# Bremont responds to 'British made' BWC/01 movement controversy



## Michael Weare

_
_







_
Bremont unveiled the Limited Edition Bremont Wright Flyer on July 23rd at the Science Museum in London. The new timepiece features some of the original fabric used on the 1903 Wright Flyer aircraft. Just as significantly, it showcases Bremont's first ever in-house movement, the BWC/01, designed and developed in Britain. _

Ah, the perils of claiming a British first, never mind a world first when it comes to watchmaking. During last weeks' announcement of the new Bremont Wright Flyer, the BWC/01 movement was hailed as the first movement created in-house by the British brand, whereas more accurately it was developed in partnership with La Joux-Perret in Switzerland. Further to Timeless Luxury Watches well informed article on the new movement, what is true is that the BWC/01 has been used for the first time in the Bremont Wright Flyer.

Bremont co-founder Nick English has released a statement that appears to be in response to accusations from bloggers on prominent watch forums (including some from Watchuseek readers) that the BWC/01 resembles a La Joux-Perret movement.

"This is Bremont's first progression into developing a complete in-house movement. The movement did not exist until a lot of time, effort and money went into its design and development - both in the UK and with our long term movement partner, La Joux-Perret, in Switzerland," said English.

"What is exciting is that parts of this movement are being made in the UK for the first time by Bremont. This is important because it forms part of a much greater push internally towards the time when a work-horse Bremont movement will be made 100% on British shores. This is not quick, but it is a very exciting journey and Bremont is totally committed and passionate about bringing back employment in the watch-making sector to the UK," he added.

The statement expands on the original launch press release, which said: "It showcases Bremont's first ever in-house movement, the BWC/01, designed and developed in Britain. Many of its constituent parts have also been crafted at the company's workshops in Henley-on-Thames."

Visit the Bremont website


----------



## dinexus

The fact that they blamed the finger-pointing (re: what appeared to be merely an astute observation on the Hodinkee article) on a theft of the schematic by someone with a vendetta against the brand is painfully stupid. What is this, 1950? ...unless Bremont is trying to remain faithfully in character of the Wright Bros era? 

The modern watch collector is not an idiot. A brand like Bremont getting their collective feet held to the fire is far from the worst thing that could happen to this industry. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watchstudent

I can't believe they risked lying like this, I don't even think they are "bending the truth" I think it is a downright lie. Their website STILL states that the MOVEMENT is in-house, in no way is this movement in-house. Parts maybe. They could have said this is the first movement with components designed and manufactured in the UK but they didn't they said the whole thing was in house. Blatant lie. Did they think watch lovers aren't OCD enough to pick that up in a second??

Edit: They have now changed the wording on their site


----------



## TimelessFan

Well, that was embarassing!


----------



## GregoryD

Bremont got caught with their pants down, and their response has, if anything, been more embarrassing than their original claims. It's the internet age - when you make grandiose claims, someone is going to follow them up.


----------



## TimelessFan

So, what else isn't true about Bremont?


----------



## dinexus

I don't think this was a deliberate "let's lie to our customers and fans" scenario, but rather another case of a brand getting too big for its britches and assuming that either no one would notice, or that they were too beloved for us to care. Maybe it's time we formally welcome Bremont to the internet?



TimelessFan said:


> So, what else isn't true about Bremont?


Reminds me a lot of when Tag Heuer and Panerai got caught with both hands in the cookie jar, and definitely begs the question - are these marketing companies or watch companies? What else is behind that smokescreen?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Perseus

After the Tag Seiko ordeal I'm surprised anyone would allude to having an in-house movement when it's " the same base La Joux-Perret mechanism."

http://www.ablogtowatch.com/real-story-behind-bremont-wright-flyer-in-house-made-bwc01-london-watch-movement/


----------



## TimelessFan

dinexus said:


> I don't think this was a deliberate "let's lie to our customers and fans" scenario, but rather another case of a brand getting too big for its britches and assuming that either no one would notice, or that they were too beloved for us to care. Maybe it's time we formally welcome Bremont to the internet?
> 
> Reminds me a lot of when Tag Heuer and Panerai got caught with both hands in the cookie jar, and definitely begs the question - are these marketing companies or watch companies? What else is behind that smokescreen?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What bothers me greatly about this incident is that their deliberately false claim to "In-House Movement" was used to partially justify their Patek-like pricing of this particular model. I mean, how is this different than someone selling a Porsche with a Buick engine & transmission?

Unfortunately, I'm certain that the public-at-large won't give a damn and Bremont will continue to flourish. SMFH.


----------



## dimman

Any way to test if the $20k piece of cloth is legitimately from the Flyer?


----------



## brandon\

TimelessFan said:


> I mean, how is this different than someone selling a Porsche with a Buick engine & transmission?


The GNX was pretty sweet&#8230; just saying.


----------



## dinexus

Dimman said:


> Any way to test if the $20k piece of cloth is legitimately from the Flyer?


On good faith. I think that's the irony here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TimelessFan

dinexus said:


> On good faith. I think that's the irony here.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wink wink.


----------



## jeremydw

As a casual fan of the brand who has not invested any money in them yet, I can honestly say that this sort of has the same feel and effect as the TAG Seiko debacle for me. After that I wrote off the idea of ever investing in the TAG Heuer Brand, and at least for now, I feel the same about Bremont. Working with a big movement company on a proprietary movement for your brand is pretty cool in its own right, not every company can do that. Why not run with that? Unless that is not good enough for you, not a big enough headline, not newsworthy in an age of vertical integration. It was all just a misunderstanding and some detractors saying negative things they say now. However calling it "in-house", "designed and developed", and what not, to me seems deliberately misleading. It feels like the little "white lies" we tried to get away with as kids, we didn't lie per se, we just weren't entirely honest and forthright. That seemed acceptable to me when I was 13, but I've grown up. Overall it is just very disappointing to see. And with limited resources to play with, I like to choose wisely...so unfortunately my decision has been made, I will not be investing in the Bremont brand.

Such a shame. Could have been so easily avoided. Disappointed.


----------



## dimman

Never paid too much attention to these watches until this controversy. Now looking into their 'heritage' back story, is it just me that gets the vibe that the French farmer landing adventure sounds as fabricated as their 'in house' claims?

They are like a fake-sounding British wannabe mish-mash of Breitling and Sinn. With the heritage of neither.


----------



## Gigatron

Most brand myths are fabricated. However, it is disappointing to see that storytelling has clearly become more important than authenticity. Hopefully, they will learn from this mistake.


----------



## TimelessFan

I made a couple of comments in this thread. Y'all know what that means, right? It means I'M THE PUBLISHER OF THIS WEBSITE!

(This post was inspired by Bremont)


----------



## G-F

I've been a long time Bremont fan boy. This story is really mindboggling. How can Bremont be that stupid?


----------



## piper82

Yeah, they really balls'd up here! Very disappointing indeed.

They have indeed changed the wording on their website but the video still states this is a world first watch by having a completely designed and built in-house movement.

It does make me wonder about the genuine nature of their claims to date, including their entire story. Such a shame.


----------



## mattjmcd

piper82 said:


> Yeah, they really balls'd up here! Very disappointing indeed.
> 
> They have indeed changed the wording on their website but the video still states this is a world first watch by having a completely designed and built in-house movement.
> 
> It does make me wonder about the genuine nature of their claims to date, including their entire story. Such a shame.


Really? Which elements do you doubt, and why? Totally fubar in my opinion, but I am curious as to what else you think they've lied about.


----------



## dimman

mattjmcd said:


> Really? Which elements do you doubt, and why? Totally fubar in my opinion, but I am curious as to what else you think they've lied about.


I think someone needs to investigate their name origin story. Sounds too hokey and convenient. Given how they've bent the truth on something as concrete as their movement sourcing, it puts the Monsieur Bremont the serendipitous French farmer/pilot/clockmaker/aircraft mechanic into a different light.


----------



## piper82

Exactly. Don't get me wrong, I have a Bremont watch and I love it. I wear more than my other watches, it really is a gorgeous piece. But I bought in to the Bremont brand largely because of their story. I'm a pilot myself so a pilots watch made by pilots from a company that had such a great piloting story was a must for me. Of course the product itself played a big part in my decision, and my alt1-p is just lovely, and my thoughts on that will never change.

But I am wondering now how much of their success has been built on what may be false or largely exaggerated claims. Feeling lied to is NEVER a good thing, IMO. It may not make a blind bit of difference to some, but for me the Bremont brand story was a significant attraction and helped me to spend my money. 

I would imagine I'd be feeling pretty sick if I had paid a deposit on a £30k watch which actually doesn't have an in-house movement at all. I'd definitely pull my order! 

Is is the material really from the Wright Flyer? Really?


----------



## geezerbutler

piper82 said:


> Is is the material really from the Wright Flyer? Really?


So you're now questioning the integrity of the Wright family as well? Really?


----------



## dimman

geezerbutler said:


> So you're now questioning the integrity of the Wright family as well? Really?


Well, the disparity between who has been given this special cloth is rather significant.

On the one hand, the first man on the freaking moon.

On the other, a couple of cheezy Brits trying to sell an absurdly priced watch.

That's totally just as important, right?


----------



## piper82

geezerbutler, don't be daft. I'm questioning the integrity of the people who said 'a world first, the first British designed and manufactured Bremont movement'. That was clearly very far from the truth.

Dimman, I'm a Brit, that's not very nice. But did make me chuckle.


----------



## geezerbutler

Dimman said:


> Well, the disparity between who has been given this special cloth is rather significant.
> 
> On the one hand, the first man on the freaking moon.
> 
> On the other, a couple of cheezy Brits trying to sell an absurdly priced watch.
> 
> That's totally just as important, right?


Cheezy Brits prepared to contribute to the preservation of the Wright family home from the proceeds from their absurdly priced watch - not important at all I guess.


----------



## piper82

Perhaps they could contribute to the homeless.

But yes, it's still a worthy cause in terms of aviation history. I'm not arguing that fact.

Lets not get carried away here gents. I support Bremont's vision to bring back watch making to the UK. I'm a Brit for goodness sake, and I love buying British. I love my Bremont too, great watch indeed and a friend of mine has literally bought an alt1-c today on my recommendation.  But whoopsy on the in-house movement thing.....


----------



## geezerbutler

piper82 said:


> geezerbutler, don't be daft. I'm questioning the integrity of the people who said 'a world first, the first British designed and manufactured Bremont movement'. That was clearly very far from the truth.
> 
> Dimman, I'm a Brit, that's not very nice. But did make me chuckle.


The fabric was supplied by the Wright family and they assert it to be from the original 1903 fabric removed from the Flyer during repairs. Your post seems to be questioning that provenance.


----------



## lovebandit

It's always the coverup that hurts the most, just ask Tricky Dick Nixon...


----------



## dimman

geezerbutler said:


> Cheezy Brits prepared to contribute to the preservation of the Wright family home from the proceeds from their absurdly priced watch - not important at all I guess.


Considering Henry Ford has already bought it and turned it into a museum...

The Wright Brothers | The Wright Family Home

http://m.thehenryford.org/our-attractions/greenfield-village/historic-districts/district/location.aspx?name=wrighthome


----------



## PJ S

That's not the home under discussion – look at the video I linked, near the end. That's the one being restored and turned into a museum.


----------



## dimman

PJ S said:


> That's not the home under discussion - look at the video I linked, near the end. That's the one being restored and turned into a museum.


Yes. And the one in the video is not 'The Wright Family Home', since that has already been a restored museum since 1937 thanks to Henry Ford.

Why should a home that had nothing to do with the Wright Flyer be turned into a museum about the Wright Flyer?

These guys are ridiculous...


----------



## PJ S

The fly over in the video (the other thread in case anyone's scratching their head looking for it here) is of the "success mansion", Hawthorn Hill.
The Wright Family Foundation purchased the home, back in 2006 – it is this home to which the funds are being given.
The one your links showed, was of another home – possibly the first home the brothers lived in?


----------



## dimman

PJ S said:


> The fly over in the video (the other thread in case anyone's scratching their head looking for it here) is of the "success mansion", Hawthorn Hill.
> The Wright Family Foundation purchased the home, back in 2006 - it is this home to which the funds are being given.
> The one your links showed, was of another home - possibly the first home the brothers lived in?


Read the articles. The first website I linked is the bloody Smithsonian, BTW... And Henry Ford was very serious about the preservation of American history (second link is the official museum site).

For the lazy, it is the house that Orville was born in (1871) that Wilbur died in (1912), and the one that they lived in during the time they invented the whole powered flight thing. The same museum also has their bike shop.

A museum since 1937.

This 'Bremont' house has about as much historical relevance as their watches.

More deliberate truth manipulation to add 'value'?

These guys are a bigger and bigger joke all the time...


----------



## vipereaper30

Dimman said:


> Yes. And the one in the video is not 'The Wright Family Home', since that has already been a restored museum since 1937 thanks to Henry Ford.
> 
> Why should a home that had nothing to do with the Wright Flyer be turned into a museum about the Wright Flyer?
> 
> These guys are ridiculous...





Dimman said:


> This 'Bremont' house has about as much historical relevance as their watches.
> 
> More deliberate truth manipulation to add 'value'?
> 
> These guys are a bigger and bigger joke all the time...



While I find Bremont's approach to marketing this new watch disingenuous, what is more interesting to me is the mob mentality surrounding the internet/forum response. The quotes above provide excellent examples with claims like "these guys are ridiculous" and "these guys are a bigger and bigger joke all the time..." because the foundation Bremont is donating a significant amount of profits to is based out of Hawthorn Hill and not the older 'Wright Family Home.'

Here are a few quick reads in case you are interested in learning more about the whole truth regarding Hawthorne Hill.
The Dayton Foundation: Media & Publications - Press Releases
National Aviation Heritage Area » Wright Family Foundation

A few notable quotes from the second source: 
"The Wright Family Foundation supports the preservation of aviation history related to Orville and Wilbur Wright by funding research and publication of aviation history, scholarships for studies in the fields of aviation and aeronautics, educational programming, the restoration and display of aviation artifacts, and landmarks and memorials related to the Wright brothers' story."
"In addition, since 2006 the Wright Family Foundation has been involved with the operation of Hawthorn Hill after NCR Corporation returned the home to the Wright Family following 58 years of ownership."
"The Wright Family Foundation seeks to use Hawthorn Hill as the focal point for the promotion of the Dayton region's aviation legacy and the great Wright brothers' story."

It's also interesting to draw some parallels between the public opinion surrounding the Wright brothers and that currently surrounding the English brothers: "In 1906, the anti-Wright skeptics in the European aviation community had converted the press. European newspapers, especially in France, were openly derisive, calling them _bluffeurs (bluffers). The Paris edition of the New York Herald summed up Europe's opinion of the Wright brothers in an editorial on February 10, 1906: "The Wright have flown or they have not flown. They possess a machine or they do not possess one. They are in fact either fliers or liars. It is difficult to fly. It's easy to say, 'We have flown.'" Source: _Wright brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I already mentioned I think that Bremont really screwed up the launch of this watch. The movement is clearly not in house and Bremont's damage control up to this point hasn't satisfied the vast majority of their detractors _and_ supporters. Only time will tell if their stated direction (UK manufacture of a truly in house movement) is legitimate or just a marketing ploy. In the meantime the bashing is sure to provide a lot of publicity for the brand as well as entertainment for interested parties such as myself.

Bremont has a lot of trust and respect to rebuild. Not that I'm in the market for a Wright Flyer, but I sure would like to hear what sort of effort went into developing the movement with LJP. IMO the current situation begs for full disclosure of their design efforts to date as well as manufacturing capabilities (current and planned). Although that might present a potential issue for real purchasers (not ADs) at MSRP for this timepiece! :think:


----------



## dimman

vipereaper30 said:


> While I find Bremont's approach to marketing this new watch disingenuous, what is more interesting to me is the mob mentality surrounding the internet/forum response. The quotes above provide an excellent example with the claim that "these guys are ridiculous" because the foundation Bremont is donating a significant amount of profits to is based out of Hawthorn Hill and not the older 'Wright Family Home.'
> 
> Here are a few quick reads in case you are interested in learning more about the whole truth regarding Hawthorne Hill.
> The Dayton Foundation: Media & Publications - Press Releases
> National Aviation Heritage Area » Wright Family Foundation
> 
> A few notable quotes from the second source:
> "The Wright Family Foundation supports the preservation of aviation history related to Orville and Wilbur Wright by funding research and publication of aviation history, scholarships for studies in the fields of aviation and aeronautics, educational programming, the restoration and display of aviation artifacts, and landmarks and memorials related to the Wright brothers' story."
> "In addition, since 2006 the Wright Family Foundation has been involved with the operation of Hawthorn Hill after NCR Corporation returned the home to the Wright Family following 58 years of ownership."
> "The Wright Family Foundation seeks to use Hawthorn Hill as the focal point for the promotion of the Dayton region's aviation legacy and the great Wright brothers' story."
> 
> It's also interesting to draw some parallels between the public opinion surrounding the Wright brothers and that currently surrounding the English brothers: "In 1906, the anti-Wright skeptics in the European aviation community had converted the press. European newspapers, especially in France, were openly derisive, calling them _bluffeurs (bluffers). The Paris edition of the New York Herald summed up Europe's opinion of the Wright brothers in an editorial on February 10, 1906: "The Wright have flown or they have not flown. They possess a machine or they do not possess one. They are in fact either fliers or liars. It is difficult to fly. It's easy to say, 'We have flown.'" Source: _Wright brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> As I already mentioned I think that Bremont really screwed up the launch of this watch. The movement is clearly not in house and Bremont's damage control up to this point hasn't satisfied the vast majority of their detractors _and_ supporters. Only time will tell if their stated direction (UK manufacture of a truly in house movement) is legitimate or just a marketing ploy. In the meantime the bashing is sure to provide a lot of publicity for the brand as well as entertainment for interested parties such as myself.
> 
> Bremont has a lot of trust and respect to rebuild. Not that I'm in the market for a Wright Flyer, but I sure would like to hear what sort of effort went into developing the movement with LJP. IMO the current situation begs for full disclosure of their design efforts to date as well as manufacturing capabilities (current and planned). Although that might present a potential issue for real purchasers (not ADs) at MSRP for this timepiece! :think:


Watch the video. What are the *exact* words?


----------



## vipereaper30

Dimman said:


> Watch the video. What are the *exact* words?


Dude cause Nick says "Wilbur and Orville's family home" you're going to overlook the facts about the Wright Foundation and the history of Hawthorne Hill? LOL


----------



## dimman

vipereaper30 said:


> Dude cause Nick says "Wilbur and Orville's family home" you're going to overlook the facts about the Wright Foundation and the history of Hawthorne Hill? LOL


And did Wilbur ever live there? Did the words 'Hawthorne Hill' occur in the video?

So were they properly representing the facts? Or twisting them to produce a greater emotional effect in the viewer. No different than what they did with the use of 'in-house' for their movement?

Using their description there is only ONE house, which has been taken care of since '37.

But because they may be supporting a charity it's okay for them to misrepresent facts? Do we extend this courtesy now to the misrepresented movement?

Were they too 'naive' about the events and lives of the most significant event in the history of their hobby?

Seriously...

On a watch note:
Are there any other relevant toolish watches/brands in the $5-6k range that will insulate me from this kind of BS? Sinn EZM10 is the front runner, but I can't see/play with one in person.

Sinn brought me to Bremont. Bremont has influenced me to never buy from them.


----------



## vipereaper30

Dimman said:


> And did Wilbur ever live there? Did the words 'Hawthorne Hill' occur in the video?
> 
> So were they properly representing the facts? Or twisting them to produce a greater emotional effect in the viewer. No different than what they did with the use of 'in-house' for their movement?
> 
> Using their description there is only ONE house, which has been taken care of since '37.
> 
> But because they may be supporting a charity it's okay for them to misrepresent facts? Do we extend this courtesy now to the misrepresented movement?
> 
> Were they too 'naive' about the events and lives of the most significant event in the history of their hobby?
> 
> Seriously...


Seriously? It looks like you are joining right in with deliberately manipulating facts here! Regarding Hawthorne Hill (from Wikipedia):
"Wilbur and Orville Wright intended for it to be their joint home, but Wilbur died in 1912, before the home's 1914 completion."

So after years of hard work and determination and despite all of the naysayers, the Wright bros finally found fame and fortune and intended to upgrade the "family home" to Hawthorne Hill. I guess Nick and Giles should have spent a portion of the press release on a history lesson.

Or maybe that's all a lie too! :-d


----------



## dimman

vipereaper30 said:


> Seriously? It looks like you are joining right in with deliberately manipulating facts here! Regarding Hawthorne Hill (from Wikipedia):
> "Wilbur and Orville Wright intended for it to be their joint home, but Wilbur died in 1912, before the home's 1914 completion."
> 
> So after years of hard work and determination and despite all of the naysayers, the Wright bros finally found fame and fortune and intended to upgrade the "family home" to Hawthorne Hill. I guess Nick and Giles should have spent a portion of the press release on a history lesson.
> 
> Or maybe that's all a lie too! :-d


From the Smithsonian:

"7 Hawthorne Street
The Wright family home at 7 Hawthorn Street in west Dayton was where much of the creative thinking and planning behind the world's first airplane took place. Wilbur and Orville added the shutters and built the wraparound porch. They resided at the Hawthorn Street house with their father and sister until Wilbur's death in 1912."

The house they both lived in was fantastically more significant. Which is why it's been a museum for over 7 decades. It is also what they implied with their choice of words. Just like 'in house'.

But hey, trying to weasel your way into history and false technical achievements by shady press releases is cool, too...


----------



## vipereaper30

Dimman said:


> But hey, trying to weasel your way into history...by shady press releases is cool, too...


Copy. 1914 isn't old enough for you to consider real history.

I'm not disputing the fact that the Wright brothers lived in a different house before they constructed Hawthorne Hill. I am clarifying (to ill effect) that the *Wright Family Foundation* operates Hawthorne Hill as a "focal point for the promotion of the Dayton region's aviation legacy and the great Wright brothers' story." The reach and influence of the foundation is likely far greater than that of the museum in the older family home. The fact that Wilbur died before he had the chance to move in doesn't make the location any less significant.


----------



## dimman

vipereaper30 said:


> Copy. 1914 isn't old enough for you to consider real history.
> 
> I'm not disputing the fact that the Wright brothers lived in a different house before they constructed Hawthorne Hill. I am clarifying (to ill effect) that the *Wright Family Foundation* operates Hawthorne Hill as a "focal point for the promotion of the Dayton region's aviation legacy and the great Wright brothers' story." The reach and influence of the foundation is likely far greater than that of the museum in the older family home. The fact that Wilbur died before he had the chance to move in doesn't make the location any less significant.


Bremont never said a thing about supporting this foundation.

Maybe they gave $500 to the Henry Ford museum?

Point is, how it's presented is that the FIRST house (Orville and Wilbur's) is in need of charitable aid. But why?

The first thing I thought (from the 'con' side) was "There is NO WAY the original Wright brothers' house isn't already a national heritage site." So I research and find out I am correct, and the literal representation of the facts by Bremont is incorrect. Others (from the 'pro' side) assume that this important building that by some historical travesty is in need of help, is being saved by the guys. Those are the two knee-jerk emotional reactions.

Mine was correct. The others required digging to come up with this association with the foundation. Which was never mentioned in the video.

This was chosen for the emotional impact, the same as 'in-house'. But the reality is it not factual. Ie, a lie. There is zero need, or even capability to turn Orville and Wilbur's house into a museum as they stated they will, because it was done over 70 years ago. Just like they did not develop and create an in house movement in Britain.

Marketing talks about developing narratives. But this is too much BS.


----------



## vipereaper30

Dimman said:


> Maybe they gave $500 to the Henry Ford museum?


"The undisclosed sum paid to the Wright Family Foundation will be used to help to restore Hawthorn Hill, which it acquired in 2006."
Source: The Wright Stuff: Bremont's New Aviation Watch - WSJ

Still confused? o|


----------



## dimman

vipereaper30 said:


> "The undisclosed sum paid to the Wright Family Foundation will be used to help to restore Hawthorn Hill, which it acquired in 2006."
> Source: The Wright Stuff: Bremont's New Aviation Watch - WSJ
> 
> Still confused? o|


This has always a been in the context of the video. The same one with the in-house movement claims.

They are lying in it. Alternative concurrent information from a different source does not change their false statement in the video. If I talk about a Fiat with a video of a Ferrari playing, if you make the assumption that I was talking about a Ferrari, was I trying and succeeding to deceive you?

The fact is, the video is pure false advertising. They lie about intended charitable donations. They lie about technical achievements and manufacturing in Britain.

The fact that it hasn't been immediately pulled makes me think they are going to hope they can weather a short term storm, have it blow over and be forgotten, then continue to have the video function as marketing in the future.

Surely Britain must have some kind of completion bureau that monitors these things? If you put 'Made in America' on something that isn't, or solicit charitable donations under false pretenses you get in big trouble.

In Canada a false claim of 'Made in Canada' or 'Product of Canada' has a maximum penalty of $10 MILLION dollars for the first offence and $15 MILLION for subsequent offences! AND proof of deception is not required.

"Product of Canada" and "Made in Canada" Claims - Competition Bureau

That is bloody serious.

I would hope England takes its integrity as seriously.

These guys need to pull the video.


----------



## jeremydw

vipereaper30 and Dimman,
I think you both are making really good points, and are probably much closer to agreeing than you realize, but it sounds like the stubbornness of feeling like you are trying to win an argument is getting in the way. Here's what I can add, hopefully it helps: when I went through the whole release I was initially shocked that no one had ever done anything to preserve the history of the Wright Brothers and that their house and foundation was seemingly in great need. Rather than purchase a Bremont Wright Flyer I thought, well I can at least make a donation directly to the house and museum. That's when the train came off its tracks, seems like the whole thing is doing fine and was already provided for by Ford. So i thought: What? What's going on here? What is Bremont talking about? I didn't make a donation, and I really didn't dig into it beyond that, I just thought that the ad was a bit misleading, and I was a little miffed at Bremont for what appeared to me to be misleading.

Then all of the movement debacle story broke and it made me laugh, I instantly began to question all of Bremont's claims. I thought, all along these were two awesome guys living out their passion, living a whirlwind dream, but now it all seems like a marketing ruse. You start thinking absurd thoughts like, No wonder these guys don't look that much alike, they probably aren't even brothers. Just a couple of rich scammers pushing a whole bunch of marketing BS so that we over pay for their outsourced watches.

Clearly this is unfair to think, and a total leap of bad logic, but it is what I thought in those initial moments. Now I have settled and realize that there is still some good redeeming qualities in the whole thing. Bremont just had a bad misstep, one that happens to other young brands (like Kobold) and can even happen to really old well established brands (like Tag Heuer). Hopefully they learn a valuable lesson from this whole thing about being forthright and transparent. No more of this "I once caught a fish THIS big", you caught a fish - and that is something that not a lot of people are doing, your story is already fantastic and awesome, don't try to make it THIS big, be proud of what it really is. Otherwise you will transgress against the very people you seek to impress.


----------



## PJ S

Dimman said:


> Bremont never said a thing about supporting this foundation.
> 
> Maybe they gave $500 to the Henry Ford museum?
> 
> Point is, how it's presented is that the FIRST house (Orville and Wilbur's) is in need of charitable aid. But why?
> 
> The first thing I thought (from the 'con' side) was "There is NO WAY the original Wright brothers' house isn't already a national heritage site." So I research and find out I am correct, and the literal representation of the facts by Bremont is incorrect. Others (from the 'pro' side) assume that this important building that by some historical travesty is in need of help, is being saved by the guys. Those are the two knee-jerk emotional reactions.
> 
> Mine was correct. The others required digging to come up with this association with the foundation. Which was never mentioned in the video.
> 
> This was chosen for the emotional impact, the same as 'in-house'. But the reality is it not factual. Ie, a lie. There is zero need, or even capability to turn Orville and Wilbur's house into a museum as they stated they will, because it was done over 70 years ago. Just like they did not develop and create an in house movement in Britain.
> 
> Marketing talks about developing narratives. But this is too much BS.


Dimman, you're becoming hysterical and carried away with your own hype - exactly like Nick and Giles did!

From the video, Giles says to the camera and over the images of just Hawthorn Hill shown (no other "home" shots depicted) and I quote verbatim:

"_*As with all our Limited Editions, there's a large charitable element to it, and in this case, a significant proportion of the funds raised will go to the restoration of Wilbur and Oliver's family home, to be opened as a museum.*_"

The reason I picked up on your point was that your second link showed a completely different house from that on the video - which with your reference to Henry Ford ownership and already being a museum, puzzled me.
Of course, a bit of rooting around with Google turns up the link vipereaper has posted - puzzle solved!


----------



## dimman

PJ S said:


> Dimman, you're becoming hysterical and carried away with your own hype - exactly like Nick and Giles did!
> 
> From the video, Giles says to the camera and over the images of just Hawthorn Hill shown (no other "home" shots depicted) and I quote verbatim:
> 
> "_*As with all our Limited Editions, there's a large charitable element to it, and in this case, a significant proportion of the funds raised will go to the restoration of Wilbur and Oliver's family home, to be opened as a museum.*_"
> 
> The reason I picked up on your point was that your second link showed a completely different house from that on the video - which with your reference to Henry Ford ownership and already being a museum, puzzled me.
> Of course, a bit of rooting around with Google turns up the link vipereaper has posted - puzzle solved!


Maybe a bit hysterical... Heh.

The reaction is coming from a 'near miss' of $5-6k. Iwas excited when I first heard there was a British alternative to Sinn. I have zero problem paying a sensible amount more for concepts such as renewed manufacturing in England or other developed countries if the product is good. Bremont represented, and probably still does to some, this renewal.

But I don't go in dewey-eyed 'take my money' without a bit of research. I Googled 'Bremont movement', looking to see which new movement these guys were using, expecting Sellita or Soprod, ended up on the Wright Flyer press release and video.

It was all downhill from there. I felt, still feel, that I almost got scammed. I feel I was lied to by a company trying to take a significant amount of money from me. They mislead about, technical achievements, national achievements, historical significance of what they're doing. All things that should be sources of pride for contributing to, have become sources of embarrassment or even shame.

It's terribly disappointing, I don't like that I almost got taken in, and coupling this with TAG and Panerai, is making me edgy about getting into higher money watches. But there is a ton of room for improvements in the brands I've been used to.

So what do I do, get 10 Orient M-Forces instead? That's not a solution either.

These guys' marketing system is showing all that is wrong with marketing and the watch industry. They have no respect for the industry or their customers.


----------



## vipereaper30

Dimman said:


> I felt, still feel, that I almost got scammed. I feel I was lied to by a company trying to take a significant amount of money from me.


Which is now apparently clouding your reasoning. You really are just coming across as a Bremont flamer at this point.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## PJ S

Welcome to the world of luxury baubles!
You might also want to knock IWC off your bucket list while you're at it.


----------



## TimelessFan

Dimman said:


> I would hope England takes its integrity as seriously.


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

They rig just about every financial instrument, from LIBOR to gold, in London with a tacit approval and even help from their government. I think the "Integrity" train left Britain a looooong time ago.


----------



## jeremydw

I think the thing to keep in mind is that, when we buy luxury watches we truly are not buying a watch that has an inherent worth of thousands of dollars. The boutique movement has proven that we are able to access similar technology, movements, and general specifications for way less than we see the bigger luxury brands charge (granting that the boutiques are still way off of the fit and finish of a major brand, but still you understand the point). What is it that we are buying then for all that money? The brand. That is truly where the "value" comes from and resides. Look at the dramatic increase in the prices of Rolex versus inflation, or the prices that some pieces fetch at auction. A lot of that extra money goes into building the brand, capital investing, production, marketing, and so forth. Brands can either make a move that attracts a buyer, like releasing an in-house movement, or they can make a move that turns potential buyers away, like making a false claim about their product. In this case, some feel that Bremont has transgressed and they therefore no longer want to buy "the brand". This is purely subjective and will vary from person to person, so as we express our opinions and also our disagreements with each others opinions, let's at least not make villains out of one another if we differ.


----------



## samanator

It appears this thread and the others here have run their course with no relevant new content. Given this I am closing these threads now. I'm aware this has been done on many other forums and everyone is looking to move on now. It's time to get back to the watches.


----------

