The Breitling Watch Source Forums

How do I feel about collaborations? Well to me it depends on how collaborative it is. If two companies come together and put roughly equal effort into designing a movement, then that's fine and I would personally "rank" it just below a true in-house movement built by one company, but not by much. However if a company effectively buys a movement from another manufacturer and changes a few bits, then I don't see that as being much different to buying in an ETA and changing a few bits. Of course the base movement may be better or offer something additional in terms of functionality compared to an ETA, but the process of buying in a movement, modifying it to a greater of less degree, and then casing it up is the same.

Personally I don't think a brand sharing an in-house movement of their own devalues it... at least not in my eyes (although I know a lot of people who disagree). Take the Zenith El Primero for example - they sold that movement to Rolex for the older model Daytona, and even to Tag Heuer for a couple of Link and Monza models. Selling the El Primero helped Zenith to survive through some difficult years so I can't fault them for that at all. And I would definitely own an El Primero powered Zenith today. Bizarrely though I wouldn't want an El Primero powered Daytona, even though they're hugely desirable and arguably powered by a better movement than the first Rolex-powered Daytonas. No logical reason for my stance on that, other than my love of 'one watch / one manufacture purity'. (I never said any of this is rational! )

As I say, in this instance with the B20 I'd like to know exactly how collaborative the process between Breitling and Tudor really was. And that's kind of my point - I just want companies to be up front about it so consumers can be fully informed. If it was a truly collaborative effort then just say, "We've worked in collaboration with Tudor to jointly create this brand new movement between us". Or if it is a buy-in-and-modify job, then IMO they should say something like, "The B20 is a modified Tudor MT5613". I just dispute the calling of it a manufacture movement if it's really a modified MT5613....which is what it apparently is!

I guess how people feel about these things is just a personal preference. Some guys have no problem paying reasonably large sums of cash for pieces that are equipped with unmodified ETAs (or similar) provided they like the look of the watch, and that's absolutely fine. Other people at the other of the spectrum would expect to only pay larger sums for a watch that offers something unique inside it over and above the looks. Neither is right, and neither is wrong, and there are huge shades of grey in between those two extremes - it's just whatever floats your boat.

Personally if I pay what I consider to be a decent sum of money for a watch, I will only buy something with an in-house movement or else I just end up feeling I'm paying for nothing more than a nice case and a name on the dial. I like to be able to at least tell myself that what I'm paying for is all the R&D, and machine-shop set-up, and materials cost of developing a new movement. If I'm paying big bucks I like the 'purity' of a watch that's been designed from scratch by the company, and not effectively just a assemblage of parts. Being an assembler is easy (relatively speaking) - that's why all these micro-brands have been popping up over recent years.

That said, I still really like this new SOH, and there's no doubt in my mind that an MT5613 base is a step up from the old model's ETA 2824 base : the power reserve alone is worth the entry fee. Plus it's a great price. I just want them to be up front about the origins this 'manufacture' movement.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

Great explanation Driver as usual!

Mat

_________________
Mat

Breitling Navitimer 01
Omega Seamaster 300mc
Omega Speedmaster Pro "Mitsukoshi Mod"
Seiko Prospek Orange Samurai

Yep, excellent post Driver.

I had exactly this same reaction.

Either way, however, the new SOH2 now has a more robust power reserve, some new stylistic nods to the '57 model, and a great looking ceramic bezel. I like it a lot.

_________________
Cheers,
Jim

A lot of hubbub for nothing, as if anyone who cares about the collaboration even understands to what extent the movement was modified and by whom.
If the watch performs and looks sharp than I do not have a problem with it. This in house only camp is pretty weak if you ask me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

.....which completely proves my point that some people really don't care what's inside a watch. But some people really do. What a wacky and diverse world we live in, huh! Horses for courses.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

That being said, there's a difference between caring what's inside a watch, and caring about how what's inside a watch is characterized...

_________________
Cheers,
Jim

True enough Jim.

I just like things to be honestly labelled. If it says something is stainless steel then I don't expect it to be made of aluminium. If it says sapphire crystal then l don't expect it to be polycarbonate. If it's called a manufacture movement then I don't expect it to be made by someone else.

Just sayin'......

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

Couldn't agree more, Driver.

_________________
Cheers,
Jim

So, and this is a serious question and not just a troll for a response, have you always felt this way? If so, what watches have you owned in the past, as in-house movements have not always been the norm, especially at Breitling, and thus very expensive. Even now, while the number is growing, they are still not in the majority.

I think the cause for the few arguments here is what defines as in-house and what is not. I have no knowledge on how much "in-house" is the process of the manufactured movements of every brand. Some brands design their entire movements, down to the very most tiny screw themselves. Some copy designs from here and there, and create a movement and call them in-house. Some make all the parts themselves, some do not. No matter what, different brands have created their own standards of definition of an in-house and how "in-house" are their manufactured movements. So if you are one who only buy in-house pieces like me and do not agree with the way a brand labels their in-house, because some of the manufacturing process is not as "in-house" as you want them to be, you would tend to "degrade" the brand and refrain from buying their pieces. If you are impressed with the way a brand manufactures their in-house, you buy their pieces.

For me I echo Driver8's definition of an in-house and thought his definition is pretty much straight forward and a no-brainer. IMO Breitling has been doing well with their manufactured movements since 2009(in terms of their definition of their in-house) and with all the evolutions and innovations that came after that, and further impress consumers with the launch of the B03 this year. Even though I only have B01 and not B03, I am so proud of the limitless enhancements Breitling could do to this movement and I was even more convinced that I was having one of the most innovative and high tech chronograph movement in the market. I thought Breitling deserves this credit and even for those who own Breitlings but not their in-house, it's still a good feeling to them because the brand that they are owning seems to be moving higher scale.

I think nobody in this thread has an issue with the collaboration. For me, I have an issue with Breitling suddenly degrading their standard of defining their in-house. IMO it's a serious degrade. By doing this they are not degrading the value of this particular model, but they are degrading the value of the brand overall. Even if they charge a much lower premium on this "self proclaimed movement", it doesn't help because they have already set a different standard of defining their in-house. I don't understand. Just call it "modified movement", "special movement", something else... I mean just be upfront. After all they are still producing pieces with modified movements, so nothing wrong with creating another modified movement.

I suddenly recall a good example. Chronomat. They were creating the image of the Chronomat as Breitling's first in-house model and their flagship, an upper end of their pieces, with all the subsequent Chronomats were in-house, until suddenly one day, the Chronomat 38 came in and left many puzzled on why they did that. But....at least they were upfront that the piece came with modified movement. I might not agree with them launching a "modified" Chronomat when all the Chronomats were supposed to be in-house by then. But at least I knew that their intention of launching the piece was to offer an alternative to a certain small segment of consumers. As long as I didn't buy it, I am not affected and the brand overall is not affected. I mean you can't expect every model to please everyone but at least, lay the cards on the table and let consumers decide.

Many consumers like me are not super savvy, but we want to know what we are buying. I am not super knowledgeable, but I am sure of what I want and that I only want to buy in-house pieces. I can imagine many sales people will start recommending this piece to customers, telling them that it's Breitling's new in-house piece, new invention, blar blar blar.... and they have been officially given the right to do so, since Breitling claims it. Even though the definition of in-house can be subjective, I thought this is a clear cut case that it's not.

_________________
Breitling Chronomat 01 Limited Edition
Breitling Navitimer 01 46mm

Don't get me wrong. I am not starting a "Tudor vs Breitling" thread here. I stress, "from the marketing perspective". It's indeed that people out there see Tudor as the "lower end Rolex". And while we have a few threads over the years debating on "Rolex vs Breitling", and that this topic would pop out every now and then, Breitling suddenly came out with this collaboration as if trying to affirm their positioning as on par with a "lower end Rolex". So that was why I mentioned that it was a bad move, "from the marketing perspective". To exaggerate things, it's like asking Patek Philippe to collaborate with Casio to design a "new movement". Does it make their "new movement" less reliable? Not likely. But definitely not a good move from the marketing perspective.

_________________
Breitling Chronomat 01 Limited Edition
Breitling Navitimer 01 46mm

Hello all, coming out of my work cave (and it's been an awfully deep cave the last 3 years) for Basel and to see the impressions of the Group on the new releases. After a long while of not seeing anything I'd consider buying, the Rattapante and that blue Heritage 42 are the best I've seen in years. (Heritage is a bit thick, though)

While only a spotty historian on this, I have viewed Breitling first and foremost as a chronograph maker. Of course they have offered, and I have owned, some beautiful three-hand Breitlings, all ETAs, and with my watch guy tuning them as accurate as any mechanical watch I have ever owned. The B01 is their cornerstone and with the present market ( including rumors I have seen over time that Breitling was on the block for sale) building their own true full in-house three hander movement was probably not a matter of economy. Yes, I get that many of us would see and want to see Breitling as something more than Tudor, but that Tudor movement, from what I have read, is a solid, modern build. No, it's not a Breitling in-house movement, but one from the folks at Rolex, who won't allow low quality stuff out the door, Tudor or not. I'd rather that than a Sellita, for example, and for some reason the idea of scrounging for ETAs, maybe an idea of my own creation, is getting old. I thought it was predicted from the time of the ETA edict that there would likely need to be some collaboration to fill the void. If that's what Breitling needed to do, and I recognize the concept of taking their word for it might be shot around here, I think they could certainly do worse.

Just as significant for me is the outside supplying of the B01, which Tudor will now buy. I'm curious to see thoughts on that. I have mixed emotions, though if Rolex is buying Breitling chronograph movements, even if for Tudors, that's a pretty positive objective statement on the B01, and a long way from the rocky first couple years of its existence. I see a lot of folks discount Breitling based on some recent offerings and the bling era, and I'm curious if it doesn't help their reputation.

Anyway, some thoughts on for me, the most positive release year for Breitling in some time. I'll linger a bit to see about other releases and then be dragged by work back in my cave (where you may want me anyway after my comments). Cheers, all.

_________________
Scott

AP Royal Oak 15400, silver
Zenith Chronomaster El Primero Classic Cars
Vintage gold Corum
Rolex DJ 36 TT, oyster dial, oyster/smooth
Baume & Mercier Riviera 200m, silver dial/aquamarine bezel
Breitling Superocean 57, rose/stainless

No, I've definitely NOT always been like that. I've been into watches since I was kid, but only started properly getting into more "luxury" watches when I was at Uni, and then only started buying them after I'd finished (i.e. when I could start to afford them!). 20-25 years ago there were very few affordable in-house equipped pieces around, and to be perfectly honest, back then I was still learning and figuring out what I liked. To be fair, I'm still learning now - for me, buying and owning watches is a never ending journey.

I remember being in a AD over 20 years ago agonising over whether to buy an Omega SMP quartz or a Breitling SO auto. Both were around £900 at the time, and looking back now it made me laugh how I said to the sales-guy, "I suppose watches are basically all the same inside at this price point". To which he looked at me with a kind of pitying expression and politely said, "Well.... not really sir". In the end I went for the quartz SMP, much to the open disappointment of the sales guy who was clearly a dyed in the wool mechanical fanatic!

My first in-house watch was a Rolex Sub LV that I bought around 2005, but before that they'd all been ETA or ETA-based, and I continued to buy non-in-house watches afterwards. But over the years (and especially as prices have gone up, and as in-house movements have become more prevalent), I started to narrow down what I personally want in a watch and what I'm prepared to pay for. Nowadays I judge each watch's merits against my personal list of criteria - looks/design, material, price, brand, movement, "value", etc - it's fairly fluid depending on the watch, but what I can say is that past a certain price point I insist on a manufacture movement, and have done so for the past 4 or 5 years.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

I have tried to do this. But I am weak and my wide eyed emotional decision making has me buying like a magpie rather than a connoisseur!

Getting back to the start of this thread, I really like the new SOH. A 46 in blue already on the 'as soon as I can find it list'. And I really hope Breitling sell a shed load of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
Transocean Unitime Worldtimer; B50 Night Mission Boutique Edition-Cobra Dial; SuperOcean Heritage Chronograph 44; Colt Chrono; Navitimer World; Super Avenger II; B-1; Chronomat No 94 (ltd); Emergency Super Quartz: 2009 Top Time; B13055 Windrider