What Is An In-House Movement, And Does It Matter To You?

The difference between in-house, proprietary, and third-party movements

June 01, 2022

comments 63

Whether a movement is in-house, proprietary, or supplied by a third party often results in heated discussions amongst watch enthusiasts. Is an in-house movement “better” than a third-party movement, and can a brand really call a movement “in-house” if it doesn’t produce it on-site? In this article, I will touch upon all these topics and try to shed a bit of light on this often-murky subject. And of course, it will also be a tad opinionated.

When I first got into watches in the mid-1990s, I loved looking at the mechanism that made the watch tick (or sweep). Whether that was a Swatch Automatic or an A. Lange & Söhne Lange 1 didn’t matter. Of course, the difference between those was immediately obvious, but any mechanical movement had a “soul” as opposed to a cheap quartz movement. I think that it’s the fascination for the movement’s tiny gears, wheels, and springs that makes you (or me) a watch enthusiast rather than someone who just buys a nice watch. And let’s not forget about the sound that a mechanical watch makes when you hold it next to your ear. The “twinkling” sound you’ll hear underlines the craftsmanship that went into the watch. When a mechanical watch doesn’t have a display back exposing the movement, at least you can listen to it.

Breguet manufacture movements

That time when only a few brands were using in-house movements

In the 1990s, whether a brand used in-house movements or not wasn’t really a topic of much concern. Rolex was still using Zenith movements for the Daytona, Omega was using ETA 2892-A2 movements for the hot-selling Seamaster 300M and Constellation ’95, and Breitling and IWC were also using ETA calibers for most of their watches. No one cared, including me. You’d also see that IWC used JLC movements, and Audemars Piguet did too, along with Dubois-Dépraz modules for its chronographs. In AP’s case, this practice continued for a long time after as well.

Patek Philippe caliber CH 27-70 Q, based on the Lémania 2310. Image via Phillips.

There were only a few companies that were considered true manufactures — Zenith, Breguet, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Rolex, Patek Philippe, Seiko, and a few others. And as I said, even some of those brands also used movements from other companies. Even Patek Philippe used Lémania for its chronographs, some based on the same ones Omega used for the Speedmaster. A movement was considered to be in-house when the brand developed and manufactured the caliber itself. The sourcing of certain parts for the in-house movement, like the hairsprings, doesn’t alter that definition much, in my opinion. But here already, you will find that some watch enthusiasts think differently, and the definition is already shifting.

Audemars Piguet caliber 2121, based on the JLC 920

Brands moving away from in-house movements

Anyway, in the decades before, a lot of brands developed and manufactured their own movements. Sometimes they did so as part of a consortium (think the Calibre 11 by Heuer/Breitling/Hamilton-Büren, the quartz Beta 21 by a high number of Swiss brands, or the JLC 920 co-developed and used by Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, and Vacheron Constantin).

Longines 13ZN chronograph. Image by WatchWorks Haarlem.

Omega was famous for the copper-colored movements that the brand used up till the 1970s. Longines had its famous 13ZN chronograph movement and high-beat caliber already in 1959. Even Oris had its popular calibers 601 and 652. But these are all examples of brands that stopped developing their own movements during and after the Quartz Crisis in the 1970s.

Sourcing movements is an age-old practice

The crisis hit hard, and many brands ceased to exist. Those who were able to survive stopped producing in-house movements to cut costs and started using ébauche movements instead. But even before that, movement companies like Valjoux, Lémania, Venus, Landeron, F. Piguet, and others already provided their calibers to brands like Patek Philippe, Breguet, Rolex, Omega, Breitling, Heuer, and so on.

Some of these movement companies still exist, albeit as a part of the Swatch Group. For example, ETA, which started as part of Eterna, became part of the Swatch Group in the 1980s. Valjoux, F. Piguet, and Lémania all became part of the Swatch Group as well. Swatch Group provided some of these movements to many watch brands, including those outside the group (IWC, Panerai, Breitling, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, TAG Heuer, and others). It doesn’t mean these companies exclusively used ETA, Unitas, Valjoux, F. Piguet, or Lémania movements, but some of their watches certainly housed these calibers.

Especially when it concerned specific complications — such as chronograph movements from Valjoux, F. Piguet, and Lémania — some of the high-end brands would rely on these calibers. But you must also understand that the execution of these movements varied depending on the brand using them. A Patek using a Lémania chronograph movement, for example, was something completely different from a Breitling using one. As this would be a whole other topic on its own, I will leave it at that for now. Just be aware, however, that the different brands using these movements had their own requirements, specifications, and levels of finishing for them.

JLC caliber 899

Always a manufacture

Let me also quickly add that brands like Zenith, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Patek Philippe, and Rolex never stopped developing their own movements. And as written above, some of them also made their calibers available to other brands. A good example is the El Primero chronograph movement from Zenith, which could be found in watches from Ebel, Movado, Rolex, TAG Heuer, Panerai, and so on.

Dr h.c. Nicolas G. Hayek (1928 – 2010). Image by Swatch Group.

ETA wanted to stop delivery

Watch brands having their own movements suddenly became more important in the early 2000s. Swatch Group CEO at the time, Nicolas G. Hayek Sr., announced in 2002 that the group would stop supplying ETA movements to external entities. Although the Swiss Competition Commission ordered the Swatch Group to continue delivering ébauches to companies outside the group, Hayek’s initial statement was a wake-up call to many brands. After getting complaints from watch brands outside the Swatch Group on his statement, he added that it would be much healthier for the Swiss watch industry if watch companies started to invest in developing and producing their own movements rather than just relying on one major supplier.

Omega using the ETA caliber 2892-A2. Image via ZeitAuktion.

It was a fair point, but it also meant those watch companies needed to invest heavily into something they had outsourced for a long time. Some of these brands had never even produced their own movements in the first place. But companies like Sellita, which had been mainly working for ETA as an assembly partner until 2003, also got an amazing boost. Sellita started to produce movements based on ETA calibers with expired patents, such as the ETA 2824 or the famous ETA/Valjoux 7750. Watch brands that previously depended heavily on ETA then started to use Sellita movements. Think of Oris, TAG Heuer, IWC, and Hublot. But smaller, independent (micro) brands also had the opportunity to source movements without having to depend on ETA. Other companies supplying movements are (among others) Soprod, Vaucher, TMI (Seiko), and Miyota (Citizen).

Breitling Navitimer Rattrapante in-house movement

Breitling’s B03 rattrapante chronograph movement, based on the B01

Other brands begin developing in-house movements

Brands like Breitling, IWC, and Panerai, started to develop their own movements, becoming true manufactures once more. Breitling developed its B01 chronograph movement, for example. The interesting part is that Breitling doesn’t keep the movement to itself; Tudor also uses the B01 movement as a base for its chronographs. And speaking of Tudor, when the brand really burst back onto the scene in 2012, its watches still utilized ETA movements. Today, however, you will find them using in-house movements… And here is where we hit a nerve with some watch enthusiasts.

Tudor manufacture movement

Are they really “in-house”? Tudor uses Kenissi, another recent movement producer. Tudor, however, actually founded Kenissi and is still one of its major shareholders. Breitling (which is not a shareholder of Kenissi, though former Breitling employee Jean-Paul Girardin manages the company) and Chanel (a 20% shareholder) also use some Kenissi movements in their watches.

Omega caliber 8900, the successor of the 8500

Brand-exclusive movements

Within the Swatch Group, some brands are also developing their own movements, such as Omega, Blancpain, Glashütte Original, and Breguet. When Omega started to use the Co-Axial escapement — an invention by George Daniels — in an ETA 2892-A2-based movement back in 1999, you could already see where the brand was heading. However, it wasn’t until 2007 that Omega introduced its first modern in-house-developed movement. Caliber 8500 was also the first “in-house” Omega movement that had fully adopted the Co-Axial technology as George Daniels designed it.

Longines Spirit Zulu Time housing a brand-exclusive movement

Longines

Perhaps an even more interesting addition to this topic is Longines. When the brand became part of SMH (the predecessor of Swatch Group) in 1983, it put a halt to the development and production of movements. Recently, however, Longines started to use movements that ETA produces exclusively for its watches. Longines also takes part in the development, though, and even has a dedicated floor inside one of the ETA production facilities. These exclusively produced ETA movements also have specific requirements or functionality. As such, they’re not the same ETA movements that you find in watches from other Swatch Group brands. Do these qualify as in-house movements? Is it comparable to Tudor using movements developed and manufactured by Kenissi? The main difference is that Tudor is a shareholder of Kenissi. Longines is simply a part of the Swatch Group, which also owns ETA, and Longines is not an ETA shareholder.

Oris

And then there’s Oris, for example. Along with using Sellita calibers, the brand also has several movements that it considers to be in-house, including the recently introduced Calibre 400. This movement is developed in-house but produced by a third party that remains undisclosed by Oris. As such, can you consider the Calibre 400 an “in-house” movement? People also refer to it as a “proprietary movement”. Again, traditionally, it might not be regarded as an in-house movement, but when the development takes place in-house and it’s exclusively produced for (in this case) Oris, apparently, that means it can be.

But then what do you call movements from brands like Grand Seiko and Zenith that do every single bit in-house? Can we say that an Oris movement is in-house developed, but not in-house produced? Does everything need to be done under the same roof, or at least a roof that is partly paid for by the brand? If we take the term “in-house” literally, I think the latter needs to be the case. The brand must carry out both R&D and production of the movement.

Rolex caliber 3135, a movement that has been used for decades

Is an in-house movement better than a third-party movement?

However, I think the main question is whether a movement that is developed and/or produced in-house is better than a third-party movement. And again, the definition of “better” is a topic for a whole separate discussion. Does it mean higher specifications, greater accuracy, nicer finishing, hand-engraving, or all these elements? Some brands like Grand Seiko, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Omega, Rolex, and Tudor do more extensive testing on their movements to make sure they are more accurate, more shock-resistant, and/or better protected against magnetism. I think that, in the end, the buyer must decide what’s important in order to call movement X better than movement Y. The advantage of developing movements in-house is that the brand can decide which elements are important in order to adopt them. Brands that need to source movements from ETA, Sellita, Soprod, or other suppliers need to accept certain shortcomings in one field or the other.

Grand Seiko

Another example that I can’t afford to not mention is Grand Seiko. The development and production of all its movements — regardless of whether they’re quartz, Spring Drive, or mechanical — takes place in-house. Even the quartz crystals needed for Grand Seiko’s quartz and Spring Drive calibers are “grown” in-house. The hairsprings for the movements are also produced by Seiko.

Omega caliber 3861 — the successor to the Lémania-based caliber 1861

It should be the quality that counts

In the end, the most important thing to me is the quality of the movement. I can truly enjoy a beautifully finished movement or a certain complication, but it needs to function properly and keep running. I don’t care too much about accuracy, as I swap watches a few times per week. But if you have one or two watches you wear most of the time, they should not show too much deviation. You also don’t want a movement that needs to be repaired or serviced too often. Although many praise the Lémania 5100 movement, for example, it wasn’t a flawless one. But the same applies to certain in-house movements. Think of the Tudor GMT movement introduced in 2018, which had some problems with the date-change mechanism (word is, Tudor fixed it).

But how do you know upfront? With both in-house and third-party movements that have been on the market for a while, you will probably be able to find some feedback on them. But when a movement is new, there’s no track record yet. Here, things like Omega and Tudor’s Master Chronometer certification, JLC’s 1000-hour Master Control standards, and Montblanc’s Laboratory Test 500 will at least give you an indication. Also, some brands are very generous with their warranty program, with some even offering 5-8 years. That should also give you some reassurance.

Omega caliber 2507, based on an ETA 2892-A2

What is important to you?

In short, for my own buying habits, I don’t mind a watch not having an in-house movement, as long as it’s a good one. I prefer a reliable ETA 2892-A2 over an in-house movement that has teething problems (pun intended) or worse. To me, reliability is more important than just the “in-house” label. Let me also add that at a certain price point, I also expect a certain level of craftsmanship.

Is having an in-house movement important to you? Can it even be a dealbreaker if, let’s say, a €10K watch does not have an in-house movement? Let us know in the comments below.

Home
Watch Brands
Longines
Omega
Oris
Tudor
What Is An In-House Movement, And Does It Matter To You?

Read next latest →

Slipping On The Double-Denim Patek Philippe Duo World Time Date 5330G And Nautilus Self-Winding Chronograph 5980/60G

Lex Stolk

Fratello Talks: Swatch Group Novelties From The Watch Valley Event In Utrecht

Nacho Conde Garzón

Introducing: The Orient Star M34 F8 Date With A Dial Pattern Inspired By Meteor Showers

Thor Svaboe

63 Comments

Leave a comment... Join the conversation

Post with fratello account
Login

Don't have an account yet?
Create one here, it'll only take 20 seconds

Florian says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 11:32

I don’t care either way, main factor for me is quality and reliability.
what keeps me from ETA / Sellita mostly or makes me favor other movments is run time reserve. I simply want more than 48 hours.
I like the idea of ease of maintenance for generic movements. but honestly it is not a major factor. If I buy sub 2000€ watch and after some years it’s not just service but repair costs which can easily go as high as 500+€ I would have to consider my options.
Of course I would expect a generic movement to be reflected in the price as well, as much as I expect a high grade Sellita in equally high price watches.
So I am fine with brands like Longines and other Swatch swatch group running upgraded generic movements, I appreciate Oris for investing in a new movement ( and have watches from them and other using Sellitas) and love Grand Seiko for it’s quality and ingenuity…
That’s just for me and my price range though. If I’d spend more than 10k € on a single watch I’d expect it to come with an in house movement because I want beefed up movement features with this as well.

Reply
1. MarkII says:
  
  Jun 01, 2022 at 20:34
  
  Tissot, Certina, Hamilton and Mido are under 2k and offer 80-hour power reserve (Base: ETA 2824-2 architecture).
  
  Reply
heirspring says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 11:48

It doesn’t matter who makes the movement. It’s *impressive* when a company makes its own movements as long as those movements are of good design and quality. Even more so if they bring some innovation. It can feel *special*. But in the end, it doesn’t matter as long as the the whole watch adds up to something good. (All of this goes for any component, not just the movement.) Things are way too smoke-and-mirrors in this business anyway; many of us are fooled into believing things about these companies and watches that simply aren’t true. So… don’t worry about anything but the end result – a great watch is a great watch.

Reply
JH
Conor Whitworth says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 12:36

For someone like Bremont I think it’s a huge achievement and one to be immensely proud of. Expansion of the company which is good for the wider economy and future success of watchmaking and the watchmakers of tomorrow. For smaller micro brands not economically viable and they can therefore focus solely on the design of a watch and creating a ‘signature’ look for their watches and brand which is just as interesting.

Reply
1. AM
  tmc says:
  
  Jun 01, 2022 at 14:37
  
  haven’t owned a bremont in over a decade. hope their inhouse is better than their outhouse which really stunk
  
  Reply
  1. Ed Bakker says:
    
    Jun 01, 2022 at 16:11
    
    Yuck who’d want a smelly watch on their wrist.
    
    Reply
Giovanni says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 13:04

Well if a watch is over a certain price tag I do expect it to have an in-house movement.

My caliber 12 Monaco was 3,500€ in 2009, the new one with sort-of in-house movement is 6,500€

Reply
Obltf says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 13:13

Interesting article RJ, also on the ETA-politics of the 2000s!

The obvious truth is that in house does not always equal better. I have many Valjoux 7750 based watches, and a) they all run very accurately if properly regulated and b) they can easily be serviced by an independent (if you skip double chronos).

On the other hand, I bought a Zenith Elite with a beautiful manufacture movement that in the 2000s, and that one spent ages in the service department until it was exchanged in full.

However, there is usually not much choice – if you want a halfway controllable supply chain for larger series, you’re almost forced to go in-house (and of course you can charge more for that).

So long story short, I wholeheartedly agree to your final paragraph – a beautiful movement is nice, but proper workings take precedence!

Reply
1. Steve says:
  
  Jun 01, 2022 at 19:31
  
  The tipping point for me is when my perception is that a manufacturer could (should) manufacture themselves. If they have the technical expertise and resources to do so, they should, in my opinion. Smaller companies create some amazing watches and the World would be a sadder place without them and clearly they haven’t the ability to do so. Some of the bigger players would be better off spending less on celebrity endorsements and more on providing better value in their finished products. Only my opinion of course.
  
  Reply
  1. MarkII says:
    
    Jun 02, 2022 at 01:49
    
    100%
    
    Reply
RR
WatchesSwiss says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 13:21

It really doesn’t matter if the movement is reliable and dependable. But after all is said and done, I still prefer an in-house movement or a solid movement from a prestigious brand for my more expensive watches.

Reply
Warky says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 13:28

I only think this is a problem because there is no actual definition of what “in house” means.

When one combines that with the lack of transparency that plagues the industry folks then become suspicious. That leads to lots of posts on forums and YouTube videos about brands being busted for claiming a movement is “in house” when in fact it isn’t (depending on your definition – so it all becomes circuitous)

It does matter to me inasmuch as I like to be very clear about what I am spending my money on. Czapek for example is very clear about its movements and the involvement of partners. At the other end of the spectrum, Grand Seiko and Rolex are also very clear. I have no qualms about buying any of these.

It’s the likes of Cartier, Panerai, Breitling, Tudor etc where I am unclear as to whether the movement is “in house”, group or third party produced and I start to become wary.

Whether it would put me off buying of course is a different matter.

Reply
brooklyn_boy says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 13:34

The in-house approach is what has led to the super-sized watches of today. Not every brand has the skill or specialization to make quality bespoke calibres that lead to well-packaged watches. When they try, they often fail and that’s how you end up with 16mm+ thick watches.
Better to try and provide the best watch you can for the prize, regardless of where the movement is sourced.

Tudor and Breitling’s partnership has been very successful. Tudor doesn’t get enough credit for the modifications they’ve done to the B01 (biggest change being a free-sprung balance with variable inertia weights), not unlike the modifications Rolex made to the El Primero in the 80s. And now the BB chrono is quite the sales success. At the same time, Breitling’s revival in recent years is partly due to the use of Kenissi calibres.

In the end, most consumers will try on a watch and see how it looks and feels on the wrist, will ask questions regarding the accuracy and reliability, but which factory the calibre was sourced from would be the last thing on their minds.

Reply
JL
SXMer says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 13:56

Rolex was not a manufacture in the 90s the way JLC was for example. It only became a full manufacture around 2004, when it finally acquired its longtime movement producer Aegler. For most of its existence it relied on suppliers until it bought them up in time, like bracelet maker Gay Freres.

And while Longines and Omega were no longer manufactures in the 90s, they were among the largest manufactures up until the late 70s/early 80s (for more than a hundred years!) when ASUAG and SSIH merged to eventually become the Swatch Group. Prior to that, they made almost all their own movements, etc. Longines, for example, was by far the biggest chronograph manufacture in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, producing their own technical complications. The legendary 321 caliber was a joint development by Omega and its then subsidiary Lemania.

Just putting a bit of perspective on things. Always enjoy reading Fratello articles.

Ciao.

Reply
1. brooklyn_boy says:
  
  Jun 01, 2022 at 17:50
  
  The Aegler story is often misrepresented. Aegler only provided calibres for Rolex. They weren’t like Valjoux, Lemania or ETA, whose calibres were supplied to various brands.
  Aegler was Rolex’s supplier, nobody else’s. So they were bespoke calibres. Yes Aegler was owned by the Borer family and not Wilsdorf, but they were partners from the start.
  
  As for cases, bracelets and dials, every brand depended on suppliers at the time. My Speedy 105.012 has a case made by Huguenin Frères, the other supplier at the time for Omega was Le Centrale Boites. The famous Nautilus case was made by Favre-Perret for Patek in the 1970s.
  
  Reply
2. CB
  Overcoiled77 says:
  
  Jun 02, 2022 at 18:53
  
  From 1885, into the late 1930’s, Aegler supplied full watches, and movements, to other companies such as Rebberg, Dimier Brothers, Fulda & David, Gruen, and others. Gruen actually owned shares of Aegler, along with Rolex, until the late 1930’s.
  
  More interesting than that, Aegler actually produced whole watches for Rolex for many years. Not just movements, as they transitioned to later in the 20th century.
  
  Reply
LC
Chow says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 14:13

I agree. It’s all about the quality that counts. Obviously OMEGA is number one when it comes to quality. I’m house movement doesn’t necessarily make the watch any better.

Reply
1. MartinM says:
  
  Jun 01, 2022 at 18:29
  
  Never miss a chance, right? Any real comment?
  
  Reply
  1. MarkII says:
    
    Jun 01, 2022 at 20:45
    
    Martin. CHΩW never fails to spread “the Ω joy” around like he did with Sinara Isoyan’s Ωpeedie acquisition. CLASS ACT.
    
    Reply
    1. LC
      Chow says:
      
      Jun 02, 2022 at 16:06
      
      I just tell it how it is. Nothing more, nothing less.
      
      Reply
KD
Kim007 says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 14:27

You bring up lots of excellent points and questions. Defining in-house movement is tricky. Can in-house mean the design was performed by the watch maker while outsourcing the manufacturing? Perhaps. Looking at other industries, Apple and Nike design their products while outsourcing the manufacturing. Yet, Apple and Nike’s customers are not demanding iPhones and shoes be manufactured by these product design companies. Also, is does not every watch from the Swatch Group contain an in-house movement?

Just pondering.

Reply
DK
Ayreonaut says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 14:32

I hate that so many companies obscure the origin of their movements by renaming them. For example your photo above is captioned “Patek Philippe caliber CH 27-70 Q, based on the Lémania 2310.” What does that mean? If it’s a Lemania movement, Patek should state that clearly. Every brand that hides the true identity of their movements is simply lying to their customers. Shame.

Reply
1. MarkII says:
  
  Jun 01, 2022 at 20:08
  
  Exactly my point. Tudor consumers believe that they got ♛ built watch soon realize it’s a Kenissi that supplies the same calibers to 3 other makers (Breitling, Chanel, Norqain). This horological deviance reminds me of Horlogère ValFleurier who powers the Vacheron Constantin Fiftysix. Of course, VC does not disclose this material fact to the consumer before the purchase – bait and switch à la Swiss!
  
  Reply
  1. Warky says:
    
    Jun 01, 2022 at 21:09
    
    It does allow you have fun with the staff in the Vacheron Boutique though.
    
    Pretend to be clueless. Let them give you all the sales speil. Then ask iwhere the Geneva Seal is and enjoy the backtracking😂
    
    Reply
    1. MarkII says:
      
      Jun 01, 2022 at 21:53
      
      Totally. Especially the Geneva Seal fishing expedition. I am kind of tempted to venture out to the desolate Breitling boutique at 575 Madison Ave with 3 days of food and water supply to uncover the dark secret behind clients’ disappearance.
      
      Reply
    2. 1Gav1 says:
      
      Jun 01, 2022 at 22:33
      
      And you just *know* that the the excuse will be, ‘Oh, by all rights it should have the seal on there, but the code insists that it all be made in Geneva, and this movement can only be specially made at the advanced facility in Neuchatel.’
      
      Rather than, ‘Yep, they made this at that converted dog food factory, but even the Geneva Seal is a swizz as everything’s made in China and they only have to *assemble* it in Geneva and stick it in the stripe machine. No discounts, by the way.’
      
      Reply
      1. MarkII says:
        
        Jun 02, 2022 at 00:29
        
        “Converted dog food factory” aka “Maison Horlogère ValFleurier”, LMFAO! Must be Nestlé Purina PetCare Co.! Check this out -VC56 caliber #1326: “It is based on the Cartier 1904 architecture. It is produced by Richemont’s Manufacture Horlogère ValFleurier and finished, assembled, and regulated by Vacheron Constantin”. The bottom line – is you pay for VC and get Cartier. It’s like my Tudor thesis: “You pay for VW, get Škoda”. These Tudor/Richemont CEOs must do a hard time for swindling clients!
        
        Reply
        
        1Gav1 says:
        
        Jun 02, 2022 at 08:36
        
        “You pay for VC and get Cartier.” Exactly!
        
        Unlike say, JLC or Lange, Vacheron seem to have fallen into the practise of delineating – clearly enough upon examination – between models for the hoi polloi, and those for the finer folk, since being under Richemont. Their calibres, with a few exceptions (ironically enough the modified Lemania 2310 in the Cornes de Vache is one of the better examples you can have in the five-figure range, which isn’t even their own calibre!) are not up to the standards of PP and Lange at entry level until things get very pricey. And even then, the unspectacular movement they put in the new gold 222 – PP would NEVER stoop that low.
        
        Carlos Perez called it all out twenty years ago in his ‘Decay of The Angel Part 3.’ https://www.timezone.com/2002/11/27/the-decay-of-the-angel-part-iii-112702/
        
        Reply
      2. LC
        Chow says:
        
        Jun 02, 2022 at 16:08
        
        Why did you say “china”?
        
        (— —)
        
        Reply
        
        1Gav1 says:
        
        Jun 02, 2022 at 22:43
        
        I did think about putting ‘(sorry Chow)’ in there.
        
        Reply
        
        LC
        Chow says:
        
        Jun 03, 2022 at 00:10
        
        Hahahaa!!! Next time my friend!
        
        Reply
SF
SteveF says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 14:44

In my mind, an ‘in house’ movement is only worthwhile if it offers something that the industry standards don’t – such as Nomos’ automatics being exceptionally thin, the Oris Cal. 400 that has a very long power reserve, coaxial Omegas being METAS rated, or Damasko’s A26 which is an ETA 2824 at it’s core but redesigned the winding system to eliminate the reverser wheels that have plagued the 2824 for 60 years. If the movement doesn’t provide an easily articulated benefit like the above, give me a 2892 and I’ll be more than happy.

One in house movement type I wish we saw more of is a thin chronograph movement. The 7750 is a chunky thing and most in house chronograph movements are worse. The El Primero is pretty thin and has incredible performance. Give us more of that!

Reply
1. Verdigris says:
  
  Jun 01, 2022 at 23:16
  
  Well, the 2892 is pretty much as thin as the NOMOS DUW 3001, but it’s not exactly as sturdy. I’d agree that for most watches the ETA 2824 is a perfect choice but then again now that you can’t have it anymore I don’t see why company wouldn’t want to vertically integrate instead of relying on Sellita. You make your very own little ETA like Richemont made with ValFleurier. Of course if you’re a independent company who makes more affordable watches you’re gonna go with Sellita or a Miyota 9015.
  
  Reply
KK
KimK. says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 14:59

RJ, well written and very informative! I caught myself from time to time doing this 🤨 when I saw some caliber weren’t made in-house but you said it right, what good is an in house movement when it has problems and a “simple” ETA movement would win the comparison. Sometimes in-house just gives us a feeling of superiority but at the end it often just means expensive when in need of service.

Reply
MB
MarkB says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 15:39

I don’t really care as long as it’s reasonably accurate, reliable and relatively cheap to fix and service. The only watches I own with in-house movements are Seiko, predictably enough.

Reply
Ed Bakker says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 15:39

The topic is a bit of a straw man: a non-issue. I’ve owned several Seikos with mechanical in house movements. No complaints whatsoever about them. My Swiss made watches have either ETA or Sellita movements. They are sturdy workhorses and servicing them through the authorised dealerships is reasonably affordable. I avoid buying watches with in-house movements as long as the third party movements continue to deliver the quality and VFM as they do currently.
As regards the artistry of some of the watchmakers I enjoy looking at some of the amazingly complex movements produces by some watchmakers; their genius is mind blowing.
I thoroughly love van Gogh’s sketches and his paintings, but have no desire to own one (even if I did had the cash).

Reply
JL says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 16:07

It makes you wonder how much of the move to “in-house” is just a natural reaction to anti-competitive practices by the Swatch group.

Reply
PL
Plecren says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 16:11

Doesn’t bother me one way or the other. Tendency to crow about in-house is often the watch snob brigade but I am sure I most of them wouldn’t turn their noses up at a Patek 5970? I have a mix but my most prized watch is not in-house and none the worse for it imho.

Reply
1. LC
  Chow says:
  
  Jun 03, 2022 at 01:56
  
  If you woke up one morning with your pants to your knees and your butt greased, would you tell anyone?
  
  Reply
RL
UhrSlaaf says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 17:35

Thing is, wich watch do you want to give a service? Is it still worth it to service a 6R35 after lightyears? So we need to check the price online… Ouch . If you have a Vintage Rolex from your dad, you need to pay 1k at least for just opening the case… At the end you need to pay the bill if you like it or not

Reply
MarkII says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 19:48

RJ, thanks for channeling our frustrations to write this article. Per Kenissi, I wish you would mention a 3rd player aside from Chanel and Tudor that appears to substitute Breitling: “NORQAIN is proud to announce a new partnership with mechanical movement manufacturer, Kenissi. The announcement of the long-term collaboration between the Biel-based watchmaker and Kenissi, founded by watch brand Tudor, underscores NORQAIN’s commitment to offering quality timepieces that feature robust, high-performance movements ready for a lifetime of adventure”.

P.S. NORQAIN is priced similarly to Tudor and utilizes Kenissi movements, which also power Breitling & Chanel. Gimme Longines any day over these smart alecks!

Reply
1. Robert-Jan says:
  
  Jun 01, 2022 at 20:22
  
  I only mention the shareholders, Norqain isn’t one as far as I know. Kenissi is a supplier to Norqain indeed, and I assume that more brands will follow.
  
  Reply
Carlos says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 22:44

I don’t understand the post.
none of the presented watches are Manu facture (in the sense of hand made). they’re all machine produced, some with some handholding and some more with manual quality checks.
More Hands means more quality issues if you have your manufacturing (english expression).

So to me, meanwhile, it’s either standard or refined machine production. Lower production volume or higher, I mean the real volume, not the ad-fake limitations to rip off clients.

The few properly hand made, one, by one, I can’t afford and even then, it’s too late to order one, as capable and acknowledged masters already are overbooked for life and meanwhile try to sneak in other people they’ve trained under their own brand to keep family sale up, while they’re preparing to rest forever, managed by some de luxe carpet collector. Sorry, you know what I mean, I wish all the best to the successors, but they should start their own thing, re-proving their capabilities from zero.

this industry is a lot about how to rip of customers while keeping them motivated – sounds a bit like a street story.

…storytelling…fantasy… is available at more affordable levels in good cinematic pictures, theatres, books, real art, or visible in museums.

need a watch, get one that you like at a fraction of your months salary, it’ll last and give fun forever – machine made and reliable, and if you’re into it – pay your local artisanal creative for his handwork, art, design.

Reply
1. Robert-Jan says:
  
  Jun 01, 2022 at 23:14
  
  Handmade or not, is a different topic. In-house doesn’t equal handmade.
  
  Reply
Verdigris says:

Jun 01, 2022 at 23:30

Those ValFleurier movements used by Panerai, Baume et Mercier, Montblanc or IWC aren’t in-house calibers, they’re Valfleurier! I don’t see why now we need to pretend that everyone is a manufacture, who buys a Panerai expecting an haute horlogerie caliber? It’s an alarm clock strapped on a wrist to fight the wicked Albion! Let’s just celebrate it for what it is.

Reply
1. MarkII says:
  
  Jun 02, 2022 at 00:47
  
  Panerai has generally been regarded as making its movements in-house. However, a recent scandal concerns the new chronograph using an ETA movement with a Dubois-Depraz chronograph module. This is a problem given the price (upward of USD 9,200) that Panerai charges for its watches, even if one might obtain a discount from retail. The implicated models include PAM01218 (white dial), PAM01109 (black dial), and PAM01110 (blue dial with bracelet). These are Panerai’s recent chronographs that use the P.9200 movement” (Luxury Professor); P.S. PANERAI tried to hide the ETA by covering the clear case back with “waves”, I mean these guys are shamele$$
  
  Reply
  1. Verdigris says:
    
    Jun 02, 2022 at 11:14
    
    Yeah I’m familiar with the scandal, I feel like they could avoid making gold chronographs altogether just to be safe. Poor Richemont trying to make luxury pieces out of extremly toolish watches.
    
    Reply
Rolf_F. says:

Jun 02, 2022 at 00:58

As you explained with a lot of examples – there is no clear definition of “in-house”. Everybody has the right to interpret it in their own way.
Luckily today we have a lot more sources of information than in the past, so everybody can research what the movement of interest really consists of.
Personally I don’t care about the origin of the movement, as long as it meets my expectations in finishing, accuracy and robustness. I never see the movement of a Rolex, so I don”t care about finishing. JLC movements with a transparent casebook are delicate and beautiful, so I don’t care about robustness. My Seiko beater for the beach is more or less a tool and I don’t care about anything inside, as long as it is reasonable accurate (I regulate them myself inside a 0-5s tolerance using my personal wearing habits).

Reply
Clubber_Lang says:

Jun 02, 2022 at 05:30

It’s more impressive and prestigious when a watch company can develop and manufacture its own movement completely in-house. Does it always mean the movement is more reliable or more accurate? No, of course not. This is just another example of why Jaeger-LeCoultre is the king of them all! And I pity the foo who disagrees with me!

Reply
1. berantle says:
  
  Jun 02, 2022 at 07:53
  
  I disagree with you! There are other watch companies who manufacture all their movements completely in-house. The best example is Seiko/Grand Seiko. They also manufacture their own cases, bracelets, straps, and most dials (not all since some of the limited specialist dials are worked on by artisans outside of the company).
  
  Reply
  1. Clubber_Lang says:
    
    Jun 02, 2022 at 15:26
    
    I claim that JLC is the king of them all due to the history of top manufacturers utilizing its splendidly accurate and reliable movements.
    
    Seiko is a good case in point (yes, other companies like H. Moser and Cie also manufacture completely in-house). While Seiko manufactures everything for its movements, this doesn’t necessarily mean that each movement will be more accurate and reliable in comparison to, say, an “off-the-shelf” Swiss ETA/Sellita (e.g. 7S26 vs. 4R35 vs. 6R35 vs. 8L35). I still find Seiko’s ability to do all of this in-house to be quite impressive, of course.
    
    Reply
    1. Kilroy says:
      
      Jun 02, 2022 at 17:51
      
      You hit the nail on the head.
      What’s the point if you manufacture all your movements in-house but don’t regulate them. Looking at you Seiko!
      Also the price of Seiko 6R series has almost tripled in the last two years because Seiko is positioning them as more luxurious than they were. They’re still being sold unregulated. I would prefer a regulated generic movement than any un-regulated in-house product.
      All my Seiko divers are solar quartz. I sleep well knowing I didn’t get ripped in the accuracy department by an in-house Seiko 6R.
      
      Reply
AT
jeast says:

Jun 02, 2022 at 10:28

An in-house movement can be better or worse than an outsourced movement in terms of accuracy, reliability or any number of metrics depending on the capabilities of the manufacture.
The prime reason many make a big deal out of in-house is that it represents a significant financial investment on the part of the brand and at the same time it is a show of its technical expertise.
When someone spends a sizeable amount of their hard-earned on a timepiece they expect the brand to have invested in both money and craftsmanship to be able to produce their own movements and outsourcing appears to be a cheap way out.
Of course, the actual performance of the movement is secondary.

Reply
Tigerbite88 says:

Jun 02, 2022 at 16:09

Nice article, RJ. Stay opinionated, I’m confident that it’s exactly why a great many of us come back to Fratello every day…
Whether it’s a discussion about ‘in house’ movements, availability of popular models or what discounts were once available; I’m afraid we always give into the fallacy of ‘the good old days’…

Reply
Dan says:

Jun 02, 2022 at 19:25

I switch mechanical watches frequently. Have some quartz battery or solar models also. Over time when wearing a mechanical wach I’ve come to appreciate longer run time (60-70hrs vs the usual 38-42 hr runtimes) . Accuracy has become a priority . In house vs outsourced is not important . What is important is the grade / quality and effort put into regulating the movement .
I won’t buy a watch without at least 48-60 hrs of run time . Almost all are automatics. A movement that deviates 15-20 seconds a day means I have to put more wear and tear on the crown especially if it’s a screw down type. This increases the chance early damage .

Reply
Neeb says:

Jun 02, 2022 at 22:08

In-house movements matter simply because they increase diversity. I don’t buy modern watches (they’re mostly far too big), but what often attracts me to a watch is some unique aspect of its movement, such as a different approach to bidirectional winding (e.g. IWC pelaton), a different gear train layout / centre seconds solution, different date change mechanism or whatever. The fewer brands that make their own movements in-house from the ground up, the fewer differences there are between watches. Less diversity = more boring.

Reply
LL says:

Jun 03, 2022 at 01:20

I guess I have bought into the snobbery. At certain price points, I do believe in-house movements are mandatory. I’d love to own a IWC Portofino. Their entry level Portofino with is $7K-$10K US depending on material. I won’t part with that amount of cash for a something not developed in house. At this point I’ll stick with my more affordable in house movements from Nomos and Zenith.

Reply
JM
John says:

Jun 04, 2022 at 01:42

Great article. Very informative. I’d also like to know more about vintage in house movements. Which brands used their own developed movements up until the quartz crisis. Thanks

Reply
Jens says:

Jun 04, 2022 at 01:54

Thanks for this nice precise and profound article, RJ.
It was a good read.

I do not really care, if a watch has an in house movement, or ETA / Sellita e.g.
Although i have to confess i have more watches with in house movements- but not to the fact of the movements,
more because i am very interested or even a fan of the watch or whole brand (Nomos and Grand Seiko e.g.).

But i have watches with ETA calibers, and they are very reliable, even within chronometer accuracy without being certified.
And, as you have mentioned: In the past it was quite normal to not necessarily use a in house movement.

A watch has a whole lot of more dimensions to wonder and care about.

Reply
AJF1934 says:

Jun 20, 2022 at 15:34

I am going to make a comment which may be a little controversial, but here goes….
There is a recent new phenomenon amongst mainstream luxury manufacturers and that is to equip their manufacture movements with non-repairable components which need to be replaced at service or when they fail. Witness the Omega co-axial anchor and escape wheel system, or the Rolex Chronergy mainsping and barrel. And those components are not made available to third party repairers so you become locked into the manufacturers very expensive servicing and repairs. It’s a way of making extra profit from you, basically.
Just be aware of this trend when looking at manufacture movements.

Reply
1. Robert-Jan says:
  
  Jun 20, 2022 at 15:41
  
  This is not new, and also nothing that holds me back. On the contrary! Rolex and Omega, the two examples you give, are manufacturers that will be here long after we’re gone. I don’t mind having to do my services at official Rolex and Omega centers, even more bluntly: I want my servicing to be done there, they use original parts, and give me a (new) warranty on the watch and its repair. Their after-sales service is indeed a business model, and I don’t mind. The good thing about the parts you mention is that they are developed to have less service intervals, less worry about magnetism and shocks, and actually added a few years of warranty to the watch.
  
  Reply
Robert says:

Jul 09, 2023 at 14:31

Quality control is important to me. It goes into the total cost of ownership. I purchased a $4,000 watch with a modified ETA movement and within two years it broke twice. Fortunately it was covered by the warranty. I have to imagine that to cut costs ETA and Sellita are using imported parts in their movements. If they were not, they would advertise the quality of their movements. So, for me I am staying with new Rolex, Glashutte Original, and Grand Seiko.

Reply
kopo kop says:

Jan 11, 2024 at 12:11

Two points:
1) Kenessi is to my understanding like ETA a third party manufacturer. You can see several smaller brands (expensive micro-brands) buying their movements. On the contrary, outside of Swatch group no company can buy an ETA.
2) Rolex bought their movements from Aegler until 2004, when Rolex bought Aegler so they became in-house. None of this really matters though

Reply