The Breitling Watch Source Forums

For those who have been waiting for an in house three hander Breitling has answered your wishes! A redesigned SO Heritage!

https://www.breitling.com/en/models/sup ... age-ii-42/

with a ceramic bezel no less!

Retail on the newer in house version with the ceramic bezel only shows a $300 increase from the previous version, $4700 vs. $4405 on the mesh bracelet. I'm surprised they brought it out in the heritage models and not the other superocean models. Suddenly that blue dial with the ceramic bezel looks a lot more attractive to me.

_________________
Justin
Please contact me via PM for the contact details for Govberg Jewelers
Govberg is an AD for over 50 fine Swiss and German watch brands.
Visit them on the web at http://www.govbergwatches.com or call 800-528-8463

Holy S**T!!!! That's the Breitling I've been waiting for! I even "asked" for this in my "Baselworld Hopes" thread a few months ago! I'm in shock this has arrived. Superb! And only £3510. This will be my first new Breitling in years.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

Very nice, the ceramic bezel , the date at 6 o'clock on the 42mm, the in-house B20 with 70hrs PR. Very tempting. No green bezel this time?

_________________
life's too short and you only live once

H o d i n k e e is reporting that the B20 movement was developed with Tudor. They're also reporting that the in house movement in the Black Bay Chrono was a collaboration between Breitling and Tudor and is based off the B01 movement. To quote the article since it can't be linked:

"The collaboration began several years ago, out of a desire on Tudor's part to create a modern, robust, and reliable chronograph caliber that it could offer to its consumers at a very approachable price. Modifications to the B01 include a Tudor oscillating weight and Tudor's own finishes, as well as regulating organs made by Tudor – this includes a silicon balance spring. As well, the layout in Tudor's Black Bay Chronograph is two-register, with Tudor's historically-significant 45-minute counter.

Tudor has told us that Breitling will also adopt a Tudor movement cal. MT5613, but with a Breitling oscillating weight and Breitling's own regulating system, balance spring, and finishes; this will be Breitling caliber B20."

_________________
Justin
Please contact me via PM for the contact details for Govberg Jewelers
Govberg is an AD for over 50 fine Swiss and German watch brands.
Visit them on the web at http://www.govbergwatches.com or call 800-528-8463

Soooooo, not really manufacture at all then.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

Well Tudors website claims the movement in the Blackbay Chrono is Maunfacture Calibre, despite the above claims that it's a modified B01. So why shouldn't Breitling claim this with the pretty important modifications they make.

My Pelagos with a MT5612 is a fantastic timekeeper - if the MT5613 is alligned to that then I could think of worse movements to collaborate with.

_________________
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

I'm saying that IF it's true that the B20 is essentially a rebadged MT5613 with some swapped parts (in just the same way that a B17 is essentially a rebadged ETA 2824 with some swapped out parts), then it's not a true Breitling manufacture movement. Likewise if Tudor are rebadging a Breitling B01 as a manufacture movement then I'd say they shouldn't be doing that either for the same reasons. It's all semantics, but to call a movement a "manufacture" (or in-house) calibre it SHOULD mean that it was designed and built entirely in-house by the company....and if what Justin posted is correct, then Tudor's MT5813 chrono is really Breitlings, and Breitling's B20 is really Tudors.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the MT5613 at all - quite the opposite in fact as it's a fine movement - I just want manufacturers to be honest and up-front about the origins of their movements and name them accordingly. That way, we buyers who take pleasure from the fact that a watch is built totally in-house know exactly what we're spending our hard-earned on.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

I'm guessing there is more of this type of 'cooperative design sharing' (for lack of a better description) between manufacturers than we know (ie. Bremont?). If not now, there may be in the future for obvious development cost reasons. Doesn't bother me but I can see where it would for a true in-house customer as Driver8 says.

I noticed it did add a little thickness (1.4mm) and weight to the new 42mm SO Heritage II.

_________________
Chrono Jetstream
Montbrilliant 1903
Aerospace E79362

Driver. If it's a collaboration between 2 companies do you consider it in house for both or non in-house for both?

Mat

_________________
Mat

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

I think the market spoke loud and clear about what they think of this type of 'unannounced collaboration' with the Tag 1887 controversy. If both sides announce they are working on a collaboration to benefit both parties that's one thing (and automatic chronographs were born that way), for one party to say nothing and the other have a somewhat buried announcement after the fact is different.

Roff I would have thought this was more your thing:

https://www.breitling.com/en/campaigns/ ... ntent=text

I seem to remember you having a passion for an earlier Rattrapante!

_________________
Aerospace Titanium & Gold - Grey Face
B-1 on Fighter/Blue Shark - Blue Face
Emergency on Pro - Yellow Face

To complete the collection:
Navi 01 46/Black leather - Black/white
Montbrillant Datora/Navi - White face


LEARNING.......EVERY DAY

I hear what you are saying, but I think your view is a little naive in the context of the way manufacturing is undertaken in the modern world. I don't believe any Breitling watch is built entirely in-house, as the manufacture of many parts and accessories are outsourced to third-party suppliers, many of which are in China. From Wikipedia:



So if buyers accept that it has Swiss Made on the dial but may only be 60% Swiss and has Breitling on the dial but may only be 60% made by Breitling (or could be less if the third-party suppliers are Swiss too), then it is not unreasonable for them to [legally] claim an in-house movement when its development is shared with another manufacturer.

I'm not being naive at all. I'm not talking about where individual parts are made. Very very few manufacturers make all their own parts, and I've been around long enough to know that some parts will no doubt be produced by one or more 3rd parties no matter where they are. What I'm talking about is the fundamental design of the movement being conceived and executed solely by the company claiming to be the manufacturer.

If we're doing definitions then...,

https://www.watch-wiki.net/index.php?ti ... e_movement

.....specifically the line, "This means in short that the movement is a proprietary development and designed and produced in-house."

Take the Zenith El Primero, or the Rolex 3135, or indeed the Breitling B01. All of those were conceived, designed and built by the respective manufacturers. Yes some of the parts may be made elsewhere (or not in the case of the 3135), but the concept, the design, and the build of those movements is executed entirely by Zenith, Rolex and Breitling respectively.

What we have here though is a movement that both Tudor and Breitling are claiming as a manufacture movement. Well if Tudor are changing parts in a B01 and calling it their own, and Breitling are taking an MT5613 and calling it their own after changing a few parts, how is that any different to Breitling taking an ETA 2824, changing a few bits and calling it a B17? IMO it's exactly the same, and yet the B17 is called a "modified ETA 2824", but the B20 is being called "manufacture".

Don't get me wrong - I have no issue with Tudor movements at all. I also have no issue with collaborative work between companies. I just don't like it when companies are not fully up front (or are perhaps less than honest) when it comes to things like this. If it was a collaborative effort, then just say so. Omega did that a few years ago with the 3313 and they called it an "exclusive" movement - meaning not fully in-house as it was a F. Piguet design built by Omega.

I realise this distinction won't mean a thing to guys who don't care what's inside a watch, but for me (and others like me) who enjoying knowing that the entire design of a watch (both inside and out) is the work of that one manufacturer, then distinctions like this are important.

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator

Out of curiosity how would you feel about the movement if they were being more upfront about their collaboration?

Basically we still consider the B01 a manufacture movement for Breitling watches but not for the BB Chrono and the MT5612 a manufacture movement for Tudors but not for the new SuperOcean Heritage 2?

Do you feel a movement lose it's appeal if it starts getting used by other brands?

Mat

_________________
Mat

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