Discussion
MTF initiates a crucial discussion on proposed changes to 'Swiss Made' and COSC certification rules, prompting collectors to consider their implications. This post delves into the evolving definitions of Swiss watchmaking authenticity and chronometer testing, inviting the community to debate how these shifts might affect their perceptions and purchasing decisions. It's a timely exploration of industry standards and their impact on both manufactures and consumers.
Forumners,
I heard that:
In future, the minimum value of Swiss-ness to qualify as Swiss Made will be 80% but that is easily covered by wages so that means that proportionately MORE of the components can be imported and "finished" or "assembled" in Switzerland.
Secondly, the COSC chronometer tests will be done on complete movements rather than just the base movements i.e. the COSC will apply to the base + module assembled rather than just the base engine as now. This has HUGE implications for true Manufactures and wannabe ones 
A senior executive of a Manufacture that makes it's own integrated chronograph movement was gleefully pointing this out to me.......
Do either statements matter to you...... as a watch user or collector?
Regards,
MTF
======
added to Editor's Picks
The Swiss-made label has been a joke for a long time and apparently will continue to be a joke. A brand that relies on that label for a perception of quality is very unlikely to have the actual quality to interest a well-informed buyer. If the industry really wanted to create a meaningful Swiss-made standard it could easily eliminate the loopholes, but it does not want to do so; its objective is to set the standard not at the quality-maximizing level but at the profit-maximizing level. The COSC
The COSC tests are conducted on movements, rather than watches ; there is no requirement that the movements have to be finished. Even with the change in COSC procedures, an unfinished movement with the complication module could be tested. I personally do not believe that the results of the test are a gauge of the performance of the watch on someone's wrist. A movement will undergo a lot of handling/finishing/casing up, after the test and this could affect its timekeeping, although it is unlikely
As I wrote in my post in the Azimuth thread below, the requirement to test base movements fitted with modules will not affect COSC very much. Rolex, Omega and Breitling make up nearly 90% of the movements certified by COSC ( click here for numbers); Rolex alone accounts for over 50% of that number. Most, if not all, Rolex movements are not modular, they are integrated, so the change in rule will not affect Rolex (the only movements I am unsure of are the dual time-zone GMT and Explorer, I suspec
nt
I was under the impression that most Breitling and Omega chronos use the Valjoux 7750 now, especially since it is now available in the "tricompax" layout, and because the ETA2892-based modular chrono is such a small movement. - SJX
Suppose that whole assembled base + module or integrated movements can be tested. Suppose the most common currently outsourced chronometer movements become exclusive to the original manufacturer/group only.......er.....that would be Swatch Group keeping all their movements for themselves. Ditto for Rolex and Breitling. Now, imagine if the other brands cannot ramp up in-house manufacture in time (2009 looms)......get the picture? Even the "Manufactures" who are starting to make at least one in-ho
This thread is active on the Horological Meandering forum with 22 replies. Share your knowledge with fellow collectors.
Join the Discussion →