Let's have some fun: Do you always prefer In house movement or not in house?

[terrenceterrence]

  well said

that is why everytime i see those more unfortunate than me.. i actually feel very bad at the amount i spend on all these things.

time to reevaluate myself.

The brand name and reputation you said...wouldn't that be falling prey into the marketing hype generated by these brands. It is just moving from movement snobbery to brand snobbery.
....

Wearing watches is in its basic form is all about "snobbery". It is just a matter of degrees. If you want to tell time, your hand phone has a clock. If you want to tell time on your wrist, the cheapest digital watch from the nearest pasar malam will do the job adequately (more accurately in fact than most our branded automatic watches). If you want an investment, collecting the usual luxury watches gives terrible returns (even at the million dollar level - there are better forms of investments).

Just what is the degree of exclusivity (or crudely put "snobbery") are you willing to fork out money over? That is the gist of this thread. Whether it is a Zenith chronograph with in-house movement over an Omega heavily modified ETA chronograph? An older Daytona with a zenith movement vs the newer Daytona with an in-house Rolex mechanism? Lots of debate over that one...

There is a reason why WIS means Watch Idiot Savant.

[Yikkie]

There are actually some of us who wears a watch because we appreciate the mechanical genius of the movement, a deep liking for the design of the watch, etc.  It is not to show off or to feel that we are more "atas" than the non luxury watch wearing crowd.  It is not about snobbery, it is about passion and appreciation for the world of hologerie for some of us.  It is like some of us don't wear designer clothes for snob factors but actually buys them for the cut or the material.  We are passionate about watches because we love watches...it is not because we love showing off to people that we wear expensive watches.  A WIS is defined as someone who knows everything about watches but might have limited knowledge of other subjects.  It has no connection to being a snob.   

The brand name and reputation you said...wouldn't that be falling prey into the marketing hype generated by these brands. It is just moving from movement snobbery to brand snobbery.
....

Wearing watches is in its basic form is all about "snobbery". It is just a matter of degrees. If you want to tell time, your hand phone has a clock. If you want to tell time on your wrist, the cheapest digital watch from the nearest pasar malam will do the job adequately (more accurately in fact than most our branded automatic watches). If you want an investment, collecting the usual luxury watches gives terrible returns (even at the million dollar level - there are better forms of investments).

Just what is the degree of exclusivity (or crudely put "snobbery") are you willing to fork out money over? That is the gist of this thread. Whether it is a Zenith chronograph with in-house movement over an Omega heavily modified ETA chronograph? An older Daytona with a zenith movement vs the newer Daytona with an in-house Rolex mechanism? Lots of debate over that one...

There is a reason why WIS means Watch Idiot Savant.

[Calibr]

This is an interesting and informative thread.. I wonder, based on arguments and points put forth so far, would it be reasonable to conclude that the Tudor Pelagos would be a better buy than the Sub C Date, as the Sub is priced also double of the Pelagos? The price premium appears to be based on a name (Rolex), the in-house movement (3135 vs ETA 2824), and the fact that Rolex, being the big brother, has a mountain of marketing promotion war-chest vis-a-vis Tudor.

Of course the two watches have different concepts and heritage of their creation, although I read in some blogs that both are manufactured and crafted by the same craftsmen in the Rolex factory, using the same machinery and facilities, and handled with similar passion and QC controls. After sales service is also from the same group of watchmakers and technicians, providing the same high level of service, though I would expect it's cheaper to service and replace Tudor parts.

A Rolex is a Rolex, so is Nike is a Nike.. but these days, the price premium of Nike over other brands for similar products have nose-dived. Would a person wearing a Pelagos be perceived with the same positive feelings as one with a Rolex Sub, the technical and tool watch arguments aside?

[rusminag]

Rolex vs Tudor: Different steel quality

[hanz079]

Rolex vs Tudor: Different steel quality

Steel quality or not, I don't think it's enough to justify the premium.
Other factors need to be taken into consideration as well especially brand value.

[hanz079]

This is an interesting and informative thread.. I wonder, based on arguments and points put forth so far, would it be reasonable to conclude that the Tudor Pelagos would be a better buy than the Sub C Date, as the Sub is priced also double of the Pelagos? The price premium appears to be based on a name (Rolex), the in-house movement (3135 vs ETA 2824), and the fact that Rolex, being the big brother, has a mountain of marketing promotion war-chest vis-a-vis Tudor.

Of course the two watches have different concepts and heritage of their creation, although I read in some blogs that both are manufactured and crafted by the same craftsmen in the Rolex factory, using the same machinery and facilities, and handled with similar passion and QC controls. After sales service is also from the same group of watchmakers and technicians, providing the same high level of service, though I would expect it's cheaper to service and replace Tudor parts.

A Rolex is a Rolex, so is Nike is a Nike.. but these days, the price premium of Nike over other brands for similar products have nose-dived. Would a person wearing a Pelagos be perceived with the same positive feelings as one with a Rolex Sub, the technical and tool watch arguments aside?

A very interesting view.
I think watch vs watch (without taking into considering the brand), the Pelagos can do everything the Sub can... Which is why I think the Pelagos is one of the value buys right now.
Some might scoff at the eta 2824 but let's be honest... it's a tried and tested movement.
With after sales service handled by the same ppl at Rolex and costing 40% the price of a Sub... tell me that is not value.
As for perceiving the Pelagos wearer, I guess that differs on the individual.
I don't think wearing a Pelagos will feel inferior to wearing a sub.

[STT1987]

Rolex vs Tudor: Different steel quality

You truly are a WIS if you start comparing the grade steel that goes into your watches when you decide to buy one.


I dunno, Romaine Jerome says it uses the coal and steel taken from the Titanic (from several km underwater), moon dust from the Moon(!) to make their limited edition watches.
  

Seriously, like I said in my above posts - it's all a matter of degrees. Whether you are basing your choices on exclusivity or or for the "love of the art". Would say, the knowledge that one ETA mechanism uses a regular escapement or an innovative co-axial escapement tip your choice one way or another? It has happened before - years ago I had to choose between a older design but new Seamaster (/w ETA mvt) and a then new Seamaster (/w 2500C Co-Axial - a modified ETA). Hard choice. I got the classic swords hand Seamaster first and later the James Bond design - but my decision was actually based on the fact that the swords hand Seamaster was being phased out, not the movement - things were not equal.

How would you characterize the TAG Heuer 1887 caliber? A Japanese design licensed from Seiko - adapted and modified extensively as claimed by TAG Heuer designers, wholly manufactured in-house at the TAG Heuer facilities in Switzerland or so TAG Heuer claims. In-House, or sub-con movement? I personally think it's an in-house movement though most people think of the Japanese origin as a bit of a cheat.

The Swiss watch industry up till the 90's were wholly reliant on sub-contracted movements and parts. The brands differentiated themselves through case and dial designs. In house manufactures that did everything (case, dial, movement) like Rolex were considered rare exceptions, not the norm. Having a sub-contracted movement in a Swiss watch was to be expected back then and marketing/advertisement materials almost always made no mention of the ebauch/movement that went into the watch. That sort of degree and detail came only much later.

What they did advertise though was what sort of shock protection went into their watches!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incabloc_shock_protection_system
http://www.tztoolshop.com/page95.html

At one time Incabloc was so popular and was so powerful that it was featured prominently on the dials of watches. People were so used to the ads that they thought Incabloc was the watch manufacturer! If I remember the story right, Incabloc was demanding watch makers to put the Incabloc name on the dials - which angered Rolex very much that it went exclusively with it's rival Kif (and very much much later developing Paraflex on it's own). So in the 50's to the 70's, watch aficionados were not really debating the merits of in-house movements vs non (95% were all sub-contracted - or it didn't matter or advertised), purchasing decisions were based on the shock protection system used in the watch!

Just some perspective I guess.

PS:
Just google "vintage incabloc advertisements"
http://home.watchprosite.com/?show=nblog.post&ti=655001

PPS:
 Edit: I am reminded that even Rolex "cheated" a bit and used sub-con Zenith movements in their early Daytonas. This mania for the forced vertical integration in the Swiss watch industry is the creation of the late Nicholas Hayek/Swatch.

[Godzillaz]

Thanks you all for the input. This thread has been running longer than I have originally anticipated and I have learned a lot for all your contribution.

Regard
Tyler