Horological Meandering

CaliforniaJed
[Purist]
5164

• Show profile
• Show other posts

My perspective:

But first, a couple of introductory points:

 -- I do not own a watch with a tourbillion movement.

 -- I like Craig and I love his watch collection!

Craig, your post  can  be summarized by the following excerpts:

1. “Notwithstanding their relative lack of usefulness, I love tourbillions.”

2. “[T]he tremendous attention garnered by tourbillions has led several companies to stuff third party tourbillion movements into watches…”

3. The use of third party tourbillions … “reflect[s] an effort by companies to project an undeserved stature or competence.”

I suppose my response is "so what?"  When you start with the premise that the tourbillion itself lacks usefulness, does it really matter whether a group of consumers believes (falsely) that the presence of a third party tourbillion in a B&R watch elevates the status of that brand?  If it makes those consumers happy to make the purchase and own a watch with a useless tourbillion, what is the harm?  And if B&R is successful with a business model that leverages technological developments by other companies and uses them to enhance its own brand status, isn't that something to be admired, at least from a business perspective?

Maybe I am reading too much into your post.  Perhaps you are simply sharing your distaste for particular watches/brands as a consumer.  If so, I apologize for this reply, and I agree with the premise of the post. Yours is the perspective of a Purist.

But if you condemn the practice of outsourcing a movement beyond the technological capabilities of the company making the purchase, I submit you're unhappy with capitalism itself.

Best,

Jed