Why you choose “In-house” movement ?

[Gooswyn]

Why ?

1. Longer warranty ?
2. Longer power reserve (usually up to 70 hrs ++)
3. Other reasons … ?

Please share your thought.

Thanks :)

[enjoythemusic]

At a certain price point it is expected.

[djnick]

in house really means nothing anymore, components come from all over and someone assembles it and calls it "in house"

[WatchEater666]

Personally, I only care about an in-house movement if it adds unique functionality or aesthetic to a watch.

For example, I ordered an Armin Strom Resonance, and the movement is obviously super unique.

Same with the Voutilainen Inverse I have on order.

Other watches I've ordered with an ETA movement like a Felipe Pikullik and Benzinger were great too! The nice thing is that you get the same watch quality and functionality wise at a lower price point, and it can be serviced anywhere!

[77T]

IMO there are good reasons to avoid in-house movements, but on the other hand, elements for choosing ine.

One reason to avoid them is to be able to have almost any watchmaker work on your ETA base caliber (or even some complications).

Choosing an in-house should be reserved for those complications that only certain maisons can fabricate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[INC]

Why not?

[unknown]

In-house is massive overrated

[tedo]

Fine to have, but overrated for sure — the Unitas 6497 in my Panerai 127 may be the most accurate I have had to date (along with Omega) and much easier to service when needed.

[abacona]

To me, in house implies that the entire piece is holistically designed with less compromises in mind

Ie if you want a chronograph with a certain dial layout and for it to fit into a specific case shape (total aesthetic control) an off the shelf movement (even from higher end workshops) may not fit the bill if you are working with a novel dial layout or case shape

Or it may require so many adjustments that the movement may as well be in house

Also I’ve noticed that for AP they don’t tend to offer open casebacks on non in house movements - sapphire casebacks are a must have for many (myself included)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bug04]

Apart from some particular complications, that may have some entry barrier to actually realize them, the reasons for preferring in house are mostly intangible. From a rational point of view, movements not in house may be more reliable (high volumes experience curve), cheaper (high volume cost efficiency) and easier to maintain (access to spare parts)

[Calatrava r]

Your reasons 1 and 2 are irrelevant to whether a movement is in-house or not.
As stated, at and beyond a certain price it is pretty much expected.
Some people just will not buy a watch without an in-house movement.

[ACG]

For exclusivity and because they contribute to the development of mechanical watchmaking.

[ChetBaker]

Because at a certain price point I do not accept compromises. I really dislike VC's decision to put a ValFleurier movement in their entry level time and date only 56 and, even worse, AP putting a Vaucher movement in all of their 15550st pieces. The 37mm RO is supposed to be their flagship watch. Seems like AP is getting away with it, simply because their clientele does not know or care.

[INC]

To be honest, I can't recall a case when a watch manufacturer has allowed anyone to decide whether to they want to choose an in-house or non-in-house movement for a particular watch. Perhaps the only time this could have been occured was a very short period of time when the Zenith movement was replaced in the Daytona and both versions would have been available for sale at the same place and in the same time.

[alllexandru]

In-House....
1) Mass produced in-house movements are nothing better than other similar movements

2) Independent watchmakers or small batch producers..

Usually they look nicer :D
Both watches and movements
Not being mainstream

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by 77T

IMO there are good reasons to avoid in-house movements, but on the other hand, elements for choosing ine.

One reason to avoid them is to be able to have almost any watchmaker work on your ETA base caliber (or even some complications).

Choosing an in-house should be reserved for those complications that only certain maisons can fabricate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Pretty much where I land on it too Paul

[Loosetoe]

Originally Posted by 77T

IMO there are good reasons to avoid in-house movements, but on the other hand, elements for choosing ine.

One reason to avoid them is to be able to have almost any watchmaker work on your ETA base caliber (or even some complications).

Choosing an in-house should be reserved for those complications that only certain maisons can fabricate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

THIS. Exactly THIS.

[INC]

Originally Posted by alllexandru

1) Mass produced in-house movements are nothing better than other similar movements

Rolex? Tudor?

[Krash]

It depends. Over the last several years, we have seen brands like Oris and Damasko (for example) say they’re replacing ETA or equivalent with in-house movements. But honestly, I don’t know if I feel like experimenting. I’m okay with the highly proven movements they already had in those watches. There is nothing wrong with them. They’re perfectly fine.

On the other hand, when it comes to Rolex and Omega, I have higher expectations. I expect in-house movements even if they are mass produced.

Finally, when you get to the Holy Trinity or any brands in the upper luxury tier, then of course you want in-house movements. It’s not even debatable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AEC]

Four out of five doctors recommend using an in-house movement twice each day.