# Has Bremont bounced back yet?



## Grandier (Mar 11, 2010)

Admitted MBII owner here (and I happy one). I was very disappointed some time ago by the whole in-house movement brewhaha. What do you think of popular opinion of the brand? Have they gotten out of that or still mired? I read the typical blogs, and despite what seems to be a recent new pricing strategy, they still get pasted. Thoughts from this, admittedly possible biased, group?


----------



## Vig2000 (Jul 5, 2012)

For the most part, it seems like people have moved on from the in-house debacle, although I do still see it brought up from time to time. This thread is a case in point. Even before what happened, I personally thought Bremont was already a polarizing brand, mainly because of their aggressive pricing, but the in-house controversy made it even more polarizing. I remember that some diehard fanboys quickly decried Bremont and forsook the brand for all of eternity.

Whatever your thoughts about what happened, there is no denying that the brand is growing in popularity, so I do think Bremont has pretty much bounced back.


----------



## TigerDore (Jul 18, 2015)

I think the internet can distort things and a handful of people can manage to give the appearance of a mob. I bought my Bremont after the "in-house" dust up; it had no effect on me or my impression of the brand. Honestly, regarding what is and isn't in-house seems to be a blurred line at times. Omega's co-axial movement is "in-house" but I understand that ETA still manufactures it for them. Bremont is doing more and more modification in-house, presumably leading to a full in-house movement at some point. The controversy with Bremont was a tempest in a teapot and, I think, an honest difference in interpretation. 

As a confession, I am also not an in-house purist. I believe Rolex's reputation was built largely when they were still using ETA movements in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Great watchmakers are either making their own movements, or they are customizing movements made by specialists to the watchmaker's own specifications. Either way, the end product speaks for itself, at least in my layman's opinion. 

I love the brand and I personally think it has a lot of momentum. Unless my upcoming Omega purchase changes my mind in some way, I will probably remain a Bremont customer as well.


----------



## samanator (Mar 8, 2008)

TigerDore said:


> I think the internet can distort things and a handful of people can manage to give the appearance of a mob. I bought my Bremont after the "in-house" dust up; it had no effect on me or my impression of the brand. Honestly, regarding what is and isn't in-house seems to be a blurred line at times. Omega's co-axial movement is "in-house" but I understand that ETA still manufactures it for them. Bremont is doing more and more modification in-house, presumably leading to a full in-house movement at some point. The controversy with Bremont was a tempest in a teapot and, I think, an honest difference in interpretation.
> 
> As a confession, I am also not an in-house purist. I believe Rolex's reputation was built largely when they were still using ETA movements in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Great watchmakers are either making their own movements, or they are customizing movements made by specialists to the watchmaker's own specifications. Either way, the end product speaks for itself, at least in my layman's opinion.
> 
> I love the brand and I personally think it has a lot of momentum. Unless my upcoming Omega purchase changes my mind in some way, I will probably remain a Bremont customer as well.


First I'm not certain there was anything to bounce back from. if you filter through the muck there were a few uses of terms that seemed industry standard (but apparently not), and a lot of bashing by people that would not even own a watch over $500. So you can determine the value of all that. I do think one good thing that came from that was the article published on A Blog To Watch about common standards for terminology. Now if they would only be used? The other thing that comes to light is there is no real good filter for good information, bad information, old information and half information. I'm as guilty as the rest of not looking at the date of something on the web sometimes before reacting. Sorry not to pick on you TigerDore, but this kind of demonstrates some of the half understandings that come from the web. Omega 25xx series movements are built by ETA for Omega(all part of the Swatch Group), but 9xxx and 8xxx series are manufactured in-house by Omega. I do not know the answer on 3xxx Omega movements like in the Mark II.


----------



## TigerDore (Jul 18, 2015)

No offense taken, Samanator. I appreciate you. I had read something different about the 8500 series, but i read it on.... the internet.. 
I know you know your stuff and I will trust your word over a random internet source. Thank you for clearing this up.



samanator said:


> First I'm not certain there was anything to bounce back from. if you filter through the muck there were a few uses of terms that seemed industry standard (but apparently not), and a lot of bashing by people that would not even own a watch over $500. So you can determine the value of all that. I do think one good thing that came from that was the article published on A Blog To Watch about common standards for terminology. Now if they would only be used? The other thing that comes to light is there is no real good filter for good information, bad information, old information and half information. I'm as guilty as the rest of not looking at the date of something on the web sometimes before reacting. Sorry not to pick on you TigerDore, but this kind of demonstrates some of the half understandings that come from the web. Omega 25xx series movements are built by ETA for Omega(all part of the Swatch Group), but 9xxx and 8xxx series are manufactured in-house by Omega. I do not know the answer on 3xxx Omega movements like in the Mark II.


----------



## kangajack (Aug 1, 2013)

Grandier said:


> Admitted MBII owner here (and I happy one). I was very disappointed some time ago by the whole in-house movement brewhaha. What do you think of popular opinion of the brand? Have they gotten out of that or still mired? I read the typical blogs, and despite what seems to be a recent new pricing strategy, they still get pasted. Thoughts from this, admittedly possible biased, group?


My perception has changed regarding Bremont. It's hard for any company to recapture "integrity" when it comes into question. Prior to the movement faux pas, Bremont had built a reputation for doing thing the right way when it comes to building a brand in the luxury space. And when you are charging up to 14,000, you need to differentiate from the countless others who are placing ETA movements into cases. Modified or not. The movement issue gave the impression that they were marketers, not artisans.

I still want them to succeed, but for me... I added A Rolex Explorer II to my collection 4 weeks ago after my plan a year ago had been to pickup a Bremont.

I hope they can succeed, but it did tarnish their image.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Aggiez28 (Jan 18, 2012)

i never paid much attention to the issue myself. I really like my MB2 and really dont care if it is or is not an in house movement.


----------



## TK-421 (Mar 11, 2010)

i am out of touch. what happened with the Bremont in-house movement? All I remember is that I did not like the styling of the watches. Too old fashioned. Can someone post some links here?


----------



## TigerDore (Jul 18, 2015)

Samanator can probably give you a better summary, but a year or two ago, Bremont announced a watch model that it claimed had an in-house movement. Apparently, they highly customized the movement, but the basic unit was still purchased from ETA. It was partly in-house, if I understand correctly.



TK-421 said:


> i am out of touch. what happened with the Bremont in-house movement? All I remember is that I did not like the styling of the watches. Too old fashioned. Can someone post some links here?


----------



## Vig2000 (Jul 5, 2012)

TigerDore said:


> Samanator can probably give you a better summary, but a year or two ago, Bremont announced a watch model that it claimed had an in-house movement. Apparently, they highly customized the movement, but the basic unit was still purchased from ETA. It was partly in-house, if I understand correctly.


Not ETA. If I remember correctly, it was an exclusive movement made for Bremont by La Joux-Perret.


----------



## TK-421 (Mar 11, 2010)

yeah that is not in-house. IWC has a lot of movements, and Ball et al, that are highly modified. In-house is in-house. I would give a pass on the spring, as nivarox is one of the only. but the gears, screws, and all the other crap that I don't know the words for should come from jolly ole england.



Vig2000 said:


> Not ETA. If I remember correctly, it was an exclusive movement made for Bremont by La Joux-Perret.


----------



## COZ (Sep 7, 2011)

I purchased an MB II a few years ago new from AD. Had problems with it right out of the box, returned it thru the AD and had more issues with the AD. Sold it soon after as didn't like the internal bezel design (not easy to operate while on the wrist) and lume was poor.

I've followed them off and on since then but they come out with a lot of special editions at very high prices. I was very excited about the brand when they first came out but the hype as fizzled for me. Value just isn't there, pretty much gave up on them, then the in-house fiasco. No bounce back for me.


----------



## Mediocre (Oct 27, 2013)

Pretty sure they have continued to enjoy growth as a brand


----------



## samanator (Mar 8, 2008)

The short version is in the Wright Flyer is a movement that is exclusive to Bremont that they co-developed with LJP was call in-house during the product announcement. The LJP part was not initially presented. This started a whole flurry of things on the watch web sites. It was liken to the Tag/Seiko 1887 incident. In this one Tags president called the 1887 Tag Movement in-house, which in a manner it was. What was found out was Tag bought a low volume Chronograph design from Seiko and modified it so it could be mass produced. I believe over 60% of it is not interchangeable with the Seiko. So this kicked off a big web flaming war. In the end the BWC/01-10 is exclusive to Bremont, and everyday more and more of it is being made by Bremont at the UK location. It will probably take at least 1-2 more years for everything, but the hairspring to be made by Bremont. Final assembly is being done by Bremont in the UK since it's initial announcement. The movement with a different rotor is also in the Jaguar MK I watch which is not an LE like the Wright Flyer. It seems the term in-house has now changed to manufactured after all of this. What is not settled very well is the percentage of content that makes a movement manufactured? Remember there are really only about six companies that make their own hairsprings so supplier content sort of clouds the issue more than who designed the component(s). i doubt this will every be standardized in the watch industry.


----------



## TK-421 (Mar 11, 2010)

so that is a yes?



samanator said:


> The short version is in the Wright Flyer is a movement that is exclusive to Bremont that they co-developed with LJP was call in-house during the product announcement. The LJP part was not initially presented. This started a whole flurry of things on the watch web sites. It was liken to the Tag/Seiko 1887 incident. In this one Tags president called the 1887 Tag Movement in-house, which in a manner it was. What was found out was Tag bought a low volume Chronograph design from Seiko and modified it so it could be mass produced. I believe over 60% of it is not interchangeable with the Seiko. So this kicked off a big web flaming war. In the end the BWC/01-10 is exclusive to Bremont, and everyday more and more of it is being made by Bremont at the UK location. It will probably take at least 1-2 more years for everything, but the hairspring to be made by Bremont. Final assembly is being done by Bremont in the UK since it's initial announcement. The movement with a different rotor is also in the Jaguar MK I watch which is not an LE like the Wright Flyer. It seems the term in-house has now changed to manufactured after all of this. What is not settled very well is the percentage of content that makes a movement manufactured? Remember there are really only about six companies that make their own hairsprings so supplier content sort of clouds the issue more than who designed the component(s). i doubt this will every be standardized in the watch industry.


----------

