WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

Rolex & Patek using Swatch Group/Omega parts

9K views 31 replies 14 participants last post by  Jim Lanciault 
#1 ·
"Compagnie Financière Richemont SA, the No. 2 luxury group which owns some of the world's most prestigious high-end watch brands, and independent big names Rolex SA and Patek Philippe SA, have more parts facilities and have also strengthened them by taking over some suppliers. They nevertheless rely on Swatch for some parts."

- Luxury watch makers scramble for parts - The Globe and Mail

I'm curious to know what parts and which models in both Rolex and PP. Can anyone here elaborate?
 
#2 · (Edited)
"Compagnie Financière Richemont SA, the No. 2 luxury group which owns some of the world's most prestigious high-end watch brands, and independent big names Rolex SA and Patek Philippe SA, have more parts facilities and have also strengthened them by taking over some suppliers. They nevertheless rely on Swatch for some parts."

- Luxury watch makers scramble for parts - The Globe and Mail

I'm curious to know what parts and which models in both Rolex and PP. Can anyone here elaborate?
Rolex used to buy mainsprings from Swatch, and they still buy movements for Tudor from ETA, I remember reading that one of the main drivers behind their parachrom spring development was only because ETA was moving to restrict supply, not sure how accurate that was as it was just mentioned on the net....no idea on Patek...Swatch is a huge and vastly diverse company and I am not at all surprised Rolex and others rely on them...reminds of a saying about how selling a lot at the top of the market is one thing, but it pales to what can be made selling to everyone in some scenarios.
 
#3 ·
Some quick googling produced an interesting article by Ariel Adams -

"A lot of watch makers out there derive credibility from saying "we do it all ourselves." Though many of these people are using parts made at Nivarox. There is a certain sentiment in-house that it is unfair for others to claim responsibility for what Nivarox has done."

"Without Nivarox the Swiss watch making machine as we know it would collapse to a halt. This very important entity makes what drives most of the Swiss watches that you likely own. Even though they don't make parts you normally view with your eyes, without Nivarox the hands on your timepiece would hardly be worth watching."

Inside Nivarox - The Heart Of The Swiss Watch Industry
 
#12 ·
Some quick googling produced an interesting article by Ariel Adams -

"A lot of watch makers out there derive credibility from saying "we do it all ourselves." Though many of these people are using parts made at Nivarox. There is a certain sentiment in-house that it is unfair for others to claim responsibility for what Nivarox has done."

"Without Nivarox the Swiss watch making machine as we know it would collapse to a halt. This very important entity makes what drives most of the Swiss watches that you likely own. Even though they don't make parts you normally view with your eyes, without Nivarox the hands on your timepiece would hardly be worth watching."

Inside Nivarox - The Heart Of The Swiss Watch Industry
Very interesting read Jim, very interesting indeed! In short, the article confirmed my Choice of buying the Omega "Captains watch" With the 8500 movement and Silicon spring as a very good buy. Since I wanted a watch With a movement that was very durable, because I wanted a watch that could be passed on for generations. Also the article gives a more nuanced image of the watch industry.
 
#4 ·
Balance-springs are key in this market and just a few can produce them. As an example, Miverva (working for Montblanc and part of the Richmont group) produces balance-springs but only 10 out of 100 can be used in watches (high rejection rate). When you say that a movement it's in-house means that was developed by a certain brand but that doesn't mean that all the parts in it were produced by the same manufacturer...

This market it's so fuzzy, I know that Seiko* and the Swatch Group can produce a watch from start to finish but I'm not sure if others can....

*Seiko the conglomerate not Seiko the watch brand.....
 
#5 ·
I find this absolutely fascinating. As a relative newcomer to the world of horology, it seems to me that the current mindset within the culture is that only the best luxury brands have 'in-house' movements. It would appear to me, and according to your above comment, that no other Swiss manufacturers outside of the Swatch Group companies has the ability to claim true 'in-house' movements. Omega may simply be a room within a very big house - but it's 'in-house' none the less.
 
#11 ·
Your choice of wording is slightly wrong.

It isn't Swatch Group/Omega.

Omega parts have nothing to with other companies.
Strictly speaking, that it is Swatch Group is actually secondary to it specifically being Nivarox, a company that makes hairsprings and other assortment parts from a time before Swatch Group even existed.
 
#13 ·
Yes, i understand what you're saying with regard to the history of Nivarox. As far as - "
Omega parts have nothing to do [sic] with other companies", i would only like to share that one of the criticisms I've heard from others is that the ETA calibre 2892-A2 is used extensively by many different companies, including Omega, implying (quite incorrectly IMHO) that the movement is not only common but is somehow of diminished quality in the eyes of watch enthusiasts. The arguments also seem to defy common sense with the idea that any company under the Swatch Group umbrella is somehow paradoxically both a part of it yet totally 'out-of-house' (if i may make up a term) when it comes to individual product lines.

I certainly agree with AAMC's assessment of the industry and the innovations that distinguish individual products. Reinventing the proverbial wheel doesn't make a watch great, enhancing its function, precision and looks does.
 
#18 ·
Swatch Group companies using parts made by another owned/controlled by Swatch Group does not make those Swatch Group parts "in-house".

For clarity, "in-house" is a new term.

Traditionally, there was a different term used which was manufacture (or manufactory) which relates to who makes the parts of the movement. If you use the new term (in-house) you can argue that the lower range of Swatch Group watch companies are in-house only if you also agree that really, there is no Tissot, Longines, Hamilton (and the rest) and that they all really are just Swatch watches with different labels. Otherwise, the reality is that they are, like any other non-Swatch company, a watch maker that sources movements and assortments from a third party that just happens to be part of the same parent group.

Using the older term, then none of them are a manufacture.
 
#19 ·
Swatch Group companies using parts made by another owned/controlled by Swatch Group does not make those Swatch Group parts "in-house".

For clarity, "in-house" is a new term.

Traditionally, there was a different term used which was manufacture (or manufactory) which relates to who makes the parts of the movement. If you use the new term (in-house) you can argue that the lower range of Swatch Group watch companies are in-house only if you also agree that really, there is no Tissot, Longines, Hamilton (and the rest) and that they all really are just Swatch watches with different labels. Otherwise, the reality is that they are, like any other non-Swatch company, a watch maker that sources movements and assortments from a third party that just happens to be part of the same parent group.

Using the older term, then none of them are a manufacture.
None of the Swatch group companies, or no Swiss watch manufacturers at all?
I don't want tocome across as though I find this detail scandalous. It's just an interestingaspect of the industry I did not know about. I can certainly understand whySwatch wouldn't deem it necessary to go to the expense of setting up all theirdifferent companies with individual parts manufacturing when they have onecompany in the group that does the job so well. I do understand, however, whycompanies outside of Swatch Group would feel a need to invest in thistechnology as they shouldn't be dependant on a competitor for essentialelements of their products. I'm not sure I'm buying the argument that Omega, orany of the other Swatch Group companies you listed, are not in-housemanufacture though. The simple act of acquiring a duplicate set of machinery toutilize the same technology owned by the parent company is not, in my eyes atleast, any different than just using the existing company resources.
 
#24 ·
No need to apologize either. I do appreciate the sentiment however. Mathew J, AARC, and Drunken Monkey did a great job at addressing the general idea I was looking to better understand. I hope you understand that I'm not looking to be combative or disrespectful. In fact, if people have a different opinion than one i've expressed I appreciate the opportunity to help me see a Bigger picture than what my current perception is.
 
#28 ·
I kinda get that vibe from this thread as well...
 
#27 ·
dont mind if the swatch group gave what I would call the fashion watches or small time manufactures eg people like Time Factors the use of the eta movements as these give buyers the opportunity to buy a great piece with a great eta movement. And thats the sort of companies I hope swatch group does not alienate. Also gives people without a higher budget the chance of buying a good movement within a so called cheaper case.
 
#32 ·
just thought I'd add links to a few interesting articles about Nivarox I came across last night

Spring Action | iW International Watch Magazine

Is the only way up for Swiss watch prices? | watchpro.com

FT.com / Recruitment - Nivarox: Top component maker pulls back the curtain

if I understand correctly, the very essence of a watches quality/accuracy is dependent upon the perfection of its balance spring. A process that is incredibly complex. Also, Nivarox is not a single facility either but has two separate plants for springs and four different factories in the region. Maybe Swatch Group should hang an Omega sign on one of the Spring facilities and one of the factories to give their biggest luxury division the vertically integrated manufacture lable that will enhance the brands bragging rights.

i also found this bit of info very interesting:
"Back in 2002, the late Swatch Group president Nicholas Hayek announced that it intended to stop supplying ébauches (the term of French origin for a watch movement without its mainspring, dial or hands) to any companies that were not owned by Swatch Group."

would I be correct in my understanding of the above quote that the basic ETA calibres sold to all the various non Swatch Group Cos are either running on different hair springs not produced by Nivarox, or of a lesser accuracy/quality supplied by Nivarox? Or do they simply purchase the best springs from Nivarox as a separate order from the calibres?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top