Independents

This is exactly why I find myself increasingly disappointed with independent watchmakers. I honestly wonder why we continue to use this term. "Independent"... or shouldn't we? I mean, more and more, they seem to be dependent on third parties - sometimes for design, sometimes for marketing, sometimes for components, and sometimes for the finishing of parts. Of course, the degree of dependency varies, but some are heavily reliant on external sources for almost everything.

I would rather support someone like Aaron Bexei, who may only produce a handful of watches per year, but at least they are entirely crafted by him. With the majority of so-called independent brands, it often seems that 80% of the watch is sourced from elsewhere, and they merely assemble the parts - or in some cases, they don’t even do that anymore.

Take 'Ming', for example. They make cool watches, but do they actually do anything themselves other than the design? Everyone has their preferences, but for me, this approach just doesn’t hold the same appeal (anymore). Honestly, today I’d rather own a Zenith from the LVMH group, a JLC from Richemont, or a Breguet from Swatch. At least with those, you know that almost everything is made in-house, given they have the resources, machines, and capabilities to do so.

Being independent as you mean it (=not relying on anyone else for any part of the watch) is very rare and hard (almost impossible maybe). For example, even Yosuke Sekiguchi, who insists on doing as much as he can himself has to rely on an enameler and on a case maker.

Have a nice weekend.

Financial Independence: Independence in the watchmaking world often refers to financial autonomy rather than complete self-sufficiency. Many independent brands are not owned by large conglomerates like LVMH or Richemont, which allows them to maintain creative control over their designs and business decisions. This financial independence is crucial for preserving their unique identity and vision.

Specialization and Expertise: Companies like PEAG provide specialized components that require significant expertise and investment to produce. By relying on such suppliers, independent watchmakers can offer advanced features like solid gold escapements or double hairsprings, which would be prohibitively expensive or technically challenging to develop in-house.

Against the idea
Assembly vs. Creation: Some independent brands are more akin to assemblers than true watchmakers. They source most of their components from external suppliers and focus primarily on design and marketing. This approach can dilute the authenticity of their independence, as they are not deeply involved in the actual creation of the watch.

Homogenization: The increasing reliance on common suppliers like PEAG could lead to a homogenization of independent watchmaking. If multiple brands are using the same components, it becomes harder for them to distinguish themselves from one another.

Conclusion:

The debate over the true independence of watchmakers is complex and multifaceted. On one hand, the reliance on specialized suppliers like PEAG allows independent brands to produce high-quality, innovative watches that might otherwise be out of reach. On the other hand, this reliance can undermine the authenticity and uniqueness that are central to the appeal of independent watchmaking. Ultimately, the definition of "independence" may need to evolve to reflect the realities of modern watchmaking, where collaboration and specialization are often necessary for survival and success.