: I agree Lee, your points are definitely part of
: it. Additionally, I found it very
: interesting that in the pioneering days of
: the Swiss watch industry, when many of the
: big name 'makers' were in the process of
: establishing their reputations, the emphasis
: was on individual
: artisans/craftsmen/watchmakers doing their
: part. Some made cases, some made bracelets,
: some made hands, some dials, some movements,
: etc. Then, all the 'chosen' parts went to
: the 'assemblers' who put the watches
: together, badged them and marketed them.
: This approach was viewed as a good thing
: because an assembler, if so inclined, was
: literally able to pick and choose from the
: best of the best in the process of designing
: the watch they wanted to badge. Everything
: done in one house was viewed as
: limiting/confining. Then, bouncing forward a
: few decades, with industrialization and
: multi-national companies, the little
: artisans found themselves less and less able
: to compete. Consolidations and buyouts began
: to take place, and in the process, some of
: these consolidated companies began to pick
: and choose who they would work with and/or
: the terms under which they would work with a
: 'maker/assembler'. Apparently, some very big
: names, like Patek Philippe as an example,
: have found themselves embarrassed that they
: would have to use another 'makers' parts
: and, as appears to be the case now, perhaps
: even have to give inscribed credit to the
: 'part maker', thus diminishing the
: perception of their own brand.
: Rolex looks prescient because, when it wasn't
: the fashion or desired practice, they
: brought everything in-house, no outside
: dependence, no badge diminishment. However,
: the Rolex model is not the model that made
: the Swiss watch industry great. In fact, it
: is the opposite.
: Omega looks well positioned because they are
: really a hybrid of the two extremes (all
: in-house and just being an assembler). Omega
: doesn't really have everything 'in-house' so
: to speak. They must still go out and pick
: and choose many of the parts they want, but
: because of their position within the
: structure of an incredibly large and diverse
: multi-national watch conglomerate, they do
: not need to fear being cut off from many
: choices of excellent parts. Additionally,
: Omega has the money behind them to take on
: development and technology implementation
: efforts of an aggressive nature, i.e. the
: co-axial escapement. Sure, it will go
: through iterations and realize improvements,
: but the point is, Omega did it. Rolex had
: the opportunity first and they passed. Too
: expensive. So, Omega makes watch history by
: bringing technology at one time only
: available on watches of $150,000 or more, to
: the high end of mass produced watches. Sorry
: for length. Geo
Very well said, Geo. I think the last "innovative" thing Rolex did was to create caliber 4130 for the Daytona. The quality of their movements is superb, but they hardly impress me as an innovative company these days. They seem to simply be sitting back and letting their brand name and image sell the same old tired and dated models year after year. Some will argue "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but if Omega had that philopsophy we wouldn't have the co-axial escapement in mass produced watches (as you said). Omega is clearly moving forward while Rolex is remaining stationary.
