WatchProSite|Market|Digest

Blancpain

I found the statement Jeff made to be troubling as well, but . . .

 

. . . as he specified 'watch' and not 'movement', he has left himself some wiggle room to explain himself; he might have been referring specifically to the double-duty use of the bottom of the case as the plate of the movement, which, as Magnus stipulates, was an ETA development. I think most of us realize there are relationships within the watch industry that the principals would rather be left unknown, and perhaps this is one of those instances where the evidence is nonexistent or circumstantial; if that is the case, then it would have been better had the statement never been made. Unfortunately, this thread has been up for too long to be deleted, so until Jeff clarifies his statement, it will have to remain as an open question . . . cordially, Art This message has been edited by Dr No on 2009-08-16 13:35:19

  login to reply