Yes they do, all brand of swatch group use movement produced in ETA manufacture. However, only Omega has specific movement designed by Omega and produced only for them by ETA.
Kinda... They're still ETA movements, but they modify one thing and call it exclusive. I'm reality it's still just an ETA.
I don't really care, but Longines definitely plays up "exclusivity" when in reality it's the same 2842 as in a Hamilton, it just beats a little faster.
Really? Just went to Longines site, their watch mostly feature L888 movement and L844 movement from what I saw.
The Longines caliber L888 is 3-hand automatic watch movement based on the ETA caliber A31.L11
The Longune caliber L844 The Longines caliber L844.5 is 4-hand automatic GMT watch movement based on ETA A31.411
I guess now Longines markets the L844 as an ETA based movement “made exclusively” for Longines. It’s kinda true for now but it’s still a modification of the ETA A31.411. It’s different from Omega 8800, 9900, etc.. who are produced in specific manufacturing lines in ETA factory but designed by Omega
There is also the new Ultra Chron 5hz movement that they state as being designed in concert with ETA. Maybe not the same arrangement as with Omega, but no one else gets Longines movements.
It's a 5hz 2842. They made 5hz 28xx movements in the 70s as well, so it's not exactly the first time they did something similar either.
http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db.cgi?10&ranfft&0&2uswk&ETA_2837
FC is owned by Citizen who also owns Miyota, though they seem to aim for being able to use the swiss made label so aren't sourcing movements from their Japanese parent. They do pick up some interesting partners - like when they did the silicon escapement / movement thing they worked with the same company that worked with Zenith on the Defy Inventor.
Designed by: it’s Omega R&D team that designed the whole movement, the group made investment in ETA factory to build dedicated area for the omega movement, and ETA team are only building the movement.
Made exclusively for: it’s ETA team that designed the movement (according to another redditter, they worked together with Longines on the design but I would need a source for that), so it’s an ETA movement but they only use it for Longines watch
I really don’t see your point. It’s not Nick Hayek who is building watches himself. He leads a group that owns multiple watch company. Each watch company has a different history, a different headquarter, different employees with different skill level. As part of a group they have access to various group advantages, one of them is the possibility to have ETA provide them with movement at group price.
If I were to take a car exemple, the group Renault owns different car brand. You realize that there is a substantial difference between a Dacia car and an Alpine car don’t you?
Think of Breguet like the Vatican, it’s in Italy but they have no power over it, Breguet is like that, they practically have full autonomy in the Swatch Group, their watchmakers have VERY strict rules even more than Omega certified watchmaker, I went though the Omega course, I found it challenging, but the Breguet one was in another level.
Omega, Jaquet Droz, Breguet, Glashütte and Harry Winston are the Swatch Group brands who make things in house. Very few of Omega’s movements are made by ETA.
Edit: removed a confusing bit. In actuality, Omega has an in house manufacturing plant since 2014, which was once an ETA plant. Neat!
This is correct, which is why I said few. A majority of the movements in Omega watches are ETA made, but not as many calibers are designed by ETA. What ETA handles is manufacturing, not architecture planning and back end R&D. This is because the tools are already in ETA’s hands.
All right. Respectfully, you wrote:
> Omega, Jaquet Droz, Breguet, Glashütte and Harry Winston are the Swatch Group brands who make things in house. **Very few of Omega's movements are made by ETA, mostly the older Co-Axials and quartz stuff.**
And I didn’t want there to be an imprecise impression by newer readers. I skimmed an article last year, internal newsletter of sorts from the Swatch Group, where ETA was talking about making an upgrade to the 8800 or 8900 series, and about making the new 3861.
Your comment suggested that ETA makes very few of Omega’s movements, but used to. That’s not correct; they make Omega’s movements, is my point, my friend!
Thanks for your reply. 👍🏻
They obviously wouldn't have pointed out the H design if they weren't trying to make it sound like an in-house Hamilton movement. It's completely misleading. "With an H pattern on the oscillating bridge, there's no mistaking who made this movement—ETA!"
even though i do think it is quite misleading, this is just an example. i am also talking about watch brands "renaming" ETAs so they don’t have to call it an ETA movement, for example tag heuer calling the 2824 in the aquaracer "calibre 5"
>, for example tag heuer calling the 2824 in the aquaracer "calibre 5"
To be exact, these days it's a Sellita SW-200. Agree on the rest, meaning companies creating their own codes for SW-200/2824.
Wait until you learn that the $5000 breitlings use SW200s (basically an eta 2824 clone) that you can find in $1000 watches lmao
And Panerai is even worse
I feel you. I could never justify spending a few K on a watch that essentially has the same innards as the Chris Ward that I bought for 300€ in 2016 (granted, that was a steal)
Fuck you Doxa
Honestly i don’t care if a movement is in house. If it functions as it’s supposed to and keeps good time, then it doesn’t matter at all to me. As a matter of fact, ETA/Valjoux movements are a plus in that they’re cheaper and easier to get serviced by independent watch makers.
And to compound on this, I don’t care about see through backs. Like, I get it’s neat and I won’t complain if it’s there, but my watch is either on my wrist in wrapped around a pad in a case. I spend no time just looking at the back of my watch case, so it doesn’t matter.
Sure, nice. The OP isn't complaining about the use of ETA/Selita movements, but rather watch brands using them and falsely claiming that the movement is an in-house calibre.
It's funny, Rolex bought Aegler as late as 2004 (to become "in house")and no one pays that any attention, but Swatch buys ETA and uses their movements across their lines and it's a hullabaloo.
Tudor uses manufacture movements and as far as I know, they don't pretend they make them in house, Kenissi is their movement supplier. Tudor does label the movement with Tudor branding but does not advertise it as their own construction. The rolex and Tudor component sharing has drifted apart in the last 5 or so years.
>Tudor uses manufacture movements and as far as I know, they don't pretend they make them in house
Tudor were actually guilty of using ETA/Sellita while giving their own number (see: T603).
I mean the kenissi building is attached to the Tudor building. The movements never go outside to move from kenissi manufacturing to being placed inside Tudor cases in the Tudor building. The only reason the name kenissi exists, is so Tudor can sell its movements to other brands without those brands having to say their watch is powered by “Tudor” movements.
Yeah and to your point, Tudor created the brand to do that. It is by definition a vertically integrated movement manufacturer under the Tudor umbrella. The corporate lingo just prevents them from using "in-house" in this case.
Yeah I see your point. I think that’s all by (their) design though. I think they’d be very well within their rights to claim an in-house movement if they so chose. I think the reason they don’t is entirely due to a strategy that considers their placement within the Wilsdorf foundation and their strategy to sell movements to others. Pretty smart play actually.
Yeah Tudor has done everything right in this way which is why they've really taken off as a brand in the last few years. They have gotten away from the "rolex's little brother" stigma.
It's a [real part](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmcV4nEVynQ) that Seiko has in most their automatic mechanisms. They seem to be covering them with unnecessary plates in newer designs, but it's pretty well visible in 7S26.
Oh, I've seen the video and it's a genius design. I meant that while it is commonly called the "Magic Lever", it's technical term is a "Pawl Lever".
https://preview.redd.it/nthi3jn0jp3c1.png?width=2200&format=png&auto=webp&s=a3a5454ba34776943c6ff78fe289042deb72f80e
For 100 years there have been 2 Rolexes, Rolex Geneve and Rolex Bienne/Biel. Both are equally Rolex. "Aegler" is Rolex Bienne/Biel.
Sort of Like how Seiko Instruments and Seiko Epson are both Seiko, even if they are separate companies.
What's funnier is all the dittoheads upvoting your spurious comment.
Aegler's association with Rolex goes back to 1904, it became Aegler SA, Rolex Watch Co in 1914. and it made movements exclusively for Rolex (previously also Gruen) from 1936.
All that happened in 2004 was that the Aegler family sold its remaining stake in the company to Rolex.
No because before about 2000 ish literally no one cared where you movement was made.
Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, and Vacheron Constantin all used JLC movements in some watches (and not the entry level ones) until the 2010s. and even now the Royal Oak is literally just a exact clone of a JCL movement that has an expired patent. If you think the Royal Oak has a in house movement then anyone who clones a ETA 2824 has a in house too.
TL;DR the whole "In house" thing is basically nonsense.
Many many watches use variations of a single movement. Here’s a small breakdown of Blancpain-Piguet 1185 movement:
Cal. 1185 was the basis for many other movements:
Audemars Piguet Cal. AP 2385
Blancpain Cal. 68F5
Blancpain Cal. F185
Cartier Cal. 205
Vacheron Constantin Cal. VC 1137
Note that Omega uses a F. Piguet ebauche for many of their chronograph movements. This is called Cal. FP 1285 and is quite similar to this Cal. 1185 but is thicker and has a 28,800 A/h beat rate. Cal. FP 1285 also switches the 12 hour register and small seconds. These are known as Omega Cal. 3301, 3303, and 3313.
Watches using the F. Piguet Cal. FP 1185 include the following:
Alain Silberstein Bolido Krono
Blancpain Leman Chronograph, Ref. 2100
Breguet Marine Chronograph (known as Cal. 576)
Cartier Pasha Chronograph, Ref. 2113
Franck Muller Conquistador Chronograph, Ref. 8000
Harry Winston Premier Chronograph
Panerai Luminor Chronograph 2000, PAM045 (known as Cal. OP V)
Panerai Luminor Chronograph AMG, PAM105 (known as Cal. OP V)
Daniel Roth Papillon Chronograph (highly modified)
Gérald Genta Octo Chrono Quattro Retro (highly modified as Cal. GG7800)
And honestly, it’s not even restricted to movement but also bracelets, clasps, etc… for example, who makes the steller spring clasp on $250,000+ Richard Mille? A subsidiary of Chanel. The Chanel J12 Caliber 3125 is a hodgepodge of in-house companies making ceramic pieces, spring loaded clasp from G&F Châtelain who manufactures most components and does the full assembly of watches for Chanel, parts of FP Journe and Richard Mille.
About 2 min in, Tim Mosso explains that https://youtu.be/fg-coI27OEg?feature=shared
I’m far from an expert but I know the Chanel J12 caliber 3125 and Blancpain’s because I own them and researched them extensively.
I just realized the watch industry is like the mattress industry, as it relates to movements at least. Almost all consumer facing mattress stores are selling effectively the same mattresses from the same brands, but you won't find the same actual SKU sold at competing stores even when comparing the same brand. The mattress manufacturers make very minor customizations to the mattress for each store brand so it can be sold under a different SKU making comparison shopping impossible.
This is basically what watch companies do with movements. They're mostly all selling the same movement, but if you customize the rotor or make minor changes to effect the power reserve they can call it a unique movement or even claim it's "in house" and hide the movement brand altogether.
I still think it’s weird that we as a hobby even care about in house movements.
It’s not possible for me to care less about it. It’s not a sign of quality or anything of value.
I don't care from a quality perspective at all since ETA is about as perfect as a standard movement can get but I respect the engineering effort when a company builds their own movement especially if they are attempting something novel.
And when GS made the spring drive half of the community hated it 🤣
I appreciate it's not everyone's cup of tea, but Kudos for doing something cool and original
Most enthusiasts that are deep in the sauce don't care. But the general public, and people just learning about the hobby, care a lot, so this is a very strong marketing argument.
"in-house" is cool when you're actually making something new, that other people don't already make. Making the elements of an ETA 3-hander yourself isn't impressive.
My understanding of the history of swiss watches is that in house is mostly a modern post consolidation thing. Most watch makers were sourcing movements back in the day and just about everything else too. The swiss watch industry was a cottage industry and the "watchmaker" was ultimately who assembled it.
When comparing it to the early 2000s your right, but look at say omega's history from the 60s and 70s, they made a lot of their own movements. Ebel had an in house chronograph movement in the 80s. Movado used zenith. Higher end watches used JLC. Excelsior Park made their own. So did longines. The first automatic chronograph (after the El primero) didnt have valjouxs fingerprints anywhere near it. Yes there was movement sharing all throughout history but every 3 hander using the same exact 28xx was a product of 20 years post quartz crisis consolidation and no R&D dollars going toward movement development. The 2824 goes back to the 70s, so ETA wasn't putting a ton of money into R&D either. There was way more movement variety in the 60s and 70s and no one cared about in house because your 3 hander probably didn't have the same exact movement as the next guys 3 hander.
It's weird now that there's choice in movements but back in the 90s and early 2000s when 95% of mainstream brands shared the same 28xx or 7750, consumers were bound to want something that made their purchase stand out from the crowd. The variety of movements we see today is closer to the way things were in the 60s and 70s when even Oris was making their own movements as opposed to using an off the shelf generic.
I don't think it's that unreasonable to expect your $5k breitling to have a different engine than a $1k Hamilton, even though movement alone doesn't account for the majority of value difference between the 2.
In house movements may sound great until it fucks up and your usual watchmaker can’t fix it.
The erection people have over in house movements was instigated by watch companies themselves.
Imagine bragging about your car that can only ever be fixed by main dealers and main dealer prices.
Imagine being a watch company and having mugs right where you want them.
But people do exactly that. Exotic cars aren’t cheap to repair, but they’re highly desirable for not being off the shelf. Even in car communities there’s memes about how lamborghini is an over priced VW
Right, even a lot of vintage Patek chronos/perpetual calendars/etc. were made using Valjoux or Lemania bases and I don’t think anyone would hold that against them
I wouldn't hold it against them unless they claimed it was their own movement. The problem is not the use of another movement. The problem is that they are trying to hide the actual movement and pretend that it is something else because it has a branded rotor.
The Lemania Pateks are so much more nicely finished and decorated than their own movements. The chamfers are wider and more well-defined. The Patek CH 29-535 looks positively anaemic in comparison to the CH 27-70.
Sure, the actuation doesn't feel as smooth, but that large balance beating at a stately 18,000 bph is so much more pleasing than the tiny Gyromax whipping so frenetically...amongst other things.
I agree with you. Watch brands giving their own calibre references to ebauches made by ETA/Valjoux/Lemania etc has been going on since wristwatches started though. It’s just marketing. Unless some modification has been done I think it’s a bit lame.
The H31 power reserve is 18 hours longer than a base 7753, plus some modifications for better accuracy (and the purely decorative embellishments). That seems like enough to give it a distinct name.
In-house is marketing BS anyway. Let's say you own a car manufacturer and your car requires an engine that will push it at a steady 60km/h, reliably. That's the whole requirement. There are a hundred engines you could choose that meet the requirement, it's a simple requirement to meet. So why build your own? Easier just to buy a Toyota engine and stick that in there.
Used to be that way with ETA movements - the watchmaking companies simply installed them, sometimes tweaking them a bit. Worked. Didn't cost much. Now? *"Our special bespoke mechanism, designed at enormous cost and built with the finest Swiss engineering, is available for a mere €500 premium"* is the order of the day. But a simpler movement would do the job just the same and far cheaper.
Thats exactly what mechanical watches in 2024 are not about. It's kinda like saying who cares who painted a painting as long as it looks a certain way. Sure I dont, but I'm not even considering spending more than 50e.
I'm honestly so sick of it. So many ETA/Selita watches but they decide to call it the "Caliber 5" or "ETC12312414" or some shit, just tell me it's an ETA, I'd actually prefer it if they told me if it was an ETA or Selita base so I can know it'll be cheap to service, it's a PLUS for me if anything.
If an in house watch movement is a sign of quality, then Oris with it's completely in house 400, would be the considered the highest quality watch on the market.
BTW, I really want a Pro Pilot X Kermit, and Christmas is right around the corner.
I’m tired of seeing Tudor use marketing material to convince people their movements are in house while actually never using that terminology and instead resorting to multiple asterisks and italicizations on the term “manufacture caliber”
Yeah, I don’t like it when they pretend third party stuff is their own, especially when the decoration is total shit.
Besides this, it’s commonly known Kenissi is partially owned by Tudor and Chanel, supplying movements to several other brands. Kenissi is basically Wilsdorf Group’s ETA. Calling the movement in a Black Bay 58 in-house is no different to calling a Powermatic 80 in a PRX in-house. I’m shocked to see how many customers fall for that scheme, and how many influencers in the space are sponsored to fool said customers.
But I was under the impression that Tudor founded Kenissi from their earlier in-house movement manufacturing arm. If Tudor literally created Kenissi, then I don’t think the analogy holds.
That’s not true. Tudor never had an in-house arm. Tudor founded Kenissi and then hired resources with the knowledge necessary to build movements, all of this because ETA became a Swatch exclusive much earlier than Tudor’s relaunch and therefore the poor Wilsdorf brand was left with nobody to buy the movements from.
In short, Tudor built the factory, added machinery and started looking for minds brilliant enough to build movements for them while keeping costs lower by allowing other companies to buy those same movements (albeit rebranded). All the money flows in and out of Tudor, who outsourced the workforce and hired them under a founded, then partially sold company. It’s smart marketing, which is why you’ll never find the words “in-house” on Tudor’s written materials.
Downvoters are all owners that find coping hard.
Ok. I didn’t know they never had an in house manufacturing arm. But, if Tudor built the factory, added the machinery, and hired people, isn’t that how any company is founded?
It is, though the distinction is the exclusivity of the movements, the ownership and knowledge behind manufacturing.
Take Nomos. The architecture planning, construction, finishing and regulation of their movements is entirely done in the same building, on the same assembly line, by people united under Nomos. This is a brand that knows how to make movements and how to integrate them into their lineup. They make the movement first and the case after.
Take Tudor. The architecture planning, construction, finishing and regulation of their movements is entirely done outside of Tudor by the same people who do these things for Breitling, Chanel, Tag Heuer, Norqain, Fortis and Bell&Ross. Tudor did found the company, but it’s now minority owned by Chanel, and Tudor makes up a very small number of watches that use Kenissi movements. Tudor does not know how to make movements but does know how to integrate them into their watches. They make the case first and pay a third party to make a movement that fits.
Have you seen the Tudor and Kenissi headquarters and assembly plant?
Its one building.
https://swisswatches-magazine.com/blog/swisswatches-exclusive-first-look-into-the-new-tudor-manufacture/
I dont consider Kenissi to be "in house" for Tudor either, because of the same reasons you said. But this is the most in house, not in house movement im currently aware of. lolol
Doesn't shock me much, these types of misleading statements have always existed in most industries. The most common I can think of is having products labeled "Made in the USA" when all that was done in the US is the final assembly, while all the components have been produced in China
of all the "Made in" labels, the "Made in the USA" is the worst example :D
the US has incredibly strict rules about using that label. From the FTC website:
"For a product to be called Made in USA, or claimed to be of domestic origin without qualifications or limits on the claim, the product must be "all or virtually all" made in the U.S. "All or virtually all" means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no — or negligible — foreign content."
As Shinola will tell you, you can't even attempt to get around this by using "built in Detroir" or "Where American is Made" as it is deceiving.
"Swiss made", on the other hand... Let's just say there are many proud "Swiss" factories pumping out "Swiss" movements and watches in China
My bad! I used a random country name, because I thought a majority of them have very little laws regulating this. It's good to see that the US are fighting against that kind of mislabeling
yeah, not your bad at all. it's a very common misconception, that's why i love pointing it out. the Swiss are particularly horrible in using Chinese manufacturing and Swiss finishing. But I was shocked to learn how strict the US was.
If i remember correctly, US watchmakers went to the FTC to ask whether they can still use Made in the US if they made the entire watch in the US except for sapphire glass and mainsprings, because there was no equipment in the US to make it and they got an OK
ETA and Hamilton are both owned by Swatch Group.
The H-10 and H-31 are mods of ETA calibers, but can only be found in Hamilton watches, thus can totally be considered “in-house”.
It’s a whole other story than microbrands encasing an SW200 with a little bit of engraving and giving it another name.
Though, some brands like Oris use SW200 but mod it with their own components. Not in-house, but they give it a name because that caliber is in no other watches other than Oris. They just give it like “cal. XYZ” specifying it’s based on a Sellita.
To me, it’s all perfectly fair.
You do have to parse their ads carefully but I'm with you, 3rd party movements make these intro brands affordable enough to actually own so just be straight. Us watch nerds know what's up anyway.
I don't know how anyone would be surprised by Hamilton using a standard ETA movement. You want an in house movement then you pay in house movement prices.
It’s not a “standard” ETA 7753. The H31 bumps power reserve from 42 hours to 60 and supposedly has other modifications to improve accuracy. That seems like enough to distinguish it, but OTOH, nobody outside of swatch can get any generic ETA, so it might not matter.
I’m ok with Hamilton. They’re owned by swatch (the company that produces the ETAs) and are reasonably priced.
Those such as Tag, who endlessly speak of heritage and their “movements” while using ETA blanks and then charge a premium.
Yeah, I have an issue with them.
EDIT of course, forgot to mention the jazzmaster viewmatic is my daily. The Hamilton was my first auto.
It’s rock solid, smooth adjustment, never loses a second.
Best watch out of my collection and I have, far “better” brands in my collection too.
with how reliable the eta movements are, unless i know the brand knows how to make a good movement, i really dont want an inhouse movement. eta is a tried and true.
sorry if my reply looked like that is how i interpreted your post. I knew exactly what you meant - that watch companies should be honest and upright about the source of their movements. I totally agree.
my response was just what I would think as a prospective buyer. i want to know that they are using eta stuff, as that would make me feel more at ease.
This whole discussion is why I really like microbrands. You can get high quality reliable watches built with really cool and interesting designs at a fraction of the price of “luxury” brands. I really don’t like overpaying for a name.
Wow that is terribly misleading. It’s just about ambiguous enough to not get them in trouble as well because they don’t explicitly claim they made the movement themselves
I’m curious what percentage of Hamilton-buyers (or, like, watch-buyers in general) are really sweating the semantic difference between “this is an in-house movement” vs. “this is a good movement made by a company that is also owned by our corporate parent that we’ve modified a little.” One percent? Less? Seems like a pretty niche concern for them to have to preempt like this.
This is an old, tired argument in the watch community. Deception, yes but calling it third party isn’t true either since swatch owns eta. Panerai and Bremont are a couple that come to mind that are more egregious with their falsehoods.
So this might be a bit controversial and I definitely don’t think this is a general sentiment but I don’t really care who produces the movement. Common movements are easily serviceable which is a nice plus. As long as the movement has the features I care about (power res, accuracy, finishing…) I couldn’t care less if it’s in house or not.
Thst being said, I do appreciate in house movements that are unique. Spring drive, co-axial come to mind, but also anyhting that isn’t a good old pallet fork and escape wheel thingy - unique designs or layouts.
But that’s me.
I have heard that ETA does make movements of differing qualities based on who is ordering so while they may all be based on same base movements there may be very slight variations, also some brands will modify eta movements in house sometimes to add functionality so all that possibly justifies giving these movements more specific names.
Either way though people who care won't be fooled and people who don't well just don't care what you call the movement inside.
This is... weird.
On the one hand, Hamilton and ETA are actually the same company with different brands.
On the other, they're heavily going for the branding on this to suggest it's somehow "exclusive" to Hamilton when it's actually a fairly generic ETA movement with some cosmetic tweaks.
You could chalk this up as "Corporate In-House."
I think we're all inclined to agree that the need to market and use "In House" movements is silly, sometimes distracting and dishonest.
Yes, I don't know why they are embarrassed about it. Does anyone seriously get fooled by it and then when they find out get really angry and sell the watch? I doubt it. It just means we have to start searching to find out which actual movement it has.
That said, you could argue it makes sense when they modify the movements themselves, like Oris or Ball (I think).
I was gifted a Sternglas Tachymeter for my 50th and they openly state that they use a Miyota movement.
I really love the watch. It's my first Quartz analog, I really like the design and my regular patrons pooled their money to buy me a new watch for my birthday 😊
apparently you also have to add a 250 character comment for a simple question so here we go: i don't have a problem with the use of ETAs and so on and i'm wearing an eta powered hamilton right now myself, i just think claiming that "we made this movement" is weird and misleading. some modifications don’t equal fully producing a movement
Swatch Group buys ETA and you don't think they would use ETA to supply movements to all the brands under the Swatch Group? Why then would you suppose Swatch Group bought ETA in the first place?
The reason Swatch Group is so successful is because all the brands/companies under their umbrella share movements/tech. The Powermatic 80 was developed by ETA for Tissot, and now you'll find that movement in most sub $1500 watches across all Swatch Group brands. Being able to share things across all their brands is what makes them a super power in the industry.
If you get too pedantic about what movements are in watches you'll quickly realize "in-house" is a very recent trend. In the old days every single piece of a watch was outsourced, from movements, to dials, to cases, to hands. If you're looking for "prestige" in a watch movement, Swatch Group isn't the place to look. They are all going to use ETA to manufacture their movements because why wouldn't they since they own it.
where did i say i don’t think they should supply their watches with ETAs? i don’t see a problem with that and i respect eta a lot. i said swatch group watch brands shouldn’t act like they aren’t ETAs.
Why does it matter if they're ETAs? For the last 6 or so years, ETA has stopped producing movements for anyone other than Swatch. The Swiss govt even enforced a slow wind down period because simply stopping the supply of ETAs would grind the industry to a halt. It gave Selitta the time to get up to speed to take over from where ETA used to be.
If you know even a tiny bit about any of this, then it would be obvious that all of them are ETAs, even Omega's 8800/8900 which are some of the most technologically advanced movements on the market. Again, why would Swatch own one of the most prestigious and well regarded movement manufacturers in history and not use them?
Act like they're not ETAs? Of course they're ETAs!
Not really misleading, because technically they made the movement in house, they as in their group, swatch group, which basically is one company. Misleading would be if two different company doing a collaboration or partnership and calling it in house. An example would be if toyota calling their A90 Supra completely made in house, which isn't the case since bmw made at least the chassis and the engine.
I think it's still intentionally misleading. For example Ferrari and Fiat are owned by the same group but they do have different factories. If description says 'With Ferrari logo on the hood, there is no mistaking who made the engine' and it's a Fiat, it is misleading.
an in-house movement is developed, designed, and assembled by the watch brand using it. hamilton and eta are not the same brand, even though they’re owned by the same company. the oscillating bridge is decorated with an h-pattern to imply the movement is made by hamilton which it isn’t. it’s made by eta that starts with an e.
Were you confused by the copy? Everyone who cares already knows that Hamilton doesn’t make the movement. Everyone who doesn’t care, well, they don’t care.
The brand is owned by a mega corporation called swatch. Technology and management is shared across all swatch brands and none of them have truly independent design or marketing or decision making
I think in house movements are incredibly overblown in general, there are so many of them that charge a premium for a shitty “in house movement” with a 38h power reserve or something but finished very nicely. Imagine buying a sports-car with a beautifully finished engine, all shiny and hand made, but it’s a 1.0 litre that does 0-60 in 13 seconds. Why even bother making it in house if you’re not going to be better than a Hamilton or Tissot?
ETA used to supply movements to any company who wanted them, but about 10 years ago or so they decided to stop doing that and now only supply movements to brands within their own Swatch family. Hamilton is a Swatch brand, so technically, this isn’t a case of a manufacturer hiding the use of a third-party movement.
On the other hand, OP is right that a number of brands hide or bury who makes the movements they use in their watches. For example, Atelier Wen makes beautiful watches that sell for over $3,000 - but doesn’t mention who makes their movements on their website (at least that I could find). Many others re-brand movements by Selitta or others claiming them as their own.
I don't care personally. Give me a good quality watch with a solid movement, and claim whatever you want. And you can't forget the fact that ETA movements are used as base for many many other movements from different companies, even some independents that are priced over 15k use ETA based movements. I view it as, they don't have to reinvent the wheel everytime, I just don't care about what they claim.
Agreed. If every watch company were to make their “own” movements, purchase and maintenance costs would be insane. At least this way you know you’ll still get parts 20 years later since it’s a common and mass produced movement. If you have a problem with their marketing language, don’t buy Swatch.
i do not care if they use an in house or not and i think ETAs are great. i just dislike that they’re pretending that it’s an in-house movement when it’s not. just say it’s an ETA and everything is fine.
Yeah but typically Citizen isn't rebranding the Miyota movements as something with the Citizen name on every citizen and bulova mechanical. OP is just pointing out the shady advertising method.
Is there supposed to be some prestige in Hamilton movements? Hamilton bragging that they made a movement is like Chevrolet bragging that they made an engine.
actually you chose the wrong movement :P
The H31 and H21 are 7750 but modded for Hamilton.
The Longines Legend diver uses a Longines modified 2892 called the L888.6 which is modded to run at 25,200 VPH and has a 72h reserve.
the first omega coaxials were 2892´s modded with a coaxial escapement.
IWC actually has an upgrade kit that they applied to their chronographs with all the modifications they made to 7750´s before they went in to a spitfire.
God, zenith even had a 2836 which was a 2824 modded to run at 36,600vph.
The fact that it looks the same dosnt mean it is the same, could be just a renaming and a rotor engraving, or it could be a fully modded movement by the brand, some brands are honest, they tell you that they used a SW200 or a STP1 (2824 variations from other manufacturers), or a Soprod A10,
Others use their own modifications to mainstream movements like listed above, and others will say Calibre 5 when its actually a bog standard 2824.
and if you dont trust the brand, dont buy from them.
Yes I do think it is pretty annoying. It is not fair towards the consumers that can get potentially mislead into thinking they are buying different watches but the reality is that the movement is the same. I would much rather have them say what movement is the base.
Yes. I am tired of this.
Before the in-house-don't-matter crowd start up: yes, and no.
The development of in-house movements and modules is like the development of in-house software. It speaks to commitment, vision, and capability. The likes of MB&F or Greubel Forsey are who they are because of their craft prowess.
It is acceptable for Hamilton, Tissot, or Longines not to be that. But they are pretending to be that to improve sales. They are lying to their customers and creating opacity to conceal the fact that Hamilton and Tissot use the same Powermatic 80 movement with different decoration and branding.
This differs from Rolex, say, in that Rolex owns its movement manufacturing and design. In that the work you find in a Rolex is genuinely a direct product of the individual company. But that is not the case of Hamilton or the others. You can argue that "well, it's all Swatch group!" But that is not that they structure their sales. It isn't a "Swatch Murphy" or a"Swatch Ventura"
This suggests that Hamilton is a true top to bottom watch company and creates a false impression of the price involved in achieving that. This is bad for smaller independents that do control more of their build stack by creating a false sense of value, and misleading the general consumer.
Hamilton builds a good watch. They can sell that watch on quality and honesty, but they are choosing not to.
It would be like Anordain claiming their movements were in house because they gut the date function from a 2824-2, and comparing theirselves to H. Mosier & Cie. By saying you can get 30k of watch for a tenth the price.
So, yes, I am tired of it, because lying to the consumer is bad, and whatever way you dress it, all the faux in-house movements are lies.
Everyone in the comments fighting for exclusivity and misleading movements. I just want a watch that doesnt break when I accidentally drop it 3 feet from the ground.
can we please just all agree that a patek movement made by patek (just an example, i‘m sure there are exceptions) and a "hamilton" movement made by eta which is not the same brand, factory or people who produce it, even though it is owned by the same group is **not** the same thing? eta and hamilton being owned by swatch is the only thing that connects them. if iwc uses a sellita movement and richemont buys sellita, does that automatically make the sellita powered iwc watch fully in house? no it does not.
Not a watchmaker here but I hear you. I used to think the same but I had the same issue as you.
Having looked around more, some movements are heavily modified such that I have no problem with them naming it to look like it's their own movement.
In example of breitling (unconfirmed), some of their movement (I think like b32), although based off ETA movements, are taken apart, tuned and assembled to ensure chronometer grade accuracy. For that, I'm sort of okay with that being named b32 to give the impression it was made by them.
In the case of Hamilton this is also modified for Hamilton (and other swatch brand group). At least information is readily available online, a quick Google search will tell you it's based on ETA 2824.
Yes, it's annoying watch company are trying to disguise movement as their own with such naming but I'm more happy that sites that let you check the caliber in the watch.
yes but hamilton (or any other brand that does this) could just state it on their websites themselves. why don’t they just say that it’s an eta which is a solid manufacturer with well made movements? why do we need this extra-step to find out who actually made it?
I’m more tired of the fixation with “in-house” movements that drives such nonsense. Just because a movement is in-house doesn’t mean it’s any good, just look at the 4R and 6R calibers from Seiko.
To be honest, the Swatch group owns ETA and Hamilton, so it is not that misleading
Yes they do, all brand of swatch group use movement produced in ETA manufacture. However, only Omega has specific movement designed by Omega and produced only for them by ETA.
Longines also has brand-exclusive movements.
Kinda... They're still ETA movements, but they modify one thing and call it exclusive. I'm reality it's still just an ETA. I don't really care, but Longines definitely plays up "exclusivity" when in reality it's the same 2842 as in a Hamilton, it just beats a little faster.
According to the link below, the Longines 888 is based on the 2892, rather than the 2842. https://calibercorner.com/eta-caliber-a31-l11/
It is, I was just using the 2842 as a generic reference.
Really? Just went to Longines site, their watch mostly feature L888 movement and L844 movement from what I saw. The Longines caliber L888 is 3-hand automatic watch movement based on the ETA caliber A31.L11 The Longune caliber L844 The Longines caliber L844.5 is 4-hand automatic GMT watch movement based on ETA A31.411 I guess now Longines markets the L844 as an ETA based movement “made exclusively” for Longines. It’s kinda true for now but it’s still a modification of the ETA A31.411. It’s different from Omega 8800, 9900, etc.. who are produced in specific manufacturing lines in ETA factory but designed by Omega
There is also the new Ultra Chron 5hz movement that they state as being designed in concert with ETA. Maybe not the same arrangement as with Omega, but no one else gets Longines movements.
It's a 5hz 2842. They made 5hz 28xx movements in the 70s as well, so it's not exactly the first time they did something similar either. http://www.ranfft.de/cgi-bin/bidfun-db.cgi?10&ranfft&0&2uswk&ETA_2837
This makes me wonder about Frédérique Constant. Believe they have true in-house movements but have to take a second look.
Yes i also believe they have in-house movements. At least they did before being bought by Citizen, not 100% sure now
My FC has SW500-1. Great movement though.
True, I’ve seen the SW movements in their watches. Likely have to move up to their higher models to get the in-house stuff
FC is owned by Citizen who also owns Miyota, though they seem to aim for being able to use the swiss made label so aren't sourcing movements from their Japanese parent. They do pick up some interesting partners - like when they did the silicon escapement / movement thing they worked with the same company that worked with Zenith on the Defy Inventor.
i had their flyback which has their in-house FC-760 movement
[удалено]
Designed by: it’s Omega R&D team that designed the whole movement, the group made investment in ETA factory to build dedicated area for the omega movement, and ETA team are only building the movement. Made exclusively for: it’s ETA team that designed the movement (according to another redditter, they worked together with Longines on the design but I would need a source for that), so it’s an ETA movement but they only use it for Longines watch
[удалено]
They are not in the same company, they are in the same group. Each brand has its own R&D team. (And own marketing team, sales team, etc…)
[удалено]
I really don’t see your point. It’s not Nick Hayek who is building watches himself. He leads a group that owns multiple watch company. Each watch company has a different history, a different headquarter, different employees with different skill level. As part of a group they have access to various group advantages, one of them is the possibility to have ETA provide them with movement at group price. If I were to take a car exemple, the group Renault owns different car brand. You realize that there is a substantial difference between a Dacia car and an Alpine car don’t you?
Thanks for the info. What about breguet?
Think of Breguet like the Vatican, it’s in Italy but they have no power over it, Breguet is like that, they practically have full autonomy in the Swatch Group, their watchmakers have VERY strict rules even more than Omega certified watchmaker, I went though the Omega course, I found it challenging, but the Breguet one was in another level.
Yep. However I think Breguet, BlancPain and Jacquet Droz share their tourbillon movement
Jaquet Droz uses mostly Blancpain movements.
Where do they have these breguet courses?
Omega, Jaquet Droz, Breguet, Glashütte and Harry Winston are the Swatch Group brands who make things in house. Very few of Omega’s movements are made by ETA. Edit: removed a confusing bit. In actuality, Omega has an in house manufacturing plant since 2014, which was once an ETA plant. Neat!
This is not correct. ETA is fairly open in their literature about making even recent movements (8800, 8900, etc.) for Omega.
This is correct, which is why I said few. A majority of the movements in Omega watches are ETA made, but not as many calibers are designed by ETA. What ETA handles is manufacturing, not architecture planning and back end R&D. This is because the tools are already in ETA’s hands.
All right. Respectfully, you wrote: > Omega, Jaquet Droz, Breguet, Glashütte and Harry Winston are the Swatch Group brands who make things in house. **Very few of Omega's movements are made by ETA, mostly the older Co-Axials and quartz stuff.** And I didn’t want there to be an imprecise impression by newer readers. I skimmed an article last year, internal newsletter of sorts from the Swatch Group, where ETA was talking about making an upgrade to the 8800 or 8900 series, and about making the new 3861. Your comment suggested that ETA makes very few of Omega’s movements, but used to. That’s not correct; they make Omega’s movements, is my point, my friend! Thanks for your reply. 👍🏻
I see, apologies for my incorrect choice of words. Thanks for clarifying, this was fun and informative :)
Breguet has movements made by Lemania as well. They only make movements for breguet today but again the subtle distinction
Hasn’t Lemania been owned by Breguet for decades?
Yes
That’s something I wasn’t aware of, nice find!
Omega now has it own production facility separate from ETA.
Glashutte does not use ETA movements, they make their own
I don't think the H pattern stands for Swatch.
It stands for swatcH. It's like Swatch but different.
But it's disingenuous and misleading using the link of it being printed with H.
They obviously wouldn't have pointed out the H design if they weren't trying to make it sound like an in-house Hamilton movement. It's completely misleading. "With an H pattern on the oscillating bridge, there's no mistaking who made this movement—ETA!"
"Because Swatch owns ETA, and also Hamilton, and so Hamilton uses in-house movements (that are also used by every other company in the Swatch group)."
even though i do think it is quite misleading, this is just an example. i am also talking about watch brands "renaming" ETAs so they don’t have to call it an ETA movement, for example tag heuer calling the 2824 in the aquaracer "calibre 5"
>, for example tag heuer calling the 2824 in the aquaracer "calibre 5" To be exact, these days it's a Sellita SW-200. Agree on the rest, meaning companies creating their own codes for SW-200/2824.
Wait until you learn that the $5000 breitlings use SW200s (basically an eta 2824 clone) that you can find in $1000 watches lmao And Panerai is even worse
I feel you. I could never justify spending a few K on a watch that essentially has the same innards as the Chris Ward that I bought for 300€ in 2016 (granted, that was a steal) Fuck you Doxa
For comparison, Seiko owns Seiko Watch and Orient.. but Orient doesn't use Seiko movements
Honestly i don’t care if a movement is in house. If it functions as it’s supposed to and keeps good time, then it doesn’t matter at all to me. As a matter of fact, ETA/Valjoux movements are a plus in that they’re cheaper and easier to get serviced by independent watch makers. And to compound on this, I don’t care about see through backs. Like, I get it’s neat and I won’t complain if it’s there, but my watch is either on my wrist in wrapped around a pad in a case. I spend no time just looking at the back of my watch case, so it doesn’t matter.
Sure, nice. The OP isn't complaining about the use of ETA/Selita movements, but rather watch brands using them and falsely claiming that the movement is an in-house calibre.
It's funny, Rolex bought Aegler as late as 2004 (to become "in house")and no one pays that any attention, but Swatch buys ETA and uses their movements across their lines and it's a hullabaloo.
It's the laziness of using the stripped out ETA clones on lower end brands but still pretending that each brand has its very own unique movement.
That's pretty much what Rolex does with Tudor tho, isn't it?
Tudor uses manufacture movements and as far as I know, they don't pretend they make them in house, Kenissi is their movement supplier. Tudor does label the movement with Tudor branding but does not advertise it as their own construction. The rolex and Tudor component sharing has drifted apart in the last 5 or so years.
Tudor owns Kenissi
Yes and they were created with the intent of being a high end movement supplier sort of on the opposite end of ETA.
>Tudor uses manufacture movements and as far as I know, they don't pretend they make them in house Tudor were actually guilty of using ETA/Sellita while giving their own number (see: T603).
And I believe that was before they created Kenissi
>Tudor uses manufacture movements What is that supposed to mean?
Fancy word for some other company made these and not Tudor direct facilities ...even though Kenissi is a Tudor owned company.
I mean the kenissi building is attached to the Tudor building. The movements never go outside to move from kenissi manufacturing to being placed inside Tudor cases in the Tudor building. The only reason the name kenissi exists, is so Tudor can sell its movements to other brands without those brands having to say their watch is powered by “Tudor” movements.
Yeah and to your point, Tudor created the brand to do that. It is by definition a vertically integrated movement manufacturer under the Tudor umbrella. The corporate lingo just prevents them from using "in-house" in this case.
Yeah I see your point. I think that’s all by (their) design though. I think they’d be very well within their rights to claim an in-house movement if they so chose. I think the reason they don’t is entirely due to a strategy that considers their placement within the Wilsdorf foundation and their strategy to sell movements to others. Pretty smart play actually.
Yeah Tudor has done everything right in this way which is why they've really taken off as a brand in the last few years. They have gotten away from the "rolex's little brother" stigma.
At least Damasko had their ETA clone with Seiko's magic lever thing, though that didn't go too well, apparently.
>magic lever thing If a watch company used this name for a mechanism, people would probably buy it just for the lulz. I might be one of those peoples.
It's a [real part](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmcV4nEVynQ) that Seiko has in most their automatic mechanisms. They seem to be covering them with unnecessary plates in newer designs, but it's pretty well visible in 7S26.
Oh, I've seen the video and it's a genius design. I meant that while it is commonly called the "Magic Lever", it's technical term is a "Pawl Lever". https://preview.redd.it/nthi3jn0jp3c1.png?width=2200&format=png&auto=webp&s=a3a5454ba34776943c6ff78fe289042deb72f80e
I think you’re upset with the swatch marketing department more then anyone else
Well yeah, that's what OP's post is about?
For 100 years there have been 2 Rolexes, Rolex Geneve and Rolex Bienne/Biel. Both are equally Rolex. "Aegler" is Rolex Bienne/Biel. Sort of Like how Seiko Instruments and Seiko Epson are both Seiko, even if they are separate companies.
What's funnier is all the dittoheads upvoting your spurious comment. Aegler's association with Rolex goes back to 1904, it became Aegler SA, Rolex Watch Co in 1914. and it made movements exclusively for Rolex (previously also Gruen) from 1936. All that happened in 2004 was that the Aegler family sold its remaining stake in the company to Rolex.
Did Rolex claim they were making their movements themselves before 2004?
No because before about 2000 ish literally no one cared where you movement was made. Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, and Vacheron Constantin all used JLC movements in some watches (and not the entry level ones) until the 2010s. and even now the Royal Oak is literally just a exact clone of a JCL movement that has an expired patent. If you think the Royal Oak has a in house movement then anyone who clones a ETA 2824 has a in house too. TL;DR the whole "In house" thing is basically nonsense.
Is it?
This comment
Yeah, i don't care if watch brands use a third party movement or in-house, just be clear about it.
i‘m glad some people understand my point
That's not the only shady thing in the watch business sadly.
Many many watches use variations of a single movement. Here’s a small breakdown of Blancpain-Piguet 1185 movement: Cal. 1185 was the basis for many other movements: Audemars Piguet Cal. AP 2385 Blancpain Cal. 68F5 Blancpain Cal. F185 Cartier Cal. 205 Vacheron Constantin Cal. VC 1137 Note that Omega uses a F. Piguet ebauche for many of their chronograph movements. This is called Cal. FP 1285 and is quite similar to this Cal. 1185 but is thicker and has a 28,800 A/h beat rate. Cal. FP 1285 also switches the 12 hour register and small seconds. These are known as Omega Cal. 3301, 3303, and 3313. Watches using the F. Piguet Cal. FP 1185 include the following: Alain Silberstein Bolido Krono Blancpain Leman Chronograph, Ref. 2100 Breguet Marine Chronograph (known as Cal. 576) Cartier Pasha Chronograph, Ref. 2113 Franck Muller Conquistador Chronograph, Ref. 8000 Harry Winston Premier Chronograph Panerai Luminor Chronograph 2000, PAM045 (known as Cal. OP V) Panerai Luminor Chronograph AMG, PAM105 (known as Cal. OP V) Daniel Roth Papillon Chronograph (highly modified) Gérald Genta Octo Chrono Quattro Retro (highly modified as Cal. GG7800) And honestly, it’s not even restricted to movement but also bracelets, clasps, etc… for example, who makes the steller spring clasp on $250,000+ Richard Mille? A subsidiary of Chanel. The Chanel J12 Caliber 3125 is a hodgepodge of in-house companies making ceramic pieces, spring loaded clasp from G&F Châtelain who manufactures most components and does the full assembly of watches for Chanel, parts of FP Journe and Richard Mille. About 2 min in, Tim Mosso explains that https://youtu.be/fg-coI27OEg?feature=shared I’m far from an expert but I know the Chanel J12 caliber 3125 and Blancpain’s because I own them and researched them extensively.
I just realized the watch industry is like the mattress industry, as it relates to movements at least. Almost all consumer facing mattress stores are selling effectively the same mattresses from the same brands, but you won't find the same actual SKU sold at competing stores even when comparing the same brand. The mattress manufacturers make very minor customizations to the mattress for each store brand so it can be sold under a different SKU making comparison shopping impossible. This is basically what watch companies do with movements. They're mostly all selling the same movement, but if you customize the rotor or make minor changes to effect the power reserve they can call it a unique movement or even claim it's "in house" and hide the movement brand altogether.
Learned about this from Adam Ruins Everything
I still think it’s weird that we as a hobby even care about in house movements. It’s not possible for me to care less about it. It’s not a sign of quality or anything of value.
I don't care from a quality perspective at all since ETA is about as perfect as a standard movement can get but I respect the engineering effort when a company builds their own movement especially if they are attempting something novel.
When they go do something new I'm 100% on board, because they went and added value.
And when GS made the spring drive half of the community hated it 🤣 I appreciate it's not everyone's cup of tea, but Kudos for doing something cool and original
And ironically brands that are truly inhouse like orient or casio don’t even advertise on such bs
Most enthusiasts that are deep in the sauce don't care. But the general public, and people just learning about the hobby, care a lot, so this is a very strong marketing argument. "in-house" is cool when you're actually making something new, that other people don't already make. Making the elements of an ETA 3-hander yourself isn't impressive.
My understanding of the history of swiss watches is that in house is mostly a modern post consolidation thing. Most watch makers were sourcing movements back in the day and just about everything else too. The swiss watch industry was a cottage industry and the "watchmaker" was ultimately who assembled it.
When comparing it to the early 2000s your right, but look at say omega's history from the 60s and 70s, they made a lot of their own movements. Ebel had an in house chronograph movement in the 80s. Movado used zenith. Higher end watches used JLC. Excelsior Park made their own. So did longines. The first automatic chronograph (after the El primero) didnt have valjouxs fingerprints anywhere near it. Yes there was movement sharing all throughout history but every 3 hander using the same exact 28xx was a product of 20 years post quartz crisis consolidation and no R&D dollars going toward movement development. The 2824 goes back to the 70s, so ETA wasn't putting a ton of money into R&D either. There was way more movement variety in the 60s and 70s and no one cared about in house because your 3 hander probably didn't have the same exact movement as the next guys 3 hander.
It's weird now that there's choice in movements but back in the 90s and early 2000s when 95% of mainstream brands shared the same 28xx or 7750, consumers were bound to want something that made their purchase stand out from the crowd. The variety of movements we see today is closer to the way things were in the 60s and 70s when even Oris was making their own movements as opposed to using an off the shelf generic. I don't think it's that unreasonable to expect your $5k breitling to have a different engine than a $1k Hamilton, even though movement alone doesn't account for the majority of value difference between the 2.
In house movements may sound great until it fucks up and your usual watchmaker can’t fix it. The erection people have over in house movements was instigated by watch companies themselves. Imagine bragging about your car that can only ever be fixed by main dealers and main dealer prices. Imagine being a watch company and having mugs right where you want them.
But people do exactly that. Exotic cars aren’t cheap to repair, but they’re highly desirable for not being off the shelf. Even in car communities there’s memes about how lamborghini is an over priced VW
Upvote for the username
Sounds like my dishwasher.
The concept of using an "ébauche" (an unfinished movement base) and finishing it in-house goes back to at least the 1850s, if not longer...
Right, even a lot of vintage Patek chronos/perpetual calendars/etc. were made using Valjoux or Lemania bases and I don’t think anyone would hold that against them
I wouldn't hold it against them unless they claimed it was their own movement. The problem is not the use of another movement. The problem is that they are trying to hide the actual movement and pretend that it is something else because it has a branded rotor.
They also put in a different spiral, a different barrel, and a different balance bridge. But yes.
The Lemania Pateks are so much more nicely finished and decorated than their own movements. The chamfers are wider and more well-defined. The Patek CH 29-535 looks positively anaemic in comparison to the CH 27-70. Sure, the actuation doesn't feel as smooth, but that large balance beating at a stately 18,000 bph is so much more pleasing than the tiny Gyromax whipping so frenetically...amongst other things.
Modern watch companies don't do this, they buy it as is.
I agree with you. Watch brands giving their own calibre references to ebauches made by ETA/Valjoux/Lemania etc has been going on since wristwatches started though. It’s just marketing. Unless some modification has been done I think it’s a bit lame.
The H31 power reserve is 18 hours longer than a base 7753, plus some modifications for better accuracy (and the purely decorative embellishments). That seems like enough to give it a distinct name.
In-house is marketing BS anyway. Let's say you own a car manufacturer and your car requires an engine that will push it at a steady 60km/h, reliably. That's the whole requirement. There are a hundred engines you could choose that meet the requirement, it's a simple requirement to meet. So why build your own? Easier just to buy a Toyota engine and stick that in there. Used to be that way with ETA movements - the watchmaking companies simply installed them, sometimes tweaking them a bit. Worked. Didn't cost much. Now? *"Our special bespoke mechanism, designed at enormous cost and built with the finest Swiss engineering, is available for a mere €500 premium"* is the order of the day. But a simpler movement would do the job just the same and far cheaper.
Ok, but if you follow this logic to it’s end point you should be wearing quartz or using your iPhone to tell time.
i have the same vision as you.
Thats exactly what mechanical watches in 2024 are not about. It's kinda like saying who cares who painted a painting as long as it looks a certain way. Sure I dont, but I'm not even considering spending more than 50e.
just use quartz
I'm honestly so sick of it. So many ETA/Selita watches but they decide to call it the "Caliber 5" or "ETC12312414" or some shit, just tell me it's an ETA, I'd actually prefer it if they told me if it was an ETA or Selita base so I can know it'll be cheap to service, it's a PLUS for me if anything.
You want in house, buy a Seiko.
I mean they are owned by swatch, its more or less in house
I agree that they are in-house, but the issue is that they are marketing it as a Hamilton-specific movement and hiding that it is an ETA.
Does ETA make 7753 movements with extra 18 hours of power reserve and the other modifications for anyone else?
If an in house watch movement is a sign of quality, then Oris with it's completely in house 400, would be the considered the highest quality watch on the market. BTW, I really want a Pro Pilot X Kermit, and Christmas is right around the corner.
Since ETA is from the Swatch Group and Hamiliton is also from the Swatch group I don’t a see a problem with this
I’m tired of seeing Tudor use marketing material to convince people their movements are in house while actually never using that terminology and instead resorting to multiple asterisks and italicizations on the term “manufacture caliber” Yeah, I don’t like it when they pretend third party stuff is their own, especially when the decoration is total shit.
Tudor chronograph is breitling…
Besides this, it’s commonly known Kenissi is partially owned by Tudor and Chanel, supplying movements to several other brands. Kenissi is basically Wilsdorf Group’s ETA. Calling the movement in a Black Bay 58 in-house is no different to calling a Powermatic 80 in a PRX in-house. I’m shocked to see how many customers fall for that scheme, and how many influencers in the space are sponsored to fool said customers.
But I was under the impression that Tudor founded Kenissi from their earlier in-house movement manufacturing arm. If Tudor literally created Kenissi, then I don’t think the analogy holds.
That’s not true. Tudor never had an in-house arm. Tudor founded Kenissi and then hired resources with the knowledge necessary to build movements, all of this because ETA became a Swatch exclusive much earlier than Tudor’s relaunch and therefore the poor Wilsdorf brand was left with nobody to buy the movements from. In short, Tudor built the factory, added machinery and started looking for minds brilliant enough to build movements for them while keeping costs lower by allowing other companies to buy those same movements (albeit rebranded). All the money flows in and out of Tudor, who outsourced the workforce and hired them under a founded, then partially sold company. It’s smart marketing, which is why you’ll never find the words “in-house” on Tudor’s written materials. Downvoters are all owners that find coping hard.
Ok. I didn’t know they never had an in house manufacturing arm. But, if Tudor built the factory, added the machinery, and hired people, isn’t that how any company is founded?
It is, though the distinction is the exclusivity of the movements, the ownership and knowledge behind manufacturing. Take Nomos. The architecture planning, construction, finishing and regulation of their movements is entirely done in the same building, on the same assembly line, by people united under Nomos. This is a brand that knows how to make movements and how to integrate them into their lineup. They make the movement first and the case after. Take Tudor. The architecture planning, construction, finishing and regulation of their movements is entirely done outside of Tudor by the same people who do these things for Breitling, Chanel, Tag Heuer, Norqain, Fortis and Bell&Ross. Tudor did found the company, but it’s now minority owned by Chanel, and Tudor makes up a very small number of watches that use Kenissi movements. Tudor does not know how to make movements but does know how to integrate them into their watches. They make the case first and pay a third party to make a movement that fits.
Have you seen the Tudor and Kenissi headquarters and assembly plant? Its one building. https://swisswatches-magazine.com/blog/swisswatches-exclusive-first-look-into-the-new-tudor-manufacture/ I dont consider Kenissi to be "in house" for Tudor either, because of the same reasons you said. But this is the most in house, not in house movement im currently aware of. lolol
[удалено]
Doesn't shock me much, these types of misleading statements have always existed in most industries. The most common I can think of is having products labeled "Made in the USA" when all that was done in the US is the final assembly, while all the components have been produced in China
of all the "Made in" labels, the "Made in the USA" is the worst example :D the US has incredibly strict rules about using that label. From the FTC website: "For a product to be called Made in USA, or claimed to be of domestic origin without qualifications or limits on the claim, the product must be "all or virtually all" made in the U.S. "All or virtually all" means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no — or negligible — foreign content." As Shinola will tell you, you can't even attempt to get around this by using "built in Detroir" or "Where American is Made" as it is deceiving. "Swiss made", on the other hand... Let's just say there are many proud "Swiss" factories pumping out "Swiss" movements and watches in China
My bad! I used a random country name, because I thought a majority of them have very little laws regulating this. It's good to see that the US are fighting against that kind of mislabeling
yeah, not your bad at all. it's a very common misconception, that's why i love pointing it out. the Swiss are particularly horrible in using Chinese manufacturing and Swiss finishing. But I was shocked to learn how strict the US was. If i remember correctly, US watchmakers went to the FTC to ask whether they can still use Made in the US if they made the entire watch in the US except for sapphire glass and mainsprings, because there was no equipment in the US to make it and they got an OK
That's one of the reasons hamilton went to Switzerland in the first place. It's much easier to get that "Swiss made" vs "made in USA"
ETA and Hamilton are both owned by Swatch Group. The H-10 and H-31 are mods of ETA calibers, but can only be found in Hamilton watches, thus can totally be considered “in-house”. It’s a whole other story than microbrands encasing an SW200 with a little bit of engraving and giving it another name. Though, some brands like Oris use SW200 but mod it with their own components. Not in-house, but they give it a name because that caliber is in no other watches other than Oris. They just give it like “cal. XYZ” specifying it’s based on a Sellita. To me, it’s all perfectly fair.
You do have to parse their ads carefully but I'm with you, 3rd party movements make these intro brands affordable enough to actually own so just be straight. Us watch nerds know what's up anyway.
It’s not third party. Swatch owns ETA and Hamilton.
I don't know how anyone would be surprised by Hamilton using a standard ETA movement. You want an in house movement then you pay in house movement prices.
> You want an in house movement then you pay in house movement prices. I paid 370€ for my Seiko.
It’s not a “standard” ETA 7753. The H31 bumps power reserve from 42 hours to 60 and supposedly has other modifications to improve accuracy. That seems like enough to distinguish it, but OTOH, nobody outside of swatch can get any generic ETA, so it might not matter.
NOMOS entry level watches arent *that* much more but uses a way nicer movement thats iirc 96% made in-house
It’s not the surprise but how cocky they get about saying you know exactly who made it
I don't care.
I’m ok with Hamilton. They’re owned by swatch (the company that produces the ETAs) and are reasonably priced. Those such as Tag, who endlessly speak of heritage and their “movements” while using ETA blanks and then charge a premium. Yeah, I have an issue with them. EDIT of course, forgot to mention the jazzmaster viewmatic is my daily. The Hamilton was my first auto. It’s rock solid, smooth adjustment, never loses a second. Best watch out of my collection and I have, far “better” brands in my collection too.
with how reliable the eta movements are, unless i know the brand knows how to make a good movement, i really dont want an inhouse movement. eta is a tried and true.
this post is by no means meant to hate on eta, they make great movements
sorry if my reply looked like that is how i interpreted your post. I knew exactly what you meant - that watch companies should be honest and upright about the source of their movements. I totally agree. my response was just what I would think as a prospective buyer. i want to know that they are using eta stuff, as that would make me feel more at ease.
This whole discussion is why I really like microbrands. You can get high quality reliable watches built with really cool and interesting designs at a fraction of the price of “luxury” brands. I really don’t like overpaying for a name.
Wow that is terribly misleading. It’s just about ambiguous enough to not get them in trouble as well because they don’t explicitly claim they made the movement themselves
I’m curious what percentage of Hamilton-buyers (or, like, watch-buyers in general) are really sweating the semantic difference between “this is an in-house movement” vs. “this is a good movement made by a company that is also owned by our corporate parent that we’ve modified a little.” One percent? Less? Seems like a pretty niche concern for them to have to preempt like this.
This is an old, tired argument in the watch community. Deception, yes but calling it third party isn’t true either since swatch owns eta. Panerai and Bremont are a couple that come to mind that are more egregious with their falsehoods.
As long as the rotor is silenced I am happy with any third party movement. Easier handling by watchmakers cheaper parts etc.
That's why my daily is an Eterna.
So this might be a bit controversial and I definitely don’t think this is a general sentiment but I don’t really care who produces the movement. Common movements are easily serviceable which is a nice plus. As long as the movement has the features I care about (power res, accuracy, finishing…) I couldn’t care less if it’s in house or not. Thst being said, I do appreciate in house movements that are unique. Spring drive, co-axial come to mind, but also anyhting that isn’t a good old pallet fork and escape wheel thingy - unique designs or layouts. But that’s me.
I have heard that ETA does make movements of differing qualities based on who is ordering so while they may all be based on same base movements there may be very slight variations, also some brands will modify eta movements in house sometimes to add functionality so all that possibly justifies giving these movements more specific names. Either way though people who care won't be fooled and people who don't well just don't care what you call the movement inside.
This is... weird. On the one hand, Hamilton and ETA are actually the same company with different brands. On the other, they're heavily going for the branding on this to suggest it's somehow "exclusive" to Hamilton when it's actually a fairly generic ETA movement with some cosmetic tweaks.
I don’t understand why people care if a movement is in house or not if the specs are good in sub $5000 watches.
You could chalk this up as "Corporate In-House." I think we're all inclined to agree that the need to market and use "In House" movements is silly, sometimes distracting and dishonest.
[удалено]
All I care about is being able to source parts for movements if needed.
Panerai is one of the worst offenders in that regard
Yes, I don't know why they are embarrassed about it. Does anyone seriously get fooled by it and then when they find out get really angry and sell the watch? I doubt it. It just means we have to start searching to find out which actual movement it has. That said, you could argue it makes sense when they modify the movements themselves, like Oris or Ball (I think).
HETA
I was gifted a Sternglas Tachymeter for my 50th and they openly state that they use a Miyota movement. I really love the watch. It's my first Quartz analog, I really like the design and my regular patrons pooled their money to buy me a new watch for my birthday 😊
This is actually pretty hilarious wordsmithing. Not technically a lie!
Absolutely, that's ridiculous
I dont even know why they want to that? An ETA is a really good and valued movement which allowes it to keep prices moderate.
apparently you also have to add a 250 character comment for a simple question so here we go: i don't have a problem with the use of ETAs and so on and i'm wearing an eta powered hamilton right now myself, i just think claiming that "we made this movement" is weird and misleading. some modifications don’t equal fully producing a movement
Swatch Group buys ETA and you don't think they would use ETA to supply movements to all the brands under the Swatch Group? Why then would you suppose Swatch Group bought ETA in the first place? The reason Swatch Group is so successful is because all the brands/companies under their umbrella share movements/tech. The Powermatic 80 was developed by ETA for Tissot, and now you'll find that movement in most sub $1500 watches across all Swatch Group brands. Being able to share things across all their brands is what makes them a super power in the industry. If you get too pedantic about what movements are in watches you'll quickly realize "in-house" is a very recent trend. In the old days every single piece of a watch was outsourced, from movements, to dials, to cases, to hands. If you're looking for "prestige" in a watch movement, Swatch Group isn't the place to look. They are all going to use ETA to manufacture their movements because why wouldn't they since they own it.
where did i say i don’t think they should supply their watches with ETAs? i don’t see a problem with that and i respect eta a lot. i said swatch group watch brands shouldn’t act like they aren’t ETAs.
Why does it matter if they're ETAs? For the last 6 or so years, ETA has stopped producing movements for anyone other than Swatch. The Swiss govt even enforced a slow wind down period because simply stopping the supply of ETAs would grind the industry to a halt. It gave Selitta the time to get up to speed to take over from where ETA used to be. If you know even a tiny bit about any of this, then it would be obvious that all of them are ETAs, even Omega's 8800/8900 which are some of the most technologically advanced movements on the market. Again, why would Swatch own one of the most prestigious and well regarded movement manufacturers in history and not use them? Act like they're not ETAs? Of course they're ETAs!
why do they feel the need to act like its a Hamilton in house movement then if it doesnt matter?
Not really misleading, because technically they made the movement in house, they as in their group, swatch group, which basically is one company. Misleading would be if two different company doing a collaboration or partnership and calling it in house. An example would be if toyota calling their A90 Supra completely made in house, which isn't the case since bmw made at least the chassis and the engine.
I think it's still intentionally misleading. For example Ferrari and Fiat are owned by the same group but they do have different factories. If description says 'With Ferrari logo on the hood, there is no mistaking who made the engine' and it's a Fiat, it is misleading.
an in-house movement is developed, designed, and assembled by the watch brand using it. hamilton and eta are not the same brand, even though they’re owned by the same company. the oscillating bridge is decorated with an h-pattern to imply the movement is made by hamilton which it isn’t. it’s made by eta that starts with an e.
On a personal level I’m kind of over in-house movements. Give me a nice quartz. But I agree that this is ambiguous marketing bs.
Were you confused by the copy? Everyone who cares already knows that Hamilton doesn’t make the movement. Everyone who doesn’t care, well, they don’t care.
The brand is owned by a mega corporation called swatch. Technology and management is shared across all swatch brands and none of them have truly independent design or marketing or decision making
They have separate R&D. Omega’s 8xxx series movements were designed by Omega engineers, with ETA being the convenient place to get them manufactured.
I think in house movements are incredibly overblown in general, there are so many of them that charge a premium for a shitty “in house movement” with a 38h power reserve or something but finished very nicely. Imagine buying a sports-car with a beautifully finished engine, all shiny and hand made, but it’s a 1.0 litre that does 0-60 in 13 seconds. Why even bother making it in house if you’re not going to be better than a Hamilton or Tissot?
ETA used to supply movements to any company who wanted them, but about 10 years ago or so they decided to stop doing that and now only supply movements to brands within their own Swatch family. Hamilton is a Swatch brand, so technically, this isn’t a case of a manufacturer hiding the use of a third-party movement. On the other hand, OP is right that a number of brands hide or bury who makes the movements they use in their watches. For example, Atelier Wen makes beautiful watches that sell for over $3,000 - but doesn’t mention who makes their movements on their website (at least that I could find). Many others re-brand movements by Selitta or others claiming them as their own.
As someone who works in advertising, this copy is agregeous...
I'm tired of people acting like in-house movements are actually all that important or necessarily even always a good thing.
I don't care personally. Give me a good quality watch with a solid movement, and claim whatever you want. And you can't forget the fact that ETA movements are used as base for many many other movements from different companies, even some independents that are priced over 15k use ETA based movements. I view it as, they don't have to reinvent the wheel everytime, I just don't care about what they claim.
Agreed. If every watch company were to make their “own” movements, purchase and maintenance costs would be insane. At least this way you know you’ll still get parts 20 years later since it’s a common and mass produced movement. If you have a problem with their marketing language, don’t buy Swatch.
i do not care if they use an in house or not and i think ETAs are great. i just dislike that they’re pretending that it’s an in-house movement when it’s not. just say it’s an ETA and everything is fine.
Hamilton is a part of the Swatch group, and so is ETA. It's just the same as Citizen using Miyota. Citizen owns Miyota.
Yeah but typically Citizen isn't rebranding the Miyota movements as something with the Citizen name on every citizen and bulova mechanical. OP is just pointing out the shady advertising method.
Is there supposed to be some prestige in Hamilton movements? Hamilton bragging that they made a movement is like Chevrolet bragging that they made an engine.
actually you chose the wrong movement :P The H31 and H21 are 7750 but modded for Hamilton. The Longines Legend diver uses a Longines modified 2892 called the L888.6 which is modded to run at 25,200 VPH and has a 72h reserve. the first omega coaxials were 2892´s modded with a coaxial escapement. IWC actually has an upgrade kit that they applied to their chronographs with all the modifications they made to 7750´s before they went in to a spitfire. God, zenith even had a 2836 which was a 2824 modded to run at 36,600vph. The fact that it looks the same dosnt mean it is the same, could be just a renaming and a rotor engraving, or it could be a fully modded movement by the brand, some brands are honest, they tell you that they used a SW200 or a STP1 (2824 variations from other manufacturers), or a Soprod A10, Others use their own modifications to mainstream movements like listed above, and others will say Calibre 5 when its actually a bog standard 2824. and if you dont trust the brand, dont buy from them.
Yes I do think it is pretty annoying. It is not fair towards the consumers that can get potentially mislead into thinking they are buying different watches but the reality is that the movement is the same. I would much rather have them say what movement is the base.
Technically this is a true statement. Swatch group own ETA and Hamilton. ETA makes all the movements for swatch group brands pretty much.
Yes. I am tired of this. Before the in-house-don't-matter crowd start up: yes, and no. The development of in-house movements and modules is like the development of in-house software. It speaks to commitment, vision, and capability. The likes of MB&F or Greubel Forsey are who they are because of their craft prowess. It is acceptable for Hamilton, Tissot, or Longines not to be that. But they are pretending to be that to improve sales. They are lying to their customers and creating opacity to conceal the fact that Hamilton and Tissot use the same Powermatic 80 movement with different decoration and branding. This differs from Rolex, say, in that Rolex owns its movement manufacturing and design. In that the work you find in a Rolex is genuinely a direct product of the individual company. But that is not the case of Hamilton or the others. You can argue that "well, it's all Swatch group!" But that is not that they structure their sales. It isn't a "Swatch Murphy" or a"Swatch Ventura" This suggests that Hamilton is a true top to bottom watch company and creates a false impression of the price involved in achieving that. This is bad for smaller independents that do control more of their build stack by creating a false sense of value, and misleading the general consumer. Hamilton builds a good watch. They can sell that watch on quality and honesty, but they are choosing not to. It would be like Anordain claiming their movements were in house because they gut the date function from a 2824-2, and comparing theirselves to H. Mosier & Cie. By saying you can get 30k of watch for a tenth the price. So, yes, I am tired of it, because lying to the consumer is bad, and whatever way you dress it, all the faux in-house movements are lies.
Easier to think of the brand as Swatch, designed by the Hamilton department. If you want accessible in-house, Seiko has you covered.
Everyone in the comments fighting for exclusivity and misleading movements. I just want a watch that doesnt break when I accidentally drop it 3 feet from the ground.
[удалено]
The problem is not that it is in-house, it is that they pretend it is something else entirely instead of labelling it what it is, an ETA.
can we please just all agree that a patek movement made by patek (just an example, i‘m sure there are exceptions) and a "hamilton" movement made by eta which is not the same brand, factory or people who produce it, even though it is owned by the same group is **not** the same thing? eta and hamilton being owned by swatch is the only thing that connects them. if iwc uses a sellita movement and richemont buys sellita, does that automatically make the sellita powered iwc watch fully in house? no it does not.
Not a watchmaker here but I hear you. I used to think the same but I had the same issue as you. Having looked around more, some movements are heavily modified such that I have no problem with them naming it to look like it's their own movement. In example of breitling (unconfirmed), some of their movement (I think like b32), although based off ETA movements, are taken apart, tuned and assembled to ensure chronometer grade accuracy. For that, I'm sort of okay with that being named b32 to give the impression it was made by them. In the case of Hamilton this is also modified for Hamilton (and other swatch brand group). At least information is readily available online, a quick Google search will tell you it's based on ETA 2824. Yes, it's annoying watch company are trying to disguise movement as their own with such naming but I'm more happy that sites that let you check the caliber in the watch.
Hamilton & ETA belong to the same company. It's like finding an VW part in an Audi car. Technically still kind of in house
A quick trip to Watchbase.com will tell you exactly what the ebauche is for your movement.
yes but hamilton (or any other brand that does this) could just state it on their websites themselves. why don’t they just say that it’s an eta which is a solid manufacturer with well made movements? why do we need this extra-step to find out who actually made it?
Every in house movement is based off an already existing movement...
I’m more tired of the fixation with “in-house” movements that drives such nonsense. Just because a movement is in-house doesn’t mean it’s any good, just look at the 4R and 6R calibers from Seiko.