field watch, because they wear better due to being slimmer. 200m WR is clearly a bigger number than 30m or 100m, even though 99.99% of people don't need 200m WR.
I think a lot of reviewers shy away from subjective criteria like design because it might alienate some viewers, so they stick to spec sheets, as they can easily "defend" their conclusions.
It's easy to say G-Shocks are best because they have 200m WR, but it's harder to say an A168 or Timex Atlantis is likely a better everyday/field watch, because they wear better due to being slimmer. 200m WR is clearly a bigger number than 30m or 100m, even though 99.99% of people don't need 200m WR.
I'll be less charitable - 99% of reviewers shy away from qualitative (subtly but significantly different to subjective) criteria because they have no clue what to say beyond "i like this" or perhaps a few meaningless buzzwords like timeless or versatile (meaning lots of other people say it ok so this is risk free).
I'll be less charitable - 99% of reviewers shy away from qualitative (subtly but significantly different to subjective) criteria because they have no clue what to say beyond "i like this" or perhaps a few meaningless buzzwords like timeless or versatile (meaning lots of other people say it ok so this is risk free).
Based on this reply, is it safe to assume you agree with me that an influencer screaming "diety level" about a cheap $15 CAD watch is being insincere, and merely pandering to people who would otherwise likely not be interested in their content?
It's my current pet peeve... pretending a cheep and cheerful watch is anything but a cheep and cheerful watch.
Based on this reply, is it safe to assume you agree with me that an influencer screaming "diety level" about a cheap $15 CAD watch is being insincere, and merely pandering to people who would otherwise likely not be interested in their content?
It's my current pet peeve... pretending a cheep and cheerful watch is anything but a cheep and cheerful watch.
Absolutely.
The key to social media success (in watches but probably everywhere) is to have unremarkable opinions but remarkable presentation.
So rending your clothes while maintaining orthodoxy is a winning strategy.
I just find it odd trying to pass off other folks "engine" as their own work.
Apparently it's like that in the car industry too - someone told me on this forum that Pagani cars use an Audi(?) engine!!
I don't drive & am a life long biker, & this very rarely happens in that industry. Admittedly there's a few "microbrands" in the motorcycle industry that use others engines but these are very much a minority and largely regarded as boutique brands or specials.
That's why I regard non-in-house companies as "watch assemblers" & not true watchmakers. ..tho I do realise I'm in the minority, that's my perspective.
Absolutely.
The key to social media success (in watches but probably everywhere) is to have unremarkable opinions but remarkable presentation.
So rending your clothes while maintaining orthodoxy is a winning strategy.
Love the channel, keep up the good work making us think, Cheers mate 👍
I just find it odd trying to pass off other folks "engine" as their own work.
Apparently it's like that in the car industry too - someone told me on this forum that Pagani cars use an Audi(?) engine!!
I don't drive & am a life long biker, & this very rarely happens in that industry. Admittedly there's a few "microbrands" in the motorcycle industry that use others engines but these are very much a minority and largely regarded as boutique brands or specials.
That's why I regard non-in-house companies as "watch assemblers" & not true watchmakers. ..tho I do realise I'm in the minority, that's my perspective.
I work in aviation and this is really common. One thing we see occasionally - company a makes bulk items - say bolts, for 1 dollar each. These bolts were well made, sample tested, passed and sold as part number x meeting a standard for non structural loads.
Company B buys 10,000 bolts, xrays every single one, picks out the 1000 that passed the more demanding standard, gives them a new part number y and sells them at 20 dollars each as structural bolts.
The bolts didnt change - but the testing, the promises, the usage and the person carrying the can did - so a new part number. Same deal with a movement.
Copying movements, or aspects of movements, makes perfect sense to me. The same is true for trying to improve an existing design. Even if you increase its function by a small amount, it is still an improvement. (Or if you messed it up, it doesn't reflect badly on the original design if you sell it under your brand.)
I don’t have any problem with companies renaming a movement that they have modified. What I don’t like is the claim that they are “in house” when they are decorated or when a metal part is replaced with silicon.
As to milled clasps and signed crowns, this is an extra effort activity that adds to the higher degree of luxury and aesthetics.
I work in aviation and this is really common. One thing we see occasionally - company a makes bulk items - say bolts, for 1 dollar each. These bolts were well made, sample tested, passed and sold as part number x meeting a standard for non structural loads.
Company B buys 10,000 bolts, xrays every single one, picks out the 1000 that passed the more demanding standard, gives them a new part number y and sells them at 20 dollars each as structural bolts.
The bolts didnt change - but the testing, the promises, the usage and the person carrying the can did - so a new part number. Same deal with a movement.
Makes sense,& I get it - it's just odd coming from a motorcycle perspective where manufacturers don't want to supply their competitors with their engines.
Would love it if you could show a little bit about your job on your channel as I'm sure a lot of us watch folks are very interested in aviation - you mentioned some of the aircraft & showed a couple of pics - more please 😁
That brings up a good point. How much modification is enough to call it "in house movement".
Decoration? Regulation to a higher standard? Replacement of parts to custom designed components? What if the brands requests changes done at the manufacturing plant?
Wouldn't it all be in a spectrum?
Here's the tricky part - what matters changes with every watch. What matters for a hard core technical diver is different to a luxury desk diver is different to a dive style GADA watch is different to a generic sports watch is different to a dress watch. What matters changes, more than anything, based on what the watch designer is trying to achieve and who that watch is for.
Take the Tudor Pelagos 39 and the Breitling SuperOcean. Superficially they are similar watches but in truth they are aiming at two entirely different audiences. The Breitling is about fun, beaches, bbqs, demin and t shirts. The Tudor is about dressing up, bars and casinos, luxury boats. What matters for these watches is, therefore, wildly at odds with each other. What is good for one could well be bad for the other.
So if I had to say there is one thing missing from pretty much every watch reivew that should instead be front and centre in every review are the answers to the simple questions:
what is the brand trying to do?
who is this watch for?
does it succeed in its aims and suit its intended audience.