Horological Meandering

How many Manufactures use one watchmaker to assemble a watch from start to finish?

 

Some companies make more of a fuss about this than others, perhaps as a marketing tool. But I like the idea a lot. It adds to the ‘personality’ of the watch for me.

 

F.P.Journe takes it a step further and commits to the same watchmaker who assembled your watch being responsible for any warranty repairs.

 

It is part of the attraction of independent watchmakers as well – even if many of those individuals no longer actually assemble the watch you put on your wrist. Think of them as Executive Chefs, supervising all the activity and ‘tweaking’ the final ‘dish’ before it leaves the ‘kitchen’.

 

So back to the question: which companies have one watchmaker assemble a watch from start to finish? Are there parallels in other manufacturing industries?

 

During the IGOTT2 DeWitt presentations, Nathalie Veysset showed us how the signature of the watchmaker who assembles your watch is affixed to the movement on a little plaque. I think that’s super cool.

 

Andrew

This message has been edited by Dr No on 2011-07-20 11:06:08

I actually love plaques on movements... such as Dufour and GF...

 

Hello Andrew,

[rant] I appreciate that much of what we love about mechanical horology is not too rational, but having one watchmaker assemble each watch just seems completely backwards to me. It's less efficient with regards to productivity and with regards to the quality of work and the only thing that could justify it is production runs so small that it doesn't make sense to specialize. It's only the unstoppably irrational power of "the myth of watchmaking" that could make a reasonable sized manufacturer think that reduced process control is somehow a good thing and gives their watches more character. If by that they simply mean higher failure rates (does "every watch we make is a prototype" sound familiar?) then more power to them and the folks that are drinking their kool-aid. [/rant]

_john

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.

. . . be inversely related?  Homogeneity is one measure of quality, but so is artisanship.  If the artisanal factor is the primary emphasis, then a "one watch, one watchmaker" approach makes sense, no?

Is this not a case of apples and oranges, arts vs crafts?  There are attractions inherent in both independent and corporate watchmaking, some of which are mutually exclusive.  My preference is for the craft of corporate watchmaking, but that's just me.  The idealization* of the artistic element in watchmaking is just as valid a perspective.  I don't find myself succumbing to the allure of the independents, but there are those that do; in their case, does a signed movement confer any merit?

The real question is, does the presence of a signed movement in a watch made by a small but nevertheless corporate watchmaker confer the assumed prestige inherent in a truly limited production watch made by an independent?  Say, Dufour, for example . . .

Cordially, Art

* "idolization" would've been almost as appropriate! 

Hello Art,

Interesting points you raise!

Is not the appeal of the independent that the named individual associated with the brand either assembled the watch or had a very direct hand in its creation or manufacture?  In the case of the corporate watchmaker where one is primarily buying the watch brand, is the unnamed watchmaker assembling the watch of much additional value?  I think they could be but it needs more personalized input from the corporate.  For example, if in a hypothetical world, Laurent Ferrier worked for Corporate Brand X and they issued a limited edition watch (along with his bio and credentials) that was directed by him and/or assembled by him, would it not make that limited edition real, distinct, and complementary to the brand?  For better or worse, this strategy is probably too risky for a corporate since it creates a star culture that is subject to departure risk.  The anonymous signature or assembler is much weaker I think, although it does still confer a softer/murkier element of "romance".   

On the artisanship point - I think artisanship is a fantastic concept but only when the result is beautiful and well functioning.  I have been amazed at times to see how quickly a non-working watch (especially an expensive one) becomes just a hunk of metal.  Homogeneity (say Rolex) is a fantastic display of decades of progressive quality improvement.  Artisanship is wonderful but a very risky business! 

All the best.

. . . you understood the gist of my reply precisely. 

Cordially, Art

… independents.

 

Even amongst the independents it seems that we have a range, from those working alone in a spare room in their house, to those employing apprentices and watchmakers who they train and supervise to a greater or lesser extent.

 

Depending on your priorities, a watch that has been designed and conceived by an individual, but assembled by another watchmaker may give you pride of ownership, where others will seek out the artisan working on a watch by themselves.

 

Andrew

Hello Art,

I appreciate hand crafted pieces made by independents and I also appreciate mass produced pieces of honest quality. What I don't like are mass produced pieces that cater to the fantasy of independent watchmaking with counter-productive gimmicks. That's what I perceive the "one watchmaker per watch" sloganeering to be about where it is not dictated by exceedingly small production runs. Not sure where these signed name plates in question might fall exactly, as the examples seem to be pretty small production runs.

_john

John's comments somehow make sense with my own irrational feeling: I find the affixed signature strangely pretentious... I find this unnecessary at best and off-putting at worst. A watchmaker's human touch is evident or it is not--and no 'plaque' can make it otherwise... I think the human touch IS self-evident in those (mostly) independent watchmakers who have blazed this trail, to the place where now, 'anonymous' watchmakers' initials are placed on a plaque... ! Dufour, what monster did you create? My 2 cents... This message has been edited by Mostel on 2011-07-17 18:37:44 This message has been edited by Mostel on 2011-07-17 18:40:15

My impression is that these mid-sized Manufactures are trying to leverage the mystique of the artisanal watchmakers. For something as deeply personal to me as a mechanical watch, I still see some (emotional) value (over and above advertising value) in it.

Andrew

put a plaque on the engine, but very few (Aston does, some Corvettes have it) but no one pretends that a whole car is built that way.
And in fact a complicated watch that takes weeks or months to assemble is FAR MORE COMPLEX to build than an engine which can be done in a day at most.

And while I might be happy that one man made my watch I might be less happy that he's the one to fix it - I'd hope it was someone senior to the guy who made my troublesome watch.

In visiting a local watchmaker (43 yrs in the biz) I was instructed to get rid of all my steel tweezers immediately and replace them with plastic or brass, since even the slightest mark on a watch part can cause an irate customer storming in to harass the poor hack who rebuilt or regulated his watch ...

"honest sir, thos scratches were my unique signature, in lieu of a placard ..."

The final assembly of the 911 engine is done by one person. That person used to sign the engine - but when I toured the works they explained that they have stopped it. With the internet, customers started comparing the power outputs of their engines - and asking for Herr X to make their engine. Since it's just final assembly (IMHO) it can't make a difference - but the easiest thing was to stop signing the engines...

but it could be for their high end pieces only?

...each is signed in the case back with a single engraved signature and the date (1995 for each).

Of course, as with old firearms, it might be the signature of the inspector.

Unfortunately I didn't take a snap of the case backs.

and think it is another plus of FP Journe (surprise!). Both at Glashütte Original and Lange I have seen that the watchmakers get "kits" of the part from which they then assemble the watch from the ground up, twice in Langes case. In addition the balance cock engraving, by style, can be traced to the persons who did it. So in this sense they have that artisanal "feeling" to me. I would be surprised if even at Journe the watchmaker also made each part, so there is a degree of industrial optimization even there. I assume there are grey zones, for example at Lange I have seen the person who matches balance wheels to balance springs, which is a special skill, and then puts the matched pair in the kit. But in general, I love the idea of a person being behind my watch,

 

Best

Andreas

I humbly opine that the FPJ way of having one guy making building the whole watch versus say Lange's approach of different staged specialization production model, is not a realistic forward strategy. Reality is I would rather my watch be assembled by a bunch of watchmakers, and have it beautifully and perfectly executed, then one guy who may not be equally adept to all watching tasks and functions.

Lastly, I like the watch maker to sign off his creation, but perhaps not on the watch itself, but on a piece if paper or certificate.

Lastly, this in this thread drawing a parallel to car manufacturing versus watch making, AMG cars have their engines signed off by one mechanic who assembled the engine. Mercedes must think me a idiot. They expect me to believe Herr Schmidt assembled my entire engine himself!!!! On top of charging an exorbitant price tag, to have ones intelligence insulted!! Anyway, M over AMG anytime....then again, true till november as least.

Best,

Horo

. . . touches upon germane and significant issues that underlie the raison d'être of this forum in particular, and the appreciation of watches and watchmaking in general.

Andrew has elliptically brought up the issue of whether the art of independent watchmaking is different from, and by extension superior to, the craft of making watches in series production.  There is a sizable contingent of aficionados that prefer independents categorically over established manufacturers for essentially artistic reasons; independence confers an opportunity to produce a vision, limited only by the watchmaker's innate ability.  The Grönefeld One Hertz is a prime example. 

On the other side of the coin are those that value the qualities inherent in series production, particularly the facility for long-term maintenance.  It's difficult to imagine a product more ephemeral than a watch made by a defunct independent. 

There are many directions this thread can take.  Let's explore them all.

Cordially, Art 

Hi Andrew,

An interesting topic - just when I thought there was nothing new under the sun!

My feeling is that the lone watch-maker makes for an idealized and pleasant attribute for a hand-made watch; it was one of the pleasant points I noted when I purchased FP Journe for example.  This is particularly pertinent in very small workshops like say some of the independents where the annual output level is in the tens or some low 100s of watches.  When one reaches the output level of several thousands, then automation is needed I think, primarily as a means of quality control.  In the middle-zone of annual production of many to high hundreds of watches (I'm assuming Journe remains or was until recently in this category) there is a double edged sword; namely that quality control needs to be carefully monitored such that it is not inadvertently outsourced to the end buyer.  The system of a single watch maker is quite appealing to the manufacturer as it allows for relatively straightforward tracking of productivity and monitoring of returns or watch faults.  These statistics can be easily utilized to rank watch makers but at some customer cost as lemons are more likely to be frequently produced by under-performing watchmakers.     

The right thing to do of course, is to ensure that under the single watchmaker model, there is an independent quality control group that stops any errors before they reach the end user.  However this is already taking away from the romance!

As a related aside, my general experience is that quality control of new watches across many manufacturers (including Patak Philippe and FP Journe by example) is much higher than when watches are sent for repairs.  In the latter case, it is precisely the single watch maker that is usually responsible for the repair and the hit-rate is pretty good but not as perfect/outstanding as is more typical for new issues.  That is where I would focus quality control more fervently if I were a manufacturer. 

So I like the idea but the watch manufacturers need to ensure they have both excellent watch makers and even better quality control officers - it's the latter that count as far as customers are concerned! 

All the best.

whose signature is the position of the Minerva arrow!

 

If a watch is returned for service, it will go to the watchmaker who assembled it as well.

Cheers, Mike

No message body

All their grand complications are assembled by a master watchmaker in a special area ( used to be in the attic ).cheers,dreamer

but the French language does make a distinction.  Vignerons are found in Burgundy, and are responsible not only for all activities within the cellar but also all decisions within their vineyards.  Of course, the Napoleanic Code, and the division of property, certainly encouraged the arrival of the vigneron (vis a vis the often foreign proprietors of the Left Bank in Bordeaux, where vast properties are found and the viticulturist is often a different person from the maitre de chai)--but whatever the case, the vigneron seems akin to what you are seeking......

Of course, bad Burgundy exists--but some of the greatest bottles of wine bar none are Grand Cru Burgundy......

J

a caring manufacture will do it for me just as a caring independent would.

team effort vs. individual, both with differing romantic appeal.

in my particular case, barring the usual cost of entry, i would still prefer a good watch from a manufacture over a good one from an independent on average.  these "brands" have been around and i grew up seeing their ads, their watches on people i admire and respect, etc.  it's like growing up with Coke and Converse Chuck Taylors.  the personal touch may not be there but there is that generational magic to it that an independent cannot match.

 

 

 

. . . agreement.

Cordially, Art

I admire many independents but am ambivalent whether watch is a team effort or an individual as long as it is a great product. Whilst i like the romantic notion of a single watchmaker assembling , I also like the romantic history of the brand via decades old adverts say for brands like Rolex,Omega,Patek, VC et al.cheers,dreamer

Art asked this question and it presents some problems for this discussion.

First, a well-made watch (maker deceased or retired, etc. or company gone out of business) owned by a wealthy-enough person can be fixed most of the time. We might not prefer a refinished dial, or a substitute mainspring, but it can be fitted and the watch can run well. You might have to buy a few extra movements as spare parts and there may be no economic justification or rationale that makes sense, but you can do it. And we do.

You can take this to the most extreme limit and ask "Perhaps Lord Arran's watch will be maintained by Paul Gerber for the rest of Paul's life, but then who will take it over?"

As we move through the quartz, silicium/silicon components, Spring Drive, Kinetic, etc movements we become more dependent on the remaining stocks and cooperative manufacturers to keep the watches alive. But this is no different than other kinds of consumer products.

There are indeed motor vehicles more than 100 years old still doing the London-to-Brighton run. There are a very few ancient aircraft still making demonstration flights.

I'd liken these to a well-restored pocket watch which is brought out on special occasions and which runs happily and fairly accurately for a couple of days.

In any of these cases - watches, cars, aircraft - the method of original construction is more or less irrelevant when it comes to long-term operation. It's always going to end up being fixed by one or a small group of persons, not an assembly line.

More modern products require a bit more creativity as far as plastics, fabrics, electronics - but it's amazing how many vehicles are still running today at car shows which were thought unrestoreable 30-40 years ago.

In the high-end car insurance business, there's a finite "loss" that a company has to assume - any vehicle of any sort can be rebuilt for say a million dollars, give or take, even if it means being carved out of unobtainium and gilded. That doesn't mean its provenance is maintained, or that its highest retail value can be recreated, but it can certainly be made usable and presentable and/or award-winning. There is no ultimately unrestorable or uncopyable car or watch.

It's not the lifetime of the maker (man or company) which determines the lifetime of the watch, as much as the wallet thickness and willingness of the current owner, I'd say.

Cazalea


This message has been edited by cazalea on 2011-07-19 09:59:13

Personally I like things like this especially when I know the watchmaker involved, it brings an extra personal touch to the watch which is something I enjoy.

Andrew

Hi, Andrew,

I drink the kool aid as willingly as the next WIS; hell, I help serve it most of the time!

But...

I brought a watch from one of the names you mentioned in your post back to their atelier for service, and handed it directly to the eponymous owner / founder of the brand.

I specifically pointed out one of the issues to be corrected, along with a routine service / overhaul - a ratchet wheel click  that was not engaged (actually pointing BACKWARDS from the ratchet wheel gear teeth)

This was more a cosmetic problem than a functional one - the particular movement has two ratchet wheels, two clicks, both trains interfaced so the other click was "holding the fort."

Many many months and a several thousand dollar bill later, the watch was returned, supposedly serviced and "corrected."

The click was in exactly the same, ie, wrong, position as when it went in.

The watch was handed to the person whose name was on the dial and brand (also owner) directly by me, and I specifically pointed out the "issue" of the click.

He was supposedly going to hand it to the watchmaker that assembled the watch in the first place, to service it.

'nuf said.

The kool aid tastes a little bitter after an experience like this...

(an analogy comes to mind - a car is brought in for service; there is cosmoline still on the edges of the engine hood.

 

When you get the car back, the cosmoline is exactly in the same places, looking exactly the same.

 

hmmm...)

Thanks Thomas,

 

I can see problems, as mentioned by others, with the concept of the same watchmaker who assembled your watch being responsible for warranty repairs as well. It may be a matter of training and supervision as well final QC that led to this. It may be good for the ongoing education of the watchmakers, but it doesn’t help the customers. I would prefer the best watchmaker in the atelier to be working on my watch if it had an ‘issue’.

 

Andrew