Horological Meandering

Some weeks ago I was shown some prototypes of the latest Cvstos watches. One in particular impressed me. It is an integrated column wheel chronograph with bidirectional automatic winding similar to IWC's Pellaton. This calibre is actually built on a base automatic movement with the same winding system, gear train and escapement, but the chronograph is integrated into the base calibre, instead of being conveniently modular. In fact, the Cvstos winding mechanism is apparently based on a design originally conceived by Albert Pellaton but never executed before, but I have no technical details on this yet.

The watch shown to me was a prototype, but the movement was nonetheless well finished, especially so for a watch in this genre (black PVD attack) which are typically fairly industrial looking.

Yet the elephant in the room cannot be ignored, this watch is strongly reminiscent of Richard Mille. In all tangible aspects, case, dial, crystal, movement, the finish and construction is good. The construction of the chronograph movement is certainly more sophisticated than the RM011, which retails for four times as much. As a value for money proposition, this watch wins hands down.

What do you think?

- SJX

This message has been edited by SJX on 2008-12-01 07:48:00

RM should be watching their backs. there are only so many case shapes in the world so most companies could be accused of copying previous companies. over 90 years ago Omega and some other companies were making tonneau cased watches for the russian market. whether it was RM or Cvstos who produced the case shape first, all they were doing was putting a modern engineered look onto an old and familiar style. if the watch had been round no one would have batted an eyelid.

if as you say JiaXian, the movement is technologically better IYO than RM's and the case is of good quality it goes some way to showing that some of the more fashionable 'Haute Horologie' companies are charging too much.

i seriously considered the PVD Cvstos challenge chrono last year when i wanted a big black chunky chrono. i chose not too as it was basically a V7750 and ended up with the B&R phantom which is just an ETA + module so no improvement there i'd be as pleased to wear a Cvstos on my wrist as i would an RM, perhaps more so given the fiscal benefits on top of everything else.

there will always be some who say that it is merely a copy and not worthy of consideration, but i say we should let them have their opinions, ignore them and judge the brand and this particular watch on its own merits.

from my point of view if they are using a different movement to the norm in a high quality case then its got my vote.

Graham

As you mention, the Challenge chronograph is 7750 based, uninspiring and it
is rather expensive for a watch using that movement, though the case,
crystal and dial are well made. This new chronograph is totally different,
it is leagues ahead of the 7750-based chronographs in terms of movement
construction and finish. It retails for about 50% more than the 7750
chronograph, but that premium is well justified given what is inside. In
fact I feel the retail price of the Concept S chronograph offers more bang
for the buck than the amount Cvstos was asking for the 7750-based watch.

- SJX

Can you get any further information on the winding system?

It appear that the rotor drives a gear with a pin (second photo) that provides the movement that is usually supplied by the cam in the IWC Pellaton.

It would appear that this system would either have a lot of slop (and therefore dead angle) and rattle (?) or would have a fair bit of friction. Still cool though, especially since the design allows you could see it moving around like the drive of a steam train and watch the little claws work in and out. Anything mechanically new makes me smile.

From the beginning I never bought anything based on brands (starting from zero and with an open mind helped a lot), and up until now I don't have anything from JLC, VC, PP, RM, etc. So when China watch manufacturers, Azimuth, or independent watchmakers introduce something new, I always keep an open mind.

Japanese car manufacturers started from being a copycat, now look at them. Let's see whether Cvstos wants to get rich quick or in the biz for long term.

cen@jkt 

And in this example, it would seem to be the case.  Admittedly, movement aesthetics aside, the modular has never been my favourite.  However, a modular can work just as well, and at times (depending on the movement/module manufacturers) better than the column wheel.  As Purists, we may prefer a column wheel, or better yet, an integrated (built from the ground up) chrono movement, however, that is not always possible nor does it make it anymore reliable or accurate.  Anyone with an AP Offshore sits with the same configuration as the RM011.

Cvstos started out life as an RM clone - even to the point that in the early days (due to some of their claims), they had a legal order placed upon them.  There will always be firms out there that can use others as the springboard for their own gain.  And then there are firms that are originals and never mind what the following firm does, there is an element of originality that is missing.  Most large, historic firms have some form of basic time only dress watch, and yet the Calatrava remains and prevails as first choice over others (independents are excluded in the argument and yet would probably only enhance the point).  Why?  There is something in the quality of the watch that remains, that it projects, over the others that consumers spend the additional money to own the Calatrava.  When the watches look nearly the same to most people on the street, why would you do this?  Because it is the Patek Calatrava - and it is sufficient that you know that, even if no one else does.

RM watches are where they are because they are Richard Mille's - and putting the two watches side by side, on your wrist, and budget permitting, you would always choose the original - and not some close approximation.

Andrew H

By that argument, everyone would be drinking Coke and not Pepsi. Nothing against RM. But nothing against Cvstos too.

I sincerely hope that watchmakers are not resting on the laurels of a big fat name to sell 'inferior' watches just because it is a Calatrava or Reverso. And I like to believe that it isn't so with the different 'A' brands claiming a slice of the pie with their salient points, and the up and coming 'B' brands challenging with very compelling pieces.

I'd say that whilst there are still many who would buy a watch simply for its brand, the watch consumer is likelier to be more intelligently discerning than shoppers of other commodities like leather goods, cars and........ even soda.

My 2 cents...

I have never tried both watches on side by side because I would never consider buying a Cvstos, as I just see it as a pretender. Its hard for me to have respect for a company that has to completely copy another brands design. Of course I'm a bit biased as I have loved RM from the very first time I saw an add for them.






As you can tell I really like RM's
I would never hold it against another watch lover if they decided to buy a Cvstos because they like it, but they would be doing themselves a disservice if they were buying a Cvstos to save
money over an RM as their is only on RM

But what if the Cvstos, which is widely regarded as a copycat, displays better construction and finish?

I agree from a practical standpoint an integrated, column wheel movement is not advantageous over a modular construction, all things being equal. But as you acknowledge, from a purist's perspective, the added complexity in construction of an integrated movement makes it more attractive, thus purists regard such a movement as being "better".

Furthermore the Cvstos exhibits a fine level of finishing, better than the RM011 in my opinion, but not as good as the RM004 or RM008 of course.

What do you think?

- SJX

. . . any 'sports watch' (which remains an undefined term) that runs into the five-figure range [in US $] . . . there are precious few - and I mean that literally - that I feel are worthy of serious expenditure simply because the essential quality of a sports watch must be it's facility in actual use, with a corresponding emphasis on value in absolute terms; in other words, I find it difficult to accept the expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars when mere thousands will do for a watch that has an ostensibly utilitarian purpose [this is purely my opinion, and I certainly recognize diverging opinions as equally valid]. Having established my personal disinclination for the gamut of needlessly expensive sports watches, I will admit to an admiration for the house of Richard Mille, and an appreciation for almost every watch they've created so far. Their designs reflect originality, functionality, and technical achievement in equal measure, which makes them (again, in my personal opinion) a rarity amongst modern manufactures as a house that has the potential to extend it's allure indefinitely, a la Patek.

Accolades aside, an RM isn't in the cards personally for the reason that I perceive it as (for want of a better term) a 'lifestyle' watch . . . given my relatively modest means and habits, I would feel out of place wearing one. What I would never for a moment contemplate is acquiring a Cvstos as an RM substitute . . . it would have to stand on it's own merits, and not as a substitute for it's progenitor. Cordially, Art

I found that CVSTOS finishing is good in its price range , I think CVSTOS will be successful with new movement . Hi SJX, do you known how thick is it ?

But I estimate the watch is about 15mm thick, similar to the thickness of
the 7750-based Cvstos chronograph.

- SJX

If the movement CVSTOS is using is related at all to the new in-house automatic chronograph movement being produced by Franck Muller for use in FM and Martin Braun watches. It is not too far-fetched a question given the ties that exist between CVSTOS and Watchland (Sirmakes Sr and Jr)

Best,
Mitch

However the folks from Cvstos assured me the movement was proprietary, they
do receive help from Franck Muller but no more than 20% of the components
come from Watchland. Of course I would take that with a pinch of salt, but
that doesn't detract from the fact that the movement appears well finished
and constructed, certainly more interesting than the JLC calibre found in
the Extreme World Chronograph.

- SJX

Martin, I believe developed this movement, at least that is what he told me earlier this year when I spoke with him...

What comes forth from the watch companies, one has to take with a grain...they have had years (tradition) of missing data for the buying public with which people often draw conclusions, which are sometimes not really what is going on.

These pictures clearly show Mitch to be on the right track.

Warm regards,

Tim

There is no denying that Cvstos was created for the fundament purpose of copying RM's unique designs.  In the beginning, Cvstos made little or no effort to create anything of their own.  Instead, they openly, blatantly and unabashedly copied RM.  This design infringement went well beyond the mere shape of the case.  Now, a few years later, Cvstos has decided that it would be well served to evolve beyond its parrot origins and endeavor to create something of its own.  There is a novel idea.  However, it will take more than one admittedly intriguing movement for Cvstos to rebuild its reputation and earn a label other than imitator.

Thats my 2 cents.

Craig

Including an excellent sounding minute repeater that is waterproof. The
waterproofing is a gimmick no doubt, but I was pleasantly surprised by the
volume, tone and clarity of the chimes, furthermore there was no audible
buzzing of the snail which is common amongst repeaters. What is even more
surprising is that the gongs of the repeater are tonneau shaped which makes
it even more interesting. The last company I can recall to make tonneau or
round gongs was JLC with its Reverso MR, and though sound varies from piece
to piece, that often sounds terrible.

- SJX

could you tell me more how they managed to (i) get a well sounding water resistant minute repeater and (ii) isolate the repeater's operating sound from the gong tones?

Thanks a lot!

Magnus

However, I am still reluctant to join the fan club.  Even the new minute repeater looks remarkably similar to RM pieces.  I have a hard time getting beyond the overlapping design elements.  That being said, it sounds like a mighty interesting movement.  Entirely in-house?

Craig

Ps:  Sorry if I came on too strong.  

And also developed inhouse. 100% inhouse is an exaggeration but the movement is certainly unique, it's a form repeater movement with shaped gongs. Just that alone makes it oustanding. Cvstos promised the sound on all production pieces would be as good as the prototype. If that's the case this will be quite amazing from a construction/technica standpoint, ignoring the aesthetics.

- SJX

. . . your reluctance to join the fan club.  I don't like the business model that includes as a first step copying the work of others to generate a revenue stream.  It's going to take an awful lot of original design work for me to take this brand seriously, and I'm not seeing it here at all.  The movement is interesting, but that's where the interest ends for me.

Instant legitimacy....you might even get to celebrate a 150th anniversary...