Horological Meandering

Craig LA
888

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Are Certain Companies Trying To Be Something They Are Not?

Notwithstanding their relative lack of usefulness, I love tourbillions. Part of what I love is the technical competence and proficiency required to execute a tourbillion. Along with minute repeaters, the tourbillion is, IMHO, the pinnacle of complications. Therefore, I have immense respect for any company that invests the time, money, research, development, and sweat necessary to produce in-house tourbillion movements. It is a praiseworthy achievement!

Unfortunately, the tremendous attention garnered by tourbillions has led several companies to stuff third party tourbillion movements into watches that, IMHO, are antithetical to everything that a tourbillion represents. In particular, several mid-level companies that, historically, produce relatively simple, uncomplicated, watches, have purchased tourbillion movements from third party sources (e.g., BNB), and placed these haute-horology movements into their brand identified cases. The two examples that come to mind are Bell & Ross and Hublot (there are several others).

Both Bell & Ross and Hublot produce solid mid-level, uncomplicated watches, and both have done an admirable job of creating an identity and niche. That being said, neither company has ever been accused of producing cutting edge, technologically advanced movements. That’s not their market, nor their identity. Why then have both of these companies brought to market limited edition watches housing third party tourbillion movements? IMHO, the tourbillion watches offered by Bell & Ross and Hublot, among others, are antithetical to what these brands are all about. In other words, they are trying to be something they are not. They are using their limited edition tourbillion watches to disingenuously elevate the company by projecting an image of technical proficiency that does not genuinely exist within the company. This phenomenon does not resonate with me. It strikes me as disingenuous because the watch is not demonstrative of the brand’s actual competence, and is likewise inconsistent with the brand identity. IMHO, this practice dilutes the mystique and allure of tourbillions.

It is not unlike a Ferrari engine stuffed into a Ford Taurus. The Taurus is a great car, but it was never intended to house a Ferrari engine, and there is a fundamental disconnect between a Taurus and a Ferrari engine. If Ferrari engines were suddenly being offered in a panoply of mid-level cars, that would dilute the virtues of a Ferrari engine. Moreover, the use of Ferrari engines by mid-level cars would, IMHO, be disingenuous, and reflect an effort by the mid-level cars to be something they are not. That’s how I feel about third party tourbillion movements in Bell & Ross and Hublot cases, among others. There is a fundamental disconnect.

Neither Bell & Ross, nor Hublot, have developed the in-house proficiency to produce a tourbilllon movement. Instead, they have taken a shortcut, bypassed the costly and time consuming research and development undertaken by other companies, and jumped on the tourbillion bandwagon by jamming someone else’s tourbillon movement into their case, so as to project an image inconsistent with the reality of the company. I know many companies outsource movements, and I understand the parallels that can be drawn, but I personally see a difference with respect to the outsourcing of tourbillion movements. Basic/standard movements are necessary to produce a watch – tourbillion movements are not. I have no problem with a company outsourcing basic/standard movements because I do not perceive the use of these types of outsourced movements as disingenuous or an attempt to be something more than the company actually is (even though the company may be completely incapable of producing such a movement in-house). The use of basic/standard outsourced movements does not, IMHO, reflect an effort by companies to project an undeserved stature or competence. Moreover, many companies extensively modify these basic outsourced movements, thereby demonstrating an in-house competence consistent with the end product. I recognize that the distinction I am articulating may be illusory and/or unpersuasive, but it is my personal perception of the situation. I also draw a distinction with a company like MB&F which does not make their tourbillion movement themselves, but is actively involved in the design and creation of a unique and cutting edge movement by a group of watchmakers they assemble for the project, rather than buying an off-the-shelf tourbillion movement and jamming it into an existing case.

Again, these are merely my personal opinions, and I do not proffer them as the gospel truth, nor any more accurate than anyone else’s personal opinions.

Craig