because you are not worth it

[willy]

because they are worth it.or they think they are.many once respected watch brands could use this slogan.but are they worth it?answer=no way.many so called top brands,read hublot ,panerai,frank muller are telling us porkies.i am not saying they make bad watches.i just wish they didnt tell us a load of bullshit about their very own calibers.i mean if you buy a bentley the sales personal are not going to tell you the engine is bentley.how come watch people think they can?the brands i mention are not the only brands doing this.and last of all,how many of you on this forum have talked to people who have felt cheated.when you tell them that the watch they are wearing was built by another firm? willy the angry

[TioMalo]

Yes, surprizingly few actually (feels to be cheated because of missing in house movement / engine).
Take better cars, Bentley as mentioned or watches, say, Panerai for instance. Buyers come mainly from 2 cathegories, those with dough and - as here - the geeks / nerds. For the first cathegory it seems to be enough, the item is sporting the glorious name (what ever it is) and for the 2nd cathegory it will never be good enough, in house or not...
I thinks, thats the way - with more or less everything
Cheers - John

[makita]

tja en del vand er der jo løbet i åen siden Patek blev citeret for at sige"...enhver middelmådig maskinarbejder kan fræse et grundværk, men kun ganske ganske få kan finishere og regulere et værk som det bør sig...(fra: the forgotten beginning)"

I dag er in-house værker jo efterhånden blevet et stort tema, og det er der sikkert adskillige grunde til. At giganter som swatch-group (hvis jeg ikke husker helt forkert), opkøber lemania og lægger pres på værkaftagere som PP, har utvivlsomt medført en vis selvforherligelse blandt de manufakturer som laver in-house værker, for dyrere det bliver det jo. Kunden skulle jo gerne føle en vis retfærdiggørelse i den merpris der nu skal betales. En vis eksklusivitet i at det er in-house.

Historisk set har denne kvalitet/egenskab dog aldrig fyldt så meget som de sidste 20-30 år.

For et års tid siden fulgte jeg en debattråd på timezone om netop dette emne, og "eksperterne" mente ikke at alle værker fra en manufaktur nødvendigvis bør være in-house, men at det at af og til at fabrikere et værk (typisk kompliaktionsværk) fra bunden var udtryk for manufakturens formåen. Denne holdning er jeg foriøvrigt ganske enig i.

De 3 store PP, AP og VC går jo mere og mere væk fra JLC ebauche til rent in-house, men det er nu tvivlsomt om værkerne er blevet væsentligt bedre af den grund, for samtidig har JLC jo disket op med lækkerier efter lækkerier, og havde disse værker fået den ekstra finish/forbedring fra de 3 store, er jeg ret sikker på at værkerne var fuldt på højde med deres nuværende, og i forhold til teknisk raffinement nok en tand bedre.

[Mads Gjødesen]

Den holdning er jeg ikke helt enig i. De nye in-house værker (her taler vi KUN non-komplications) fra VC og AP anser jeg som værende en tand bedre end de JLC ebauche (fortrinsvis cal. 889) de bruger/brugte. JLC cal. 889 er et fint værk fra sen 60´erne fra en tid hvor tykkelsen var meget i fokus. De nye in-house automatics i form af VC 2475 og AP 3120 har afløst JLC 889 og disse nye værker er lidt tykkere og mere robuste i konstruktionen, uden der er gået på kompromis med de tekniske løsninger. Der er også små 40 års evolution mellem de nye og gl. som unægteligt må gøre lidt forskel i form af knowhow. Så jeg vil til hver en tid foretrække et af de to nye in-house værker over JLC 889 og det skyldes IKKE at vi taler in-house.

Jeg er helt enig i at in-house værker ikke altid er vejen frem. Se blot AP, GP og GO´s brug af deres in-house lagkage chronos. Nok er det in-house, men slet ikke på konstruktions niveau med Zenith EP, FP 1185 eller Lemania 2300. Jeg er stor fan af Lemanias cal. 2300, men mener dog det snart er på tide at PP og VC får fingeren ud og får udviklet noget de kan bruge i deres manuelle chronografer m/u komplikationer. For taler vi som her ure i +300 k klassen bør man forvente in-house fra så store manufakturer som VC og PP. Mere af prestigemæssige årsager end af horologiske årsager.

/Mads

[willy]

Tio Malo Skrev:Yes, surprizingly few actually (feels to be cheated because of missing in house movement / engine).
Take better cars, Bentley as mentioned or watches, say, Panerai for instance. Buyers come mainly from 2 cathegories, those with dough and - as here - the geeks / nerds. For the first cathegory it seems to be enough, the item is sporting the glorious name (what ever it is) and for the 2nd cathegory it will never be good enough, in house or not...
I thinks, thats the way - with more or less everything
Cheers - John

hi,there is still nothing wrong with telling the truth.i know a guy who was very pissed off,when i told him that the hublot on his wrist.was not entirely built by them.but contained a eta. caliber polished and stamped hublot. hilsen willy the angry

[willy]

hi mads,i agree with most of it .but big three no.recent survey usa.lang is prefered gift to high level executives.because it is rare exclusive and involves more handwork than patek.vacheron are living on the past.big three today must be pp.lang.ap.lang do not have pp.or ap.history.but who would have believed a few years ago that anyone would compete with pp.at their level and even surpass them.remember its at the top of the financial tree you are first excepted as the best.lang are already at the top.willy the angry

[hannover_dk]

willy Skrev:

Tio Malo Skrev:Yes, surprizingly few actually (feels to be cheated because of missing in house movement / engine).
Take better cars, Bentley as mentioned or watches, say, Panerai for instance. Buyers come mainly from 2 cathegories, those with dough and - as here - the geeks / nerds. For the first cathegory it seems to be enough, the item is sporting the glorious name (what ever it is) and for the 2nd cathegory it will never be good enough, in house or not...
I thinks, thats the way - with more or less everything
Cheers - John

hi,there is still nothing wrong with telling the truth.i know a guy who was very pissed off,when i told him that the hublot on his wrist.was not entirely built by them.but contained a eta. caliber polished and stamped hublot. hilsen willy the angry

Also to me, it is a bit of a fraud when famous watch brands describe their movement as theirname claiber xxxx when in fact is is an straight from the shop-floor ETA 2824 - sometimes with the only "improvement that the bridge has the watch brands name on it. I suppose if you buy enough 2824, the engraving is more or less a give away from ETA.

Often i appears that they try to give someone the impression it is their own movement which I find wrong if it just a straight out of the factory 2824/2992 they use. Maybe that is just how life is, branding and selling hand in hand, and they don't fool us anyway .

I do not mind famous brands using an ebauche. Of course I also appreciate in-house, but it is quite fair to take an ETA 2892 - and sell a great watch at a great price with an absolutely full good machine.

The bigger question to me is when to call it straight out ETA 2892 and when it is OK to call it e.g.IWC 375xxx because of the fairly big changes they do to it, or if they should write ETA 2892 - I would not claim to have the answer to what would be right in such situations, but I understand IWC and the like of them, giving it an own name after working on it.

vh

[willy]

hannover_dk Skrev:

willy Skrev:

Tio Malo Skrev:Yes, surprizingly few actually (feels to be cheated because of missing in house movement / engine).
Take better cars, Bentley as mentioned or watches, say, Panerai for instance. Buyers come mainly from 2 cathegories, those with dough and - as here - the geeks / nerds. For the first cathegory it seems to be enough, the item is sporting the glorious name (what ever it is) and for the 2nd cathegory it will never be good enough, in house or not...
I thinks, thats the way - with more or less everything
Cheers - John

hi,there is still nothing wrong with telling the truth.i know a guy who was very pissed off,when i told him that the hublot on his wrist.was not entirely built by them.but contained a eta. caliber polished and stamped hublot. hilsen willy the angry

Also to me, it is a bit of a fraud when famous watch brands describe their movement as theirname claiber xxxx when in fact is is an straight from the shop-floor ETA 2824 - sometimes with the only "improvement that the bridge has the watch brands name on it. I suppose if you buy enough 2824, the engraving is more or less a give away from ETA.

Often i appears that they try to give someone the impression it is their own movement which I find wrong if it just a straight out of the factory 2824/2992 they use. Maybe that is just how life is, branding and selling hand in hand, and they don't fool us anyway .

I do not mind famous brands using an ebauche. Of course I also appreciate in-house, but it is quite fair to take an ETA 2892 - and sell a great watch at a great price with an absolutely full good machine.

The bigger question to me is when to call it straight out ETA 2892 and when it is OK to call it e.g.IWC 375xxx because of the fairly big changes they do to it, or if they should write ETA 2892 - I would not claim to have the answer to what would be right in such situations, but I understand IWC and the like of them, giving it an own name after working on it.

vh

[makita]

Mads Gjødesen Skrev:Den holdning er jeg ikke helt enig i. De nye in-house værker (her taler vi KUN non-komplications) fra VC og AP anser jeg som værende en tand bedre end de JLC ebauche (fortrinsvis cal. 889) de bruger/brugte. JLC cal. 889 er et fint værk fra sen 60´erne fra en tid hvor tykkelsen var meget i fokus. De nye in-house automatics i form af VC 2475 og AP 3120 har afløst JLC 889 og disse nye værker er lidt tykkere og mere robuste i konstruktionen, uden der er gået på kompromis med de tekniske løsninger. Der er også små 40 års evolution mellem de nye og gl. som unægteligt må gøre lidt forskel i form af knowhow. Så jeg vil til hver en tid foretrække et af de to nye in-house værker over JLC 889 og det skyldes IKKE at vi taler in-house.

Jeg er helt enig i at in-house værker ikke altid er vejen frem. Se blot AP, GP og GO´s brug af deres in-house lagkage chronos. Nok er det in-house, men slet ikke på konstruktions niveau med Zenith EP, FP 1185 eller Lemania 2300. Jeg er stor fan af Lemanias cal. 2300, men mener dog det snart er på tide at PP og VC får fingeren ud og får udviklet noget de kan bruge i deres manuelle chronografer m/u komplikationer. For taler vi som her ure i +300 k klassen bør man forvente in-house fra så store manufakturer som VC og PP. Mere af prestigemæssige årsager end af horologiske årsager.

/Mads

Mads jeg tror du misforstår, det var selvfølgelig ikke en 40 år gammel konstruktion kontra en ny jeg mente. Min pointe var, at f.eks. et "bestillingsarbejde" i AP/VC dress fra JLC much a la cal.2121, men anno 2009, nok havde været fuldt på højde og sikkert teknisk en tand mere raffineret, end de værker anno 2009 som AP og VC selv har stået for. Dertil henviste jeg til lidt af det som JLC selv har syslet med i mellemliggende tid, Gyrotourbillion, og nu suverænt verdens mest komplicerede værk i enormt kompakt udgave, just to name a few.

Når det så er sagt er det selvfølgelig vigtigt af manufakturer af AP og VC´s kaliber nu og da at manifestere sig med et fuldt ud in-house værk, ikke nødvendigvis alle kalibre fra ovenstående dog. Det kan godt være at samtlige af Rolex´ kalibre er in-house, men så spændende og varierende er de så til gengæld heller ikke.

[jk_phpbb3_import15746]

Hvorfor skriver flere til "willy" på engelsk?

Jens-Kristian