Independents

pplater
5425

• Show profile
• Show other posts

"Why in-house movements are not for Communists"...

Is it fair to assume that (as with most things) 'the market' will sort this out for us?

What is the market? Try this as a formulation: "That body of people with sufficient interest, sufficient knowledge and sufficient resources to be likely to acquire (on a willing but not anxious basis) one or more higher-end watches, with or without in-house calibre, within the near future (say 12-24 months)".

Why only 'people with sufficient interest, knowledge and resources’? Well, realistically, who else is going to be parting with five, six and sometimes even seven figure sums for these miniature mechanical marvels? Moreover, it makes good sense from a manufacturer’s perspective to align the product with the preferences and aspirations of this group: they will likely be the ‘thought-leaders’ who will, by their advocacy, credibility and leadership, swell the ranks of potential customers.

Why 'willing, but not anxious'? It is the time-honoured valuation model which corrects for the outliers at either end of the bell-curve. In this context, it removes from the equation the false market sometimes created by a clever marketing ploy, demand for the nec plus ultra (think Dufour), or sheer chutzpah (think Artya).

Why ‘higher-end’? It is only within this bracket (where ‘higher-end’ is effectively equivalent to ‘higher-value’) that it matters to the interested and knowledgeable consumer whether or not the movement in her or his watch is the horological equivalent of a rugged mass-produced tractor or a hand-built temperamental F1 car. The disinterested and unknowledgeable consumer is either purchasing at the lower end of the market (where the distinction does not arise) or otherwise represents the small proportion of the sufficiently well-resourced who will buy a watch at the higher end by reference to other factors (e.g. brand prestige, ‘bling’) regardless of its internal geometry or ‘elfish’ finish.

Why ‘within the near future’? Not only the larger brands, but now also many of the Independents, are seemingly locking into a one year development and marketing cycle. Whilst there will be several exceptions to prove the rule, think how many brands now turn over a large part of their catalogue each year, generally at around the time of Basel and/or SIHH. How many of the major brands are so self-assured in their market dominance that they consider they can afford to release nothing new in a twelve month timespan? How many of the frontrunner Independents are content to go back to Basel two or three years running with only the same watches to display? We increasingly demand to be shown the next and latest ‘thing’ and, when shown, our need for instant gratification means that we want it, and we want it now !

This ‘compression’ of the development and marketing cycle permits brands and watchmakers alike to refine their offerings in order to respond immediately to the shifting vespers of fashion; to world economic circumstances; global sentiment; technological advancement and competitors’ innovation. A by-product of this effect is the rash of LE watches and small volume, or brief, model runs: also, it would now seem, the modish push to show an in-house calibre.

This year will be very interesting from this perspective. We have seen PSM’s new Marin 2; we hope to see the McGonigle brothers’ first in-house calibre; Kari Voutilainen is supposed to be giving us his own; Roger Smith will channel George Daniels; maybe another Vyskocil (watch, not movement) will be delivered; Christian Klings pops up from time to time; Montblanc and OP are trotting out new movements, etc etc etc. When we see them we will pore all over them: those who can afford them will fondle them in the metal; those who, for now, can only wish will zoom in on the hi-res scans and the glossy marketing publications. We will test the claims to ‘genetic purity’; we will compare and contrast the genius; we will gasp or sniff haughtily at the finish. We will then vote – with our wallets.

It is at that point, perhaps, that the watchmakers’ gambit will be vindicated or will come undone. Will you pay X units for the in-house movement by Jagger when the equally impressive in-house movement by Richards is only one-half X? (Just testing, here, to see if Art is reading…). Will you pay 3X for Wood’s new model with the in-house movement when his equally beautiful, but ETA-derived, watch from last year was only X? Will you be happy to pay X for a very well made Wyman with a re-finished Peseux movement but baulk at paying 4X for the very similar (but allegedly all in-house) Watts? Finally, what about that genius Jones? He made some sensational watches driven by Longines, Zenith or Peseux but this year (just before he drowned!) he released similarly sensational watches featuring his own (untested) movement. How should you rate the one watch by this master against the other?

Have faith in market forces: as watchmakers know very well, market forces will answer all of these questions for you - probably within the year.

Cheers,

pplater.

Site Info.