Reply With QuoteFollowing the recent thread about Cousins, the phrase that springs to mind is "People in glass houses...."
Interesting.....
Cousins and Swatch head to the Courts
An announcement from Anthony Cousins, Managing Director
All those involved in the Independent Repair Trade are being seriously threatened by the parts embargo by Swatch. Cousins customers will know that we have been very active in fighting to restore supply. Cousins is currently vigorously engaged in court proceedings against the Swatch group which is trying to challenge Cousins’ allegations of anti-competitive conduct.
The last 18 months have been an incredibly steep learning curve for me. I have had to learn far more about Competition Law than I ever imagined the owner of a small business would need to do. Engaging and working with major international Law Firms, and getting to grips with judicial processes in different jurisdictions has also added to the load.
Initially, Cousins attempted to have this matter examined in the European Courts by requesting permission to become an Intervener in the on-going case between CEAHR and the EU Commission. Unsurprisingly, the Commission objected to this idea, and despite an appeal to a higher court, our application was unsuccessful. At the same time as this process was taking place, I have been very active with the Industry Action Fund, including attending a meeting at the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, which in turn led to a referral to the Competition and Markets Authority.
As our understanding of the Law and how to implement it grew, it became very clear that direct legal action was the necessary way to resolve this matter, and once we had exhausted all opportunities to be an Intervener with CEAHR, our London lawyers sent the required “Letter Before Action” to Swatch Group warning them that unless they restored supply, we would issue proceedings against them in the English Courts.
Swatch decided not to face us in an English Court, but instead launched their own action against Cousins in a Swiss Commercial Court, in an attempt to have that Court declare that they have not broken competition law. Cousins has engaged the services of a highly reputable Swiss Law Firm, and we are now preparing our response to the Court. We hope that the Independent Repair sector will take heart from our efforts, and give their support in gathering the industry and consumer information that will be needed.
Anthony Cousins
Managing Director, Cousins Material House LtD
ktmog6uk
marchingontogether!
Following the recent thread about Cousins, the phrase that springs to mind is "People in glass houses...."
Indeed Indeed..Originally Posted by demonloop
Aye, I'd have more sympathy for Cousins if they didn't behave like a shower of b*stards.
I'd want to protect myself from Cousins sales practices too...
Good luck to him I say.
Allegedly :)
It seems that the best thing is to support them, in this endeavour at least. If the court finds in their favour, it can only be good for the watch industry as a whole, especially the indies like Eddie. If the court finds against them, it'll set a precedent and make it hard for anyone else to make a similar challenge in the future. Could have ramifications outside the watch industry too: consider the repairability of Apple devices for example, or the forced obsolescence of printer cartridges. I think there may be some earlier test cases in that area, in fact.
Thus anyone in a position to support them, probably should support them. Not sure I'll be going out of my way to buy anything from them in the near future though.
+1.....I`ve been frustrated by the Cousins way of doing business, but I wholeheartedly support and applaud the action Anthony Cousins is taking.
The Swatch Group parts supply situation will indirectly affect many owners of their watches; if we end up with only a handful of repair businesses, who have had to make a major investment to gain (and retain) accreditation to work on the different brands, prices for servicing will continue to rise. The 'one man band' repairers won`t exist; I don`t believe the business model for an individual to gain accreditation and work this way is viable any longer.
Repairers are a dwindling bunch, and without access to Swatch parts it'll be game over for many.
Anthony Cousins clearly has his own interests at heart, but I genuinely believe his action will (if successful) benefit repairers, suppliers (AND the majority of watch owners.
Paul
I thought Swatch was at least thinking of reversing its position on restricting supply?
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...n-of-movements
Like many here I am concerned about the Swatch a groups actions and I hope Cousins are successful. That said I have found Swatch far better to deal with than Cousins.
I haven't been following this matter recently, nevertheless the expressions:chattering classes; money where mouth is; big kahunas and heavy lifting spring to mind. I agree with you Paul.
Last edited by forpetesake; 4th July 2016 at 20:52.
I think he may need it. A quick Google found this:
http://www.luptonfawcett.com/blog/no...-to-repairers/
I'm surprised the Swatch decision hasn't been challenged in the USA more vigorously.
It is a crazy situation; despite having given up watch work for a while I've ended up with a 60s Omega Constellation on my bench. The seal in the crown isn't in good condition so I need a replacement crown. I've sourced one with some difficulty so the watch will be waterproof again. Had I been unable to do so the watch would've been returned with no water resistance (or a plain generic crown). If this 'protecting the brand' or enhancing quality I'm obviously missing something.
This move will lead to a drop in quality of repairs in many cases, I fail to see any logic in their stance.
Paul
I know it isn't the same point, but the printer cartridges being keyed to lock to OEM was not deemed anti/competitive under EU law.
Reasoning was that printers have a life cycle and aren't that expensive if customer wanted to change, therefore it wasn't restrictive practice to control distribution and chip the carts so only OEM work with the printer.
Compare with car servicing where the EU forced manufacturers to provide warranty if serviced by non OEM garage and I think they look at the expected longevity and cost to change as key factors.
I think Swatch will argue that when buying a luxury watch buyers are well informed enough to consider repair costs in their purchase i.e. the life cycle point made by MB2. Whether that's true or not will be debated by the lawyers. They may also say that they're not stopping rival companies producing compatible parts, just that they are controlling the supply of their own product (which I think they're perfectly entitled to do - see Rolex as an example).
Car servicing/warranty is a very different world to luxury watches so I don't think they can be compared. People may need a car for work/family reasons but no-one needs a luxury watch.
I don't think this will end well for Cousins, and it will cost them a huge amount of money to ultimately lose the case.
There's an argument for ring-fencing service of the latest Omega co-axial models because there's far more scope to get things wrong on these. Also, I suspect Omega are still nervous about controlling the reliability of the co-axial movements by replacing the escapement parts at service time. I can`t prove this but I have my suspicions that the parts don`t tolerate wear and are better replaced every few years. However, the other approach is to make parts and training information readily available, thus allowing repairers to do a thorough job. That's how things were done in the past and I see no reason why that shouldn't continue.
I really can`t see an argument for stopping availability of parts for the older 'conventional' models which are straightforward to work on. As for the vintage watches, Omega have already made life hard by hiking the prices of parts to silly levels over recent years. I`ve been involved in restoration of many family heirloom Omega watches with great sentimental value and (until recently) I`ve been able to do a good job at a sensible price. The owners didn`t sign on to the 'luxury goods' deal and neither did the original owners, they simply have a good quality watch that they'd love to see working again. These watches will now end up languishing in drawers or being broken for parts because the price of restoration will now become prohibitive.
I have a technical background, my simple mind deals in logic and common sense. I`m therefore unable to grasp the legalities of the Cousins situation because I`ve no intention of doing a crash course in legalese. What I do know is the relationship between logic and legal judgements is tenuous to say the least. I`ve no idea how much chance Anthony Cousins has of winning his case but I sincerely hope he does. I also believe all right-minded watch enthusiasts should welcome this outcome; it will directly or indirectly benefit everyone in the long run. Personally, I`ve taken a break from watch work; whether I return will depend largely on the parts supply situation. I`m sick of having to scrape around for parts that were easy to source 18 months ago and rely on begging favours etc. I lose my hobby / pastime but for others this move will seriously affect their livelihood. It's totally wrong and the 'benefits' to watch owners are being seriously overstated.
I`m very disappointed the BHI haven`t been more pro-active in all of this. I could see a sensible compromise whereby parts are only supplied to people with some form of accreditation from a professional body such as the BHI. The wholesalers could agree to only supply certain parts to those who can provide evidence of accreditation. That's not water-tight enough for the Swiss but I think it would keep repairers, customers and wholesalers happy. An opportunity lost?
I don`t know how the numbers stack up and how much profit Swatch Group make from supplying parts, but whatever that figure is, it'll head downwards and it may fall sharper than they expect. There will be more incentive to use second-hand parts and refurbish parts in some cases, or simply replace less items until they reach the point of failure. There's also the small matter of the generic suppliers and the questionable quality of such parts. I don`t know how feasible it is to start supplying movement parts for the vintage stuff, I suspect the scale wouldn`t be large enough to justify the costs, but I`d love to see it happen.....provided the quality's OK.
Paul
The logic of forcing Swatch Group to supply parts , i.e. share their intellectual property with any odd competitor, is like argue that .. say BMW should be obliged to deliver original parts to .., say Chinese replica products
It's been discussed at length before, but it's Swatch's choice what they want to do with their parts. Rolex/Patek/JLC/Panerai etc all operate in the way Swatch are heading, so there is precedent and that's what I think Swatch's lawyers will also use in their case. Change always has negatives for some people, whether the change is illegal is another matter entirely.
I really can't see Cousins winning the case but I can see them losing a lot of money in lawyer fees. They'd be better accepting the situation and moving on IMHO.
However this works out, it has shifted my attitude towards my own mechanical watches:
1. They are all luxury items now, irrespective of price paid.
2. They are generally restricted to weekend wearing. Quartz covers the remainder.
3. Planned maintenance has been disregarded. Its now reactive only.
This leaves them marginalised, less relevant to the everyday and potentially a liability.
The destiny of my own collection is probably to either expire as consumables or become cherished as objects in themselves. I don't fancy the latter.
Disagree. We're talking about making service/repair parts available. It's not about intellectual property, that's not the issue.
I find it frustrating that so many so-called watch enthusiasts are ambivalent towards this change. Unless you've taken a watch apart and been faced with the sheer frustration of being told you cannot buy a part it needs, you cannot appreciate the futility of this. I work on my house, I work on my cars, I buy whatever parts I need to fix things and take responsibility for doing the job correctly. The consequences of mistakes are far more serious than fitting a watch part badly........at the end of the day they're only bloody watches and the arrogance displayed by the Swiss is not justified.
The world is awash with watches of various ages that require Swatch Group parts to fix and maintain. There is previous precedent by other manufacturers (Rolex, Bretling, IWC etc) who have got away with this, but the Swatch decision affects far more people, either repairers or owners.
Anthony Cousins must believes his case is can be won, at least I hope so. I would've preferred to see a big restriction of trade case fought in the USA; Swatch only have to lose in one part of the world and the lid will be off Pandora's box again.
Can`t help thinking that Cousins may have been better investing his money in generic manufacture of parts.
I'm not so sure, there are plenty of Rolex, Tudor, Breitling, IWC etc watches out there in the world...
Agreed!
I think the consensus is most people will swear by keeping their watch 'authentic' by only using manufacturer parts, especially at the high end of the market, but who's to tell what parts are aftermarket unless they're marked as such? I did read briefly that Rolex considers any non-Rolex parts in one of their watches to effectively render it counterfeit, would Omega effectively be taking the same stance if this goes ahead? Sorry, I'm not hugely well read on the matter :(
I'm surprised, isn't there availability of non-OEM Swatch parts already? Aside from the group mentioned above that only want original replacement parts used in a service/repair, isn't there a large enough demand for non-OEM parts to make their manufacture viable? So long as whoever was working on my watch was happy with the quality of the replacement parts, I wouldn't care where they came from.
Some generic parts are available, but the majority of movement parts have to be genuine. Generic mainsprings are available and they're probably made by the manufacturer who supplies the originals. Most seals are simple O-rings so generic parts can be used, the hardest part is measuring the damned things to get the right size.
Stuff like reversers, mainspring barrels and rotor bushes are likely to need replacing on older watches to get the movement running as it should. Again, these have to be sourced from the manufacturer.
It isn`t feasible for generic manufacturers to make everything available, but the more popular stuff could be supplied for a limited number of movements. It's all down to demand and the cost of manufacture.
Paul
I received this update this morning in an email from Cousins.
I really don't know why they bother. If company X does not want to sell them parts, then so be it. To me the most important thing is that consumers should be made aware of the situation so that they understand that they may have problems if they wish to maintain and service products made by company X. They may end up paying more than 1000 euros for simple parts like a bezel...
After reading how Cousins treat their customers, I have no sympathy for them. I understand that it's not cricket, what Swatch are doing, but im not going to shed a tear for Cousins. Maybe it's Karma.
Thank you for sharing this with us.
At least company X will continue to enable support of their own products. It's the owners of watches with company X engines but of otherwise different manufacture, lets say A-M, who face being screwed.
It is misleading to pretend that this is only about Cousins.
These different manufacturers, A-M, usually make it quite clear that their "engines" are from company X, so people who buy their products should be well aware that they "face being screwed".
Shed a tear for Cousins ,, They promote their allegiance to the Independant watch maker and the fight against the narrowing of supply channel of parts via the Swatch group .
Although having been previously been supplied by the Swatch group and now had their account removed , business is somewhat on the decline ..
They do give a sterling support to their ' Trade ' customers after all , a fantastic telephone support service and ambiguous returns policy via their website ignoring basic laws of contract and fair play .
It's a shame there isn't a better corporate custodian of the watchmaker in general to take up this fight as it would certainly have far more support and sincerity .
I appreciate people have had mixed experiences with Cousins' Customer service, but I am glad they are committing to that costly legal battle. I wish them luck.
I certainly wasn't implying anything of the sort, and I have sympathy for any small company or watchmaker it will affect.
Apart from Cousins.
- - - Updated - - -
Nail on head.
Exactly. The world changes, time to accept it and move on. To the consumer they're only watches, and while it's clearly going to impact Cousins business these things happen. Nothing stays the same forever and it's foolish to think it will.
The irony is that quite separately from the Cousin's action, there are rumblings that Swatch Group may change tack and start supplying small manufacturers and presumably parts suppliers before too long. Apparently they have been in discussions with the Swiss competition authority to see if this will be allowed. Ironically the cessation of supply was considered originally a way of breaking up the ETA monopoly so they have to ask permission to start supply back up. Or so I read anyhow.
I have no particular good will towards Cousins. They treat their customers with contempt and have used the ceasing of supply as an excuse to ramp up the price of some Swatch parts by a factor of 2 or 3 in some cases. If they were to go to the wall it would be unfortunate since there isn't really an alternative but I wouldn't shed a tear.
Last edited by Padders; 15th September 2016 at 11:10.
OK then. It is correct to accept that a manufacturer cannot be expected to carry an unending burden to support its products.
Perhaps too, the combined effects of improvements in production technology and relative increased costs of labour should be recognised. The economic viability of time consuming repairs using low production cost components must have changed the business model.
What I find truly vexing on a forum for watch enthusiasts, is the apparent disinterest, even denial of these developments and absence of debate as to the consequences for watch ownership. Look the other way, keep the party going, just keep spending regardless, Rolex hallowed be thy name etc. Yes, I'm clearly barking.
That is optimistic news Anthony.
Hopefully the Swiss will realise that they are not the Harrods of Europe.
Brendan.
I'm not disinterested, nor am I in denial - I've accepted Swatch's position. It's their choice to do whatever they want with their business. Such is life :)
Everyone will be working through the change curve, some get to the end quicker than others:
Last edited by Guitarfan; 15th September 2016 at 11:28.
That is optimistic news Anthony.
Hopefully the Swiss will realise that they are not the Harrods of Europe.
Brendan
Patronising or what? These people are invoked in a serious legal fight, the outcome of which could affect many of us. The last thing needed is some pseudo-emotional claptrap.I'm not disinterested, nor am I in denial - I've accepted Swatch's position. It's their choice to do whatever they want with their business. Such is life :)
Everyone will be working through the change curve, some get to the end quicker than others:
Slightly off topic, ive seen the "mark up" that "ads" put on repairs that come from swatch and belive me its bloody massive!
Think what you like, but it's what's happening. I'm pretty sure Cousins' case alone will not force Swatch to change their position. They clearly have a plan and I would think they will stick to it.
Not barking at all and quite right to call out the shoddy and contemptuous business practices that appear to be rife across the Swiss watch industry. I could understand some sympathy for Swatch if this were a forum for budding MBA graduates searching for the next opportunity to get a leg up on the ladder; I can't help thinking it's misplaced on a watch forum frequented by hobbyists and enthusiasts.
As others have mentioned, the Cousins action is a case of the pot calling the kettle black but I'm glad they're doing it.
Hear hear!!
F.T.F.A.
^ Pseudo, you say.. while clearly displaying the anger phase like an overwrought thespian.
Worst case scenario - stop buying swatch products or send them to swatch authorised repair centres.
Bit of a first world problem really isn't it.
A worse scenario awaits the unwitting owners of non-Swatch Group watches containing ETA movements. The smaller watch brand manufacturer may be denied ETA parts and local independent repairers won't exist.
The promise of longevity, an antidote to designed obsolescence and the USP of mechanical watches has been reneged upon and when ordinary High Street punters are told their watches can't be repaired they will not be forgiving.
I disagree. They will just chuck them in a drawer and buy another one....
The Chinese have been making decent clones of many of the standard ETA movements for a number of years now.
It's not unimaginable to see them supplying cheap, quality component parts to independents in order for them to be able to continue servicing ETA movements.
This will only end one way. There is no commercial benefit to Swatch Group. They dont want to yield and that is their prerogative. Its not about competition and availability. Porsche did it with genuine replacement parts decades ago. Specialist repairers had to go cap in hand to main dealers and beg and were charged ridiculous prices so the dealer just factored in the lost repair/servicing labour into the parts cost.
You know I was thinking this myself there are some very expensive Breitling, IWC I'm sure others could add further brands, where a potential 6-7k watch becomes unserviceable.
In a way I played into Swatches hands by recently buying a cheaper Certina and keep my vintage purchases to Omega and Seiko at the moment so I maximise my opportunity of repair . I've already had a nasty surprise with a Tudor (naively I was shocked by Rolexes response) at least for the moment Omega are keeping the excellent STS as a servicing specialist. Further food for thought is I've yet to meet a young watch repairer!
^^^ True ^^^
Posting Permissions
