Horological Meandering

Forumners,

I heard that:

In future, the minimum value of Swiss-ness to qualify as Swiss Made will be 80% but that is easily covered by wages so that means that proportionately MORE of the components can be imported and "finished" or "assembled" in Switzerland.

Secondly, the COSC chronometer tests will be done on complete movements rather than just the base movements i.e. the COSC will apply to the base + module assembled rather than just the base engine as now. This has HUGE implications for true Manufactures and wannabe ones   A senior executive of a Manufacture that makes it's own integrated chronograph movement was gleefully pointing this out to me.......

Do either statements matter to you...... as a watch user or collector?

Regards,

MTF

======
added to Editor's Picks

This message has been edited by AnthonyTsai on 2007-11-30 07:08:22

The Swiss-made label has been a joke for a long time and apparently will continue to be a joke. A brand that relies on that label for a perception of quality is very unlikely to have the actual quality to interest a well-informed buyer. If the industry really wanted to create a meaningful Swiss-made standard it could easily eliminate the loopholes, but it does not want to do so; its objective is to set the standard not at the quality-maximizing level but at the profit-maximizing level.

The COSC idea interests me, as it should create a more uniform standard. It won't be a high standard, but at least it will be a uniform one. If COSC wants to get me really interested, it will create a "modern chronometer" standard that halves the current tolerances and requires the watch to maintain them not only in several positions and at different temperatures, but (1) in tests during which it is in motion (as if actually on a wrist) and (2) in tests comparing each quarter of its power reserve. Still, the current initiative represents a step in the right direction.

The COSC tests are conducted on movements, rather than watches; there is no requirement that the movements have to be finished. Even with the change in COSC procedures, an unfinished movement with the complication module could be tested. I personally do not believe that the results of the test are a gauge of the performance of the watch on someone's wrist. A movement will undergo a lot of handling/finishing/casing up, after the test and this could affect its timekeeping, although it is unlikely because modern movements are just too good.

That brings me to my second point, which is the changed nature of watch movements. The history of COSC is simple, the body is the successor to the famous observatory tests of the 19th and 20th century, in fact COSC was former by a merger of the bodies that did the observatory tests. These tests were conducted in a time when watchmaking technology was no where near as advanced as it is today.

Back then an expensive watch from Patek or AP would probably keep better time over a long period than a cheap watch, because of the materials used and the construction of the movement as well as its finish. Movements that were observatory certified were truly fine movements; look at the examples of such movements today and you will usually find very fine construction like a big balance wheel, an elaborate regulator, a finely finished escapement and of course a Breguet overcoil.

Today, cheap mechanical watches keep just as good time as a 'fine' watch, due to the advances in manufacturing technology and the immense volumes of production; the average ETA movement is a brilliant piece of engineering. COSC does not prove a watch is a better timekeeper or a better quality timepiece - in other words it does not mean much, in my humble opinion.

The same could be said for the Geneva Seal. Once upon a time the requirements of the Geneva Seal meant only the best firms with the most skilled watchmakers could create watches that met those criteria. Today a good amount of finishing requirements can be done by machine, or at least with the help of machines, so the presence of the Geneva Seal does not prove that a watch is hand-finished to the highest standard. Admittedly, I believe brands like Patek and Chopard still do much of the finishing by hand, but I would not be surprised if some other brands that tout the Geneva Seal on their movements actually enlist substantial help from automated processes to meet the requirements.

- SJX

This message has been edited by SJX on 2007-11-30 01:19:54

As I wrote in my post in the Azimuth thread below, the requirement to test base movements fitted with modules will not affect COSC very much. Rolex, Omega and Breitling make up nearly 90% of the movements certified by COSC (click here for numbers); Rolex alone accounts for over 50% of that number.

Most, if not all, Rolex movements are not modular, they are integrated, so the change in rule will not affect Rolex (the only movements I am unsure of are the dual time-zone GMT and Explorer, I suspect they are integrated). In fact, I am told that Rolex sends finished movements to COSC for testing and then cases up those that pass while those that fail the COSC certification process are destroyed.

The same can be said for Omega, most of its mechanical watches are Valjoux 7750, ETA 2982/2824 or its new in-house movements, none of which are modular. Ditto for Breitling.

I strongly believe the reason this rule was changed was precisely because it will not affect the operations or profitability of these big brands. These three brands are so powerful that COSC will not change the rules against their interests.

- SJX

nt

Hi SJX,

I just did a quick survey of Breitling mechanical chronographs and found that out of 15 different models, 6 had modular chronograph movements based on the 2892.  What percentage of the actual chronometer certificates obtained by Breitling that might account for is a totally other question of course.

_john

Suppose that whole assembled base + module or integrated movements can be tested.

Suppose the most common currently outsourced chronometer movements become exclusive to the original manufacturer/group only.......er.....that would be Swatch Group keeping all their movements for themselves. Ditto for Rolex and Breitling.

Now, imagine if the other brands cannot ramp up in-house manufacture in time (2009 looms)......get the picture?

Even the "Manufactures" who are starting to make at least one in-house movement in their range, cannot make enough to cover all their current output of cased watches....scary huh?

Regards,

MTF

SJX,

I agree that COSC rule changes do not affect the number of COSC certifications per year much. Rolex, Omega and Breitling will account for most of those.

But, I'm just repeating what the lucky (or foresighted) executives who have invested in making integrated complicated movements in their own factories have said. The COSC rule change just makes it a "little" more difficult for certain "casing-up assembliers" who will have to find a non-ETA base and make a module and then, test the whole thing at COSC....if they want a certification.

Of course, as many forumners do not respect the COSC anyway, maybe those brands should do as PP, AP and VC do.......NOT submit to COSC testing  

Even PP sends one model for COSC...no?   That's a trivia question for Pure WIS.......

Regards, MTF

Hi MTF,

I see your point now.

As for Patek, it's two movements (not sure about model varaitions) that it sends for testing.

- SJX
________________________________
> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:57:26 -0800

No message body

supposedly it was contrary to the free trade treaties between Switzerland and the EU

but the Swiss parlament (known in English as the Federal Assembly) has not yet even seen this suggestion for a law change.
The Federal Counsil has disussed the proposition of the Fédération de l'industrie horlogère suisse (FH) to change the law with all the partners effected.
The EU has announced this change to be incompatible with the bilateral agreements between the EU and CH.  (The EU is worried about their big supplying industry to the Swiss brands too.)
As the whole concept of "Swissness" is being reconsidered for all products, not just watches, the Federal Counsil has decided to put off changing the law concerning watches and to treat them with all other products.  This will probably not make a big difference as the level of Swiss added value they are talking about in general for all products is also 80%.  But it means starting another fight with the EU only once and not twice.
And don't imagine that anything happens fast.  Remember this is Switzerland. Basis democracy, concensus values.  Nothing happens until all are convinced that the proper solution has been found.
Don

This is the topic that I wanna discuss for a long time. For me, as informed collector, and buying for my own pleasure, where it's made is NOT a consideration at all. For me it even goes further: the brand is NOT important. As long as the watches are made well, fun, and unique.

For majority of the market: hoarder, flippers, and gift-givers, or people that want luxury items (as oppose of a people who are only looking for horological bliss) made in swiss is mighty important. It's prestige and assurance of good resale value.

But i think people like me are minority. And I understand that in the end the bottom figures are mighty important.

cen@jkt

Most recent purchases: 

- antique pocketwatch, vintage, vintage, Nomos, new Seiko, vintage Seiko. 

The Nomos is as accurate as you could want, and the Seikos are more than accurate enough.  Vintage, I don't care.  Antique, I'm gob-smacked they're still as accurate as they are at >80 years old!

The only major impact I see is from the couple of colleagues who are interested in watches AND who believe the marketing bumf.  It's bad enough trying to refute crap like "It takes a year to make a Rolex" and "Blancpain is a manufacture therefore ALL Blancpain movements are 100% in-house" without another layer of marketing disinformation to further confuse their poor addled little brains.

Out of curiosity, how will the Swiss-ness condition work for bling?  Are there swiss gold and diamond mines I'm unaware of?  I can't see labour being a large part of the cost of a diamond and platinum monster.

How long before each watch is shiped with a photocopy of the passport and birth certificate of the person who assembled it to prove it's 95% Swiss...

nick

No message body

i love high quality watches and virtually did a deal with the devil to get my UN freak but i also love unusually dialled watches. innovation and 'different to normal' are important to me without worrying about brand name. price is also a very important factor.

most recent purchases UN freak, UN Ludwig perpetual, Meistersinger single hander, BRM chrono.

both the Meistersinger and BRM are more accurate over time than the Freak is, but i dont mind that as the freak is a concept piece with 3-5 minutes fast over 8 days not bothering me too much. however they are also more accurate than my Breitling avenger seawolf which is COSC, but can lose 2 minutes in 3-4 days. perhaps this just needs a service.

i was very surprised to hear that the complete movement wasnt tested for COSC, it sort of makes a mockery of the certificate. its as if the COSC dont really care what the actual watch accuracy is after the complication modules are added as long as the base movement passes.

loads of companies adjust their watches in several positions without having them certified which makes them equally as accurate.

the changes make no difference to me whatsoever. in fact i would prefer honesty such as 'made in germany', france, even singapore and hong kong as long as the watches are of high quality, unusual and affordable.

thats my 1p's worth

Graham

did precisely that in the beginning.

Every watch was supplied with a "birth" certificate with passport size photo of the dial attached and watchmaker's signature. How did you remember that?

MTF

No message body

Before they became so big in fashion and cookie cutter production.

MTF

Doesn't Chianti Classico also have an 80% Sangiovese requirement to get the pink paper marking on the bottle ?

Cheers,
Anthony

of Swiss Watchmaking, there is a large hypocritical component to this.

I have to shake my head whenever I read comments by Swiss execs about "low quality Chinese products" - several (most?) of the most famous global brands with long histories (not necessarily contiguous) use Chinese made parts - cases, movement parts, etc.

Worse, some of the "finger wagging" is by brands who participate in this outsourcing...

:-(

TM