Watch Brand Histories: Accuracy vs. Marketing

TheMadDruid · 2017-01-12T14:34:09Z

Is historical accuracy important for watch brands? Explore the debate on marketing, legitimacy, and truth-telling in company histories.

TheMadDruid

WPS member · Horological Meandering forum

67 replies14819 views9 photos

TheMadDruid initiates a thought-provoking discussion on the importance of accuracy in watch brand histories, prompted by his reading of Walter Lange's book. This post delves into the legitimacy of historical claims, particularly concerning brands that have been re-started or have adopted historical names. It encourages readers to consider how brands leverage their past for marketing versus presenting an unvarnished truth.

67 collectors discussing this on the WatchProSite forumJoin the Conversation →

A few days ago, this is what my neighborhood-my yard-looked like:

25 Degrees F and ice and snow-covered.

Today temperatures reached 60. The snow is gone and the day was so gray-and the ground so brown-it wasn't worth photographing. But it was a chance to spend some time outside, so I gathered a few things and took advantage of this break in Winter.

I recently got hold of this book by Walter Lange, published in 2005, and I am finding it fascinating reading. He writes not only of the brand, but of its history and the circumstances in Eastern Germany when he and Guenther Bluemlein re-started Lange & Soehne in 1990. This got me to thinking about brand histories and their legitimacy or illegitimacy-their creation for marketing; their truth-telling; or out-right fabrication.

(Moritz Grossmann-an historical name/brand which presently does not claim founding in the 19th Century.)

(Girard Perregaux, which dates itself to 1791.)

There are brands that have been started-not re-started-in the 21st Century that advertise "Since 17xx" which we all know to be nonsense. I'm thinking particularly of Graham, Arnold and Perrelet, all of which make fine watches. But why do they make these claims? And is it fair to the non-WIS population to lead these people to believe they are buying into a brand with a centuries-old history? Is Moritz Grossmann, certainly more honest, also doing it the right way-or are they foolish for missing out on a clever marketing ploy?

And how about Lange and GP (my favorites, by the way)? Are they being honest when they date themselves to 1845 and 1791, respectively? Are they cheating in attempting to place themselves among the few brands that can truly claim a long, uninterrupted history, such as Vacheron, Gallet and Patek and Audemar-Piguet? (I am putting aside "Conglomerate" ownership for this post.)

Lange is, in a sense, still in the same-founding-family with Walter Lange be integral to its re-constitution. But it was out-of-business (through no fault of its own) from either 1949, or 1951, until either 1990, or 1994. Do we overlook that hiatus for history purposes since the company went out of business because of State takeover? Because a Lange re-started the brand?

GP is also problematic, for different reasons. GP has suffered no interruption since its founding. But when is its founding? Constantin Girard incorporated his company-Girard & Cie- in 1852. He married a Perregaux (I believe a family related to the Bautte family) in 1856, and changed the name of his company to "Girard-Perregaux" in that year. His son, I believe, took over the "Bautte" name and workshops in 1906 and it was at that point that GP started its claim that it dated to 1791-the year Jean-Francois Bautte, started signing his watches with his name. This gentleman had nothing whatever to do with Constantin Girard, as far as I can tell.

So, what do you think? Are histories important? Should they be accurate? Does it matter in the least? What do you think about the "legends" created by the modern Lange and GP brands?

Key Points from the Discussion

A brand's primary role is to produce, sell, and profit, so their historical narratives are inherently shaped to serve these commercial purposes, not to provide an unbiased historical education.
The numerical founding date of a brand is less important than what the brand currently stands for and its ability to uphold the image it projects, even if the name was acquired.
If a brand's watches demonstrate great watchmaking worthy of their price, then historical claims, even if embellished or interrupted, do not significantly bother some collectors.
Some collectors prioritize purchasing from brands that are honest about their history, believing that a meaningful, long history implies greater expertise, staying power, and genuine prestige.
While marketing often uses historical legacy to create an 'authenticity' aura for general consumers, discerning collectors on forums typically seek deeper, more reliable information beyond promotional narratives.
The continuity of a family name in a business, even across generations, does not automatically imply an unbroken business lineage, as individual enterprises can be distinct despite shared surnames and vocations.
Girard-Perregaux's claim to 1791 stems from its acquisition of Jean-Francois Bautte's workshops in 1906, integrating Bautte's earlier history into its own narrative.
Consistency and continuous seriousness in watchmaking are more valued than a brand's exact founding date, especially for collectors interested in modern or post-1970s horology.

The Discussion

dr.kol

Jan 12, 2017

I find history important.

It matters if the manufacturers has data about all the watches they produced and if they still have the drawings and are capable of restoring all the watches they produced. I think honesty about the history is really worth something. Voutilainen, as an example, is still making great watches even he does not claim any fake history. Best Kari

TheMadDruid

Jan 12, 2017

You make an interesting point about a company's ability to service ancient watches.

Can the present day Graham restore a "Graham"?

Joepny

Jan 12, 2017

Good set of questions Padj

Personally to me the details of the brand\'s history, whether fully accurate or greatly enhanced, do not matter very highly. I care more about the quality of the watch, its aesthetics, and the value of it. Value is a tricky thing because a lot of us know that it is somewhat influenced by the brand\'s reputation. So clearly manufacturers that enhance their gloriously old histories are looking for some cachet that pumps up their reputation - the whole brand building ploy. I\'m sure it helps with n

TheMadDruid

Jan 12, 2017

Right.

Is that fair? Does it matter? You are sophisticated and you know the BS when you see it. You can get past all that and determine, for the right reasons, that an Arnold is worthwhile. But Joe Schmo-is it fair that he might buy an Arnold because the company claims its roots go back to 1760 or thereabouts? Does this guy-or doesn't this guy- deserve the truth?

Joepny

Jan 12, 2017

It's not fair.

In the ideal perfect information supply & demand scenario, everything is known & disclosed and we would probably not have many watches priced at insane amounts.

Mark in Paris

Jan 12, 2017

I would come back to what's important to me: the watches

Padj, I also had the same thoughts and quite quickly came naturally to the conclusion that it doesn't bother me if the watches made by the brand are worthy of what I think is great watchmaking (compared to the price level it is sold). I totally understand that it is a part of a brand history (even if suspended for a while) and that watches are goods to be sold like others. If brands can help themselves by wrapping the product in a nicer packaging, then why not for a normal client (non-WIS). Is i

Continue the conversation

This thread is active on the Horological Meandering forum with 67 replies. Share your knowledge with fellow collectors.

Join the Discussion →