# Classic Sub Smackdown: Rolex Sub 16610 vs. Ginault Ocean-Rover



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

*NOTE: "The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting." Milan Kundera, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting.

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." Various, but probably derived from George Santayana.

I am restoring this original post because Forum Rule 14 and the Moderators require me to and because I failed to heed the quotes above, which I often repeat. I removed the post on January 14 because I believe certain claims by Ginault are--"unverifiable" is the word I'm allowed to use. I have endeavored to review the quality of the watch as built. I make NO representations about the legitimacy or truth of the claims that the watch is Hand Built in America--which is expressly stated on the dial--or that it is Made in USA--as is engraved on the caseback. Caveat Emptor in view of those unverifiable claims. Depending on how Ginault responds to these questions of provenance--if ever it does--I want this community to know that I reserve the right to pursue the matter with Ginault.*











Perhaps this is best suited for the dive forum, but F71 is home to me, so here's where I'm sticking this. I'd put it in the BSHT thread--where else would you review a Sub homage?--but it'd get lost there in about four minutes.

*Classic Sub Smackdown: Rolex Sub 16610 vs. Ginault OCEAN-ROVER 181070GSLN*










At first blush, this is an absurd comparison. The Sub 16610 is iconic, my used copy (16610A, Z-serial) is worth more than I paid for it, and its replacement, the ceramic-bezeled 116610, at almost an Omega more expensive, runs about $8k. My 16610 formerly was a daily wearer, but has seen little wear over the last several years. It has never been serviced since purchased mid-2006. By contrast, the Ginault is a fresh arrival. MSRP is $1299, but I acquired it with a 60% discount due to my agreement to write this review comparing it to the Gen.

*Paid Reviews*

A quick word, right at the outset, about what amounts to a paid review, because the 60% discount sure feels like payment&#8230;

There's an obvious problem with offering a discount for a review. Even if you can avoid bias, there is an appearance of bias, and the additional problem of confirmation bias: Having spent the money, won't I try very hard to find the value in it? I say no, but judge for yourselves.

Ginault offered the discount to anyone willing to write a review on WUS or post it to YouTube. I chose the written word over video. After having written several negative posts on WUS reacting to Ginault's advertising hyperbole, I chose to buy the watch. I'll leave that decision-making process for another post. I emailed Ginault:

_I would like to review it next to my Gen 16610&#8230;. To give you an idea of what I have in mind, here is a review of the comparison I recently wrote of the NTH and OWC as compared to an Omega SMP 2531.80: https://www.watchuseek.com/f71/blue...owc-9411-nth-nacken-vintage-blue-3904130.html. I can't promise it'll be glowing, but it'll be fair and balanced and complete&#8230;. I will give the Ginault a place in the lineup along with my 16610, and we will see where the chips fall!"_

Ginault's reply: _"Sure thing. We would love to have your unbiased opinion and the comparison review against its big brother the 16610."_

As you can see, I promised nothing but a fair and balanced comparison, and Ginault neither quarreled nor made any stipulations. I promised fair and balanced, and that's what I intend to deliver below.

*Why the Comparison?*

Ginault is the one who likens the Ocean-Rover to the venerable 16610. In his advertising, he says,

_"It is actually very hard to make a classic 16610 Submariner homage so close to the original blueprint. The level of technical and production maturity required to pull this off is beyond many people's expectation._

_&#8230; Ocean-Rover is a product line to showcase the experts and Submariner lovers in the horology world of what we can achieve. The idea is to take on all the production challenges that most homage Submariners face and strike them head on. We decided not to take an easy way out by changing out hard to make parts with simple and cost effective substitutes. &#8230; [W]e know we are going to hit the bulls eyes when it comes the build qualities of our watches. We known an equal quality built to the original 5 digit Submariner homage [i.e., the 16610] that delivers the same balance in aesthetic, performance and durability, and beauty in craftsmanship will appeal to those of whom seeking for the best Submariner alternative."_ https://www.watchuseek.com/f74/clas...inault-ocean-rover-181070gsln-3860842-43.html, Post # 1.)

Wow. Okay, then. Ginault's putting its $1300 special straight up against the Rolex. Game on!

View attachment 10467474

*

Obvious Differences that Will Be Ignored*

There are some obvious differences. Mercedes hands vs. Swords. White lume vs. vintage-colored lume. Date vs. no-date. To me, they're all welcome changes, because I already have the 16610 and don't want a copy, even if branded differently. They're purely aesthetic choices, and Ginault itself characterizes its aesthetic changes as providing zero design points. Not to say the watch doesn't look good; it does. It's just that those changes don't detract from Ginault's goal of replicating the Rolex.










A word here on that dirty word of the prior paragraph: When I say, "rep," I don't say it in the sense of manufacturing and selling counterfeit goods. I say it in the literal sense that Ginault points to the 16610 as the model for its Ocean-Rover. It's no surprise that their dimensions are basically exactly the same, crystal height/style aside, and that the bracelets are interchangeable as are, if my measurements are correct, the bezel inserts. Ginault set out to see if he could build a watch that rivals the quality of the Rolex, so I see no reason why some on the forums are trying so hard to defend against the "rep" claim. Ginault's trying to duplicate the 16610, less stylistic changes to which he assigns "zero" design points: _"We know we probably would score a zero on design input for the Ocean-Rover series but we know we are going to hit the bulls eyes when it comes the build qualities of our watches."_ 'nuff said.

*CASE*

Both watches use three-piece designs, _i.e_., midcase, bezel, caseback. Dimensionally, they are essentially the same. 40mm x 47.5mm excluding crystal. (Ginault's marketing materials at one place advertise 50mm lug-to-lug, but that definitely is overstated). Both feature a mix of brushed and polished facets; crownguards, signed 6.5mm x 4mm crown. With crystal, the Ginault comes in at a hair over 14mm, next to the Rolex, which is about 12.7mm minus the cyclops. With the cyclops included, the Rolex comes in at just under 14mm.

-MIDCASE: The 16610 is made of 904L stainless, as opposed to the Ginault's 316L stainless. According to my elementary research, 316L has much higher hardness, and therefore has far less scratch resistance. 316L has less nickel, and therefore is far brighter in appearance. So, why use 904L? As I understand it, it's made for use in severe corrosive environments-i.e., salt water-and resists pitting. Reportedly, Rolex adopted it because of corrosion of caseback threds due to salt-water infiltration. If you're not going to wear it in a corrosive environment (I live in the D.C. Metropolitan area, so arguably the 904L would be a better choice!), the difference is irrelevant and the cost difference, as I understand it, is negligible anyway.










-BEZEL/BEZEL INSERT: However you describe the Rolex bezel assembly, I'll just tell you that mine is the best I own. Doesn't move by mistake, absolutely no slop, pleasing feel and sound. Ginault says it found a gun-barrel manufacturer in Pennsylvania to machine his. This claim, to date, is unverified; however Ginault accomplished it, this bezel assembly is outstanding at the price point. The Ginault is a hair quieter, and a hair stiffer, but that might be attributable to the 10-year age difference. Yet, the Ginault is not quite as good as the Rolex. The stops are a bit less definite and precise, but frankly I'm nitpicking. It's really, really good. Both are 120-click. EDIT: my copy of the Ginault has something gumming up the works. Not sure what, but randomly is pretty sticky. Will investigate.

Both use aluminum inserts. I'm not here to debate aluminum vs. steel vs. ceramic vs. sapphire. Don't like aluminum? Rip it out and replace it with a readily available replacement in whatever material (and color) you prefer. To my measurement, the dimensions of the inserts are close enough to identical that one should fit the other.










*CRYSTAL*

Crystals obviously differ. The 16610 has a date and cyclops, the Ginault has neither (making the Ginault closer to the 14060M. Both use synthetic sapphire (albeit Ginault insists on identifying it as "corundum," creating an unnecessary conundrum. For those who don't know, for our purposes synthetic sapphire and synthetic corundum are the same thing). What can I say? Sapphire is a good choice, but I'm not going to try to scratch either my Gen or my Ginault to find out which is better, if either. The Rolex has its cyclops; the Ginault, with its domed crystal, has a vintage vibe to match the vintage-colored lume.










Casebacks are basically the same shape. The Rolex is blank. Ginault chose to include some engraved specs around the back, including, "Made in USA." This claim is unverifiable to date; it has been debated heatedly on these forums, but Ginault has remained silent as of January 15, 2017. I don't know if Ginault meets the exacting specs for a product to bill itself as "Made in USA," but I won't be surprised if Ginault is put to the test on that score.









*DIAL*

DIAL: Both are high-gloss black. Ginault copies the famous four-liner approach of the 16610, albeit with a very cheeky version of the language. Love it or hate it, it's giving you the same information as the Rolex: it's an automatic dive watch. Some dislike the cheekiness of the Ginault, but on the other hand, the Rolex is a bit blustery for many. What the hell is an "oyster," anyway, and what's the deal with "Superlative Chronometer Officially Certified"? I'll get to the movements later, but for the moment, it's enough to note that both choices could use some editorial help. Beyond that, let's be real a minute: the Ginault surely owes fealty to the Rolex: it's a maxi-meaning larger indices than on the 16610-so not an exact copy of the 16610, but it's got Rolex DNA through-and-through.

Other than that, it's worth noting that whereas the Rolex dial reads, "Swiss Made," the Ginault reads, "Hand Built in America." Again, Ginault may have some 'splainin' to do on that score; to date, the claim is unverified and unverifiable.










INDICES: Both use applied high-sheen, lume-filled metal indices. I don't see any big difference between them. If there's a difference, it's lost on me. If you like applied indices rather than painted, you'll like 'em. With the vintage vibe, I might have gone painted, but Ginault made a design choice and executed it well.










HANDS: Mercedes vs. Swords. Take your pic. The handsets are very well executed in both cases. I might've put white seconds on the Ginault, or even a sand colored one to match the lume, but only the red is currently available through Ginault (I asked).

LUME: From what I understand, Rolex uses SuperLuminova on the 16610, but Ginault advertises that it uses Gold Sand obtained from the far reaches of the planet. I'm not wading into that hyperbole, as Ginault's already taken a beating for it. Whatever; it's advertised by Ginault as the equivalent of C3 SuperLuminova. I hope I didn't spend money to get a product that costs more than something that's readily obtainable off a shelf. Perhaps Ginault simply doesn't want to use Swiss SuperLuminova, mere conjecture but perhaps it relates to its stated inability to source Incabloc shock absorbers for its movements, as a result of which it uses a Chinese replacement. More on that below.

*BRACELET*

To me, the bracelet is the _sine qua non_ of a high quality watch. I find them, universally, to be the weak link in the world of so-called affordable microbrands, defined here as those under $1500. I have first-hand experience with Rolex, Tudor, and Omega, plus OWC and Damasko, and numerous others in the sub-$700 market, all the way down to the $100-level. Some may say my standards are unreasonably picky; so be it.










It's no big deal to get a decent link, and many provide half-links, but the kickers are the solid endlinks (SEL) and clasp. Both of these have nice oyster links. If you can find a difference, you have good eyes. Tight fit; no slop.

SEL: The big issue with SELs are whether they are molded or machined. Machined is more expensive, and is the process that gives the sharp lines that, to me, are ideal. The Rolex has machined SELs, and they're fabulous. No surprise there. The Ginault also uses machined SELs that obviously are a copy of the Rolex, and indeed they're indistinguishable from the Rolex. I've never seen any approaching the Rolex's at this price-point, and however Ginault accomplishes it, I wish other micros would stand up and take notice. Fantastic. The SELs of both the Rolex and Ginault fit the case perfectly, with only the slightest play and no discernable gaps. If they were any tighter, they'd squeak.​
-








CLASP: On the Rolex, the Fliplock clasp is the weakest link in the whole affair. It's a basic extension clasp, with locking flap, but made of thin stamped metal, and my copy is bent. It's got the micro-adjustables holes, which are useful of course. It's also got some sort of extension arrangement that is hidden that I never understood or used. As far as I'm concerned, it's the clasp equivalent of a vestigial appendix.

The Ginault uses what I understand to be a copy of the Rolex Glidelock, which I gather is now used by Rolex instead of the version of the Fliplock on mine, and which I've read remains subject to Rolex's exclusive rights. I won't speculate. Whatever the provenance, the Ginault works well, and is super easy to adjust on the fly, without tools, once you realize how it's supposed to be operated (which took me just a moment). It's far better than the clasp on my 16610, albeit Ginault saved a couple bucks, I think misguidedly, by opting not to sign it. The flower logo would look good. Given a choice, I choose the Glidelock over the Fliplock.​
-








Just in case you're wondering, the Rolex bracelet mates to the Ginault head as if they were made for each other&#8230;.

*MOVEMENT*

Let's get right to the heart of the matter. The Rolex is powered by its in-house 3135. The Ginault is powered by what he calls the Ginault Caliber 7275, reportedly based on the ETA 2824 out of a mix of parts from a variety of sources, all assembled in the USA, but we don't know much more. These are surprising claims because American-made movements, aside from RGM, essentially are a thing of the past and perhaps of the future, but not the present. The Rolex is COSC, meaning it will run-age and service history of my copy aside-at COSC specs, i.e., -4/+6. The Ginault is not COSC-certified, but Ginault sure seems to suggest it's as good as one.

I'm not a watchmaker, and I've decided not to disassemble a new watch just to see if I can give lie to claims about the movement in what, on the whole, is really a beautifully executed piece. What's the point? I lack the expertise and I choose not to pay the money to a pro to figure it out. According to Ginault's documentation, my copy was measured in six positions over six weeks. After the final adjustment, the Week 6 measurement puts it at -4/+4, which is better than COSC. Time and experience will be a teacher here. But, I can't see any reason to put the Ginault through paces I never put any other watch through. I've trusted all my watches to operate as advertised, trusting that I could rely on the manufacturer in the event of any disappointment. If there's a risk here, it's that Ginault-like any other relatively untested brand-won't meet its service obligations. I have no reason to doubt it'll stand behind its product, but it's proper to note that it's an untested question.

EDIT: In answer to a question, it appears to me--without disassembly I can't be sure--that although Ginault retains the second stop of the crown, normally used for date correction, there is no discernible "click," so I suspect the date mechanism was removed.​

*INITIAL FINAL THOUGHTS *

We'll all come out where we come out on the copy/homage/replica debate. No question where the Ginault took aim. Right at the heart of the 16610. I'd say he hit the mark. If you're just talking look and feel, you can't examine the Ginault side-by-side with the Rolex and think, damn, I should've dropped an extra $7,000 on the Rolex, especially if you got the Ginault for only $518. A steal at that price, no kidding. At $1300, it's obviously a different calculation. Given my experience with used Omega SMP (about $1500), the Tudor Black Bay (the original ETA-powered models are about $2100 and likely falling due to the new in-house movements), plus all the really excellent watches available in that price range, including many really, really good offerings from the likes of Damasko and Stowa etc, I'll have to say value is a personal choice. Beyond that, what I can say is the-unknown questions about durability of the movement and untested customer service aside-the Ginault not only holds its own against my SMP and Damasko DA36 in terms of fit and finish and feel, it really does rival the 16610. Color me surprised, but this thing is really, really good. Other micros ought to take notice of what can be accomplished, especially if the $1300 doesn't hold and ultimate selling price falls closer to the discount offered for reviews.
*
UPDATE: JANUARY 15, 2017: *I am disappointed to report that Ginault has yet to respond to my inquiry into the provenance of the movement. Silence in the face of these legitimate questions, in my opinion, speaks loudly, but I will not speculate--because I am not permitted to speculate--what that silence might mean. I well understand that I agreed to write a review of the watch, but I never promised Ginault or anyone else that I would strictly address the quality of the build as opposed to the legitimacy of the claims that the watch is Hand Built in America or Made in USA, two claims that have specific legal meaning under American law, and which are important to me not only as a consumer, but as a licensed lawyer. I bought this watch to see for myself whether it is as good as it claims, and with the expectation that the advertising, even if exaggerated, nevertheless is true. Ginault has the ability to authenticate its claims, we as consumers have no real ability to verify those claims. It is a shame that Ginault chooses to remain silent for three weeks since posting its announcement over in F74, but that's where things stand, and until Ginault comes forward to open its records to some sunlight, I will continue to reference the claims as "unverifiable" here on this forum, without regard to what action I might take as a consumer. But WUS has interposed itself between me and Ginault as it relates to this post, and my rights are limited.​


----------



## valuewatchguy (Jun 16, 2012)

Well done.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## uvalaw2005 (May 27, 2009)

Appreciate the thoroughness of your review as usual, but I'm surprised you're not going to look into the movement at all. Wasn't that one of the main things you wanted to get to the bottom of, or am I confusing you with someone else in that train wreck thread on f74?


----------



## Knoc (Feb 10, 2012)

Right on dude.


----------



## jlow28 (Feb 27, 2010)

This is well thought out and prepared review. Personally I enjoyed the introduction and initial communication information with Ginault. They definitely have a lot of confidence in their watch. Thank you for just reviewing both watches on their own merits, without dragging in other brands into the mix. Ginault seems to be taking a page out of the MKII book by producing a high end homage to watch enthusiasts. The price of this decision (while risky) might have a good result in the end. It will be interesting to see where the final purchase price sits. Enjoy the watch !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

Good review, thanks.


----------



## Toothbras (Apr 19, 2010)

I've never heard so much about a sub homage in the span of a week in my life. I'm genuinely curious to check one of these out, I hope someone I know buys one so I can handle it in person


----------



## mike120 (Aug 1, 2010)

Absolutely incredible review. While I agree that yours was a paid review, it was entirely unbiased. 

It really looks like it's unbelievably well finished, particularly for the price you paid, but both because of and in spite of the, errr, questionable provenance of the case it is shocking how close the two are. 

Since you you have a rapport with the manufacturer, any chance that you might be able to seek more clarification both on the ties to the less legal manufacturer and the "made in America"ness of the piece?


----------



## dan_bsht (Jan 16, 2014)

Wow! Wasn't expecting it to be that good! Thank you brother for this review.
I want one now and I blame you for that!

instagram @ the_watchier


----------



## JLS36 (Feb 5, 2016)

Seems like a hell of a deal @$500, I enjoyed the review thank you 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## NeedAG (Jul 26, 2012)

Wow. Mic Drop... great review!

There is nothing like a Rolex dial, but this is the best micro dial I've ever seen. 

How is the lume, and how does the bezel pip compare to the gen?


----------



## hikeNbike (Oct 26, 2013)

Nice review well done.

yadda yadda tapatalk


----------



## manofrolex (Jul 9, 2012)

Good work fair and balanced 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FireMonk3y (May 9, 2014)

Glad you like it. Doing the first review, I felt confident it was a great watch, but not handling many Rolex's or Omega's wondered how it would stack up. I've been really impressed with mine so far. Great watch and great review. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sonic_driftwood (Mar 5, 2014)

Bravo! Nice shots. Especially like the attention on the bracelet (the Achilles heel of these things).

Thanks for pulling back the curtain. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fullers1845 (Nov 23, 2008)

"Ginault insists on identifying it as "corundum," creating an unnecessary conundrum."

I'll say. :roll:

Excellent review, hwa. Thanks for taking the time and the pics.

How does the OR crown compare to the Sub? Triplock? How many turns to screw down?


----------



## CabbageHead (Feb 15, 2016)

In 2017, there is no excuse for not knowing precisely where a movement comes from, at this or any price. I am not faulting you OP but I am faulting the company. If this company want to be taken seriously, it needs to share movement details. Ginault: Tell us what you are using and stop using those evocative superlatives as a substitute for facts.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

Knew I forgot something(s)!

Lume shot, with NTH:









Crowns, first position:









Second:









Third:









Rolex winds buttery smooth, just enough resistance to let you know you're doing something. Silent though, no mechanical feeling like a Damasko if you know what I mean.

Ginault honestly feels the same. It does have that date stop on crown, which drives some folks nuts, but not me.

And, both bezels are 120-click.

I did try to remove caseback, but i dont have the right tool and rubber ball trick didn't get it done. Stay tuned.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BSHt013 (Feb 27, 2008)

Well done my good man. Appreciate you taking the plunge with your money and the time to write that up.


----------



## Jeep99dad (Sep 4, 2009)

Thank you for sharing your initial thoughts on the Ginault. Seems like a solid watch and well made. I too am curious about case provenance and movement too. 
Re Indides where you mention differences may be lost on you... the Rolex used white gold not SS. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wpbmike (Mar 8, 2016)

This is how to write a watch review.


----------



## RTea (Jun 3, 2010)

All the drama aside on this watch, that is one beautifully made timepiece!


----------



## aegir (Dec 4, 2016)

Awesome review. I was hoping to take pics of mine next to a 16610 but this puts that to shame. Really going to have to step up my game for my review to have anything left to say.

One question, how does the weight of the two bracelets compare?


----------



## Luminated (Dec 1, 2012)

Great review and very glad someone from the "other side" of the debate took the plunge and bought it to compare with the genuine article and for you to give such a glowing review clearly shows Ginault achieved the goals they set out to do.

The debate will continue as to whether Ginault should have matched the dimensions to the letter that parts could be interchangeable but that was their decision and by all accounts they nailed it. Which begs the question if Ginault ever want additional sales start selling bracelets separately as many a Rolex customer will buy one to save their original getting scratched to death through desk duties.


----------



## Cafe Latte (Nov 3, 2014)

I really thought the Ginault looked like a good watch, this answers my question re Rolex value..
May put one on the shopping list for later in the year. Yes it does look rather like a Rolex, but it is different too and more importantly it is a good accurate watch.
Great review
Chris


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

Great review, thanks for doing this......... 


........really is looking like this is an amazing watch, especially for the discounted price!


----------



## eljay (Feb 22, 2016)

hwa said:


> Both use synthetic sapphire (albeit Ginault insists on identifying it as "corundum," creating an unnecessary conundrum. For those who don't know, for our purposes synthetic sapphire and synthetic corundum are the same thing)


Indeed it is, corundum describing the mineral and sapphire describing a gemstone. I wish all watchmakers would call the stuff corundum, because the cover glass on a watch is decidedly _not_ a gemstone! I'm not about to start a crusade over the use of a word but corundum just feels more honest.


----------



## Crezo (Apr 3, 2012)

Superb and very honest review!! The watch does seem a steel at the discount price.

I'm not a sub guy, but these reviews are even getting me wanting one (but will resist as I wait patiently for the Seaforth).

Great write up thanks 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## Mrwozza70 (May 13, 2012)

Superb unbiased review HWA 👏


----------



## Ryeguy (Jun 24, 2009)

Very solid review. I know how much time it takes to put these together and you have done a great job. Regardless of the origins of the watch components, it is evident Ginault selected suppliers who could deliver and they executed the final product very well. 

Frankly, you have raised the bar on comparitive reviews.


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

updated first post with weights and measures.


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

CabbageHead said:


> In 2017, *there is no excuse for not knowing precisely where a movement comes from,* at this or any price. I am not faulting you OP but I am faulting the company. If this company want to be taken seriously, it needs to share movement details. Ginault: Tell us what you are using and stop using those evocative superlatives as a substitute for facts.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


It appears the last thing they want to do is admit that it's based on a chinese made ebauche and to be honest I don't know why. It's not like ginault is aimed at the majority of people who can afford a rolex and will stick their noses in the air at the very idea of a movement that predominantly uses chinese parts. They aren't actually making a rolex. Anway it's not my cup of tea but then neither is the watch that it's based on. Correlation? Maybe.


----------



## Jeep99dad (Sep 4, 2009)

I really enjoyed your review and am Thankful for the honest take on it. If anything it makes me want the Ginault even more. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

Lest anyone think me naive, I have emailed Ginault about the "Handbuilt in America" and "Made in USA" claims expressly made on the dial and caseback (and in the watch box). My mistake for not noticing them prior to purchase, as the dial verbiage, if not the caseback and watch box interior, is clearly shown on Ginault's website. With all the other stuff going on, I frankly missed it. Had I seen it, I would've questioned it prior to purchase. 

That said, accusations don't often elicit useful facts. I have asked appropriate questions via email, and I hope to get an answer that I can share. For those who don't know, the rules regarding "Made in USA" are available on the FTC website. Easy to find. Way too soon, and way too few available facts, to draw any conclusions as to whether the claims are deceptive and/or whether any deception, if any, was intentional.


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

CabbageHead said:


> In 2017, there is no excuse for not knowing precisely where a movement comes from, at this or any price. I am not faulting you OP but I am faulting the company. If this company want to be taken seriously, it needs to share movement details. Ginault: Tell us what you are using and stop using those evocative superlatives as a substitute for facts.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


No need for the vitriol. Be as skeptical as you like, but Ginault states on its website (which includes a blog), that the movement is made in the USA, albeit it contains a Chinese-made shock absorber (because Incabloc is unavailable to non-Swiss watches), and Swiss-made hairspring and mainspring. Says it right there on the website. I believe the jewels are non-US, too, but couldn't find that part on the Ginault website when I took a quick look. Ginault says the rest of the metal is machined in the US, and that the movement--all of the parts--are assembled and regulated in the US. Whether that meets the standards for Made in USA is a separate question from whether the details have been shared. I think they have been shared; you appear to doubt them.

As for the "no excuses" part, what other watch company can you identify, at any price, that provides the details, up front and without asking, you're seeking from Ginault? I've never seen any mfr give a breakdown of the provenance of all component parts of the case and movement. Ginault, if anything, has provided more details than most. (And, if your answer is "Swiss Made" watches provide it, then my retort is that you need to read the rules about "Swiss Made," because it's quite a lax standard compared to the US standard (although it may recently have changed and tightened.)


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

I am sure the ebauche isn't the only part of the ginault that's made in China. Why does that matter though? This is f71 and it's a rolex clone it wouldn't exist if rolex didn't exist. It's like one of those time travel paradoxes. 

Maybe the Op could do a review with the tisell sub clone vs the ginault? Then we will know for for sure the ginault is the premier sub clone. It's sh*t hot.


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Great review!

I hope this sells well and paves the way for the Silent Service, which, I've been waiting years for Ginault to finally release. 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## eblackmo (Dec 27, 2014)

hwa said:


> No need for the vitriol. Be as skeptical as you like, but Ginault states on its website (which includes a blog), that the movement is made in the USA, albeit it contains a Chinese-made shock absorber (because Incabloc is unavailable to non-Swiss watches), and Swiss-made hairspring and mainspring. Says it right there on the website. I believe the jewels are non-US, too, but couldn't find that part on the Ginault website when I took a quick look. Ginault says the rest of the metal is machined in the US, and that the movement--all of the parts--are assembled and regulated in the US. Whether that meets the standards for Made in USA is a separate question from whether the details have been shared. I think they have been shared; you appear to doubt them.
> 
> As for the "no excuses" part, what other watch company can you identify, at any price, that provides the details, up front and without asking, you're seeking from Ginault? I've never seen any mfr give a breakdown of the provenance of all component parts of the case and movement. Ginault, if anything, has provided more details than most. (And, if your answer is "Swiss Made" watches provide it, then my retort is that you need to read the rules about "Swiss Made," because it's quite a lax standard compared to the US standard (although it may recently have changed and tightened.)


Are you affiliated with Ginault? Because in my experience when someone pushes a product this hard. They usually have a vested interest. I work for a massive government department and I see it with IT products. Of course that's for real money.


----------



## uvalaw2005 (May 27, 2009)

Is HWA affiliated with Ginault?? Oh my goodness that's funny. No company would be that dumb.


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

eblackmo said:


> Are you affiliated with Ginault? Because in my experience when someone pushes a product this hard. They usually have a vested interest. I work for a massive government department and I see it with IT products. Of course that's for real money.


Dude. Really? No. I am not affiliated with Ginault in any way, except that I got a discount for writing. I wrote more than I promised only because I figured the WUS masses would appreciate the comparison I've offered. I am not telling anybody to buy anything, and you're welcome to borrow or buy yourself a Rolex and a Ginault and do your own comparison. I am telling those who care to read my review that the watch is very well built; compares favorably to the Rolex in terms of fit finish and feel, especially considering price; has a movement that, in my view, remains untested and can't be compared by me to the Rolex; that I was unable, for lack of proper tools, to remove the caseback even to look at the movement, but I intend to pursue that; and, I have questions about the Made in USA claim, which I am pursuing.

If you care to send me your Tissell, I'll be pleased to include it in the lineup. I don't have one. I could use a Tiger-Concepts, but that would be silly. Movement aside--again, I don't know whether the Seagull in the T-C compares to the Ginault, and it might be quite similar--the rest of the TC does not compare to the Ginault, much less the Gen 16610. TC doesn't claim to be building 1:1 quality, whereas Ginault does. Thus the comparison I offered.

You're awfully quick on your trigger, you ought to slow down and think.


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

uvalaw2005 said:


> Is HWA affiliated with Ginault?? Oh my goodness that's funny. No company would be that dumb.


Thank you, Gabriel. I'm quite sure Ginault will be smart enough to get a UVA Law grad, rather than me. What do I know?


----------



## uvalaw2005 (May 27, 2009)

hwa said:


> Thank you, Gabriel. I'm quite sure Ginault will be smart enough to get a UVA Law grad, rather than me. What do I know?


Haha, that'd be dumb too. Like you, I have enough integrity to give my honest opinion of a product put before me. Any company that tried to co-opt either one of us would be just as likely to get burned as to benefit from the association, if the circumstances so required. I suspect Ginault will learn that quickly if it turns out they have been deceptive in their claims regarding American manufacture/assembly.


----------



## aegir (Dec 4, 2016)

eblackmo said:


> Are you affiliated with Ginault? Because in my experience when someone pushes a product this hard. They usually have a vested interest. I work for a massive government department and I see it with IT products. Of course that's for real money.


Not so sure I'd be bragging about working with government IT departments these days.... Just sayin'... What a strange response for such a factual review....


----------



## svorkoetter (Dec 12, 2012)

hwa said:


> It does have that date stop on crown, which drives some folks nuts, but not me.


I wonder if it has the actual date mechanism. When setting the time through 24 hours, is there a point where you can hear the slight click of the date changing? If it does have the date parts, that would be quite telling. After all, why would one go through the trouble and expense of building (or even just assembling) an in-house movement with an unused feature?


----------



## BSHt013 (Feb 27, 2008)

eblackmo said:


> Anway it's not my cup of tea but then neither is the watch that it's based on. Correlation?


First, it doesn't take a genius to answer this question and it's not a "maybe".

Second, I don't think hwa is "pushing" anything. Have a quick look around at his posts before making assumptions.


----------



## Caltex88 (Nov 24, 2016)

CabbageHead said:


> In 2017, there is no excuse for not knowing precisely where a movement comes from, at this or any price. I am not faulting you OP but I am faulting the company. If this company want to be taken seriously, it needs to share movement details. Ginault: Tell us what you are using and stop using those evocative superlatives as a substitute for facts.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


The movement is most likely a TC 2824. The watchmaker claims to assemble it in the U.S., but it's suspected to be mostly Chinese parts. The TC 2824 is very well regarded in certain communities. You can google TC 2824 if you want more information on it.

Since the patents have all expired on the 2824 design, and the movement itself is unbranded, I hope I haven't violated any forum rules by posting the name of the movement used.


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

svorkoetter said:


> I wonder if it has the actual date mechanism. When setting the time through 24 hours, is there a point where you can hear the slight click of the date changing? If it does have the date parts, that would be quite telling. After all, why would one go through the trouble and expense of building (or even just assembling) an in-house movement with an unused feature?


The 16610 clicks; the Ginault does not, so without taking apart I can't be certain, but I suspect the date mechanism has been removed, even if the stem has the second stop.


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

Caltex88 said:


> The movement is most likely a TC 2824. The watchmaker claims to assemble it in the U.S., but it's suspected to be mostly Chinese parts. The TC 2824 is very well regarded in certain communities. You can google TC 2824 if you want more information on it.
> 
> Since the patents have all expired on the 2824 design, and the movement itself is unbranded, I hope I haven't violated any forum rules by posting the name of the movement used.


You may well be correct, but no need to speculate here. I will pursue a caseback opener and see what I can learn. I will update if and when I can get the thing off. (I've always preferred the populism of the typical casebacks that are easily opened!)


----------



## SimpleWatchMan (Apr 25, 2014)

Great comparative review, bro.


----------



## sticky (Apr 5, 2013)

Great comparison - thanks.


----------



## NeedAG (Jul 26, 2012)

Caltex88 said:


> The movement is most likely a TC 2824. The watchmaker claims to assemble it in the U.S., but it's suspected to be mostly Chinese parts. The TC 2824 is very well regarded in certain communities. You can google TC 2824 if you want more information on it.
> 
> Since the patents have all expired on the 2824 design, and the movement itself is unbranded, I hope I haven't violated any forum rules by posting the name of the movement used.


TC 2824 is 26-jewel, different balance wheel, different shock assembly, different springs than Ginault is claiming.

Someone open their Ginault so I don't have to open mine.


----------



## gdb1960 (Dec 23, 2013)

HWA, thanks so much for posting this review. Given the heated discussions going on about this watch it takes some cojones to take on the subject.


----------



## CantFightJose (Dec 29, 2016)

Thanks for a fantastic review.

Now, to sneak $1,300US out of the bank without the wife noticing...


----------



## matthew P (Aug 1, 2013)

SLOW CLAP.... great review.

I enjoyed reading this thread a lot more than the other.


----------



## KJRye (Jul 28, 2014)

Really great review, very subjective look at the Ginault! We need more who can review like you.


----------



## dan_bsht (Jan 16, 2014)

CantFightJose said:


> Thanks for a fantastic review.
> 
> Now, to sneak $1,300US out of the bank without the wife noticing...


Good luck brother. Don't get busted

instagram @ the_watchier


----------



## Cafe Latte (Nov 3, 2014)

eblackmo said:


> I am sure the ebauche isn't the only part of the ginault that's made in China. Why does that matter though? This is f71 and it's a rolex clone it wouldn't exist if rolex didn't exist. It's like one of those time travel paradoxes.
> 
> Maybe the Op could do a review with the tisell sub clone vs the ginault? Then we will know for for sure the ginault is the premier sub clone. It's sh*t hot.


Yes but you dont know though do you. You personally think that other parts may be Chinese made, but that does not make it so..
Chris


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

As promised, an update on the Made in USA claim. My question is quoted here almost in full. With Ginault's permission, I have paraphrased his reply (mods, if you want to see a copy of his email authorizing me to post this, PM me and I'll forward it to you.)

*Question:*

_I note that the dial reads, "Handbuilt in America," and the caseback, "Made in USA." &#8230; I have a particular interest in the claim, and I am hoping you can provide some information to me._

_According to the FTC standard (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/doc...a-standard.pdf), the claim written on the dial and in the watch box, Handbuilt in America, and the one made on the caseback, Made in USA, appear problematic. Per the FTC, "For a product to be called Made in USA ... without qualification or limits on the claim, the product must be 'all or virtually all' made in the U.S.," meaning the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories and possessions. "All or virtually all" means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no - or negligible - foreign content."_

_Questions exist as to the source of the lume and the dial, as the sands are of uncertain source and you write that, "a master dial maker in the United Kingdom who has worked for a famous Swiss watch company specializing in dial production to help us realize this dream." The movement presents another trouble spot. According to your blog post on the movement, "there are still some parts absent of domestic suppliers. Those parts are the hairspring, the mainspring, the red synthetic sapphire crystals also known as jewels, and the shock absorber." The shock absorber, you say, is Chinese: "The three leafs cherry blossom shaped shock absorber is Chinese. It is Wang Jia Ling shock absorber." Further, the mainspring and hairspring are sourced from Nivarox, which I believe to be a Swiss manufacturer. Those three parts are integral to the movement, so I'm wondering what to make of that._

_I'd like to wear this watch with pride &#8230;. I have watches from many countries, and this one does not have to be "Made in the USA" or "Handbuilt in America," but if it says that, expressly, on the front and back of the watch, and in the watch box, it's important to me that it be correct. Otherwise, the claim should be omitted or altered._

_I know the "Swiss Made" claim is subject to very much looser rules, and the US rule is both restrictive and can be hard to discern, but until the law changes (and perhaps it should), I'd like to comply with it. Anyway, I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts._

*Answer (paraphrased at Ginault's request, but the paraphrasing was not vetted by Ginault):*

_Each watch was built and assembled by Ginault's watchmakers. _

_Caliber 7275 is not a Ginault design, and therefore is not "in house." All parts, except for the hairspring, mainspring, jewels, and shock absorber, were made, assembled, and regulated in the US by Ginault's master watchmaker. __Ginault does not claim to make all the other parts, but rather sources them from US providers, and claims they are comparable to Swiss and "way nicer than the Chinese clones." Ginault says, "The end game is to build a brand and watches that will eventually stand shoulder to shoulder with the Swiss giants." _

_In terms of the dial and watch box, which state, "Handbuilt in America," Ginault denies any intent to deceive or to parse the law; it chose "Handbuilt in America,"__ believing that to be true. It stands by the claim._

_As for the casebacks, Ginault states that they are leftovers from its earlier model, the BM1. Ginault tells me it has contacted legal counsel regarding the issue, and will provide replacements if amendment is needed. _

*So, where do we stand?*

I will refrain from offering legal conclusions here, other than to predict that the statements are problematic. The US standard is strict, and I don't know how you can meet it when using no fewer than four integral parts sourced from the Swiss and Chinese. Hopefully it's naivete and not deceit at play here-Ginault was straight and forthcoming with me, but I can't test the facts--and I don't know nearly enough about the company or its principals to offer any assessments, much less firm conclusions. It is telling that Ginault has signaled a willingness to replace the casebacks if necessary. If the dial proves problematic for the same reason, I suppose we'll see what happens. That's a trickier fix&#8230;

Meanwhile, none of that legal business discredits the claims regarding the quality of the movement. It would be nice for there to be some way to establish a factual basis for it, but email will never suffice. Sooner or later, I hope, Ginault will open its doors and let someone knowledgeable tour its facilities and make a report. The quality of the crystal, mid-case, bezel assembly, dial, hands, and bracelet are easy enough to assess; it's the movement that remains at issue as far as I'm concerned. As to that issue, here's my thinking: if Ginault really did build its own clone of the 2824, which it can regulate to COSC standards, and which it's assembling in the US of a mix of US, Swiss, and Chinese parts, it's not only newsworthy for the watch geeks of the world, it's also a wonder that it can offer such a thing even at the MSRP of $1299. Sooner or later, some independent watchmaker will get his hands on one of the movements, and then we'll know. Until then, speculation and teeth-gnashing!


----------



## Cafe Latte (Nov 3, 2014)

It really does look like (from the response at least) that the movement may well be mostly made in America! Very interesting, I would love to have this confirmed though, but this watch is becoming more interesting all the time.
Chris


----------



## Perdendosi (May 10, 2012)

First of all, thanks for the comprehensive review, and for updating it as necessary. Thanks for sending Ginault the e-mail and reprinting the response. All of this is very helpful.

Still, I would not buy this watch because of its deceptive advertising, in what I believe is violation of FTC rules. Why? Because I've read and watched stories about how hard it was for RGM to even attempt to manufacture a watch that would comply with the FTC rules about "Made in America." I've seen how Shinola (with more or less good intentions) pulled the wool over consumers' eyes about their "Sort-of" "Made in America" watches (and they never say "Made in the USA" directly on their products). With our country's political situation right now (and I'm not going further than that), products being produced in America command great weight. And while I commend American manufacturing, all manufacturers have to follow the same rules. (I'm still curious to know how they get all these watch parts made in the U.S.... maybe they've found a supplier, but if that's the case, I would have thought we would have heard about them by now). Now, maybe if they replace the case back, I'll be a little less angry, but to even produce such a case back (without thinking about why none of these other assembled-in-the-US companies like Lum-Tec and Shinola haven't said "Made in the USA)makes me question their motives. (And while they're transparent about which parts are American and which are not, they're very close to the vest about where the American parts are coming from. Sure, that may be a trade secret, but using terms like "made" or "cut" only add to the opaqueness of their disclosures. If they're really, REALLY making a sub-$2k watch with all American made parts except for the balance, jewels, mainspring, shock mechanism, I would think they would be shouting this from the rooftops and being absolutely forthright about their sources. (E.g., we contracted with a steel forge and fabrication company in Maine to produce our cases. The gears are created by using a proprietary cad program and a specialized computer driven stamp, with a die created by our watchmaker. They don't have to give the whole secret up, but they need to give us more information than the marketing speak on their website.)

Second, I think "Precision Chronometer" is false advertising. Yes, "Chronometer" doesn't have to mean COSC-certified, (which is what COSC has determined it means), but you're buying a Rolex sub clone here. That's a COSC chronometer. If you put "chronometer" on your dial, you're making it likely that relevant consumers (and we're talking $1k+ watch buyers here, not the average joe on the street) will believe the movement to be similar to a sub -- that is a COSC certified chronometer.
I agree with your assessment regarding this "unknown" movement. Particularly if they're claiming that it has COSC-level specs. (How many positions? How much temperature difference? There's a huge difference between getting a watch regulated to +/- 4 seconds before it goes out the door, and having a good faith belief that it will keep that spec, regardless of how the watch is stored or what conditions it might be subject to.)

Still, though, thanks for the review. I hope the company gets their claims sorted out and that they do, in fact, create an affordable, American-made, automatic watch. That'd be great competition in the microbrand sphere.


----------



## Sonic_driftwood (Mar 5, 2014)

eblackmo said:


> Are you affiliated with Ginault? Because in my experience when someone pushes a product this hard. They usually have a vested interest. I work for a massive government department and I see it with IT products. Of course that's for real money.


Your problem, sir, is twofold. First, you work for the government (at some level). Second, you work in an IT part of the government. The contracting and deals that happen when those two areas converge are absolutely beyond rational comprehension. I wouldn't apply those types of rationales to the open market. I am government (federal), and companies simply cannot operate that way in my opinion.

I could be totally wrong about the company, and I seriously doubt I am wrong about HWA, but comparing a watch microbrand to government IT is a stretch on any level. I've been pushed products as a government manager. This is hardly "a push".

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sriracha (May 2, 2014)

Now,time to get that movement tear down


----------



## CabbageHead (Feb 15, 2016)

The description of how that movement came together is downright scary. What a shame too. They seem to have done a great job on the case and bracelet only to end up with a frankenmovement. Stick an ETA in there and I'd look at it. Until then, I wont touch this with a 10 foot pole.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


----------



## BSHt013 (Feb 27, 2008)

Please correct me if I'm wrong (as I often am), but couldn't "hand built" equate to "hand assembled" in the "fill in country here"?

I know MKII warranty cards state built in USA. Are you all saying the card is significantly different from the dial?


----------



## valuewatchguy (Jun 16, 2012)

thach said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong (as I often am), but couldn't "hand built" equate to "hand assembled" in the "fill in country here"?
> 
> I know MKII warranty cards state built in USA. Are you all saying the card is significantly different from the dial?


The word built implies assembly whereas the word made implies manufacturing......in my perspective.

I realize at some point we are parsing words to death though.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## aegir (Dec 4, 2016)

Many companies use built in USA, or built in America to refer to assembly in the states with foreign parts. Stihl, Hyundai, DeWalt.. wow Dewalt (good lawyers there). In case anyone is too lazy to google it, Dewalt's phrase is "Made in the USA" in huge letters, just underneath that it reads "with global materials".


----------



## Radar1 (Mar 1, 2013)

aegir said:


> Many companies use built in USA, or built in America to refer to assembly in the states with foreign parts. Stihl, Hyundai, DeWalt.. wow Dewalt (good lawyers there). In case anyone is too lazy to google it, Dewalt's phrase is "Made in the USA" in huge letters, just underneath that it reads "with global materials".


Maybe they need that qualifier. I could be wrong but thought the "Hand Built in America" wording is ok. If there was an error made with the "Made in the USA" references, I do not believe it was malicious in any way.


----------



## BSHt013 (Feb 27, 2008)

user error


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

Radar1 said:


> Maybe they need that qualifier. I could be wrong but thought the "Hand Built in America" wording is ok. If there was an error made with the "Made in the USA" references, I do not believe it was malicious in any way.


You are free to draw conclusions and beliefs as you like. For my part, the word I prefer is "hope," because I have no sound, rational basis for knowing whether there is malicious or deceptive intent. I do not know that to be true. At the moment, the principals of the company are unknown, the employees are unknown, the sources of parts--except those specifically acknowledged as Swiss and Chinese by brand name--are unknown.

Conjecture--and thank you @perdendosi for your thoughtful words, with which I largely agree--movement aside, the OR is beautiful. If it had a base Chinese clone 2824, it would be worth the $520 I paid for it. But it's MSRP is $1299, and the claim is that it has an American clone 2824, that is "way better" than the Chinese clone, and on par with the "Swiss giants." If they are really building an American clone ETA that can hold COSC standards even if it hasn't been COSC-blessed, that would be newsworthy, no? And if it's a movement hand-built in the US by a "master watchmaker," how on earth are they selling that for $1299? Yet, where's the press? Where's the buzz? There's none. It's just here.

I will maintain my caution until I learn more. Whoever is answering emails over at Ginault with the "JM" signature is polite and responsive and pleasant to deal with. But there is much that still does not add up.


----------



## Radar1 (Mar 1, 2013)

hwa said:


> You are free to draw conclusions and beliefs as you like.


With that freedom I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt. An expression that they would put the caseback to right - if that wording was ill-advised - shows at minimum good faith on their part. Glass half full...


----------



## Sonic_driftwood (Mar 5, 2014)

I'm sure DeWalt has good lawyers! And, as a user of several of their tools on a regular basis, they could say they are made in China and I wouldn't blink at buying more. Customer reviews will all expose if the quality slips and so I can buy with confidence. Hence, these great customer reviews...and by great I mean elucidating. Because now you could buy with more confidence 

I can come on strong on occasion, but at heart I'm ambivalent, as this is a hobby after all...not paying the mortgage. The question of intent is always a challenging one. Intent to deceive even more challenging. If it is built in the US and they are saying "made" in the US, perhaps they are unknowing of the law (no excuse as we all know), or...banking on it slipping by and attracting that extra market of folks who would like to have a watch that says such a thing. Don't think for a moment that I haven't thought of buying an RGM for the novelty of it. That's where the money is here...in the novelty.

Marketing is marketing. Illegal is illegal. Somebody will parse it out in the end, no doubt.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

Radar1 said:


> With that freedom I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt. An expression that they would put the caseback to right - if that wording was ill-advised - shows at minimum good faith on their part. Glass half full...


sure hope for your sake it all comes out right in the wash; you're deep in the tank for them.


----------



## Radar1 (Mar 1, 2013)

hwa said:


> sure hope for your sake it all comes out right in the wash; you're deep in the tank for them.


"Deep in the tank"?? Lol. What happens to me and my $580 if the intent of the company is never established - or by some miracle as malicious? Nothing. I go on enjoying a very fine piece - or any of a number of others in my box. This is not life and death here, and I bear zero legal accountability. My hope is that if the construction of the watch doesn't satisfy the attendant legal stringencies, Ginault will show willingness to revise wording on their products as necessary (oh wait, they have already done that?). Just who do you think is going to hold their feet to the fire and determine without a shred of doubt what the intent was? The most that will come of this is an admission of error (if that is warranted) and some corrective action by Ginault. You won't ever get any absolutes about malicious intent and just assuming that is the company's angle is pretty harsh. No sworn affidavits or grand jury involvement. Just my opinion.

Let me remind you of your comments on the F74 thread about not being a "I told you so" sort of person. That's exactly what drips from your comments, in an obtuse way. I love the watch, have no stocks or shares in Ginault and certainly no liability whatsoever. I intend to enjoy it for what it appears to be - a very nicely executed Sub homage.


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

Radar1 said:


> "Deep in the tank"?? Lol. What happens to me and my $580 if the intent of the company is never established - or by some miracle as malicious? Nothing. I go on enjoying a very fine piece - or any of a number of others in my box. This is not life and death here, and I bear zero legal accountability. My hope is that if the construction of the watch doesn't satisfy the attendant legal stringencies, Ginault will show willingness to revise wording on their products as necessary (oh wait, they have already done that?). Just who do you think is going to hold their feet to the fire and determine without a shred of doubt what the intent was? The most that will come of this is an admission of error (if that is warranted) and some corrective action by Ginault. You won't ever get any absolutes about malicious intent and just assuming that is the company's angle is pretty harsh. No sworn affidavits or grand jury involvement. Just my opinion.
> 
> Let me remind you of your comments on the F74 thread about not being a "I told you so" sort of person. That's exactly what drips from your comments, in an obtuse way. I love the watch, have no stocks or shares in Ginault and certainly no liability whatsoever. I intend to enjoy it for what it appears to be - a very nicely executed Sub homage.


Excuse me if you thought i was being obtuse. By saying you were deep in the tank, perhaps i should've said you sound like a shill. Enough already.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Radar1 (Mar 1, 2013)

hwa said:


> Excuse me if you thought i was being obtuse. By saying you were deep in the tank, perhaps i should've said you sound like a shill. Enough already.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think you have more to offer than this.


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

More? Okay. "I told you so," was typed in context of a preference for prospective warnings rather than retrospective judgments. Forewarned is forearmed, so to speak. It was not in context of any perceived need, at the time, repeatedly to ask you cut it the hell out. In the latter context, yes, I have told you so about three times now, and i'm hoping the third time's the charm. I have yet to tell anybody "I told you so," with respect to purchasing a Ginault; if ever there is a need, presumably it would be in yet a third context, as in, "you bought it and like it? I told you so," or, "you didn't believe it really said Made in USA on back? I told you so." You get the drift.

You invited more, you got more. Now, please give it a rest.


----------



## Cafe Latte (Nov 3, 2014)

Guys chill, I am actually interested in this thread, if someone wants to break it let them go away. This was a great review, I am interested in more on the movement, lets try to ind out where it really comes from.
There is too much aggression here lets not rise to the BS and enjoy watches.
Chris


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

Hoping to get caseback off tonight, time permitting. Fingers crossed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Don Logan (Mar 17, 2013)

Perdendosi said:


> Still, though, thanks for the review. I hope the company gets their claims sorted out and that they do, in fact, create an affordable, American-made, automatic watch. That'd be great competition in the microbrand sphere.


I concur completely. I also think giving them the benefit of the doubt that they were simply mistaken in their claim of national origin is just as fair as NOT giving them the benefit of the doubt considering the marketing claims. I continue to be highly skeptical that they didn't/don't know any better but my opinion of Ginault would change significantly for the better if they would simply correct this.

I'll even go as far as to say if everything but the movement is in fact as American as stand up comedy then this is a fantastic step towards the eventual conclusion a lot of us expecting.

And for the sake of clarity, because I could see how this could get tricky, I wanna say my opinions on this matter have nothing to do with my politics the same way my love of the film "Casablanca" and other movies shot in black and white has nothing to do with my opinions of IMAX movies.

My being an American is a coincidence. No one should be lied to by Ginault regardless nationality.


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

Cracked the caseback. Here's pics. Looks pretty, but not sure I learned anything!










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hanshananigan (Apr 8, 2012)

Let's call this a *bump*. Any commentary from someone who can, um, comment?


----------



## lorsban (Nov 20, 2009)

Looks like a standard movement. Could come from anywhere.

I doubt tho that Ginault would violate the rules regarding their Made In the US thing. Too risky for a young company. 

People who have issue with it should simply just avoid or report it, not make a big pointless stink here among enthusiasts who aren't experts. 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## Sonic_driftwood (Mar 5, 2014)

Tahoe? Sweet! Headed there in about 12hrs...lots of snow and sweet peaks. I don't ski well, but I love ski lodges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Buellrider (Mar 31, 2014)

Good luck with that!


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

hanshananigan said:


> Let's call this a *bump*. Any commentary from someone who can, um, comment?


Here's the difficulty: as others have said, the Ginault movement looks generic. Merely printing or engraving something on the rotor or plates wouldn't prove anything, but the point is that when watchmakers build something, they tend to show some ego about it. Fancy finishing, sapphire casebacks. That sort of thing. Here, nothing.

As we all know, there's been a lot of heat around here over the Ginault's provenance. Frankly, that heat surprises me. Those who've held one I think uniformly have noted its build quality. The only questions that have been raised about it relate to claims of provenance, which is not surprising given the dearth of truly American Made watches--not just American assembled, but American built with American movements, which the Ginault claims to be. You can argue jingoism all you want; Ginault is playing off of those instincts, trying to make a buck off of them, so it's totally fair game to hold them to their claims.

Let's be clear: if Ginault claimed to be selling watches from asian factories, nobody around here would express much interest or concern over the truth of that statement, because we know that so many of watches come from asian factories. Even the Swiss Made label is getting revamped and tightened, if I have my guess because too many cheap watches were diluting the value of the label.

Made in USA and Hand Built in America are marks that are protected by law, tend to be strictly enforced, and interestingly, historically are tied to BOTH the labor movement and also those who tend to vote against the interests of the labor movement. If you're American, you know what I'm talking about; if you're not, you might be surprised at the way in which those groups intersect around patriotic issues. Ginault walked right into the middle of that heated space--knowingly or not--and it's no surprise to any American here on WUS that it's invited scrutiny.

Ginault has made some big claims in support of the sale of its watches, it's trading off those claims, and unless and until it does what so many others have done--opened its doors and let in some sunlight--it's going to take a beating and, I think, deservedly so. Thus, my surprise at the heat from those who wonder at the scrutiny. I'm not saying everybody has to care--there are larger legal, moral, and ethical issues out there--but disinterest need not translate into disdain towards those who choose to hold Ginault to the truth of its claims.

For example of what I'm talking about: Invited to tour RGM Watch Company! â€" RGM Watch Co. Here's a sample:

This tour will allow you to see this machinery in motion as he demonstrates how we recreate some of the beautiful engraved patterns characteristic of our watches. Witness firsthand how we marry old with new by observing vintage machines working in harmony with modern technology to create unique timepieces.
The tour will also provide the opportunity to view the making and finishing of watch parts and assembly of movements. We will provide our guests time to examine our timepieces. Should you decide to take advantage of this occasion to acquire one of our watches for yourself, we will be offering special show prices for that day only.


----------



## Cafe Latte (Nov 3, 2014)

Lets just ask who makes the movement they should be proud to answer if it is a company in America, why not?
Chris


----------



## Cigarbob (Jul 19, 2015)

Is there anything at all about the movement that doesn't look exactly like a drop in Chinese clone?


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

Cigarbob said:


> Is there anything at all about the movement that doesn't look exactly like a drop in Chinese clone?


That's just it. I have plainer looking Chinese clones, and better looking Chinese clones. Levels of finishing can differ with those, just like levels of finish on the Swiss movements can and do differ.

The Chinese are perfectly capable of producing a rotor or plate finished to the same quality/appearance as a Swiss rotor or plate, and the same is true of anybody, anywhere, with the machinery to do it. To coin a phrase, it's not rocket science.

Perhaps it's time to emphasize: I didn't buy the Ginault because I especially want an American-made watch. If that was what I was after, I'd sell off a bunch of my watches and get one of those RGM 801As (if only they were 40mm!). Like many of us, I have watches from here, there, and everywhere. It personally pains me that there's a whiff of racism around this issue; as far as I'm concerned, the issue primarily concerns honesty, and secondarily concerns interest in a resurgence of American manufacturing (which has been on a downward slope for a long time now, but I'll leave debates over labor economics and globalism for another place).


----------



## NeedAG (Jul 26, 2012)

Cigarbob said:


> Is there anything at all about the movement that doesn't look exactly like a drop in Chinese clone?


Yes: the balance and shock assembly are not off-the-shelf. Could they have had a run built with this hardware and assembled in China? You bet. Did they?

Mine does not run like any Chinese-assembled movement I have ever seen. Wherever it was assembled, it was built carefully.

IMO this makes a drop-in clone unlikely.

The significant thing in the case back shot is the fact that the case has rotate-to-remove Rolex movement mounts. Appears it would accept a 3135 without a mov't ring. Make of that what you will. :-d


----------



## Perdendosi (May 10, 2012)

hwa said:


> Here's the difficulty: as others have said, the Ginault movement looks generic. Merely printing or engraving something on the rotor or plates wouldn't prove anything, but the point is that when watchmakers build something, they tend to show some ego about it. Fancy finishing, sapphire casebacks. That sort of thing. Here, nothing.
> 
> As we all know, there's been a lot of heat around here over the Ginault's provenance. Frankly, that heat surprises me. Those who've held one I think uniformly have noted its build quality. The only questions that have been raised about it relate to claims of provenance, which is not surprising given the dearth of truly American Made watches--not just American assembled, but American built with American movements, which the Ginault claims to be. You can argue jingoism all you want; Ginault is playing off of those instincts, trying to make a buck off of them, so it's totally fair game to hold them to their claims.
> 
> ...


So well said. I couldn't agree more.


----------



## dmjonez (Jul 14, 2013)

If I wanted another diver, I think I'd buy the Ginault in a second. But, to be frank, the "Made in America but maybe not" thing has actually put me off a bit. I haven't held one, but all the reviews seem to rave about the quality. I think I'd like it just as much (probably more) if they either: a. justified and verified the USA claim or b. admitted like most micros (of which I DO own quite a few) that it is actually made "in many places"...

FWIW

EDIT: Maybe what we need, now that we really have achieved a global market place, is a "MADE ON EARTH" label


----------



## ChristoO (Dec 27, 2012)

Wow! Awesome review! Great idea posting it in the affordable watch section. I have one on the way(shipped yesterday) and might choose to post my review here also. Members in the dive section seem to flip into full attack mode at the first sight of the word Ginault. Thank you for the direct homage comparison.


----------



## Cafe Latte (Nov 3, 2014)

I would really like to know if the movement is really American made, I think Ginault need to come clean as to who makes it. Also they need to clean up their web page they are not doing themselves any favors. The watch seems to me to be an excellent watch wherever the movement is made, but clarification is needed. Just for interest my new Tisell diver lost 3 seconds the first day, day two it lost only one second and today so far it lost nothing, so it looks like it has settled down to -1 second a day or spot on. The Swiss need to be very scared, I personally think eta stopping supplying movements to be the best thing that could have happened to the watch industry. It is forcing others to come up decent movements which they are doing, the 9015 for example is an excellent movement, some say better than the eta's 2892, whatever mine is showing to be stunningly accurate anyway.
Just my opinion, but I really think that ETA stopping the supply of movements was a massive miscalculation on their part, I really think they shot themselves in the foot, it no longer needs to be Swiss to be any good..And that is a good thing!
Chris


----------



## Cafe Latte (Nov 3, 2014)

Just to add to my last post, I really really hope that Ginault are using a mostly American made movement, not that it really matters if it is a good movement wherever it is from, but it will mean the American watch industry is getting a new lease of life if this really is being made in the USA. The next 10 years IMO are going to be very interesting for watches and movements, I think we will see more very very good Asian movements being produced that will put the cat further among the pigeons for the Swiss watch industry, I hope other counties like the USA are involved too.
Chris


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

Gave a lot of thought to the time that's passed since Ginault posted its original thread and solicited, with the help of significant discounts, the posting of numerous "review" threads by me and other early purchasers. Significant questions abound about the provenance of the watch and honesty of the advertising claims, and those questions are being met largely with silence under circumstances where the manufacturer could readily dispel doubts. I decided to meet the manufacturer's silence with my own, so I replaced my original post and deleted all of my posts regarding this watch from all of the threads where I took the time to comment. May have missed one or two along the way, and can't delete posts that have been quoted by others, but it's the best I can do to roll back the clock.

Hopefully, the manufacturer will pull back the curtain and substantiate its claims with some sunlight. Until then, I think I'll stay quiet in the dark.


----------



## Cafe Latte (Nov 3, 2014)

hwa said:


> Gave a lot of thought to the time that's passed since Ginault posted its original thread and solicited, with the help of significant discounts, the posting of numerous "review" threads by me and other early purchasers. Significant questions abound about the provenance of the watch and honesty of the advertising claims, and those questions are being met largely with silence under circumstances where the manufacturer could readily dispel doubts. I decided to meet the manufacturer's silence with my own, so I replaced my original post and deleted all of my posts regarding this watch from all of the threads where I took the time to comment. May have missed one or two along the way, and can't delete posts that have been quoted by others, but it's the best I can do to roll back the clock.
> 
> Hopefully, the manufacturer will pull back the curtain and substantiate its claims with some sunlight. Until then, I think I'll stay quiet in the dark.


Have asked for clarification of the companies involved in the movement?
Chris


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

hwa said:


> Gave a lot of thought to the time that's passed since Ginault posted its original thread and solicited, with the help of significant discounts, the posting of numerous "review" threads by me and other early purchasers. Significant questions abound about the provenance of the watch and honesty of the advertising claims, and those questions are being met largely with silence under circumstances where the manufacturer could readily dispel doubts. I decided to meet the manufacturer's silence with my own, so I replaced my original post and deleted all of my posts regarding this watch from all of the threads where I took the time to comment. May have missed one or two along the way, and can't delete posts that have been quoted by others, but it's the best I can do to roll back the clock.
> 
> Hopefully, the manufacturer will pull back the curtain and substantiate its claims with some sunlight. Until then, I think I'll stay quiet in the dark.


Quite an extreme course of action there HWA. Weren't all the doubts about provenance and the honest of the advertising already there when you bought one?

I may have missed any recent developments on this; got a little bored of all of it!


----------



## Quicksilver (Jan 12, 2012)

hwa said:


> Gave a lot of thought to the time that's passed since Ginault posted its original thread and solicited, with the help of significant discounts, the posting of numerous "review" threads by me and other early purchasers. Significant questions abound about the provenance of the watch and honesty of the advertising claims, and those questions are being met largely with silence under circumstances where the manufacturer could readily dispel doubts. I decided to meet the manufacturer's silence with my own, so I replaced my original post and deleted all of my posts regarding this watch from all of the threads where I took the time to comment. May have missed one or two along the way, and can't delete posts that have been quoted by others, but it's the best I can do to roll back the clock.
> 
> Hopefully, the manufacturer will pull back the curtain and substantiate its claims with some sunlight. Until then, I think I'll stay quiet in the dark.


This I do not agree with. If you review was done with no bias why do you feel the necessity to delete everything? You have voiced very strong opinions along the way, posted a review , received a discount and now decide to shrink back into your shell? Silly

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mike120 (Aug 1, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> Quite an extreme course of action there HWA. Weren't all the doubts about provenance and the honest of the advertising already there when you bought one?
> 
> I may have missed any recent developments on this; got a little bored of all of it!


I think he, along with several others, have asked Ginault for clarification and haven't gotten any..... they'll answer questions pertaining to anything but the provenance all day long, and I think that's from where the frustration stems.


----------



## Stellite (Aug 3, 2011)

Quicksilver said:


> This I do not agree with. If you review was done with no bias why do you feel the necessity to delete everything? You have voiced very strong opinions along the way, posted a review , received a discount and now decide to shrink back into your shell? Silly
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I would love to know why this company has caused so much fighting as I am interested in the watch. Here are some points that come to my mind:

1. If you did an honest review you should stand by that. You made a deal. You backed out of it, own up to it or send the watch back.
2. Having said that I do believe the company has many questions that need answering. I will post these next.
3. Owner/CEO should be on here explaining and answering questions we have.
4. Were is the manufacturing facility that makes the cases. Where are all the other components made?
5. Movement? where you sourcing it from and is it true you are assembling it yourself?
6. $1300 for a no name brand is lot. Especially if it comes out that your factories are all in China.
7. $500 normal pricing is more likely where you belong. However, you have some serious competition there like Steinhart, Cward and several more.

I own dive watches at all levels, from BP50F down to Invicta 8926. I feel that I have a good grasp of the dive watch world as many on the forums do. I will not be taken by good advertising that does not add up. I also know manufacturing and engineering. I do believe you, Ginault, know what entails the "made in the USA" banner. It is a deceiving banner when you have companies performing Maquiladora operations. I have seen these operations personally. Most of the product is manufactured outside the USA and major components assembled in the USA, giving you the ability to call it made in the USA. But when you state that the cases are machined in the USA and the movements are assembled in the USA, you have taken it to another level. That means you have manufacturing somewhere in the USA. Where is it?

I am seriously interested as I can truly compare this watch to many in my herd. But I am not about to shell out $500 for something with no real background and with so many questions that need answering. Many in here including the OP of this thread do have questions that need answering. Ginault, come on here and do full disclosure. Lets see what you got. I am certainly interested if you are truly made in the USA. I have plenty of divers don't mind a few more:


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mike120 said:


> I think he, along with several others, have asked Ginault for clarification and haven't gotten any..... they'll answer questions pertaining to anything but the provenance all day long, and I think that's from where the frustration stems.


It's been said before that you'd be unlikely to get answers from a luxury Swiss brand about sourcing, so what's any different here?


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

To answer a couple of questions:

1. I exchanged a number of emails with Ginault. Once, I asked about the veracity of the Hand Built in America and Made in USA claims, and Ginault's reply--which it authorized me to share here--was to double-down on those claims, except to acknowledge that Made in USA might be a stretch and they might be making new casebacks. That answer did not come with any evidence other than bare assertions of veracity; instead, Ginault said it was "preparing a draft here to answer many of these questions to post later on WUS." That was on January 10, and by that date the questions of provenance had been percolating, and indeed boiling here on WUS, for almost 3 weeks. 

A few days ago, I emailed to ask whether the Ginault movement might be the same as another alleged American-made ETA clone, but to date have not received any response. So, yes, @Cafe Latte, I have asked for clarification. Perhaps I will receive it; perhaps not.

2. @Hornet99, yes, doubts about provenance and honesty of advertising were present from the outset. Anyone who knows much of anything about the watch industry knows how unusual it is to find a watch that claims to be Hand Built in America and/or Made in USA due to the stringency of those requirements. I bought a Ginault because of, not despite, those claims, because I wanted to see for myself. The watch itself only invites more questions; it doesn't answer any. I had hoped those questions would be answered, but they haven't yet, and I find that disconcerting.

3. So, why did I delete my posts? Couple reasons:

first, I choose not to be placed into a position by Ginault where my honest assessment of the quality of the watch could encourage others to buy it, when I, personally, think the claims of provenance don't add up. I don't want to be any part of that.

second, I chose to delete my posts because I let myself get dragged into messy exchanges with adherents of Ginault's claims. I don't come here to get drawn into stupid, pitched battles with folks who don't care whether the advertising is true or not, or choose to give Ginault the benefit of a doubt that Ginault itself caused with its advertising campaign. I choose not to accept at face value Ginault's claims, and I decided not to perpetuate my role in those heated exchanges. If I could delete those of my posts that others quoted, I would. But I can't, so I won't.

4. @Quicksilver, I'm not going to get into a dispute with you. You're a moderator, and I'm not. There's a power imbalance there, so I can't win. What I can say is, if you think I'm "shrinking into my shell," you don't know me. You can characterize it as you like, but I can tell you that's not my style, and it's not what I'm doing. What I am doing, rather, is withdrawing my support from Ginault until such time as Ginault provides answers to legitimate questions that only it can provide, whether by affirmatively supporting its express claims, or by opening its doors to some other neutral observer to report back to the community. That's the only leverage I have. If you find that "silly," so be it. It's at least not naive.

5. As for whether I'm holding up my end of the deal, that's between me and Ginault. If Ginault wants to have that conversation, that'd make my day.


----------



## mike120 (Aug 1, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> It's been said before that you'd be unlikely to get answers from a luxury Swiss brand about sourcing, so what's any different here?


----------



## OSUMBA2003 (Jan 1, 2012)

Not having read the entire thread, but getting the gist of the issues at hand (and having previously read the bizarre and grandiose claims on Ginault's website), it seems to me that the original review should remain, as the OP received a nice discount in consideration for the review.

However, if there are issues about the provenance/claims made about the watch, those issue should be appended to the original review, as they seem relevant.


----------



## vmarks (Dec 21, 2010)

Hornet99 said:


> It's been said before that you'd be unlikely to get answers from a luxury Swiss brand about sourcing, so what's any different here?


O&W told me their cases are made in China, and that this is true for most Swiss watch companies these days.

Seven Friday tells you country of origin for their components. (although this may be stretching the definition of luxury).

However, when you make the made in USA claim, you have to be able to show that "all or virtually all" major components are sourced from the US. If you buy in parts, you have to have your supplier show what percentage of the parts supplied are of foreign content.

Made in USA is more stringent than Swiss Made.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

mike120 said:


> View attachment 10528642





vmarks said:


> O&W told me their cases are made in China, and that this is true for most Swiss watch companies these days.
> 
> Seven Friday tells you country of origin for their components. (although this may be stretching the definition of luxury).
> 
> ...


Fair enough guys, I was trying to make the point that the manufacturer doesn't necessarily have to prove the provenance to the customer, but he does have to with the regulatory authority in the USA I'd have thought?


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

All,

It seems my editing of my posts runs afoul of a WUS rule. Perhaps I should have known better, but I didn't. So, public service announcement for the day: 

"Rule 14: Members are free to leave, but not free to change the history of a discussion. Members wishing to leave Watchuseek can do so by contacting the admin at any time. Their account will then be set to 'inactive' and their posts will remain."


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

hwa said:


> To answer a couple of questions:
> 
> 1. I exchanged a number of emails with Ginault. Once, I asked about the veracity of the Hand Built in America and Made in USA claims, and Ginault's reply--which it authorized me to share here--was to double-down on those claims, except to acknowledge that Made in USA might be a stretch and they might be making new casebacks. That answer did not come with any evidence other than bare assertions of veracity; instead, Ginault said it was "preparing a draft here to answer many of these questions to post later on WUS." That was on January 10, and by that date the questions of provenance had been percolating, and indeed boiling here on WUS, for almost 3 weeks.
> 
> ...


Fair points I'll grant you. Would you consider returning the watch for a refund? That would seem to be the ultimate end game with your stance......


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

Hornet99 said:


> Fair enough guys, I was trying to make the point that the manufacturer doesn't necessarily have to prove the provenance to the customer, but he does have to with the regulatory authority in the USA I'd have thought?


Doesn't work that way with the Federal Trade Commission. Advance permission not required, but you can be held accountable if your claims prove to be untrue.


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

Hornet99 said:


> Fair points I'll grant you. Would you consider returning the watch for a refund? That would seem to be the ultimate end game with your stance......


My end game is and remains sunlight: I hope the claims prove true, and hope that Ginault will do what is required to prove them true. None of us here on WUS can do that for them.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

hwa said:


> Doesn't work that way with the Federal Trade Commission. Advance permission not required, but you can be held accountable if your claims prove to be untrue.


Sorry, wasn't very clear there. I meant what you said......


----------



## vmarks (Dec 21, 2010)

He has to be able to withstand audit following a complaint- I believe. 

You don't pre-register, but once there's a complaint you have to be able to show the federal trade commission where it all comes from, and just using American suppliers isn't enough-you have to have the country of origin for the parts they supply.


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

hwa said:


> My end game is and remains sunlight: I hope the claims prove true, and hope that Ginault will do what is required to prove them true. None of us here on WUS can do that for them.


Well, I sincerely hope that this all works out for the best. Pity that Ginault don't get involved, would be much simpler.......


----------



## Hornet99 (Jun 27, 2015)

vmarks said:


> He has to be able to withstand audit following a complaint- I believe.
> 
> You don't pre-register, but once there's a complaint you have to be able to show the federal trade commission where it all comes from, and just using American suppliers isn't enough-you have to have the country of origin for the parts they supply.


......there's a rather extreme solution to all of this controversy.


----------



## mcotignola (Oct 29, 2011)

hwa said:


> Gave a lot of thought to the time that's passed since Ginault posted its original thread and solicited, with the help of significant discounts, the posting of numerous "review" threads by me and other early purchasers. Significant questions abound about the provenance of the watch and honesty of the advertising claims, and those questions are being met largely with silence under circumstances where the manufacturer could readily dispel doubts. I decided to meet the manufacturer's silence with my own, so I replaced my original post and deleted all of my posts regarding this watch from all of the threads where I took the time to comment. May have missed one or two along the way, and can't delete posts that have been quoted by others, but it's the best I can do to roll back the clock.
> 
> Hopefully, the manufacturer will pull back the curtain and substantiate its claims with some sunlight. Until then, I think I'll stay quiet in the dark.


HWA,

You wrote a good review and you should stand by your original comments. Removing your comments was probably not the best idea. Let Ginault answer the questions regarding sourcing and assembly of this watch.

Thanks,
MAC

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

I have restored my original post per Forum Rule 14 as required by the moderators. I have added a note at the top of the post to explain my reasons for complying, and updated my conclusion at the bottom of the post with an explanation. I guess this whole affair is another example of the old adage so often repeated around these parts: buy the seller, guys, not the watch.


----------



## dhodgins (Aug 4, 2006)

These paid reviews are getting old.


----------



## GlenRoiland (Jul 4, 2012)

wow. I'm glad I have already consumed a beer by the time I caught up on this thread.


----------



## dan_bsht (Jan 16, 2014)

I was avoiding getting into this discussion, but I see things differently and I wanted to express my opinion;
Maybe Ginault started as counter-fit manufacturer, but they have straighten up and started producing their own watch; we can't really judge them for the past productions, which we don't have prove for anyways. The watch in hand is not a replica or a counterfit afterall;
For example some of us specially the modders have ordered items from Ken, he is known for his falsely branded items, but as well as the sterile items; so I think using your sense we will not be allowed to post pictures of our own builds if we have used, for example hands from Ken; although there is no hint for a branding there.
The other claim about hand built in America, I don't see a problem here, it is likely to be true.
The main concern is the "Made in USA" claim, it is very likely to be untrue keeping in mind the regulations, but they have mentioned that they will update their case back if mandated to do so, not sure if this will ever happen though;
So for now, I really don't see a real problem, except the "Made in USA" claim; so be it; for WUS this issue is strictly between Ginault and the authorities; until proved to be a false claim, then they might take an action
That's my 2 cents, and I hope I didn't offend anyone.
Thanks


----------



## Radar1 (Mar 1, 2013)

mike120 said:


> I think he, along with several others, have asked Ginault for clarification and haven't gotten any..... they'll answer questions pertaining to anything but the provenance all day long, and I think that's from where the frustration stems.


It's likely that at least some purchases of the watch were made to better afford an opportunity to knock the company down. That's been the clear agenda for some at every single step (along with trying to shout down anyone else who likes the watch, and took a more rational (read: less dogmatic) wait and see approach before burning Ginault at the stake). We all get the concerns here, but to belabour it to death is a little scary.


----------



## Bradjhomes (Jun 18, 2011)

Several links to replica watch sites were posted. They have been removed - hence the mention of rule 9. 

The content would need to be restored - favourable or not, sponsor or not.

As CMSgt Bo mentioned in this thread (or another on this topic) there have been sponsors banned and blackballed before. 

Has the sponsor broken any rules here?


----------



## dan_bsht (Jan 16, 2014)

I'm a keen follower for your posts here and on Instagram, and we share the same passion, so I'm not worried about you getting offended, I meant other members that I don't know.
I'll tell you my philosophy, I come here escaping form real life and politics, enjoying nice watches, reviews pics and so on.
To me this ocean rover is a nicely done watch, I confess that I might get one, scrap the dial, hands and movement and place my own stuff in there; to me the case, and bracelet alone verifies the discounted price; or maybe keep it as is, I'm not american after all so I don't know the "Made in USA" regulations.... LOL


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

WUS-at-large can debate this endlessly, here, there, and everywhere. All I really can add is what I said in my OP that I would separately address, but perhaps have not yet made public: I bought the watch because of the marketing claims that it was American made. I hoped that claim would prove true despite reservations that the claims were unverified at the time of my purchase and my doubts as to whether they ever can or will be verified. I was not required to sign any loyalty oath to Ginault as a condition of my purchase, and I wouldn't have signed one. As with any purchase, I am entitled to pay my money and take my chances, and that's all that I did. I don't buy any or all Sub homages; I bought this one BECAUSE of my interest in the provenance, not despite that interest. 

I don't know who @radar1 is aiming at--although I can speculate he's looking at me, particularly, along with some others--but I would reply that karma has a way of running over dogma. @radar1 and I know where we stand with each other; he can continue to bait me all he wants. When he does, I'll just report it to the mods and let them handle it. I was asked to stand down, and I have. 

Beyond that, the mods apprised me of the rules regarding deleting posts, I have endeavored to comply where it's been directed, and I'm done debating the issue unless and until new facts come to light. If and when we get answers to the questions about the provenance of the watch--which I expect will happen, if ever, after the passage of the 3-week edit period--I hope and trust the mods will permit me to edit my OP to reflect any new facts or developments. It is not just the sponsors that have reputations that deserve protection, but the community members, too. Time, it often is said, will tell...


----------



## hidden by leaves (Mar 6, 2010)

Bradjhomes said:


> Has the sponsor broken any rules here?


With all due respect, isn't it you all who should be telling us the answer to that question? There is certainly some smoke (as the content of the deleted links showed), is it not up to WUS to investigate any possible fire before admitting a sponsor? (or member, for that matter).

I mean this company literally used, word for word, ad copy from a known replica (the illegal kind) producer. How can you ignore that or not call it into question?


----------



## Bradjhomes (Jun 18, 2011)

hidden by leaves said:


> With all due respect, isn't it you all who should be telling us the answer to that question? There is certainly some smoke (as the content of the deleted links showed), is it not up to WUS to investigate any possible fire before admitting a sponsor? (or member, for that matter).
> 
> I mean this company literally used, word for word, ad copy from a known replica (the illegal kind) producer. How can you ignore that or not call it into question?


With all due respect in return, as far as I am aware, no rules have been broken. I'm not the one suggesting Ginault are protected in any way, so I was asking others if they think rules have been broken. As you haven't provided any, I guess not.

VerticalScope vet all sponsors before their sponsorship begins. If you have any concerns, or evidence, then please direct that towards VerticalScope or the site admins. Posting links to replica sites is not allowed on the forum.


----------



## Cigarbob (Jul 19, 2015)

Bradjhomes said:


> Has the sponsor broken any rules here?


Would making a claim that a watch is "made in USA" if in fact it was not, be illegal and therefore in violation of rule #9?


----------



## Radar1 (Mar 1, 2013)

My advice for you is to stop obliquely insulting and disparaging other people, as you have done repeatedly for the past several days. You in fact did not "stand down" - more accurately have taken things "underground" to circumvent. And if you post a photo of the open caseback and movement, and then disparage same simply because it doesn't have a signed rotor - without providing any other comment on the movement that would help all of us discern "provenance" (which was your stated goal) - then you can fairly expect your motives to be called into question.

As for the "karma" comments - what is that? Some sort of veiled threat? Surely it has nothing to do with the watch because I am quite happy with that and if it turns out the "Made in USA" claim is off-kilter I will be able to live with it (while still getting the patriotism of the US folks). If the movement origin is never resolved, I can live with it, too. So, where exactly does "karma" come in? I'll get hit by a truck for liking the watch and putting all the hot-button issues on the back-burner? Or "stuck" with a very nicely executed homage that may not be 100% "Made in the USA" as claimed?


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

reported.


----------



## Radar1 (Mar 1, 2013)

Cigarbob said:


> Would making a claim that a watch is "made in USA" if in fact it was not, be illegal and therefore in violation of rule #9?


I think you would have to establish both intent to deceive and an unwillingness to redress, as a reasonable litmus test. I believe I read already that the company was willing to replace casebacks if their wording was inaccurate. Where that stands I am not sure. If they did make an honest mistake, give them a chance to fix it. Unwillingness to do so hints at the dogma I referred to earlier.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

rpm1974 said:


> a few words from the maker could clear up two major questions: whether Ginault is the same maker that's producing the high-end reps and the legitimacy of the Handbuilt/Made in USA texts.


Well I doubt they're going to cop to being the same people doing something illegal. Ginault, the LLC, is no doubt well insulated even if some of the people are the same. Which we don't know to be the case.

As for the texts, this is what Ginault themselves have to say: "However, there are still some parts absent of domestic suppliers. Those parts are the hairspring, the mainspring, the red synthetic sapphire crystals also known as jewels, and the shock absorber."

https://ginault.com/caliber-7275

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this disqualifies them from being able to make an unqualified "Made in USA" claim, even if every single other part is fabricated in the US. For example, here is Weiss on the making of their movement, which has most parts made in the US, but has a Swiss hairspring (and perhaps other Swiss parts as well):

https://weisswatchcompany.com/blogs/news/usamade-caliber-1003-in-process

And this is what it says when you go to buy one:

"Movement: US-made Caliber 1003 mechanical movement manufactured and assembled in our Los Angeles studio from US and Swiss parts"

https://weisswatchcompany.com/products/american-made-weiss-watch

As I understand it, it's the qualifier "from US and Swiss parts" that's important to the FTC. Ginault can probably claim "Hand built in America from US and imported parts" if they've indeed assembled it in the US, and at least some of the parts are US made.

Discloser: I've bought one with the 55% discount, and I'll be posting my review on the main Ginault thread in f74 soon. tl;dr version: it's spectacular, and I would pay MSRP for it no matter what the provenance of the movement is.

Here's a just-snapped photo:


----------



## Radar1 (Mar 1, 2013)

hwa said:


> reported.


Do you have additional findings on the movement to also report?


----------



## hwa (Feb 18, 2013)

to those who are interested, this from the FTC's publication:

What is the standard for a product to be called Made in USA without qualification?For a product to be called Made in USA, or claimed to be of domestic origin without qualifications or limits on the claim, the product must be "all or virtually all" made in the U.S. The term "United States," as referred to in the Enforcement Policy Statement, includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories and possessions.
What does "all or virtually all" mean?"All or virtually all" means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no - or negligible - foreign content.
What substantiation is required for a Made in USA claim?When a manufacturer or marketer makes an unqualified claim that a product is Made in USA, it should have - and rely on - a "reasonable basis" to support the claim at the time it is made. This means a manufacturer or marketer needs competent and reliable evidence to back up the claim that its product is "all or virtually all" made in the U.S.

You shouldn't need a lawyer to tell you that, "Made in USA" is an unqualified claim; that inclusion of critical movement parts from Switzerland and China preclude an unqualified claim; and quoting the FTC, "_*a manufacturer or marketer needs competent and reliable evidence to back up the claim*_ that its product is "all or virtually all" made in the U.S." I'm not making this stuff up; it's not my job to substantiate the claim, it's Ginault's job.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

Well, as I noted above, Ginault says on their own website that key parts of the movement are sourced outside the US. So they don't meet the FTC standard for an unqualified "Made in USA" claim (as you and I understand that standard).

But that is not new info! That statement has been on the Ginault website at least from the time of their first post on WUS (which is when I first read it).

The part that surprises me is the claim that they're making the rest of the movement parts in the US. If they really are, good for them. If not, but they're making some of key parts in the US (cases alone may be enough), they can probably still make a qualified claim, similar to Weiss. So no matter what the truth is about the rest of the movement, I believe they can make a qualified claim of "Built in America from US and imported parts" if they're assembling them in the US.

And, legally, that's all they have to tell us.


----------

