Some Additional Thoughts...
: Excellent idea, as long as it doesn't result in
: the watch costing $2000+ more than it does
: now. I wonder how many of the people calling
: for this switch would actually buy the
: resulting watches. I know, for example that
: you haven't yet spent the $4000+ to buy the
: Rolex you keep touting.
I have been reading through a lot of the posts on timezone, and this is definitely a concern. If Omega does switch to producing 100% in-house movements, they need to invest money in the machinery, tooling, watchmaking staff, etc. All of this cost will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. You raise a very valid point that has been a topic of discussion over on timezone - just how much are people willing to pay for an "in-house" Omega watch, and how will the increased prices affect their market share?
: Business are in business to make money. If the
: demand was there to make the switch, I
: believe they would make it. I believe Omega
: will probably end up with an Omega-only
: movement manufactured by ETA, with ETA using
: economies of scale to keep the cost at a
: manageable level. Sort of the best of both
: worlds.
This is actually what we have right now. ETA does manufacture the 1120, 2500, 2628, etc. These are all calibers based on ETA movements but are manufactured exclusively for Omega by ETA. This is what helps Omega keep the costs down, since ETA is part of Omega's parent company (the Swatch Group). ETA can produce the movements for Omega, and indirectly Omega can oversee the quality by being part of the same larger company. The same is true for Frederic Piguet and Lemania, the two other divisions that produce movements exclusively for Omega as part of the Swatch Group.
