WatchProSite|Market|Digest

Jaeger-LeCoultre

that could be a valid answer

 

The 'recouped ownership' could be a satisfying answer (but then why not 'clarify' this in a way or another when so much doubt has been expressed in the public and among journalists).

However, in that specific case I would be utmostly surprised that JLC actually 'produced' a chronograph movement for FP, when FP is precisely a movement manufacturer. JLC has sold and still sells movements to competitors brands without using an intermediary usually.
And beyond that, JLC at the time of development of the FP1185, had no track record in chronograph design at all (none in the past 60 years or so, they used Valjoux and Universal Geneve calibres for their chronographs in the 1940's to 1970's).
That doesn't mean that they wouldn't have been able to design one, but then that would also be surprising that they didn't at least have one mechanical chronograph in their product range until 2005  (while the FP 1185 dates back to 1988).
In addition, JLC does not make mystery that it has produced in the past 'exclusive calibres' which it did not use for itself (eg cal ultrathin automatic used by Patek, Vacheron and Audemars under ref  28-255 for PP,  ref 1120 for VC, and ref 2120 for AP).
Therefore keeping the information secret in that case does not make a lot of sense.

So, the recouped ownership could be a very good reason why JLC could claim full ownership over the chronograph design, but only if it is actually what happened.
Otherwise, saying that they just look the same because same functional requirements lead to similar designs (which is the current exmplanation) is just not satisfactory enough (If it was, then all movements would look the same).

Therefore, I am waiting for Nicolas (or Mister Lambert)  final disclosure on that one.
I am very willing to be convinced.

  login to reply
💰552 Marketplace Listings for Jaeger LeCoultre