A. Lange & Söhne and The Holy Trinity of Watches.

[Gebbeth]

Originally Posted by charger_vital

ALS reportedly used slave labor. They weren’t just around making stuff that was used for the war machine. So you can’t use the analogy of other companies who just tangentially involved. ALS was balls deep.

And the only reason “past sins” are being talked about is because the question on this thread is whether ALS should be trinity. The question is not whether ALS are good watches (they are if you like their style). But Trinity is about history just as much as it’s about watch quality. So history is relevant and rightfully considered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Current ALS is not the same ALS that was around during WWII. The direct descendent of ALS pre-war into the post-war period is GO.

Almost every German company during WWII used slave labor, and yes, some companies who we praise and laud today. Some went very far and extreme with this captive labor force, although all of the use was horrible and criminal.

Yet the other manufacturers I mentioned actually made machines and weapons designed to kill people, including civilians. Bayer was responsible for the gasses and poisons used to kill millions of Jews and other "undesireables". Sp where do you draw the line? Is MB still the car "engineered like no other in the world"? Is Porsche still the "ultimate driving machine"? Do you take Bayer products to treat a headache?

Clearly, some seem to make exceptions depending on what product we are talking about, but that seems a bit hypocritical or disingenuous.

And let's not think the Swiss had clean hands in any of this. They were complicit in the financing of the war machines, and took deposits of stolen, looted, and confiscated property from Jews by Nazis. So the moral argument is a bit specious. JLC and IWC supplied watches to the Nazis as well. I'm sure they made a pretty penny.

But going back to the context of watches, to put past war history as a factor in not putting ALS into the "holy" trinity of watches seems a bit "narrow" to put it charitably.

In terms of breath of product line, again, what does that mean? Was that a criteria to be in the Holy Trinity? I don't think VC, Patek, and AP were that much into sports watches until the 70's, and yet they were considered Holy Trinity way before that.

In fact, they were originally deemed Holy Trinity almost solely because of their dress watches and complications and craftsmanship. Seems like the same recipe ALS has been focusing on since their relaunch.

The criteria always seems to be changing....largely to make the category impossible to include anyone else but Patek, VC, and AP.

The fact it, it's a marketing tool.....something that Patek, VC and AP perpetuate, although VC has become the Overseas company and AP the Royal Oak company.....not much variety there in my opinion. Patek is the only really diversified high-horology manufacturer, and even then, I think the Nautilus and Aquanaut have largely reigned supreme in their lineup.

Actually, I think most people don't give a rat's a** about Holy Trinity.

[seabreeze]

Originally Posted by Gebbeth

Current ALS is not the same ALS that was around during WWII. The direct descendent of ALS pre-war into the post-war period is GO.

Almost every German company during WWII used slave labor, and yes, some companies who we praise and laud today. Some went very far and extreme with this captive labor force, although all of the use was horrible and criminal.

Yet the other manufacturers I mentioned actually made machines and weapons designed to kill people, including civilians. Bayer was responsible for the gasses and poisons used to kill millions of Jews and other "undesireables". Sp where do you draw the line? Is MB still the car "engineered like no other in the world"? Is Porsche still the "ultimate driving machine"? Do you take Bayer products to treat a headache?

Clearly, some seem to make exceptions depending on what product we are talking about, but that seems a bit hypocritical or disingenuous.

And let's not think the Swiss had clean hands in any of this. They were complicit in the financing of the war machines, and took deposits of stolen, looted, and confiscated property from Jews by Nazis. So the moral argument is a bit specious. JLC and IWC supplied watches to the Nazis as well. I'm sure they made a pretty penny.

But going back to the context of watches, to put past war history as a factor in not putting ALS into the "holy" trinity of watches seems a bit "narrow" to put it charitably.

In terms of breath of product line, again, what does that mean? Was that a criteria to be in the Holy Trinity? I don't think VC, Patek, and AP were that much into sports watches until the 70's, and yet they were considered Holy Trinity way before that.

In fact, they were originally deemed Holy Trinity almost solely because of their dress watches and complications and craftsmanship. Seems like the same recipe ALS has been focusing on since their relaunch.

The criteria always seems to be changing....largely to make the category impossible to include anyone else but Patek, VC, and AP.

The fact it, it's a marketing tool.....something that Patek, VC and AP perpetuate, although VC has become the Overseas company and AP the Royal Oak company.....not much variety there in my opinion. Patek is the only really diversified high-horology manufacturer, and even then, I think the Nautilus and Aquanaut have largely reigned supreme in their lineup.

Actually, I think most people don't give a rat's a** about Holy Trinity.

Nice response – don’t forget Hugo boss many peoples favorite suit making uniforms


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kunlun]

Neither my late father nor I have ever invested in Bayer. I think making ethical choices and following them up with actions only strengthens one's character.

I'm not telling people what to do, just that putting thought into it is a good thing.

[Gebbeth]

Originally Posted by kunlun

Neither my late father nor I have ever invested in Bayer. I think making ethical choices and following them up with actions only strengthens one's character.

I'm not telling people what to do, just that putting thought into it is a good thing.

Not investing in a company and not using their products are two very separate things.

If by "investing" you mean putting money in their equity or having an ownership stake, okay, I get it.

But we're not talking about investing in ALS either. It's about buying their watches.

You don't have to "invest" in Bayer or MB to buy an aspirin from them or a coupe.

Not sure what you are trying to argue here.

[ILoveFerrari]

Originally Posted by Gebbeth

This talk of past sins is problematic. On the one hand, I get it. That period of time was one of the darkest in history. Pure hate leading to the deaths of tens of millions of people, approximately 6 million of which (and there was probably more) due to their ethic backgrounds, religious beliefs, and/or mental capacity or sexual orientation. There were labor slaves and other victims as well.

In the Pacific, there was also untold number of atrocities committed against soldiers and civilians alike, from biological warfare testing, to forced prostitution, torture, and mass killings.

However, where do you draw the line between the past and present and what was truly their involvement in these atrocities?

There were a handful of watchmakers that made timing instruments for the Axis, but could one say they "contributed" to actual killing? I don't know about that. I would say Porsche, Mercedes Benz, and the progenitor to Volkswagen probably had a more direct connection with killing. Bayer had a closer connection to killing. Mitsubishi had a more direct connection with killing. Not sure if providing watches and timing instruments make you that much more culpable.

If you are focusing on timing instruments, I'm sure Panerai, JLC, IWC, Stowa, Laco, or Seiko are not immune to these arguments.

So I'm not saying no one has the right to object to a brand because of their history or past. I think that's legitimate, but problematic, because there are a lot of companies who's hands are very unclean in that respect, and yet we buy from them.

Fast forward to today, how many products are made in China that we buy? We seem to be okay with that balance of cost vs "morality." The companies that made naplam and agent orange, they are giants of industry today.

Who doesn't like a Porsche or Audi or MB in their garage?

I must admit, if I could get my hands on a ALS Zeitwerk, I'd buy it in a heartbeat, and I would be happy in the knowledge that the current company and owners have had nothing to do with WWII, but that's not why I would want to get one. It's a damn beautiful piece of watchmaking and engineering and a keepsake for many generations of my family...hopefully.

I was gone for a while from this forum. Extremely well said. Objective, balanced views on past and present. Arguments you made has great basis on how and why one should look at things using today's lens while being critical to the past.

Using products made in Japan today does not mean you condone what Japan has done in WW2 at all. Just because designation of Holy Trinity involves history, it does not mean history of anything related to human kind must be considered when considering Lange. It is the horology history that we are discussing here today. Strawman arguments were attempted to discredit ALS haute horology using its country of origin during the time when the WW1 and 2 had nothing to do with watches.

It simply does not make sense to use similar argument - US ancestors died fighting British for the independence, therefore Rolex should not be purchased by Americans.

Focus on the watch alone and don't be woke.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[ILoveFerrari]

Originally Posted by charger_vital

ALS reportedly used slave labor. They weren’t just around making stuff that was used for the war machine. So you can’t use the analogy of other companies who just tangentially involved. ALS was balls deep.

And the only reason “past sins” are being talked about is because the question on this thread is whether ALS should be trinity. The question is not whether ALS are good watches (they are if you like their style). But Trinity is about history just as much as it’s about watch quality. So history is relevant and rightfully considered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree. See my post.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[charger_vital]

Originally Posted by ILoveFerrari

I disagree. See my post.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

Agree to disagree then I guess. But, like others on here, you are arguing a different question than what I’m arguing. So I’m not sure what you disagree with me about?

I’m not commenting on whether or not you should buy ALS for moral reasons. I don’t care one way or the other.

All these arguments about BMW and other German companies during the war “did it too,” might be good analogies to support an argument on whether or not it is morally acceptable to buy products from those companies, but its totally irrelevant to answer the question that was actually asked…

The question: whether ALS should be considered trinity.

I think, a big part of being a trinity brand is historical significance of the brand.

If history is in fact relevant to Trinity consideration, then ALS is disqualified. They were and supported Nazis. It’s that simple.

On the other hand if you want to pretend that ALS is a different company altogether by closing a blind eye to the fact that ALS themselves adopted and marketed their brand history, then we are talking about a relatively new watch brand. Are we not?

And if new brands can be considered trinity, then I would argue that there are a so many others that more well designed and more well made than ALS. In fact I would put ALS pretty for down the list of trinity contenders.

So what part of that do we disagree on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChetBaker]

“They were and supported Nazis“. Gosh. Why don’t we get rid of Germany as a country while we’re at it.

[Russell996]

This whole conversation concerning the war is nonsense when considering watch brands. Wars are wars, they are started by power crazed mad men. Switzerland has long remained neutral and left it for others to stand up and be counted, we don't consider this negative.

'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'

[charger_vital]

Originally Posted by ChetBaker

“They were and supported Nazis“. Gosh. Why don’t we get rid of Germany as a country while we’re at it.

Why? Ha. Germany the country isnt in the running for “Trinity.” I don’t understand your point in relation to the question about ALS being a Trinity brand…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[charger_vital]

Originally Posted by Russell996

This whole conversation concerning the war is nonsense when considering watch brands. Wars are wars, they are started by power crazed mad men. Switzerland has long remained neutral and left it for others to stand up and be counted, we don't consider this negative.

'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'

Not nonsense when the watch brand took an active part in the war. Slave labor. The watch brand… not some crazed mad man. It’s part of their history and their history is relevant when considering trinity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ChetBaker]

Originally Posted by charger_vital

Why? Ha. Germany the country isnt in the running for “Trinity.” I don’t understand your point in relation to the question about ALS being a Trinity brand…

The relevance is that you seem to be applying a very narrow definition of "history" when responding to this question. First - there are no strictly defined entry requirements for the holy trinity. Second - if "history" was part of it, there would be no strictly defined definition for that. Third - even if we did have an agreed definition of "history" it would likely still be a matter of interpretation whether Lange's participation in certain events in WWII would be sufficient to discount what they achieved in the 95 years before, and the 79 years after, WWII. One could equally disregard those 5 years and look at what remains to see if that would be sufficient to qualify for the holy trinity. So all it comes down to is a question of morality and morality can never be absolute, even if people are in a habit of imposing their moral values on others these days.

[charger_vital]

Originally Posted by ChetBaker

The relevance is that you seem to be applying a very narrow definition of "history" when responding to this question. First - there are no strictly defined entry requirements for the holy trinity. Second - if "history" was part of it, there would be no strictly defined definition for that. Third - even if we did have an agreed definition of "history" it would likely still be a matter of interpretation whether Lange's participation in certain events in WWII would be sufficient to discount what they achieved in the 95 years before, and the 79 years after, WWII. One could equally disregard those 5 years and look at what remains to see if that would be sufficient to qualify for the holy trinity. So all it comes down to is a question of morality and morality can never be absolute, even if people are in a habit of imposing their moral values on others these days.

True…. There is no definition of history in this context; also true that we are talking about one event in a broader existence of the brand. I would also agree that generally speaking morality is not black and white. So I’ll accept those points.

But I don’t think there is any grey area in the morality of forced slave labor or in naziism. It’s specifically and absolutely immoral. And if the brand was involved in that activity at any point in their existence, even if briefly a long time ago, it is part of their “history”… however you want define it.

Does it forever condemn them as an evil nazis or make people wearing those watches immoral. No.

But it does eliminate them from the pedestal of the “holy trinity” if indeed brand history is a relevant element of that concept, which to my understanding it is.

[PT_91]

I think this thread should be closed.

[Gandor]

I think Panerai is a worse offender than ALS when it comes to sins of the father as there's a direct lineage there. If we're not up in arms about Panerai then ALS really should get a pass as well especially since the ALS collection doesn't even take inspiration from any military references and is rather love letters to the pre 1900s ALS history.

[_speedmaster_]

The ALS company that supplied watches and parts to the Germans during WW2 ceased to be almost directly after the war, the factories were demolished. Many, in fact, trace Glashutte Original as the modern day ALS.

The ALS we know today is an entirely new company created in 1994 (albeit with the obvious connection of Walter to his great-grandfather). This is not like BMW or even Panerai or Rolex (yes, Rolex)

[gliazzurri]

Can’t believe this subtopic still has momentum here. Let’s give it a rest. There is no current connection to any of this and is absurd to say otherwise.

[ILoveFerrari]

Originally Posted by charger_vital

Agree to disagree then I guess. But, like others on here, you are arguing a different question than what I’m arguing. So I’m not sure what you disagree with me about?

I’m not commenting on whether or not you should buy ALS for moral reasons. I don’t care one way or the other.

All these arguments about BMW and other German companies during the war “did it too,” might be good analogies to support an argument on whether or not it is morally acceptable to buy products from those companies, but its totally irrelevant to answer the question that was actually asked…

The question: whether ALS should be considered trinity.

I think, a big part of being a trinity brand is historical significance of the brand.

If history is in fact relevant to Trinity consideration, then ALS is disqualified. They were and supported Nazis. It’s that simple.

On the other hand if you want to pretend that ALS is a different company altogether by closing a blind eye to the fact that ALS themselves adopted and marketed their brand history, then we are talking about a relatively new watch brand. Are we not?

And if new brands can be considered trinity, then I would argue that there are a so many others that more well designed and more well made than ALS. In fact I would put ALS pretty for down the list of trinity contenders.

So what part of that do we disagree on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am disagreeing to your usage and definition of history in your argument. Yes, holy trinity designation is historical in the sense it is their standing in horological history that defined their places. And when we are discussing horological history, we are talking about the advancement and contributions of the brands to horology overall. Then we are talking about the movement finishing in artisan perspective, etc.

We need to be critical and specific in what kind of history we are referring to in holy trinity. Thus far, in your argument you confused horological history with social history of watch manufacturers.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[ILoveFerrari]

Originally Posted by gliazzurri

Can’t believe this subtopic still has momentum here. Let’s give it a rest. There is no current connection to any of this and is absurd to say otherwise.

Agree. And this would be my last post on the topic of ALS history with labor and war.

Having said that, I personally think ALS finishing for the same price point is indeed more refined than that of AP. For Patek, I salute their regulator watch for their movement innovatiom at 50k+. However, I do feel that at lower price range model Patek has a well delineated effort of movement finishing proportional to pricing, which should not be a surprise from business standpoint. ALS in contrast, I was told that regardless of the final price of the watch, the time to detail and finish even in the areas that could not be visualized is the same. That I like.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[charger_vital]

Originally Posted by ILoveFerrari

I am disagreeing to your usage and definition of history in your argument. Yes, holy trinity designation is historical in the sense it is their standing in horological history that defined their places. And when we are discussing horological history, we are talking about the advancement and contributions of the brands to horology overall. Then we are talking about the movement finishing in artisan perspective, etc.

We need to be critical and specific in what kind of history we are referring to in holy trinity. Thus far, in your argument you confused horological history with social history of watch manufacturers.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

No. I don’t think I’m confusing the two. I am focusing on the part of brand history that does not involve technological contributions to horology. But social history and perception is just as relevant. In fact, I would argue that trinity watches are just as much lauded for their prestige (a social construct) as they are for any technological advancements they’ve made. To that end there is a reason that Breguet is not in the Trinity despite arguably having more to tout regarding horological history than the lot of them… and amazing finishing.

So I will take your point that horological history is an important part of it, but it’s not totally honest to say the social history is an irrelevant factor. It is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TikTok]

The war is over. Leave it where it belongs, in the past.