Reply With QuoteI would rather have a solid ETA than an unproven design from an unproven manufacture that’s had to amortise a small r&d budget over a relatively low volume production.
Just been thinking about in-house movements with the new oris 400 coming out.
My question is, is this something you look for in a watch, if so why?
If you could purchase the same watch with an eta for a £1000 cheaper, what route would you go?
Sent from my SM-N976B using Tapatalk
I would rather have a solid ETA than an unproven design from an unproven manufacture that’s had to amortise a small r&d budget over a relatively low volume production.
I quite like the idea of having different types of movements in my collection and that’s not easy if everyone is using ETA.
A bit of diversity in the types and makers of movements rather than the whole industry beholden to a minuscule number of suppliers is a good thing.
In-house movement doesn’t always mean more expensive: look at Seiko (although they’re definitely re-aligning pricing recently) and Nomos (although they did start with a common baseline), I’m sure there are many others.
Possibly, but there aren’t many real world comparisons to be made. The proven manufactures have always used movements of a quality that meant the question (or in house or otherwise) did not arise. And even Tudor with its massive resources and budgets have shown how difficult it can be to introduce a movement without hiccup. But yes, I’ll concede it’s a bit of a pessimistic view Tony....Originally Posted by learningtofly
If diversity is wanted, then yes a good thing. If ready repairability and certainty of parts supply is wanted decades hence, perhaps less so.
The answer is - it depends on the watch. In a workhorse watch, prefer something easy to service. Frankly a display back should only ever be used if there is something to actually show. Don't need or want to see a 2824.
I don't get Oris' reasonings behind this movement - they still plan to sell ETA alongside. So it's not due to movement restrictions based on that. And that leads to my biggest annoyance with Oris, surely give us something more exciting to showcase the movement than an existing damn watch costing an additional 1k. See my initial point - robust movement is good enough for a dive watch!!!!
One of the main reason's I started this topic, was because I've got a bb58 on order (arriving next week) and had the opportunity to pick up a mkii kingston plank kit.
Both very similar watches style wise (will include picture below), but have to say I'm very impressed with the kingston, so much so I think I'm going to flip the tudor bb58 (I have handle a bb58 before to)
Was thinking about which one to keep, and this is when I began to question the in-house movement, yes its great that it is cosc, and 70 hour power reserve, but are them things really important? By the way the ETA 2836 is running at -2 seconds a day.
Sent from my SM-N976B using Tapatalk
My earlier comments notwithstanding, the BB58 is a strong watch :)
Not too much. My Seiko 5 has an in house movement. Otherwise most my watches have ETA movements.
In house in itself doesn’t imply too much.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes for any current modern watches over a certain price point
At what price would you expect to receive in-house movement?
Sent from my SM-N976B using Tapatalk
10 Years warranty on this Oris is reassuring.
If in the market I’d seriously consider it. Its provenance doesn’t worry me.
Last edited by Kingstepper; 29th October 2020 at 22:41.
I have to say I am impressed with the 10 year warranty and the 120 hour power reserve
Sent from my SM-N976B using Tapatalk
The point at which you have to plan or save and it isn't a spur of the moment purchase for me.
For me starting from 2k and I would increasing expect in-house for a new watch.
Valjoux 7750... best movement ever!
Put it in a chunky Breitling and the rotor wobble is spectacular. You really know you have a mechanical object on your wrist.
The one in mine has been faultless over 15 years, in my survey of n=1.
I think Breitling tart it up a bit; it’s years since I was really into all the detail of that, so I can’t remember exactly the terminology (??ebauche or something??) but still not in house.
As that was my first luxury watch, I thought all ‘proper’ watches felt like that. When I got my first Rolex I was really quite disconcerted by the complete silence and lack of feedback from the rotor.
Cant knock the in house Rolex movement though, although the first Rolex I got (an AD brand new GMT IIc) gained 60s/day from new and has to be replaced under warranty by Rolex)
Does it matter? Yes and no. I like the snobbery of it on some level. Knowing it’s proprietary to that manufacturer hold a satisfaction. That said, the ultimate goal is for a movement to be bullet proof. So an ETA could get it done, but so could many in-house movements.
I also need to feel a value proposition in a piece. So the more expensive a watch is, the higher my expectations as to reliability.
I don’t think there’s a perfect answer to this question for me. I like designs and manufacturers, I like history and some romance to the watch. The movement comes after those things, but is just as capable of killing the deal. Movements tend to take me away, not pull me in. So because I’m aware of difficulties with the Omega 2500 and 3300 series movements, I’d struggle to want to own another watch with those movements, for example. Whereas you won’t catch me looking for a watch that has the 9300 because I have to have that movement.
I’ll go against the grain & maybe exploited by all the marketing guff. But I’d pull for in-house the majority of the time over ETA/ Sellita.
We don’t need watches, deep down they are fancy trinkets which have a weird bond with. These things aren’t cheap (well not to me) and I’d rather have something which has had more thought, care, sometimes design & skill (whilst my head knows this isn’t always the case), on it and pay for that.
The car analogy always works for me - Ferrari with a Ferrari engine or a Ferrari kit car with a ford engine. If I’m paying for it I want the best of that version.
Yes I know ETA are tried and tested and all the pro. I also know Ford is great and the GT40.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
From around two and a half grand upward... but the watches I’d buy in that price range all have it. So I know what I’d expect, rather than drawing an arbitrary line, if that makes sense.
Knowing that Tudor can do it for that sort of price, regardless of the advantages they have, raises my expectations elsewhere, no matter how unreasonable that may sound.
No but i am not buying watches expensive enough to care all that much.
Plus i have very positive experiences with ETA, the Japanese movements and even my £28 Vostok i regulated to be incredibly accurate with only a screw driver and no timograph
I don’t have a problem with off the shelf movements per se, but when a watch has a display back it should reveal something of interest so ....
Whether I’m bothered about in house depends on the watch
These are with reference to watches I own, or am evaluating
B&R 03-92: not in house, but appropriate to the brand and price point, so ok
Monaco Calibre 11: for the brand and price point, an outsourced modular movement is a total block to purchase. This makes me sad :(
Panerai
Most of the in house manuals have little over their eta predecessors, and historically, they weren’t a movement maker. Obviously I’m excluding the 233. I would prefer one with a 6498
IW3716 Portuguese Chrono fixes the weakness of the earlier 3714, ie an in house movement.
I could probably summarise this as: for the brand and watch price point, should I expect more.? With brands like IWC, Breitling, the upper echelons of Tag Heuer, I would expect more. Oris, Sinn, B&R, at their price points, not at all. At £2K for a 3-hander I’m good with ETA or Sellita, but at £5K I want more
It’s not always as simple as in house or not. Panerai’s 42mm Submersible has a group (Valfleurier designed) movement detuned and less good than something in a B&M watch a third of the price.
It’s a minefield!
Dave
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes it's the first thing i look for. All of my watches have in-house movements. The movement is the most important part of the watch. Its heart. Its essense if you will. It simply won't feel special to me if my new watch has a dime a dozen Swatch Group heart. The only arguement for getting one is to save money, and wheres the fun in that?
To the second question: It depends on the relative price of the watch.
£7000 for in-house or ETA for £6000? I think it would be an easy decision for most.
But In-house for £3000 versus the same watch with ETA £2000???
It's hard to say how sales will go for Oris, but in the meantime they get the prestige of being a true watchmaker, and that's the real point.
Last edited by AllyWheels; 30th October 2020 at 12:59. Reason: fixed a typo
Traditionally sharing of base ebuaché amongst the manufactures in Switzerland was standard. JLC were the watchmakers watchmaker, manufacturing movements for Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantine, and others. Times have moved on and "in-house" is the new way - though Breitling and Tudor have pared up for the chronograph movements and shared both ways. It makes economic sense. With ETA restricting movement access invariably brands have needed to manufacture their own or move to Stellate (sic) instead.
Do I care personally about in-house? Yes. I guess I am a watch snob. The Breitling B01, Omega Cal 8900 , Zenith El Primero 400, VC 4500 - I love them all. But, also, give me an Omega 2531.80 - Cal 1120 and that works any day of the week.
Yes and no. I like that several of my watches can be serviced by any competent watchmaker, I also like that several of my watches will get treated to a little extra know-how (I know, I know, the world of in-house technicians is full of horror stories).
Sometimes it depends on the brand. I could have had a Black Bay with an ETA inside it, the watch is nicer looking in this guise, but I went for the in-house movement because I wanted the one with that extra little cachet. Yeah, it was also a case of new vs used there, but the ETA versions hold strong value.
Would I care so much about which movement is in an Oris? No, I don't think I'd pay a £1k premium for an Oris with an in-house movement over their usual ETA.
Certainly been interesting hearing everyone's opinions, think its about 50/50 so far, something reassuring about the ETA, easy to service, reliable.
But there is something special about an in house movement, but I think sometimes we place to much emphasis on in-house movements and dismiss watches based on this alone.
Having said that past a certain price point it is a big factor. Say over 3k
Sent from my SM-N976B using Tapatalk
Different things matter to different people. Most of my collection is in-house but I now find myself more interested in pieces by smaller makers and the costs for in-house then become prohibitive, both for the maker and most buyers. Due to basic economies of scale the cost to these makers of buying in and modifying eta movements will be more than it costs the big boys to manufacture one more of their in-house movements. So take two watches retailing at £5k, one from a maker that produces them in the tens or hundreds of thousands per year with in-house movements and one that produces them in the hundreds with modified eta, you’ll be paying a much higher mark-up for the in house and getting a much more common, and therefore less special to me, watch.
I too have become more interested in independent watchmakers, and I’ve pretty much decided on a Habring Felix as my next watch. £4200 for an accomplished watchmaker and an in-house movement, accepting some 7750 parentage. An ETA engined IWC for the same outlay seems lazy by comparison.
Dave
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"I prefer in-house movements.
Anything else seems less civilised."
Mr W Gummidge, Scatterbrook Farm
I think the question is really are in house movements really needed at the more affordable end of the Swiss watch market?
To my mind, with so many micro brands offering great watches with an ETA or Sellita, the more established brands have to bring something to the table to reflect what their 100+ year history means. Designing and manufacturing their own movement to me demonstrates a certain degree of establishment, know-how and commitment to watch making. I think it brings a certain respectability to the brand.
Having said that, an in-house movement might be worth an extra 20 - 30%, but once you get to an extra grand on a two-grand watch, it doesn’t make sense.
So yes, i think it’s desirable but it has to be made affordable in more affordable watches or reserved for less affordable ones.
If I was basing my view soley on experience of Yema's in-house movement, I would say ETA every time. The Yema movement was terrible – clunky, bitty and rough.
On the other hand, the movement in my Nomos Orion is an absolute beauty, and it's not an expensive watch, relatively speaking in this game.
In conclusion, I'm happy with ETA all day long and an in-house is a nice-to-have, but by no means essential.
No, because I can't get it serviced by a trusted watchmaker that cannot get the parts. If there was an ETA, Sellita, MLJP etc option I'd always take that.
My Panerai just cost me £515 to service; just the movement. If that was an ETA or Sellita it would have been much less and much quicker as I could have taken it somewhere local.
I like an in-house movement mostly just for interest and variety’s sake. Come to think of it, in my modest collection I only have one ETA-based mechanical movement and two quartz - the rest are all in-house, and mostly vintage.
I do hope to have a Selitta joining the party soon though
Bang on in my opinion. I can't believe how much this is glossed over frankly.
With regard to the Seiko point, I appreciate scale of economy helps, but then a 7S26-powered Seiko 5 can be had from about £40, not much different to an expensive in-house movement in a higher end brand at what 100+ times the cost?
It's all marketing at the end of the day. It gives a warm buzzy feeling that the movement isn't used elsewhere that's it. Do we like that, of course!
I'd love to say I'm immune to the marketing of in-house, but marketing is difficult to discount, as much as we may protest.
If you have a watch with an ETA movment it will be highly reliable but to an extent the rest is just the decoration around the movement. I like different movements which might explain why half of my collection is vintage. Back in the days of BL or indeed for VAG in the modern era people tend to pour scorn on "badge engineering".
For me a watch is it's movement first and its asthetic second. That does not mean that I don't own watches based on the same ebauche. But I like the diversity that different movements bring.
No, personally I see them as an expensive luxury I can do without.
If I had one or two watches, I may feel differently, but the idea of being tied to a manufacturer for servicing or repairs doesn't appeal to me.
M
Sent from my ASUS_X00PD using Tapatalk
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
Depends on the watch, the brand, the price difference etc.
But I will not deny it that in-house movement does make a difference in perception for me.
Per se, no, but if the movement were off the shelf and the price being asked above 2k, I'd want a decent justification.
My only issue nowadays with ETAs, Sellitas, Miyotas and their like is that power reserves of high 30s / low 40s have fallen well behind the curve.
Couldn't really give a monkeys about in-house. Specification is much more important than who made it.
Plus, there are examples of all types of cross-dressing in watches, so "in-house" is a very moot point indeed.
Not many people would sniff at a Patek chrono, but the base movement is not theirs, it came from Lemania, as did every single Omega chronograph movemoent until the 1970s. So are those in-house?
Rolex used to get all their movements from Aegler, apart from chronos that came from Valjoux then Zenith. Aegler are now part of Rolex (only truly so very recently), but they used to supply under exclusive agreements, so does that count?
The list goes on and on.
It is a rare thing that someone can claim to have a movement developed entirely in-house. Most movements are based on something else, whether modern or older.
And there are all sorts of combinations along the way (IWC's historic use of ETA/Valjoux movements was always a fun one to discuss).
So how in-house is in-house? I don't know, and most people don't, even those that profess to care about such things.
So what a pointless scale to get hung up about.
Dave
I guess you could say I’m a movement snob too. Omega co-axials get the most wrist time and I have 3 variants the 8500, 3300 and the METAS rated 8806.
All of them great movements and yet my favourite watch in the collection is le petit prince chrono and so this debate always amuses me in reference to IWC.
The iw3777 range use a modified 7750 and plenty of people say it’s not worth the 4 or 5k retail.
Yes there are watches with the same movement for less but then those people place little value on the finishing touches, the dial, case back and even the leather strap all are superior quality than say an Oris with the same movement.
Plus as somebody else pointed out. You simply can’t beat the 7750 rattle!
I am one of those who say that they don’t really care.
However, most recent “in-house” movements seem better on paper than most ETAs etc.
Would I buy a watch just for it’s in house movement? Probably not...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Difficult to answer what is best. If an in-house movement is an improved standard caliber in terms of accuracy (in all positions!) or power reserve eg 70 hours, then I would definitely go for that. It’s like with cars, isn’t it? There are two types of it: hidden technical such es in the engine or the suspensions (yes) and just optical such as spoilers, wider lower tyres etc (no go). Talking again about watches again I would look to what exactly the in-house “tuning” is technically all about and then it would be fine if at a reasonable price. Have a nice weekend
Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk
I guess it depends on the features. I am a sucker for long PR and ETA doesn't really make long PR at least not in the same quality of finish, higher-beat etc. (I have a Powermatic 80 movt. watch and its pretty nice but not that a big fan of the slower beat). A while ago I set my sights on a Baume&Mercier Baumatic watch, which I end ended up buying, bit pricey for this brand I would say although I did get it at a reasonable discount, and I don't regret it one bit, as its a very nice looking piece on its own, ticks all my OCD boxes and the 120hr movement plus the fact that it's chronometer graded and very thin (single-barrel) is something quite unique to find in it's price range or any price range for that matter.
So yes, I think it makes perfect sense to pay a bit more for a unusual movement with features that you crave for.
Ditto. If the movt. does not bring any improvements in accuracy or PR or otherwise, I feel its just paying extra money for just a name, not my cup of tea.
On the other side of the fence, and without trying to offend anyone, I find it quite ridiculous when folks pay EXTRA money, above list to get some Tudor BB models that come with the older ETA movt. that has 38 or 40hr PR instead of the newer chronometer graded and longer PR movement they make but I guess it has to do also with pet peeves, small design differences as well as good ole' marketing ("we're discontinuing something so come along and give us your hard-earned money", no true WIS can resist that
)
I agree with the whole "Discontinued" Nonsense but I think another reason why people preferred the old ETA watches was fear of a new movement and any service problems that they may be confronted with in the near future especially with all the issues raised with the GMT (Which I think was a bit OTT anyway, I have had no problems with mine)Ditto. If the movt. does not bring any improvements in accuracy or PR or otherwise, I feel its just paying extra money for just a name, not my cup of tea.
On the other side of the fence, and without trying to offend anyone, I find it quite ridiculous when folks pay EXTRA money, above list to get some Tudor BB models that come with the older ETA movt. that has 38 or 40hr PR instead of the newer chronometer graded and longer PR movement they make but I guess it has to do also with pet peeves, small design differences as well as good ole' marketing ("we're discontinuing something so come along and give us your hard-earned money", no true WIS can resist that
I literally could not care less.
In my defence I collect exclusively vintage/ military so it does not really come in to the equation.
In house movements should really be called "exclusive" movements.
So much of it is smokes and mirrors. Even at the top end, there is a good chance that the movement is based on 3rd party designs, manufactured in part or in whole by someone else, etc. etc.
A few cases in point:
Is "manufacture" but not in house designed movements
Breguet - has relabelled the old Lemania 8815/Longines 990 design as an "in house" movement.
Tag Heuer - bought a licence to the design rights for the 6S37 to form the basis of their 1887/Heuer 01 movements.
Exclusive movement but design and/or manufacture is outsourced in part or whole
Omega - until recently their in house movements were manufactured in external (although still Swatch group owned) factories. Also design of the 8XXX wasn't in house and was really collaboration between Blancpain and ETA to develop an exclusive for Omega.
All the smaller brands with their own, "In house" movement designs but without facilities to manufacture them (e.g. Christopher Ward and Damasko) - smaller brands that design and produce their own movements commission third parties to manufacture some, most or all components.
That's all stuff where the connection is obvious due to physical giveaways or where the brand have been relatively transparent about their supply chains and design process. Who knows what happens behind the scenes.
By bring the movement manufacturing In-House it gave the brands freedom to no longer be reliant on third party suppliers but it also gave the brands freedom to hike up the RRP on their watches as they put the marketing spin into full operation around the in house movement. In many cases this money grab is probably unjustified as the in house gave little benefit over the industry work horse Eta or Selita movements but sounds good in the shiny brochure blurb.
I would value an in-house movement if it is a clear improvement over bought in alternatives as it not only provides an opportunity for the manufacturer to reduce external expenditure but provide a better product.
So it has to be better.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions
