The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Your point is well made, but I was predominantly responding to your comment:



It movements are your thing (they are not mine) then I fully understand your concerns about both companies claiming development, but in this case I don't think either company is hiding the collaboration.

I wonder when (if ever!) Breitling will make a tri-compax chrono WITHOUT that eyesore of a date window at 4:30 - as in NO date window at ALL, ala the old 806 Twin Jets...

@Driver8 I am with you 100% on this. Your arguments don't need my input, but I will say that it just boils down to the POV of the end user.


Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Let me summarize.... Porsche decided to collaborate with Ferrari. So Ferrari produced a new car model using Porsche's existing engine, modified it and called it their own manufactured engine. Porsche also produced a new engine using Ferrari's existing engine and modified it and claims it's their self produced engine. Assuming both have superb performance, would you buy them? No right, no wrong. Personally I will not. Maybe I would buy the Porsche with engine modified from Ferrari(if price is attractive), but I will not buy the Ferrari with engine modified from Porsche. Why would you want to buy a luxury car, when a normal car could be as reliable and with reasonable performance? Now why would you want to buy a luxury watch? For luxury watches, it's even more important to me to consider more factors, because I want to keep the watch for life. Whether I choose Breitling, or I choose a Tudor, there must something I love about the brand and want to buy a watch that truly represents the brand. After all I am paying more than just the design and reliability, but also the heritage, the achievement or the milestone that the particular model means to the brand overall. Again there are buyers who do not see the need to consider so much, they see the watch, they like how it look, they buy it and do not care about the rest, as long as the watch is telling the right time.

IMHO, I personally dislike this collaboration. It's like Breitling is elevating their image by slowing moving towards the scale of 100% in-house and with all the impressive innovations and evolutions of their in-house movements(e.g, the new B03). Then suddenly they create confusion with this collaboration and leave consumers skeptical of what is "in-house" and if all their past in-house pieces(since the launch of B01) were really in-house in the first place. Even though other brands might have misused the term, "in-house", at least Breitling should set their own standards and they have been doing fine IMO until this issue came in and started putting doubts on the image that they worked so hard for since 2009.

_________________
Breitling Chronomat 01 Limited Edition
Breitling Navitimer 01 46mm

Having read through this thread, I'm now slightly disappointed that the SOH II movement is the product of a collaboration and is not fully in-house and also feel a bit misguided by Breitling and their "manufacture" branding. Nevertheless, a modified MT5630 potentially outperforms a modified ETA-2824 in terms of PR. Other than the movement, there are other reasons to go for the SOH II, namely ceramic bezel and simetry (date at 6 o'clock on the 42mm) if that's your thing. And let's bear in mind the price is unchanged! So all in all an attractive proposition even if not really in-house.

_________________
life's too short and you only live once

I think you guys are missing the point here. To use the car analogy from above, neither Porsche, or Ferrari make every single component in their cars. No auto manufacturer does this any more as they all collaborate and share common parts suppliers. Breitling is reaching into a parts bin just like Porsche and grabbing a few parts that have already been perfected and designing them into their car. Seems like Breitling is doing the same thing with this movement. The days of any modern manufacturer making every nut and bolt are long gone. As long as the warranty is good and you like the piece, I say carry on.

_________________

Well we can't say those days are long gone. Rolex does everything in house.

Mat

_________________
Mat

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

For those who care about in house vs. generic there is a very clear understanding of what in house means, and Driver8 provided that above. There is also an understanding that some parts are not built / supplied by most in house manufacturers - hair springs are an obvious example. The whole Swiss Made thing is related but somewhat different - location may be different from ownership.

However, there is a big difference between using a parts supplier to build your own designed and manufactured piece and taking someone else's designed and assembled piece and modifying it. A Ferrari with Michelin tires, Brembo brakes, etc. etc. is a Ferrari; a Ferrari which arrives in the factory as a Porsche chassis, engine and drive train that then has the alternator changed and a Ferrari body added is a Porsche.

Simply put, Breitling claims in-house movement. This could very mean that they built the entire movement in their facilities. This does not mean that they did not use the blueprint of Tudor's movement. All in-house means is that Breilting built the movement, in their facility. Tudor claims in-house, because Tudor built the movement in their facilities based off the blueprint of the B01 from Breitling. This is an interesting collab, but being done, in my opinion, correctly.

_________________
Spencer
Colt 44 Sierra Silver
Superocean Heritage II 46 Black on Black

Please cite a source for that claim as it applies to watch movements.

The meaning of an in-house movement is very well established and it does not mean just assembled. If that were the case Breitling would have claimed in-house in about 2007 when they were buying ETA movement parts from suppliers like Sellita and doing all assembly from mainplate onwards in their own facilities.

I am not stating that parts were purchased from Tudor and assembled in Breitling facilities. I am stating that Breilting used the blueprints from Tudor and built the movement in their own facilities. Breitling had guidance from Tudor in the development of the movement. That is why, I believe, they claim it as in-house.

_________________
Spencer
Colt 44 Sierra Silver
Superocean Heritage II 46 Black on Black

As Breitling did in 2007 - produced parts to ETA / Valjoux designs on the equipment they purchased to support their own in-house movment when it was launched in 2009. Those ETA / Valjoux designs weren't in house because they were stamped or CNC'd by Breitling and stuck on a Sellita manufactured ETA design mainplate and that's a lot more manufacturing than apparently has been done with Tudor.


Not according to what information is available - Tudor developed the movement on their own, Brietling simply takes advantage of it and vice versa with Breitling's in-house design used by Tudor.

Notwithstanding my earlier post I do care about what's inside my Breitling so I too am a little deflated that this isn't 100% manufacture and completely accept Drivr8's well made argument that businesses need to be transparent with their customers. However I do feel that a collaboration between two respected marques is a step up from taking a generic movement available to all and modifying it.

I have no source to cite how much the R&D costs for new movements are, but I suspect that it is a heck of a lot of money. And times are tough for the Swiss watch industry. I'd therefore rather see this type of collaboration to move Breitling forward rather than betting the house on jumping straight to 100% manufacture across the range. I wouldn't, based on my assumptions re cost, therefore be surprised to see more collaborations of this type across the industry.

_________________
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

Seriously.... I would rather they call this a modified movement instead of a manufactured movement. It's not about the price or the performance or the design. It's fine to collaborate with another brand. However to name this as a manufactured movement, they are displaying a double standard in the way they define their in-house movements, which to me, is as good as tainting and degrading the image of all their-house movements. It's such a pity.... I was just beginning to feel that Breitling's image is moving higher up. IMO this is one of the worst things they have ever done.

I know many would disagree with me, but I am rather upset that of all brands Breitling chose to collaborate with Tudor. Many know Tudor as the "lower end Rolex". It's like at one moment you see Breitling trying to position themselves on a higher scale, but suddenly it's like they put themselves in the "same league" as a "lower end Rolex". I don't really see that as a good move from the marketing perspective.

_________________
Breitling Chronomat 01 Limited Edition
Breitling Navitimer 01 46mm

I think your views of Tudor are misguided. I have a Pelagos and the finish and movement are better than any of my Breitlings.

Mat

_________________
Mat

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