Just came across this interesting Audio Interview with the President of Longines (Swatch) which is very reassuring about the "Swissness" of their watches! He says he cannot speak for the other Swatch Brands, but that Swatch has always committed to keep as much production as possible in Switzerland.
https://watch-insider.com/baselworl...iew-with-walter-von-kanel-president-longines/
He gives some candid insights about the Longines "mid price point brand" parts origins.
They have used Chinese Cases in the past, But since about 2013, have moved almost all their 1 Mil+ case production to 2 Swiss companies, evenly split. For about the same price as Chinese! But they do polish them in Thailand for a big savings over Swiss cost. (Hand labor?)
Dials and hands are also now Swiss made, but Bracelets are still Chinese as of the interview date 2016.
Also, for Quartz Watches, he hints that those are still mostly Chinese Parts (except for the Swiss movements) but they are trying to bring them back too.
I agree with some of the previous posters that there is too much emphasis on location, as if location guarantees quality. What matters to the consumer is (or rather, should be) quality, and that can be had in lots of places. If a gear meets the design specifications, do I really care whose fingers touched it (or perhaps the machine that made it)? Consumers would probably better served by an ISO quality measure for movements and watches or something. Not sure if anything like that exists. I know there is an ISO standard for dive watches, but that seems to be more about the specs than about overall quality.
Surprised this thread is still going strong, but happy to see the discussion is still friendly, and people are adding thoughtful comments.
I had a recent discussion with the owner of a VERY well-known brand, in which he told me, "the last 'Swiss-made' case I used turned out to be from China."
Take this for whatever it's worth, but my approach to sourcing both materials/components and assembly is to look at each element separately, and to assess the upside-value/downside-risk in light of the cost and transparency, and how I "handicap" or "discount" my expected problems in the future. In broad-strokes, my analysis looks like this:
- Non-moving / non-stressed parts, such as cases, to include crystals, dials, and handsets
There isn't much that can go wrong with a non-moving, non-stressed part, like a case or crystal. They don't really "fail" due to being "poorly made". They can only be poorly assembled, or poorly finished, or damaged. There's no way anyone can tell where a case or crystal came from just by looking at it, or if it's CNC-machined or cold-forged, or whatever.
Since even manufacturers can't tell where a case is made by looking at it, I'd be concerned about paying more for a case from "Switzerland" or "Germany" when in fact it might be coming from somewhere else, and in fact I know from many in the industry that very often those cases are made somewhere else, so I don't see a good enough reason to take that risk and pay more for what could be the same product.
Dials and handsets used in both luxury and non-luxury watches are often sourced from the same small number of specialty vendors, so questioning where they're made is just a waste of time and energy. They're all made by the same folks, in the same places, and quality is really about making sure you get what you pay for, by doing good QC.
- Moving/stressed parts, such as movments
There's a lot that can go wrong with a movement, often stemming from poor assembly, but sometimes it's due to shortcuts taken in parts production. There are processes used to harden materials or make them work better, and it's impossible to know when those processes are skipped over.
Based on my (albeit somewhat limited) experience, I see Japanese movements as the lowest risk, followed by Swiss movements, then Chinese, so that's how I tend to prioritize them, all other things being equal.
- Assembly
The movements are assembled by the movement manufacturer and delivered to the OEM for final assembly, so final assembly is pretty straight-forward, and not all that complicated - it's just adding dial and hands to the movement, and casing them up.
Things can still go wrong, but the assembly location has little to do with that. As such, I don't see enough added value in paying a premium just so I can say a basic task was completed in one place versus another, when the final result is the same either way.
...
So, when it comes to the "Swiss Made" rules, I break them down into their parts.
When I see that the rules stipulate the movement can be assembled using 100% foreign-made parts, so long as its assembled in Switzerland, and all the other parts can be made outside Switzerland, too, so long as final assembly is done there, I have to gauge the value of using the "Swiss Made" label versus the added cost, and whether or not it actually means a better product, or just a better perception about the product among a portion of the market.
A friend recently posted a newly-arrived "Swiss Made" watch with what is inarguably a Chinese-made clone of the Miyota 8215 inside, so the "Swiss Made" rules have a dubious value in my view.
The conclusion I came to is that I'd rather have a Swiss movement in a watch assembled in Hong Kong than have the same watch assembled in Switzerland, given the big difference in cost and no difference in final product. And, if that means I can't use the "Swiss Made" label, then I have to run the same sort of analysis considering a Japanese movement instead.
The final result is I like the value proposition of a Japanese movement in a Hong Kong-assembled watch a lot, compared to the alternatives.