I think the distinction people in that mindset are after is in the architecture, not finishing, so yes, if that mattered to me I'd be put off.

 

It's essentially what Johannes Kallinich allegedly did with the Eta movement in the below watch, albeit it wasn't a clone movement and he did modify the original movement significantly. Review: Johannes Kallinich Meisterwerk

 

Hi,
as long as the base of movement is indicated and the price is accordingly there is no problem IMO.
we can see this clearly with largely customized/modified unitas movement from certain brands.
the problem would be to pass the movement off as manufactured in house.

 

Happens all the time - there is no 'what if?'

 

Would you be able to mention a brand doing this especifically?

It would be interesting to know the ones that are doing with the ETA 2824 geartrain and escapement

 

Boost sales to customers they view as suckers? I'd want to be able to sell my watches to everyone without knowingly attempting to cheat .

Yea, not a good move if they want to remain viable.

 

I think transparency is important. My favourite watch is one where a very good watchmaker took a Unitas movement, disassembled it, decorated, adjusted, regulated, and in some areas upgraded it. The basic architecture is Unitas, but what matters to me is the look, performance, and the care and attention somebody has taken with it.

 

On one hand, I might actually appreciate that it could be locally serviced, and if necessary, fixed with plain off the shelf parts. I'd also hope that if complete disassembly was involved, I'd be receiving a factory regulated movement.

On the other, if they were marketing as an in house movement, the dishonesty would give me pause.

But I'm not one to dwell on "in-house" even if I have a few from the Atelier studios of such brands as Seiko, Vostok, and Casio...

 

The watch industry, historically has always done things like this.
As others have said, the transparency matters - if the improvements and changes are acknowledged as in-house and the base is credited, then all is well

If you try and pretend it was you own idea, then you better hope nobody notices or the consequences are embarrassing - ask TAG about their Seiko import - and for a small brand, potentially catastrophic.

 

Depends on the house

 

Imagine a brand wants to boost sales and prestige by introducing an in-house movement in their new watches, aiming to match the quality of an ETA 2824.

But then they realize the cost and effort involved in developing something comparable, so they look for alternatives.

What if the solution is to take a reliable ETA 2824 clone like the PT5000, break it down, and reassemble it with custom plates and fancy decoration to hide its origins? It would offer great performance, differentiation, and a luxurious look without the heavy R&D investment.

Would you still see it as honest, or would you feel misled by the brand?


View attachment 18711124

Ball's Cal 7337 "in-house" traveler GMT is a Soprod M100 with a Ball module strapped to it.

Tag has done this, Panerai has most definitely done this. These sorts of stunts are usually not good for your brand image.

Generally, the more transparency the better. Nobody's been critical of Tag's TH31 replacing Caliber 5, because Tag was honest about what it is. It's from AMT, which is a subsidiary of Sellita.

If they tried to claim it as their in-house design, and people found out that it's definitely not that, it would be another major embarrassment for them.

 

There are a LOT of manufacturers who modify one or two parts in ETA or Sellita movements then rebrand the movement with their own movement number. To me, the movement doesn't qualify as in-house, but it rarely matters to me as long as it's accurate and reliable.

As far as cheap in-house movements go, I think we all forget that Seiko's mechanical movements are all in-house and very affordable. It's one reason NH35 movements are so ubiquitous in the microbrand world. Same logic about Miyota (Citizen).

 

If you want "in-house movement on a budget", look at Orient, Seiko, Vostok - however I consider an ETA in a Swatch-group brand as "in-house", so I would add Swatch, Tissot, Certina etc. to the list.

 

VOSTOK Amphibia or komandirskie?

 

they are so bad and yet so good

 

If you want "in-house movement on a budget", look at Orient, Seiko, Vostok - however I consider an ETA in a Swatch-group brand as "in-house", so I would add Swatch, Tissot, Certina etc. to the list.

VOSTOK Amphibia or komandirskie?

These. This is the answer.

 

As utilitarian and practical as they are, I was obviously not referring to any of these two:

My post refers to the brands trying to push this:

as if it would be equivalent to this:

 

Defining "in-house" might be useful in this conversation. Developed in-house, manufactured in-house, and renaming movements so that you can use either a 2824 or SW200 movement in the same model based on availability are all different things.

 

I've said it isn't binary, it's a spectrum. Every brand (sometimes on a ref. by ref. basis) is more or less vertically integrated, but it's never easy to define, so people tend to give up. There are too many things to account for and no particularly good way of figuring things out - and I have tried.

Tudor: has a quasi-separate entity Kenissi that they co-own that makes bespoke movements for them - and for other companies. In house.
Longines: has a group-domestic movement manufacturer that makes bespoke movements for them - and for other companies. Not in house.

I think what people are clamoring for is some way to distinguish one watch from another at a level that is deeper than just industrial design. If you've got 10 watches, all drastically different in material and design, but all with the same movement, some people feel a bit put off. They are "the same watch" in some essentially mechanical way.

the funny thing is they don't even have to be better movements - I mean, they frequently aren't. Nomos could make much more reliable and accurate watches rebranding top-grade Sellitas. But people just want that distinction - it's a brand-holistic thing.

 

Imagine a brand wants to boost sales and prestige by introducing an in-house movement in their new watches, aiming to match the quality of an ETA 2824.

But then they realize the cost and effort involved in developing something comparable, so they look for alternatives.

What if the solution is to take a reliable ETA 2824 clone like the PT5000, break it down, and reassemble it with custom plates and fancy decoration to hide its origins? It would offer great performance, differentiation, and a luxurious look without the heavy R&D investment.

Would you still see it as honest, or would you feel misled by the brand?


View attachment 18711124

I wouldnt feel misled if they told me but, i am in the process of starting a microbrand using NH35 movements (regulated) with custom rotors though so I guess i would be doing sort of the same thing just telling my customers.

 

I am over "in house" anything. Give me a bog-standard movement that when the one you threw in your micro brand (or even major brand) breaks, I can have a watchmaker just swap the damned thing out instead of worrying about whether some custom jewel or gear is available.

 

Imagine a brand wants to boost sales and prestige by introducing an in-house movement in their new watches, aiming to match the quality of an ETA 2824.

But then they realize the cost and effort involved in developing something comparable, so they look for alternatives.

What if the solution is to take a reliable ETA 2824 clone like the PT5000, break it down, and reassemble it with custom plates and fancy decoration to hide its origins? It would offer great performance, differentiation, and a luxurious look without the heavy R&D investment.

Would you still see it as honest, or would you feel misled by the brand?


View attachment 18711124

i don't know about 'aiming to match,' but i've read Damasko's in-house movement and the Oris Cal. 400 are still generally based on ETA 2824 architecture - the Cal. 400 obviously has a longer time reserve. both movements reportedly had a few issues at first - not so much accuracy as things that didn't quite work right or that broke, eg hand winding. Overall, though, they're reportedly somewhat more accurate.

Forgive me for saying this, but that is a butt-ugly motor vehicle. I wouldn't care what engine is under the hood. and, maybe that's important for watches - you have to like the watch for what it is, a watch, not just due to what drives it.

finally, as others have observed - Seiko, Orient, Citizen all have affordable in-house movements they use all the time. They vary in accuracy, but in my experience, they're all pretty robust for the price. Same for the basic ETA automatics, whether 2824-2 or powermatic 80, used in their less-expensive watches. you don't have to look far or spend a lot for an in-house movement.

 

Where exactly did you read that Cal 400 is "based on ETA 2824?" It's completely different. It looks completely different. It has twin barrels for one, and is a uni-directional winder for two. They're not remotely alike.

Oris caliber 400 Technical Review | Professional Watches

professionalwatches.com

 

I think the Hamilton H-20 and H-50 movements are actually ETA2824's. They don't seem to call them 'in-house' but nowhere in watch descriptions do they indicate it's a modified ETA either.

I don't see anything wrong with this, I think lots of companies use modified ETA's or Sellitas.

 

Seiko has never said that their movements are inhouse either.

I therefore do not blame Swatch group brands for using movements designed and manufactured by Swatch group without declaring they are in-house.

I dont see anything wrong with this either. We totally agree.

 

Hmmmm, sometimes 'in-house' will be like out-house.

 

Sellita's full line of movements are clones of every ETA movement whose patent has expired. You realize that Sellita movements are essentially ETA movements with a very slight difference, maybe an etra gem. The parts are 95% interchangeable and the, the hairspring, escapement come from Nivarox (An ETA owned company) Sellita was one of ETA's major outsourced assembly partners for their movements in the early 2000s.
SW 100 (based on ETA 2671)
SW 200 (based on ETA 2824)
SW 220 (based on ETA 2836)
SW 240 (based on ETA 2834)
SW 300 (based on ETA 2892)
SW 500 (based on ETA 7750)

 

Sellita's full line of movements are clones of every ETA movement whose patent has expired. You realize that Sellita movements are essentially ETA movements with a very slight difference, maybe an etra gem. The parts are 95% interchangeable and the, the hairspring, escapement come from Nivarox (An ETA owned company) Sellita was one of ETA's major outsourced assembly partners for their movements in the early 2000s.
SW 100 (based on ETA 2671)
SW 200 (based on ETA 2824)
SW 220 (based on ETA 2836)
SW 240 (based on ETA 2834)
SW 300 (based on ETA 2892)
SW 500 (based on ETA 7750)

95% of parts are not interchangeable between Sellita and ETA counterparts. Sellita changed the gear tooth profiles on a number of the gears such that they will not mesh correctly with ETA. Sellita also moved alignment pins on a number of plates and bridges. For example, the balance cocks are not interchangeable between SW200 and 2824 due to different dowel pin placements (which I suspect is why Sellita Tudors don't have the Triovis regulator that the ETA ones have).

 

As far as I know, the Raymond Weil skeleton watches use a movement custom-designed collaboratively with Sellita, and Sellita fabricates the parts, so it's like an outsourced in-house.

 

The main issue I see is the word house in the term in-house.

There are no houses involved in an in-house movement.

Its as if every word and term in the watch industry has been redefined to suit them or is outdated to the point of not being true.

 

If memory serves that's more or less what Nomos did with their Alpha caliber, and it still cost them millions of dollars to set up the manufacturing capability.

 

It is certainly much more expensive to travel from Paris to Rome if you decide to stop for lunch in Kyoto.

Only Nomos can know what motivated them to declare they needed "millions" to setup an operation for quasi-cloning an existing movement.

 

The only fair reason to replace generic movement with anything else is addressing technical issues which are not addressed yet in generally available and well known constructions.