My love / hate relationship with Sea-gull movements

After reading the above article. What is your general feeling towards Sea-gull?

It is true that many Chinese maker offers near copies of Japanese & Swiss movement designs. Nangning, Diximont Gongzhou, Hanzhou, Liaoning, etc. But it seems to me that Sea-gull dedicate almost their entire product line to this process. Why not retain one or two Chinese original like the ST5?

Another important point that was raised was the fact that, although these movements are near copies. Certain aspect of the manufacturing process was simplified to suite the Chinese maker. There are also functional add-ons that was retrofitted to give them an edge on the market.

It is true that no movement came out of thin air. ETA & Seiko all based their current design off other historical models. But there are certain things you learn on the way when one go through such evolving process. Let us take ST16, one of the first Sea-gull copy movement for example. It suffers from high amplitude issues. These problems gets passed consequently to its other movements that is based off the ST16. ST25 has loud rotor noise, perhaps due to the large rotor weight, there are even reports of the rotor separating at the bearing after just some short term of use. As I mentioned in another thread, ST19's click spring is prong to breakage resulting in a manual watch you can not wind. Sea-gull did recall a batch in the past and probably already have improved the said click-spring design. Don't get me wrong, the problems are rather minor and Sea-gull's QC is very decent. I just wish that Sea-gull spend more time, as they historically have, on truly evolving a competent design instead of going for low hanging fruits, copying what is commercially successful.

Chascomm said:

You do realize that Koimaster cut-and-pasted that entire article verbatim from the (currently defunct) Chinese Watch Industry Wiki to his own forum site?

As the the question of 'disappointment' with clones; I don't think the act of reverse-engineering a public domain design is the end of the story.

For example, Hangzhou watch factory cloned a popular Seiko design but then added a very diverse range of optional enhancements to produce movements that are unlike anything else on the market. Their most popular variant of the 2-series is the 2089 which (being a skeleton) is clearly meeting a different niche to a Seiko 7s26 or variant thereof. Similarly the bread-and-butter of Guangzhou Five Goats company is a Miyota clone (DG2813), but some of the many variant models are even more creative than those of the Hangzhou 2-series. There is even one which uses a combination of open-heart and off-set sub-dials to produce the visual illusion of two movements. Clearly that is more than 'just a clone'. And then there is the thinned-down DG48 series that will fit cases designed for the ETA 2824, and the even thinner DG69 (some plate redesign was required to achieve this) that is of comparable dimensions to the ETA 2892, but also comes in a handwinding-only variant. Returning to Sea-Gull, the ST19 is obviously an update of the ST3 which itself was cloned from the Venus 175 (via the original Swiss tooling), but it is now available as an automatic (ST1940) which would have been unthinkable back when Venus originally designed the 175.

So for what it's worth, there's another way of looking at the clone thing. Although I agree that it is a bit disappointing that the Chinese watch industry has lately seen much greater prominence given to watch movements that look obviously like copies (especially of the ETA 2824) as this does tend to encourage an attitude already embedded in the minds of many consumers to see a Chinese product and look for what it was copied from.

Click to expand...

I didn't know the entire article was cut-and-paste from the Chinese watch industry Wiki. Chascomm you probably contributed a lot in the original content. My sincere apologies and thank you for the clarification.

As for the issue with clones. Basically, I completely agree that copying movement designs is not necessary bad. As you pointed out, both Hangzhou and Guangzhou seriously invested in the process of improving the original designs. And bringing to market many creative complications in the process. I think by doing so, they have elevated an already matured movement design into something even better. I am a big fan of the DG28, 48 btw, and didn't even know about DG69, thank you for sharing that.

But Sea-gull, as a whole, seems to me is riding mostly on the success of others. Their entire lineup seems to be copies of successful models by other makers. I do see some additional add-on complications, but it seems they could dedicate more time on improving these designs further. A good example is the ST16. They have use it for so long and have so many iterations, why not resolve the high amplitude issues already? IMHO, this shows the lack of depth and eagerness only to rush products to market. So instead of dedicating on a wide range of offerings, I'd love to see them truly concentrate on a few designs. Again, it is not due to the lack of ability, I really like my ST19 with the add-on moonphase and calendar complication. It is not just a mere copy of the Venus 175 as you mentioned.

Another point I like to raise. Chinese watch industry as a whole can really shake off that impostor image given the right opportunities. After looking at many photos in AlbertaTime's recent travel post. Chinese owned Rossini/Eterna/Corum has the technical know-how & funding to create a successful original movement design. Such as the Calibre 39

By combining the strength of Chinese mass production cost innovation with historical Swiss identity. Dare I say a new breed of hybrid watches might be on the horizon?

We are a long way from the days of the notoriously unreliable Guangzhou SG3A, right?

AlbertaTime said:

Specific to the ST5...

While in Tianjin in 2013, I brought up the ST5 movement to Mr. Jiang, owner and curator of the Tianjin Watch and Clock Collector's Association Museum (and highly and closely connected with Tianjin Sea-Gull), asking about the whereabouts of the ST5 tooling.

He stated that , back in the day, regardless the very good quality of the ST5 movement, spectacular over-production of ST5 movements and watches had almost caused the death of Tianjin Sea-Gull as a viable business, so the tooling was destroyed to prevent further production. I thnk that's a shame because I think the ST5 would have made a worthy replacement for micro-barnds now starved of ETA movements for their simple three handers.

As it happens, though, the ladies-sized ST6 movement was much cheaper to manufacture, not over-produced, workable and reliable as a hand-wind or automatic even in men's sized watches, and that single movement probably saved Sea-Gull.

Click to expand...

Thank you Ron for sharing that. It is a shame that the original ST5 tooling were destroyed. I wonder if the ST7 tooling were destroyed as well? I think ST5D, ST7 or even the Shanghai B automatic would be some very competitive candidates as ETA replacements.

Could you elaborate on how the lady size ST6 actually saved Sea-gull? Is it because these small ST6 is inexpensive to produce so it can compete directly with the even cheaper quartz? I always wondered about the existence of ETA movements in VCM sea-gull with MADE IN CHINA markings. This all make sense now, since Tianjin didn't have any more ST5, the discontinued batches of ETA must have been a viable option at the time.

Chascomm said:

And that is the kind of perspective that we need when discussing what we think is 'best' for the industry.

Click to expand...

Precisely my point. Should the makers blindly copies everything under the sun? Or stick with one mature design and refine it further? A diverse range of products can be achieved with just one or two good core movements

I think the modular design like the Eterna Calibre 39 can accommodate the entire range of mechanical movements from just this one design alone. On the public domain. I don't see why Sea-gull can't start with the decent enough 2892 aka ST18 and add complications such as calendar, moonphase etc. Throw in a Dubois Depraz style modular chronograph and you have the whole product line. This will compete directly to the Swiss & Japanese giants and Sea-gull can concentrate on improving the details of the core movement. Like ETA, offer their movements with different grades of finishing and custom add-ons so it can still separate lucrative pricing tiers system. Just my 2¢

ed21x said:

I don't believe that Seagull is blindly copying stuff when the 2824 and 2894 are all designs that have fallen to the public domain.

Outside of that, the ST16 and ST25 movements are really great. Especially the ST25, an original Seagull design that has a date pusher (similar to the valjoux 7753) and accommodations for a big date, moonphase, and power reserve complications. These two movements alone could carry the entire Seagull line, and we're seeing far more ST25s and far fewer ST2130s lately, indicating that Seagull is moving away from non-inhouse developed designs.

Click to expand...

I agree to disagree.

It is true that 2824 and 2892 (not 2894 which is a chrono movement) both fall into the public domain. But so are hundreds of out of patent movements from all across the world. Why not target any one else?
Just to provide a scope on what is/was available. Check out - ranfft's movement database here - bidfun-db Archive: Watch Movements , just about every one of the vintage movement could potentially be a clone candidate.

And as I mentioned prior on this thread. It is a known fact that ST16 has high amplitude issues. The results of some example creates "knocking" - so much excess movement on the balance wheel, the impulse jewel actually knocks on the back of the pallet fork, wondering why some ST16 gain significantly? And also ST25 is not an all original Sea-gull creation. It was developed in 2003 by famous Sea-gull watchmaker "周文霞", Chou borrowed Rolex bridge design in the ST25. A very important note, although it has been created some 10 years ago. The ST25 rotor noise and rotor breakage report can still be found today. All in all, it shows modern Sea-gull's is dedicated not on refining their existing products. But perpetually "copying" other success models from other makers.

If we were to look into Sea-gull' historical models. They were perpetually seeking for new ideas and refining themselves in the process. Hence my love towards VCM era Sea-gulls.
Here is a link to Chinese language site watchlead that explains the various models made by Sea-gull, both historical and modern. Thanks Chascomm. Enjoy ~ ¹µÍ¨´Óо¿ªÊ¼£¡×ªÌù¿×µÄ¡¶º£Å¸»úо¼òÊ·¸Å¿ö¡·£¨¼¼Êõ×ÊÁÏÌû£¬Îðɾ£¡ÍûÖö¥£©_Ãû±íͨ - Powered by Discuz!

Thanks for sharing, xingfenzhen. This article really touched me

海鸥手表å�-ç'žæ-¥åŽ‹åˆ¶æ›¾å�œäº§2次欲翻身逆è¢.--å¿«æ˜"ç�†è´¢ç½'

Though the article date to 2012. The information is still relevant and let me translate it a bit

Tianjin Sea-gull, though a global movement maker, most prolific Chinese watch factory and historic VCM brand is actually in a perpetual struggle. Both internal or external.

Internal problems
1. The lack of watchmaking talents - base level factory worker averages about RMB 2000 a month and is far from a competitive wage in Tianjin. The solitary, long hours, and monotony nature of watchmaking is hard for the young generation. Couple that with the lack of formal support from the state to provide proper tools and education. Makes watchmaker a dwindling trade even in Tianjin. The lack of talent translates directly into future R&D and viability of the company
2. Brand identity - as we talked about a lot in this thread, Sea-gulls items are too diverse, ranging from as low as $30 to a $165000 perpetual calendar minute repeater tourbillion. Previous partnership did not fare well though they were hopefull that Chow Tai Fook jewellery chain could introduce modern management style with clear roadmap for brand building.

External threats

1. Intellectual infringement issues - Being seen by the Swiss and Japanese as a potential threat. Sea-gull is being sued in multiple countries on their tourbillion designs. But due to the lack of resources and legal know how, its a losing battle.
2. Market manipulation - Many Swiss brands refuses to supply their inventory to shops that also carries Sea-gull branded items. Thus domestic distributors have no choice but to drop their Sea-gull line. As the result, Sea-gull is forced to opened up their own company stores.
3. Limited capital. The company stores aren't able to distribute efficiently, average turn around time is a year and half so even when innovative models are introduced. Being scared it will hinder sale of existing line, the new models won't be available for at least two years. This situation is self perpetuating, slow turn around tights up capital, stagnate marketing and growth potentials

Couple that with corruption charges I am simply shocked how does Sea-gull still stay in business and still have any R&D. It is a miracle that it hasn't close its door yet. Sigh ~

Chascomm said:

Weighing against all of that is the fact that manufacture of Sea-Gull's most successful lines of uncased movements for export is distributed across several major factories other than Tianjin, resulting in an output that accounts for a quarter of all the world's mechanical watch movements. The assembly and sale of Sea-Gull branded watches has always been the smaller part of the business.

Also, in the past couple of years we've seen various articles, interviews and watch fair presentations, reported on this forum, indicating a shift in Sea-Gull brand focus towards the premium end of the market. This includes the development of high-grade movements that are reserved exclusively for in-house use. It may well be that the kinds of watches which we forum members most readily associate with the Sea-Gull name will in future only be produced under other brands, some of which will be Sea-Gull owned brands, and few of them assembled in Tianjin. However to achieve these goals, the management may need to consider new approaches to employment conditions and training in order to grow the kind of skilled workforce needed for the future.

Perhaps Ron may be able to offer some insights, based on his visits to the factory after the date on which that article was published, regarding any evidence of a change in factory culture.

Click to expand...

Chascomm you are certainly right about Sea-gull's output of quarter of world's OEM movements. And I think this figure might even be higher now since the data dates to 2010~2011ish. However, the various issue that was raised in the article was still no less concerning. I initially came to the post believing that Sea-gull is a huge global company with a proper infrastructure for R&D and future growth road map. It saddens me to think even this horological giant does not escape the fate of many Chinese companies - a contract manufacturer working on very little margin, with little means to escape this cycle.

I think whatever opinion I had initially regarding Sea-gull has certainly been changed. As a business it needs to do whatever it can to compete in the global market. Cloning popular movements may not be glamorous or innovative. But it is completely understandable why Sea-gull chose this route. In its place, I am excited to see company such as Rossini that certainly have the appearance of a domestic luxury brand. Which might one day break the common stereotype of Chinese watches industry offers nothing original and a being mere contract manufacturer.