Cartier

I was having a discussion with a fellow collector, a gentleman who is discerning and educated, about the Cartier Astroregulateur. You can read my detailed explanation of the Astroregulateur here but in essence the movement is designed to address the same issues of gravity as a tourbillon, except in the modern context of a wristwatch. Remember that the tourbillon was originally conceived by Breguet for a clock or pocket watch, which were always standing upright.

 

My friend had commented the watch was expensive; retail is EUR250,000 or thereabouts. I explained that the Astroregulateur is as complicated as a tourbillon, the winding mechanism alone (including the pendular seconds) has 130 parts, and is functionally identical to a multi-axis tourbillon, at least in theory. And conceptually it was innovative and creative, a novel approach to a known problem instead of the conventional approach which is multiplying the axes of the tourbillon. His response was, "But it's not a tourbillon!"

 

 

 

The Cartier Astroregulateur

 

So that brings me to the issue of perception . A tourbillon is perceived to be complicated and consequently expensive. Yet that is not quite the case. Traditionally a tourbillon was rare because the parts were small, thus difficult to machine and finish. And subsequent assembly and adjustment was difficult.

 

Modern technology has made it easier to produce a tourbillon at all levels, which explains why Jaeger-LeCoultre could make the Reverso Platinum 2 tourbillon in a limited edition of 500 in three years. On the other hand, estimates vary but it’s safe to say only a couple of hundred in total, including wristwatches and pocket watches, were made from invention to the nineties.

 

I have myself disassembled a tourbillon. Well to be specific I disassembled the whole movement and removed the tourbillon regulator as a whole without taking the tourbillon regulator itself apart. I personally feel it is as complicated a taking apart a chronograph, which I have done, and a perpetual calendar, which I have not.

 

But if you don’t believe me, Christophe Claret made a similar point when I interviewed him in 2010. “The tourbillon is the most simple [movement] of my production. It is a very nice complication, but for me it’s not very technical.” In fact, Claret also said, “This is why many people like to make [tourbillon watches] – to make money."

 

And that perception leads to the fallacy that a tourbillon is an intrinsically valuable, rare and complicated mechanism. Some tourbillons are just that, the Patek Philippe ref. 5101 for instance, or the Breguet La Tradition Tourbillon, or the Lange Pour le Merite. But many are not. The Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Tourbillon in my opinion is a great example of the wonders of industrialisation; it is neither refined nor sophisticated, but admittedly it is cheap.

 

A separate point that emerged in the same conversation was the topic of Cartier itself. Cartier is undeniably a mass market luxury brand. Brand-specific figures are not revealed, but Cartier does EUR2.0 to 2.5 billion in revenue annually. Its bags and perfumes are sold in airports. Cartier is not quite as mass market as Tiffany & Co. or Louis Vuitton, but it starts at a lower price point than say Harry Winston.

 

Yet to the average consumer who buys the average Cartier item, pen or cufflinks or small trinket, Cartier is an incredibly exclusive and rare luxury brand. Cartier has done a terrific job of building on its history – Cartier does have an amazingly rich history – as well as creating a modern image of high luxury. Those gilt-edged red boxes don’t cost all that much but look brilliant.

 

 

High luxury at Cartier

 

Because of Cartier’s position as a mass market luxury brand, some discerning watch buyers sneer at Cartier Fine Watchmaking. Traditionalists who think Patek makes the best complications and Rolex the best sports watches refuse to acknowledge what Cartier has achieved in high horology, and how much it is still investing to that end.

 

Yet the products speak for themselves. Anyone who looks closely, at the Santos skeleton for instance, cannot deny it is highly finished and well executed watch. The truth is Cartier, as a whole, is a mass market luxury brand, but its Fine Watchmaking is exactly that – fine watchmaking.

 

- SJX

This message has been edited by SJX on 2011-03-24 02:49:50

A very interesting essay on perspectives. IMHO brand recognition can be a slow moving ship in any established industry . There are obvious exceptions and these generally cater to a younger and faster moving crowd. Btw, I like Jaeger LeCoultre's "working man's" tourbillon. Best, 

I agree that the JLC Master Tourbillon is great for what it is, an affordable tourbillon. It is like the IWC rattrapante vs Patek 5959, same complication but radically different levels of complexity and finish.

- SJX

for example, regarding the JLC Tourbillon you mentioned, I would have preferred you to describe it as relatively inexpensive rather than cheap.

In the same way, when cooking, I prefer to have my wife ask me Could you cook my fish a bit longer rather than exclaim This fish is raw!

Having said that, I know we get an overdose of exposure to fine (and seemingly-fine) watches on PuristSPro, but can there really be enough buyers for all these multi-hundred-thousand-euro machines?

Cazalea

The fine watchmaking part of cartier will never IMHO get to the point of great public acceptance. How many are willing to buy a flashy watch that don't flash at all? A Porsche does a better job than a cartier tourbilon.
Only die hard fans will support it and they aren't many around with enough ammo to shot

I can only dream of a finely finish mass produce Tank with a beautiful movement and COSC certified. That will be a crowning achievement in my book. Which I think is far greater effort to produce than the astroregulateur.

That's the same reason I like your seiko collections so much.

Best
Tyler

cartier.watchprosite.com

- SJX

No message body

About 1500-2000 watches of the Fine Watchmaking collection are made per year, and they sell at a fairly good pace, better than the Collection Privee Cartier Paris that came before. There are enough buyers.

The issue is who are these buyers? Consumers who buy the watches because it is a Cartier, or buyers who recognise the value/finish/complication in the watch? Cartier is trying to target the latter, because the former are already loyal clients.

- SJX

is that, the ones who've never been in the "fine watchmaking" space before... are they forcing it?

what's the reason behind pushing the envelope? 

if it's legitimacy, i think that you can still produce great timepieces worthy of the Cartier mystique without necessarily going the haute horology way.  maybe a Dufour approach to finishing (starting of course with an already "respectable" ebauche) as a strategy rather than blazing trails in technology might be more the Cartier "way".

of course, mine is the worm's eye view on these things and very simplistic.

for the record, i like what i've been seeing from Cartier and follow your posts with great enthusiasm.  i think that the Cartier experience is more than just the sum of its well-made products.  when you see the Cartier brand, you already feel something special... maybe much more than the likes of a Louis Vuitton can exude.

 

Cartier does has a history in the fine watchmaking space. From approximately the twenties to the forties, Cartier made top-end watches, many with complications. Movements were supplied by EWC which in turn obtained ebauches from LeCoultre. The watches of that era were comparable to top-end Patek and VC. Both Peter Speake-Marin and David Zanetta of De Bethune have said Cartier watches of that era represent some of the finest watchmaking of the 20th century.

This is an example: cartier.watchprosite.com .

Subsequent to that Cartier became more focused on designs, so the latter half of the 20th century sees iconic designs like the Crash emerge, but not much in the way of serious watchmaking.

That only began once again in the late 1980s with various complications, many with movements from Gerald Genta (who was one of the leading complications makers at the time), followed by the Collection Privee Cartier Paris of 1998 and then the Fine Watchmaking range of today.

Pictorial of Cartier's watchmaking history: cartier.watchprosite.com .

So it is less about building something new than reacquiring a lost skill. There is of course a commercial reason, high horology is profitable as well as good for building a more sophisticated brand image. But nevertheless it can be seen as a second golden age, rather than forcing along something new.

- SJX

Hi JiaXian,

I know that you have not liked it from the start but I do and for good reasons I think, in my very humble opinion.

I don't think "cheap" is a word that makes senses with a Master Tourbillon. Well if the Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Tourbillon is cheap, I wonder what word I could use to define the watch you picture in this post.

Technically I hope it will be participating in the next Chronometry contest to see if it can beat the Master Tourbillon. We will see.

Aesthetically I can just say it's hardly Cartier watch for me.

In terms of finish it is seemingly not at the level of the finish of the Master Tourbillon I had on my wrist yesterday.

So what word could I use? If the Master Tourbillon is cheap, so there's only one word I see left for this Astrotourbillon and the rules of this site don't allow me to use it!

Dje

.
This message has been edited by Dje on 2011-03-25 08:24:33

Hi Jerome,

The JLC Master Tourbillon is good value for money, that I grant you. But,

1) The finishing is poor. For example, the anglage is either embossed or diamond cut. Also, the Cotes de Geneve has no glow.

2) There is nothing technically innovative about it. The movement is a conventional tourbillon regulator.

3) Yes it may have won the Concours International de Chronometrie but so what? I still think the Greubel Forsey double tourbillon - which competed in the same category but did not take first place - has better finishing and a more inventive movement.

As for the Cartier, you think it's ugly and it has bad finishing.

You are entitled to your view on its aesthetics. 

As for finishing - the watch in the photo is a prototype that was flown around the world and disassembled multiple times. Clearly not the final product; in fact none have been delivered yet.

- SJX

Do you always compare watches which don't play in the same budget?

I would be curious to know in what price category is this Cartier, while the JLC is on the 35 000 Euros range.

So, for you, a watch which is 3, 5, 7 or 10  less expensive  must have the same degree of finish, and the same sophistication?

As for a Collector I am, I applaud this statement, and widh to get the same level of finish and sophistication in a 35 000 Euro watches than on a 250 000 Euros one. That makes great sense.

The JLC is not the most exquisitely finished Tourbillon in the market, but I don't think it has this pretention.

As for this Tourbillon from Cartier, it is a matter of taste, aesthetically speaking.

In terms of finish, well, I would like to see more detailled pics.

As for what you wrote about Cartier and their watches, I agree that some are very interesting, I have doubts about this one, once again, from what I see on your pics.

Best,

Nicolas.

either intentionally or not.

My original post said that the Master Tourbillon is neither technically sophisticated nor highly finished but it is cheap, i.e. the price is low for a tourbillon.

In response to Jerome, I said again:

1. JLC Master tourbillon is good value for money, but the finishing is not fantastic and looks industrial.

That was because Jerome made the points that:

1. The Master tourbillon won the chronometer contest, implying that it keeps better time than other tourbillons

2. The finishing of the Master tourbillon is good, with no mention of price

- SJX

By the way, do you have more detailled pictures of the movement?

Would be very curious to see the level of finish.

Bes,t and thanks in advance.

Nicolas.

It is a prototype and not in good condition, neither does it have the final finishing.

- SJX

Sorry JiaXian but we're not misreading.

Cheap doesnt mean just less expensive!

I've looked on the net and here's the kind of definition for cheap I find:

cheap  (chp)
This message has been edited by Dje on 2011-03-25 10:00:13

I meant he was misreading my post, not you.

When I wrote the JLC was cheap, I meant "Relatively low in cost; inexpensive or comparatively inexpensive" AND "Of poor quality; inferior".

Also, I never made the point that the Astroregulateur is well finished, I emphasised its innovation and novel approach. In terms of finishing there are Cartier watches that are significantly better than the Astroregulateur. 

These skeleton calibres are better finished than the Master Tourbillon in my humble opinion.

- SJX

This message has been edited by SJX on 2011-03-25 10:15:03

Well I don't think they are better finished than a Master Tourbillon.

The finish seems comparable on the pics, for as much as pics can be compared of course, as they can be easily misleading.









And of course you can always have a look there: harrytan.sg /

Dje

The anglage on the tourbillon bridge is uneven at places:

While the bevelling on the keyless works of the Cartier skeleton tourbillon is even all around.

 

The Cartier is more expensive, but you are making the point that the JLC is as well finished as the Cartier despite the price difference; I disagree.

- SJX

The JLC and the Cartier are not, by far, the most finished Tourbillons, objectively, and from what I see on your pics.

The JLC is honest,  for its price.

But I may be biased...

Best,

Nicolas.

When I first read SJX's article, it reads to me like he's saying that this Cartier watch is of very high finishing and basically a true fine watch.
His mention of the JLC Master Tourbillon did not sound like an 'attack' of that watch, he just simply says that it is priced cheaply as a tourbillon,
compared to the many others , probably because it is easier and faster to produce , which make sense. Why will JLC price it low if it's hard to make?
But this does not mean SJX is saying that the MAster Tourbillon is inferior piece of watch, just economically priced for mass general who loves good tourbillon without all the fuss of fine finishing.
I have seen a Master JLC tourbillon up close before and it is a very obvious , and I mean very obvious lack of finishing piece....then again it does not mean it's bad,
it's just not its priority.
It's like not everyone needs a Dufour Simplicity, a well make 3 hand watch with lesser finishing and much cheaper rate may even perform better than the Simplicity.
So it really depends what one's priority is in term of watch collecting.
For some reason, Dje seems to get over excited and jump into conclusion that SJX is 'insulting' the JLC Master tourbillon. He's not and so don't get too sensitive
and keep insisting he is...cool down
*CL

You said in three paragraphs what I took one article, six photos and 12 responses to say.

And while you are right, not everyone needs a Simplicity, I think everyone, at least everyone I know, wants one. Some people even want it on a brown strap. 

- SJX

I don't expect the Master Tourbillon to be finished like a 250 000 Euros watch, of course, and your observation makes sense, totally.

But, and IF I got it well, for the price of this Cartier Tourbillon, and for much less, a GP 3 Gold Bridges like the one I saw at the SIHH, which is the latest one, seems to be, at least for me, much more interesting, in terms of finish and volumes.

But that is just my opinion.

Best,

Nicolas.

I think there is some confusion in the discussion. The Astroregulateur is a fine example of out of the box thinking, innovation and creativity, NOT finishing. There are other Cartier watches with better finishing. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my original post.

But the Santos skeleton, skeleton flying tourbillon et al are examples of good finishing. The Santos skeleton retails for about EUR35,000 and the skeleton tourbillon about EUR95,000. Those prices are fair for the level of finishing in those watches, but there is not so much creativity in terms of construction since they are conventional movements.

As for the GP, I agree the dial side finishing is incredible BUT the movement finishing of the bridges (actually the main plate since the calibre is inverted) behind the solid back is much, much less impressive than the front.

- SJX

.

Quite a reply. neither watch interests me personally.

Even Zenith G-force is more complicated as it have to compensate the motion on 2 axis.

I would like some watch maker to combined cartier and zenith...to design a spherical wrist watch which can wind as rolling ball and show the time on itself....

Zenith's solution puts the balance wheel on one plane at all times; it is always flat like a marine chronometer inside a gimbal box. I find Cartier's solution a bit more elegant, the Zenith seems a little bit overkill.

- SJX

But I don't like them both....