Thanks John,
Backwards from some perspectives, I agree.
We all like high quality timepieces and a watch that displays some form of ‘humanity’. From the larger companies I tend towards history and consistent design as a priority, and from the independents I like to see the individual ‘hand’ of the watchmaker.
I guess the traditional way was for watchmakers to bring together the best dial makers, case makers, ebauches manufactures, escapements, etc into a watch that was produced to their specifications. But today we seem to expect our independent watchmakers (perhaps fanned along by the in-house mantra) to produce most, if not all, their components using their own hands.
But this is a myth too. Several of the independents at IGOTT2 spoke of their reliance both on external suppliers and other watchmakers in their employ. Sure, the Master Watchmaker (whose name is on the dial) has responsibility for their training and final quality control, but their focus has become watch design and troubleshooting, rather than assembly. That’s why I brought up the idea of the ‘Executive Chef’ who prepares the menu, supervises the kitchen and quality controls each dish before it is served. That seems to be more the reality to me for the majority of established Independents today.
So I guess those early watches from any of the now established ‘independents’ are the ones to treasure. Or identify the next independent watchmakers (like Eva Leube) who you can be sure are doing ALL the assembly and adjusting themselves at the moment.
So I like the emotional idea that one individual has assembled my watch, the contrast being an assembly line where multiple specialists are involved. I can see the trade-off with loss of specialisation, particularly for a larger Manufacture.
Andrew
Ps. regarding assembly, I don’t believe DeWitt, F.P.Journe or others are referring to finishing. The watchmakers are given the finished components which they assemble, but at one level I still prefer it.