Saturninus
52
I propose that to settle the controversy about Laurent Ferrier's characterization of movements as being in-house, we go straight to the source
Apr 03, 2018,00:16 AM
I'm sure LF knows that the WIS audience for haute horlogerie timepieces is a very demanding, high-maintenance, ruthlessly perfectionist crowd. The targeted buyers of their products are not superficial collectors who are looking for various dial and bezel combinations or Rolex Submariners. There is no point in creating what is arguably one of the finest automatic movements in the world unless you are going after buyers who purchase an LF watch specifically for that reason.
And so now there is a movement in the new minute repeater which appears to be the work of Barsini and Navas. Given the history of collaboration between LF and Barsini and Navas, I dont see that as an in validation of their in-house claim, if Barsini and Navas are executing a design on behalf of LF.
It appears, however, that a very similar movement has appeared in a Girard-Perregaux 1966 repeater. Given the audience that LF caters to, I can't imagine that this is something nefarious that they hoped would escape notice. My guess is that there is an explanation or rationale, but no platform for articulating that explanation. After all, when introducing the Minute Repeater, it's not as if they could have included a paragraph in the press release that said "now some of you might notice that this movement is similar to the one recently used by GP. Here is an explanation for that..."
I suspect if asked about this specifically, we will get the response that they have prepared for this. If they don't bother to explain and just hope nobody will notice or care, that would be a big mistake. But I think there is an explanation.
Would anyone who has previous corresponded with LF volunteer to solicit LF's thoughts on this matter on behalf of the WIS community?