Horological Meandering

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

I do not disagree with your basic thrust, but I think the argument could be made stronger by substituting Wyler for Hublot in the discussion. Hublot was one of the original customers of/investors in that which is now BNB, their SoloT was one of the first movements I can reccolect with that signature "broken-leg" tourbillon

A

No message body

When I can get a very good cheap Chinese tourbillon, the role of the tourbillon has changed. With modern manufacturing techniques available, it can no longer be used to establish horological credibility. (The Chinese have not yet come up with cheap perpetual calendars or minute repeaters, so for the moment those complications retain their status.)

Having established that presence of a tourbillon no longer is an indicator of an extremely fine watch, what is the continued attraction of tourbillons? It's that they look very cool. As such, they are a good fit for watches whose main attraction is that they look cool. Hublot and Bell & Ross are examples of such watches. Their marketing strategy is entirely a matter of selling cool-looking watches to people who want cool-looking watches.

In short, it's not the watch companies that are trying to be something they're not. Rather, those of us who still think of the tourbillon as a horological pinnacle are making the tourbillon something it is not.

A Ferrai engine can be knocked off and can be made to run.

A Birkin bag can be made to, for all intents and purposes, look like an Hermes original.

A CLASSIC tourbillon still cannot be made (and made to run consistently and reliably, with a stable rate) by screwdriver technicians.

The cheap "knock offs" (Chinese and otherwise) don't look very good on a Witschi...

ETA was able to design and manufacture a "cheap and cheerful" rattrapante, used by such established, reputable brands as IWC, Panerai, and GP, but that takes nothing away from the classical scissor clutch style rattrapantes (epitomized by Venus and Valjoux, but also others. most recently PP and their 5959)

I applaud Chopard/L.U.C. efforts in the development and production of TRADITIONAL, highly accurate tourbillons - every LUC tourbillon comes with COSC certificate, and in most cases, far exceed the COSC standards.

Yes, I know it is popular to diss the tourbillon, and equate the uneven and VERY low cycle motions of the human wrist (except maybe that of a watch on a pornstar making self-pleasuring fetish flicks) to the principles and applications of a tourbillon, but we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

In short,

yes, the tourbillon, classical or otherwise, comes with a host of mechanical problems that have to be solved (not the least of which is the start and stop herky jerky motion associated with the Swiss lever escapement)

a great tourbillon, properly designed and adjusted, can be among the most stable, "accurate" timekeepers around, in a wrist watch or pocketwatch. Consistently better than a application specific Chronometre Trials movement? maybe yes, maybe no, but then, we don't see chronometer trials specific movements in mass produced everyman's watch either...(Longines, Peseaux, et al had Trials specific variants, and variants used in "everyman's" watch)

Can a classical "great" tourbillon be not so finely finished? sure, look at the JLC.  Personally, I have no interest in modestly finished tourbillons, even if mechanically sound, but it is possible.  But I have yet to see anyone PRODUCE ONE in any numbers at an "everyman" price (=under $20,000USD)

Do I consider the BNB a "classical great tourbillon?" no.

Dimier/STS? no

Greubel Forsey? Renaud et Papi? GP Three Golden Bridge? AP? Breguet based on HdG? VC based on HdG? Yes.

Sorry, a bit limited on time, but I didn't want to let this thread meander off into reinforcing tourbillon bashing myths.

Obviously, nothing personal to MKVC, Craig, and others who don't believe in tourbillons and the tooth fairy...

;-)

 

TM

I sometimes feel like Romaine Jerome is always the kicker to the "Watches aren't functional at all" argument.  To this debate, they have the dual tourbillon which barely tells time at all, simply indicating AM/PM.
A

and subject to criticism that goes well beyond the subject of my post.  At least B&R and Hublot, whether you like them or not, have a legitimate history of producing watches, and their watches actually tell time.  The same cannot be said for RJ, which was created to profit upon the public fascination with the Titanic, with little or no regard for anything else.

Craig

I was looking at their website, and hadn't noticed that they carried a diamond set tourbillon, down to diamonds on the tourbillon cage!  That must've been fun to poise
A

So once again, it would seem to come back to the concept of intent.

The likes of the LUC tourbillon with a COSC (and I don't want to start a COSC debate on top of a tourbillon debate) at least shows that an intent to demonstrate time-keeping. Plus the internal pride of creating this capability within one's company.

While the whack-a-spinning-escapement-in-a-case crowd are chasing something else, completely, as well described above and below.

 

I just wish and hope the anti-tourbillon sentiment doesn't turn as rabid and blinding as that which made the tourbillon "the pinnacle of watchmaking skill and achievement" (you know what my take on that is - a well tuned reliable ding dong watch that strikes in passing...)

Cheers,

TM

A tourbillon, I can get my brain around quite easily, function-wise.

A rattrapante, I can just get my braincells to understand. I once pulled apart an old motorcycle speedo that used a similar mechanism. OOoops. That went off to the shop in a box filled with misplaced-mechanical-confidence.

A minute repeater AKA well tuned ding-dong watch... Just magnificent. I agree.

 

A finely-made tourbillon remains a notable horological accomplishment and should be respected as such. When a company goes out of its way to make an excellent and original tourbillon (see, for example, Chopard's or Omega's), that accomplishment will tend to raise or maintain the status of the company as a whole. I think you and I agree on those points, and I certainly didn't intend to minimize leval of achievement that a tourbillon could represent.

However, not all tourbillons represent such accomplishments. It used to be the case that the only kind of tourbillon was a finely-made one, because one that was not finely made would not run. Modern technology has permitted the manufacture of tourbillons that are not finely made but still work. Because of that, the mere presence of a tourbillon on a watch no longer signals high quality.

Accordingly, it seems to me that when a medium-quality watch company puts a relatively ordinary tourbillon on one of its watches, it is not necessarily trying to pull itself up by its horological bootstraps, elevate its standing, play in the big leagues, or otherwise gain status. It's just trying to make something its customers will like and perhaps even buy.

No message body

Thanks!

Hi Thomas, all,

The tourbillon trend has grown with my interest in watches in the last 20 years.

I understand that some "watch lovers" or WIS can have been bored by this fashion that has sometimes gone too far.

Sure as you point that takes nothing from the extraordinary work done by some companies like AP/RP, PP, VC, JLC, GP, DR, Chopard, Bréguet, Lange, Glashütte, Blancpain, Journe, Omega, RM/RP, and a few independants!  I hope I forgot no one!

The main error IMVHO from other brands that just case calibres that happen to be  fitted with tourbillon devices is that they don't offer their vision of the device, their finish applied on the device, they don't bring their due to the chronometry subject. They just increase their medium watch price!

I wish to point the JLC Master Tourbillon as you pointed it yourself.

Considering that COSC tests are today not really sufficient IMO to prove the positive outcomes of a tourbillon compared to a non tourbillon watch, I have to think that no brand IMO really proves that it is achieving better chronometrical results through the use of a tourbillon.

Each time I've discussed tourbillon models with JLC they have put the watch on a testing machine to show the (very good) results. I don't go everywhere so maybe (and hopefully) others do the same. Still I've seen that the Master Tourbillon brings its stone to the modern chronometrical building!

Yes it is not finished like a GP or VC tourbillon, or any other top notch maker, but it is still better finished that many JLC models we enjoy. It is also very respectable as it brings on the market a manufacture made tourbillon nicely finished (even if not top notch like a few are, not so many and not all of my list above) that is made with the intent of bringing improved chronometry.

I've never had the pleasure to own a tourbillon and I wonder what percentage of tourbillon watches on the market actually bring something on that aspect?

The hacking Lange Cabaret tourbillon is another under-estimated offer IMO, at the opposite side of the market.

The Chopard tourbillon watches are actually watches I'd like to know more!

Cheers

Dje

No message body

unfortunately i can see it getting a lot of flack from all quarters as it looks like an Urwerk with 2 rotating discs and a 180 degree minute arc. its a shame they've styled it like they have when they could have quite easily given it originality. instead of praise for  a new model they'll get defamed for 'copying' Urwerk. this could be an example of a brand trying to go beyond their market sector or it could be an example of a company improving on previous quality to aspire to a different sector of the market. i quite liked it even though i dont have a price yet.

they have promised to send me press releases soon, but i picked this snippet up on Watchismo last night.

just thought i'd throw that one in.

Graham

The "Urwerk Copy" criticism is well deserved!  It is to Urwerk what Cvstos is to Richard Mille -- perhaps even more blatant.

Craig

This message has been edited by Craig LA on 2009-02-23 15:37:25

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

If there is a market for such watches, who am I to condem a company for having the good business sense to give the people what they want. 

Craig

To me, this will not transform their cheap watches into expensive watches or high horology timepiece when housed with cheap and raw tourbillons.

I am particularly impressed by Peter Speake Marine's and FPJ's tourbillons.

In this world, you can always find good apples and bad apples.

Regards

Ling

And please look into the segment ( ad their customer ) of their watches . It is better if they ( Bell&Ross , Hublot ) make the lower price tourbillon ( usd 50-70k ) , they can get the big sale volume .

I totally agree w/ what CalJed & LVT wrote. From watch collectors point of view, we may not like Hublot, Wyler, or Azimuth etc do. but from business point of view, I prefer to own Tag or Hublot as a company, and secretly collect AHCI products .

People here forget that most advertisement are made NOT for our consumption. It's for the 'common/normal' rich people out there. We are not the center of watch universe (even though we prefer and may feel that way ).

I met few people that buy Rolex and even VC tourbillon just because they are expensive, i.e as a luxury products (mechanical watch IS a luxury product). And it's ok in my opinion. It's what makes the world go around.

cen@jkt

This message has been edited by cen@jkt on 2009-02-23 20:50:37

We are not the market, and it makes good business sense for watch companies to cater to the typical consumer, rather than a small segment that may have different priorities.

Craig

right mind want to make a bunch of geeks with 10x loupe and macro lenses hanging around their necks to be its primary target market?

cen@jkt

What a thread - but it's all and only about tourbillons!

As for tourbillons, I prefer the Independents: the McGonigle brothers with their engraving sister! -- or Christian Klings, JDN, Habring or Beat Haldemann.

My first choice would be : the McGonigles and the most ancient wooden Box imaginable, from an irish bog, plus a keg or two of Guinness to go along with it. That would be nice!

Sorry for the all wine lovers out there - myself included!

As a true watch lover, I suggest checking them out.

What the big players are doing is only their business - and probally yours as well, but don't let that bother you too much.

With respect and humility,

amerix

Traditionally, many famous makers in their day made their own complications, but some parts of the
watch were often left to so-called "outside" companies. Case-making, for example. Many watches were
often sent to regions in Switzerland for specialized parts of the watch, people who made their fame on
the quality of their repeater movements, their complications, etc., and often were not credited, it seems.
At least, this is my understanding of what has happened traditionally.

So there can be said to be a sort of basis for today's actions in all of that, I suppose you could say things
"evolved" a bit. Look at certain suppliers, like Christopher Claret- I see many companies using various
assemblies from them and often noting it as a mark of quality on the final watch. So even suppliers are
being held in some esteem nowadays, what I feel may have been more than they traditionally received.
Remember, there have been many exceptional companies & specialty guilds in the history of watchmaking,
and most have simply gone unnamed, silently contributing to the art. It is only a recent development, so to
speak, that I feel many more suppliers and specialty subsidiary companies, such as gem setters, etc, are
getting shared recognition.

I do agree with your sentiment completely on tourbillons, however. Despite for most of it's history being truly
and exceptionally difficult to make, now with the aid of modern tools, like CNC & LIGA, it is still more difficult
than a standard swiss lever escapement, but nowhere near the gap that once existed for a watchmaker. As
such, you would think that with that supposed loss of a test for competency, more companies who do offer a
tourbillon piece would make that all the more reason to create their own tourbillon, but alas, it really is due to
the sudden "craze" for tourbillons that such companies do take outside complication work in such number.
I'm afraid too many companies in mechanical horology today see the tourbillon as something that can elevate
the status of their "brand", and thus will do anything to acquire one for their "line". It has nothing to do with actual
horology anymore, it's simply a grand nod toward aesthetics of the complication.

When supposed horological legitimacy and competence are perceived only as the result of the complete image
of the product, and not what actually goes into making it, as is the commonly the case with the real beauty of a
tourbillon in motion, anyone can achieve supposed "legitimacy and competence" by borrowing the skill of others.
It doesn't take a genius to see that in today's market.

The real test of legitimacy and competence will always be what one can do on their own, and in the case of watches,
there is a reason the modern notion of a "manufacture" is held in such high esteem- they do all their own work on
their own watches. They are a "watch company" in the truest sense, even if such notions are indeed a modern
invention/perception (and it is).

And so, to me, all these brands that keep springing up overnight, it seems, and suddenly within a year offering tourbillon
movements this way are just cheating themselves. It takes real skill to make a good watch, even without a tourbillon.
It's not something just any company can do, and so these new companies are not inherently in any way "fake" or "bad"
watches. Often, quite the opposite. I applaud more choice in the arena, and they obviously have skilled people working
with them.

I just wish they would take themselves and their images a lot more seriously, stop prolifferating all these contracted-out
complications to curry favor with the market, and work toward such endeavors on their own. After all, someone with a high
level of watchmaking skill/knowledge from a reputable background should have at least an idea of how a toubillon is made.
It's not as if it's lost knowledge, with so many going around. Perhaps they should use that community knowledge to make
their own. Knowledge and being able use it are 2 different things, though. That's the real test, not figuring out how they can
take something someone else has made and habitually stuffing it into what they have made. There's real skill involved in
that, sometimes even more skill, when retro-fitting is involved. That's extremely hard to do. But it's a different skill than the
one that lends them the image I think so many companies today are looking for.

That's my view. Let's hope they don't start a glut of my beloved minute repeater complication next! I really wish we could
return to the era when a complication really meant what I envision as "complication".