Watches Other Than Oakley

[alol]

I have had 3 Time Bomb 1 in my time,quaint watches but too small for me. Breitling Til i die. One of my 3 Super Avengers. For me personally i imho always think you should stick to the thing that made you. Breitling don't make Sunglasses, Oakley should'nt have made (or put their name to) Other peoples movements.

 

[Atticus]

I have had 3 Time Bomb 1 in my time,quaint watches but too small for me. Breitling Til i die. One of my 3 Super Avengers. For me personally i imho always think you should stick to the thing that made you. Breitling don't make Sunglasses, Oakley should'nt have made (or put their name to) Other peoples movements.

View attachment 733335

I sold an Avenger about 6 weeks ago and am missing it. Such a cool looking watch...

 

[Carrera1963]

I have had 3 Time Bomb 1 in my time,quaint watches but too small for me. Breitling Til i die. One of my 3 Super Avengers. For me personally i imho always think you should stick to the thing that made you. Breitling don't make Sunglasses, Oakley should'nt have made (or put their name to) Other peoples movements.

View attachment 733335

The obsession with in house manufacture is quite recent - the Swiss watch industry consists of lots of specialist suppliers and up until the late 80s many watches were a collaboration effectively.

A Rolex Cosmograph in the 60s had a Valjoux movement, a Singer dial, a Breguet mainspring, a case by ? (Piquerez or another case specialist) etc etc. A company like Oakley, who aren’t gearing up to become a serious watch house, are never going to invest in an in house manufacture and all the R&D that entails.

 

[htrap2294]

The obsession with in house manufacture is quite recent - the Swiss watch industry consists of lots of specialist suppliers and up until the late 80s many watches were a collaboration effectively.

A Rolex Cosmograph in the 60s had a Valjoux movement, a Singer dial, a Breguet mainspring, a case by ? (Piquerez or another case specialist) etc etc. A company like Oakley, who aren’t gearing up to become a serious watch house, are never going to invest in an in house manufacture and all the R&D that entails.

Hell, Rolex was never even in-house until they bought Aegler. They did that so they could legally call themselves in-house.

 

[htrap2294]

In-house can mean a lot of things, but it also now means that a watch will not last for life. These companies will only produce replacement parts for 25 years or so. Hell, Rolex explicitly mentions this. However, with standard ETA, the parts are abundant for life.

 

[Carrera1963]

In-house can mean a lot of things, but it also now means that a watch will not last for life. These companies will only produce replacement parts for 25 years or so. Hell, Rolex explicitly mentions this. However, with standard ETA, the parts are abundant for life.

As long as you can persuade Swatch Group not to strangle the supply too much...

 

[htrap2294]

As long as you can persuade Swatch Group not to strangle the supply too much...

This is true, but even if they strangle the supply they still would have donor watches with the movement inside. Yes, a bit more expensive that way but you don't really have that option with a lot of in-house manufactured movements.

 

[Masa0199]

As long as you can persuade Swatch Group not to strangle the supply too much...

Yeah, just another way for Omega and the others to squeeze out the independents and force you to use their service centers and pricing tiers. Granted, a lot of indie shops won't even work on co-axial movements anyway lol.

 

[XxuversxX]

 

[supersharp]

In-house can mean a lot of things, but it also now means that a watch will not last for life. These companies will only produce replacement parts for 25 years or so. Hell, Rolex explicitly mentions this. However, with standard ETA, the parts are abundant for life.

I believe I was told by AP, they are required to keep a 60 year supply of parts for every watch. Maybe I’m mistaken?