[Houston]

I'm not given to technical matters in watches, preferring instead to be charmed by the aesthetics of a given timepiece. However, I am a great fan of the Co-Axial with its' steady rate of output at all levels of power reserve and extended service interval. Other manufacturers tried it but gave up so kudos to Omega for steadfastly standing by their courageous move in going with George Daniel's work of many years. Now of course, Bienne is taking it one step further in producing it all in-house as opposed to relying on the development of an ' in-family ' movement. I say ' in-family ' since the cal 2500 was born of the much-loved cal 1120 which in turn was an Omega re-working of the already exceptional ETA 2892-A2, ETA being an integral part of the Swiss Family Swatch.

So pals, is having an in-house movement a really important factor in your watch-buying criteria? I personally would prefer having a movement that was accurate, durable and reliable. That the cal 2500 was already a development of the cal 1120 is good enough for me. It is already an Omega and performs like gold and gold after all is gold. So why the need to go fully in-house?


What say you pals? Is it really important to you that a movement in your watch was in-house? If so, why?


Y'all have a nice weekend now

ZIN

 

[boscoe]

In house movements are nice and make a timepiece more unique, but ultimately it's not the sole deciding factor for my watch purchases.

 

[wilfreb]

not a big deal for me, i love 3 hands diver watches, so a nice 2824-2 or an Omega 1120 is nice for me.

the brands with in-house movts are too expensive [rolex, zenith]
and the eta 2892-A2 is comparable to rolex movts.

a lot of in-house movts being developed by TagHeuer are also awesome, the Grand Carrera line is ''all in-house movts'' by tag, but they are so expensive that makes then hard to get.

so if using ETA movt means low prices in great brands like Omega and TagHeuer, i love Eta.

 

[nunz]

From a technical standpoint I'm far more satisfied that the two movements I own have a long and distinguished history of accuracy and reliability. The history of the development of the Lemania movement to it's modern version of the 1861/1863 is an accomplishment that speaks for itself. I think it's really cool that the newest co-axial movement is a child of the ETA 2892-A2/1120 series that Omega has modified and perfected over the years. Whether you chose to call those "in house" or not is simply a matter of semantics. Omega has done a great job in keeping it's mechanicals first class for so many years.
Mike

 

[halmanas]

I prefer an in-house movement, but it is not essential. I'm looking forward to the 8500 series of movements. Hal

 

[haakon59]

It is not important necessarily, but it is sometimes. For example, I might pick a watch and favor it over another choice if I don't already have a watch with that particular movement. So it does make a difference sometimes. At the same time it is useful to understand that the definition of what an "in-house" movement is can be difficult to determine because many watchmakers cooperate in putting together their movements.

 

[AndrewB]

Not essential for me... quality and accuracy or most important.

 

[triton]

Not essential for me... quality and accuracy or most important.

Ditto :thumbup:

 

[DSENA1]

At one time I thought that an in house movement was important, but not any more. If a watch has a great design, keeps accurate time, and has an overall high quality in the end I don't think it really matters.

For a while I wanted a Zenith Chronomaster and one of the reasons was because it was inhouse, but now I realize thats not as important. The clean lines of the speedy and it durability is more important.

Dave

 

[MacDaddy]

I voted "not important" but thinking more about it I think I may have pushed the button too soon.

Companies that have or are working on their own show a love for horology, innovation, and R&D. The reason why Swatch is such a cartel is because of all the companies not wanting to go in-house. They're lazy, depend on mommy too much and have to learn to find their own food one day.

In this day and age of CAD, Mathematica, and other engineering software that I can buy off the shelf for my Mac, it's hard to believe more companies don't delve into it. The other aspect is the manufacturing of parts. I'm sure there are ways and materials that people haven't thought to use yet. The silicone mainspring (I forgot who did it) is one. Manufacturing the entire movement in that substance or plastic, or whatever would be my mission if I were in the field. Just some thoughts for today...

What are your feelings?

 

[MINIAC]

In my case it depends...

It depends on the cost of the watch. Most of my watches do not have in-house movements. However my two most expensive watches (Rolex Sea-Dweller and Explorer II) do. I've been wanting to pull the trigger on a Panerai (111 or 88) for quite a while, but haven't due to the movement/cost.

IMHO, once I hit the $5000.00 price point if a watch does not have a manufacture movement...I'm not interested. That is too much money if all the company does is 'rework/decorate' an off the shelf movement.

 

[tricky dicky]

Hi Zin,

I haven't voted in the poll because neither options are true for me. It isn't essential that my watches have in-house movements but it is a factor.

I'm also more interested in a watch company if they are a true manufacture. As Mr MacDaddy says this shows a true horological spirit. However, I appreciate it's not easy to become a manufacture and some watch companies can offer significant innovations in case design, ebauche finishing, materials, etc without being a manufacture.

All I can say is I do consider this as one of the factors when buying a watch. It's not necassarily the most important factor but it is a consideration.