: Does all of this really matter? Isn't what is
: important is whether the watch is good. Is
: it well made? Is it accurate? Will it last?
: etc. I think that with all of the components
: being made in house there was a historical
: assuption that the increased control would
: somehow translate into quality. But that
: itn't necessarily true. In house components
: could be great or they might not be. I think
: the key question is whether the current
: omegas are accurate, durable, etc.
: A final counter example: I've been looking at
: digital cameras and noted that the Sony has
: a Zeiss (!!!) lens. I assume that means the
: lens is really good which is of course the
: goal. However, should I be disappointed that
: Sony is not manufacturing all of the
: components in house? I don't think so.
: I think that keeping your eye in the essential
: issue is to ask for an assessment of the
: quality of the watch not how much
: outsourcing they do.
I must say that agree with you on that. I've read many articles on watch calibers and most experts who analyze them also agree that in-house production doesn't necessarly ensure more innovation or quality, in fact some of them argue quite opposite--that since manufacturers don't have to spend revenue on production facilities, they can spend more time on R&D and quality control of calibers made by thier contractors. And BTW, you're right, Carl Zeiss lenses are some of the best in the business:-).
