Quote:
Originally Posted by Nav01L
Two are part of corporate entities? Did I miss something?
I thought Patek was owned by a family, as is AP.
Only VC is owned by a large group.
I would make a distinction between large watchmaking companies and small, more confidential ones. Let’s draw the limit of the large ones at anything over 4-5,000 watches a year.
In that bracket,
- Patek
I don’t think anyone can fault Patek. While their watches may not be the best from a manufacturing and finishing standpoint, they still are extraordinary and Patek manages with very few exceptions to make them feel „significant“. That is very much deserving of trinity status in my view.
- ALS
In terms of blowing everyone‘s mind, few are as proficient as the good folks in Glashütte. They have changed what we expect to see in a high quality watch and for that, they deserve a spot on the top as well. AP in contrast only deserves to be named here because they make the cases for ALS.
- VC
Despite their all over the place marketing and their consistent failure to position their products properly, the watchmaking at VC is the closest you’re going to get to „made as they should be“ from a large manufacturer. The quality of finishing in even a simple watch like a Traditionelle small seconds, i.e. the 4400 movement, has a quiet and unpretentious excellence that knows few equals among the other brands in that bracket. It’s not as spectacular looking as a Lange perhaps, nor as well marketed as a Patek, but it’s so much more thorough and „pure“ than what you’ll get from both these other houses. So still well deserving of a trinity spot. And their almost cute ineptitude in terms of communicating their qualities adds to the charm.
In the more confidential bracket, I would say the field is so much more open, one can hardly boil it down to three. The only thing I am strongly opposed to is to name a brand with as little proper finishing work as Moser in the same context as truly excellent watchmakers like Greubel Forsey, Kari, Dufour, Akrivia, Gauthier, FPJ, etc. They make nice watches in low numbers but in that company they’re about as well made as a Mc Donald’s burger in a Michelin kitchen.
|
Thank you for this thoughtful, well-reasoned post. This is the best description of Vacheron I have read in recent memory. Describes perfectly why I bought that Traditionnelle Small Seconds/4400 and helps me understand why it’s become my single favorite piece in my collection. It took me months of reflection to realize my appreciation for VC - I understand now that was because I had to unpack the brand for myself in the face of their confusing, artless marketing. I’m really loving VC today, but it took more effort than the marketing team at VC should have allowed.
Holy Trinity criteria for me is a three legged stool:
1) history of setting benchmarks for beautiful design/aesthetics.
2) engineering and mechanical chops: a track record of contributing to horology innovation
3) sustainable business models that has demonstrated viability over a period measured in decades (I’d say at least 30). I also would add global distribution to the criteria as a measure of scale.
For me, to be in the holy trinity, you need to hit all three marks. Oftentimes on these boards I see criteria criteria 2 and 1 emphasized to the exclusion of criteria 3. But for me, criteria 3 (ie. business scale and sustainability) is what makes this conversation so interesting!