# Cartier "off the shelf" or in-house movements?



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

While discussing the Tank on other forums I've seen mention that Cartier uses "off the shelf" movements in their watches, particularly the lower priced ones.

However, the more I look into it, the more it looks like much of their catalogue is powered by actual in-house calibres, even in the more affordable Tank Must watches.

The cheapest automatic Cartier Tank I can find in their catalogue is the Tank Must XL, which uses the in-house 1847MC movement.

The small Tank Louis uses the manual wind in-house 1917MC.

Even the "high-efficiency quartz" movement used in the Tank Must small and large looks like it might be in-house. I've tried to find an equivalent ETA or Ronda movement and come up blank. Same goes for the "Solarbeat" movement which I can't find any details about anywhere.



https://www.cartier.com/en-us/movements.html



Anyone have any details about this? Are these movements sourced or are they in-house? Is there a common manufacture making movements for Richemont Group? If they are in-house where are they made?

Some of their other less expensive models like the Ronde Solo are less specific about which movements they use, and I'm guessing are probably ETA/Sellita.


----------



## neverover (Jan 27, 2012)

They started to make in house movement just so they can produce as many watches as they can. Sourcing ETA from Swatch group limit this. I think that is one of the reason why Cartier passed Omega as the biggest watchmaker, along with more interest in the brand. However, they do have outsourced caliber in the current line up. Their manual winding Cartier Tank Louis movement derived from JLC 846, but it’s no surprise since they’re both under Richemont.


----------



## powerband (Oct 17, 2008)

neverover said:


> …Their manual winding Cartier Tank Louis movement derived from JLC 846, but it’s no surprise since they’re both under Richemont.


Also, Cartier had partnered with JLC to use their movement since the early 1900s. It’s been a long partnership.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## powerband (Oct 17, 2008)

MrDisco99 said:


> While discussing the Tank on other forums I've seen mention that Cartier uses "off the shelf" movements in their watches, particularly the lower priced ones.
> 
> However, the more I look into it, the more it looks like much of their catalogue is powered by actual in-house calibres, even in the more affordable Tank Must watches.
> 
> ...


You have done your homework and your post here is far more informed than the two-bit post on the other subforum. Yes, Cartier makes in-house calibres operating at incredibly high precision, and are used in much of their lineups. Even their Quartz and solar-powered movements are special. And even though their movements are becoming well-respected in the industry, Cartier watches are form-over-function pieces since inception, earning the attention of and coveted by the art world, the fashion industry, and high-level collectors. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

I would never buy a Cartier watch with an ETA movement.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

lvt said:


> I would never buy a Cartier watch with an ETA movement.


Yep, reliability and all that.


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

powerband said:


> Cartier makes in-house calibres operating at incredibly high precision


What do you mean by this?


----------



## lvt (Sep 15, 2009)

Watchbreath said:


> Yep, reliability and all that.


Even if the ETA is incredibly reliable and accurate (say COSC grade), I still want a Cartier movement with some details that don't exist on ETA movements.


----------



## powerband (Oct 17, 2008)

Avo said:


> What do you mean by this?


I’ve looked at their skeletons through a loupe and the level of finishing is outstanding. From a limited pooling of reports, their movement—in particular the 1847 MC—seems wonderfully precise and stable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

You keep using these meaningless phrases. What on earth does "wonderfully precise and stable" mean? Does it mean that the movement meets COSC specs? If so, why doesn't Cartier get them certified? Or at least tell their customers that they can expect that level of performance?


----------



## Pete26 (Feb 17, 2006)

Avo said:


> You keep using these meaningless phrases. What on earth does "wonderfully precise and stable" mean? Does it mean that the movement meets COSC specs? If so, why doesn't Cartier get them certified? Or at least tell their customers that they can expect that level of performance?


I understand perfectly what he means. Not to sound rude, but perhaps after you experience some higher level watches than what is in your signature you may be qualified to comment. JLC for example normally don't bother with COSC, and neither do many other Richemont brands, so your point makes little sense


----------



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

I mean... I kinda see his point. It's all well and good that they are making in-house calibers, but they're not really telling us much about them. How do we know these calibers are any better quality than "off the shelf" movements? They seem to be decorated and finished well at least. And the 1847MC has a full balance bridge which is impressive. But what kind of performance are we supposed to expect from them? What are their tolerances?


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

Pete26 said:


> I understand perfectly what he means.


Great, then you can explain it!



Pete26 said:


> Not to sound rude,


Well you failed at that, but do go on ...



Pete26 said:


> but perhaps after you experience some higher level watches than what is in your signature you may be qualified to comment.


LOL! And what does "experience" mean? Testing on a timegrapher? I'm not asking about movement finishing or design or style or history, the claim was that "Cartier makes in-house calibres operating at incredibly high precision". That's a technical statement that should have technical data to back it up, if it's true.



Pete26 said:


> JLC for example normally don't bother with COSC, and neither do many other Richemont brands, so your point makes little sense.


They don't bother because mostly they wouldn't pass. That's also why they also don't tell their customers how well their watches can be expected to perform.

And of course it's not just Richemont, this is also true of the great majority of high-end brands.

Which is why, to me, they're not worth the money. At those prices, I expect to be told exactly how well my device should perform its primary function of measuring time.


----------



## Pete26 (Feb 17, 2006)

Avo said:


> Great, then you can explain it!
> 
> 
> Well you failed at that, but do go on ...
> ...


It's a good thing that I have got a few G-shocks then.


----------



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

Avo said:


> Which is why, to me, they're not worth the money. At those prices, I expect to be told exactly how well my device should perform its primary function of measuring time.


I don't know about all that. There's more to a watch than accuracy specs. Creating an in-house calibre is not cheap, regardless of how well it performs. If it performs at least as well as the ETA 2892 it replaced then I'd say it's worth some premium. And that's not even considering the design of the watch itself, which is the main reason you buy a Cartier in the first place. $3400 for an in-house automatic from one of the most desired brands in the industry and a design with countless imitators and a hundred year legacy is not a bad shout if you ask me.


----------



## neverover (Jan 27, 2012)

I don’t get the hate with the obsession for in house movement, but whatever that is I guess Rolex has won the marketing war. Cartier is not a watch you bought for their movement. Period. While it’s true that from 1910 - 1970’s they would get their movement from JLC, Patek, AP, and Piguet; they use ETA and quartz movement from 1970’s up until 2010’s. I think they can care any less about the movement.



Avo said:


> You keep using these meaningless phrases. What on earth does "wonderfully precise and stable" mean? Does it mean that the movement meets COSC specs? If so, why doesn't Cartier get them certified? Or at least tell their customers that they can expect that level of performance?





MrDisco99 said:


> How do we know these calibers are any better quality than "off the shelf" movements?



Yes, Cartier watches with new caliber does perform under Chronometer standard. Many Santos owner would say their watches only gain +1s per day, and their Tank 8971 MC run on Chronometer caliber. But Cartier didn’t get them certified and they don’t tell their customer that they can expect that level of performance. If Rolex, Omega, or other company would spend $ on marketing on their Chronometer standards and even write it on the dial, Cartier is the other way around. They even quietly transition ETA to In house without any announcement. We only knew when somebody opened their watch and surprisingly found in house caliber in there. Cartier is a very different brand compared to others out there.




Avo said:


> Which is why, to me, they're not worth the money. At those prices, I expect to be told exactly how well my device should perform its primary function of measuring time.


Yes you are right, some people would have an odd ball and even get Patek with bigger time deviation per day. But hey, this are watches, an accessory that’s been around for more than 100 years. Patek that goes for $30,000 didn’t tell better times than G Shock with atomic watch sync that cost $150. In that sense, Rolls Royce is also not better at getting you from one point to another as opposed to your trusty Toyota. And that’s the beauty of a hobby. You buy things you enjoy regardless what other said.


----------



## powerband (Oct 17, 2008)

Avo said:


> You keep using these meaningless phrases. What on earth does "wonderfully precise and stable" mean? Does it mean that the movement meets COSC specs? If so, why doesn't Cartier get them certified? Or at least tell their customers that they can expect that level of performance?


I’ll give you that my statement isn’t based on official specs, because Cartier doesn’t focus their marketing on their parts. (As it has been written by Watch folks more expert than me, Cartier’s whole is greater than the sum of its parts.) My statement, as mentioned, is based on a small sample size and owners’ observation. Not ideal for data, as you might have imagined, but the only data available. My experience of the 1847 MC is similar to those who have reported before me: +1 second per day, with minimal variance whether it’s on my wrist, on the winder, or sitting static in different positions over the weekend. So, the small pool of sampling from real-world reports implies this in-house calibre is precise and stable. It’s cool if that’s not good enough for you, there are plenty of brands that give you official specs. These are merely watches that do more than tell time for enthusiasts, something worn and enjoyed on the wrist, not rocket science calculated for orbital mechanics or corrective brain surgery to treat grand mal seizure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fedev (Feb 22, 2021)

This is the exact question I am wondering as well. Just bought a Tank Must Large with a quartz movement and as usual when getting a new watch I wan't to know every little bit of it.

I can't however find any information about the quartz movement, not even a picture of an opened Tank Must (the new model).

Do anyone have a picture of the movement in the Tank Must Large?

*Edit: Found one quartz movement on https://www.cartier.com/en-us/movements.html called "HIGH-EFFICIENCY QUARTZ MOVEMENT". Is it this movement Cartier uses for the Tank Must as well even if they only states "high autonomy quartz movement" on the product page? The 8 year battery life seems to be the same.

Edit 2: Cartier confirmed it is not the same movement, but didn’t tell me which movement is in the Tank. The high autonomy quartz movement have a battery life of 6 years and not 8 as stated above.*


----------



## 03hemi (Dec 30, 2021)

Threads suck without pictures!
I bought a Cartier knowing they didn't have the most sought after mvts. and only got it for it's styling!
It's not always about the movement.


----------



## jrfisher810 (Apr 14, 2016)

Avo said:


> You keep using these meaningless phrases. What on earth does "wonderfully precise and stable" mean? Does it mean that the movement meets COSC specs? If so, why doesn't Cartier get them certified? Or at least tell their customers that they can expect that level of performance?


Patek Phillipe and A. Lange & Sohne should probably start getting COSC certification as well if they want to be taken seriously as good movement makers!


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

jrfisher810 said:


> Patek Phillipe and A. Lange & Sohne should probably start getting COSC certification as well if they want to be taken seriously as good movement makers!


Would that include JLC?


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

jrfisher810 said:


> Patek Phillipe and A. Lange & Sohne should probably start getting COSC certification as well if they want to be taken seriously as good movement makers!


I know you mean it sarcastically, but why is it that reviews never bother to measure their timekeeping abilities? Does that really not matter at all?


----------



## mjrchabot (Apr 5, 2011)

Avo said:


> I know you mean it sarcastically, but why is it that reviews never bother to measure their timekeeping abilities? Does that really not matter at all?


Because a vast majority of watch enthusiasts don’t really care if their watch is +4 secs/day instead of +1. As others have already said, with brands like PP, VC, JLC, ALS, etc., the allure is in the sum of its parts. Part of that “sum” is the fact they can create highly decorated and complicated movements while still being within or close to COSC standards. 

I think you’re over blowing the importance of COSC standards too btw. Given the increase in technology and materials found in today’s movements, any watch is capable of COSC standards of regulated by a good watch maker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Avo (Mar 1, 2010)

mjrchabot said:


> Given the increase in technology and materials found in today’s movements, any watch is capable of COSC standards of regulated by a good watch maker.


Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't. I don't know, because neither high-end watch manufacturers, nor the great majority of watch reviewers, will give me that information.

Pre-quartz, accuracy and precision were hallmarks of high-end horology. I lament the fact that they have fallen by the wayside, no longer to be mentioned in polite company. High-end watches are now pure jewelry, and I think that's sad.


----------



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

mjrchabot said:


> I think you’re over blowing the importance of COSC standards too btw. Given the increase in technology and materials found in today’s movements, any watch is capable of COSC standards of regulated by a good watch maker.


ANY watch? That's definitely not true.

There's a lot more to COSC standards than just regulation. I love my SKX but no matter how well regulated it is it will never be a chronometer. You can't regulate positional variance or isochronism or temperature variation.


----------



## mjrchabot (Apr 5, 2011)

MrDisco99 said:


> ANY watch? That's definitely not true.
> 
> There's a lot more to COSC standards than just regulation. I love my SKX but no matter how well regulated it is it will never be a chronometer. You can't regulate positional variance or isochronism or temperature variation.


Your SKX doesn’t have the technology or materials I was referring to in my post lol … pick any modern Longines, Tag, Hamilton, Tissot, etc., and they can all be regulated within COSC standards and likely perform as such.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

mjrchabot said:


> Your SKX doesn’t have the technology or materials I was referring to in my post lol … pick any modern Longines, Tag, Hamilton, Tissot, etc., and they can all be regulated within COSC standards and likely perform as such.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You said any watch.

Also I have a Hamilton and a Tissot and while they are regulated to run very accurately on my wrist, they're not adjusted to be COSC compliant. Like I said, you can't regulate positional variance, temperature variance, or isochronism, all of which are part of the COSC standard.

Back to Cartier... it would be nice to know where these "manufacture" movements are made and if they are truly in-house from Cartier specific production lines or if they are sourced from a supplier. I did find out their quartz movements apparently come from Ebel, which have been making their own quartz movements for decades and have a long standing partnership with Cartier. I suspect there's some shared mechanical movement production for Richemont brands being done somewhere, just like ETA for much of Swatch Group, but I can't find any details about that, or about the Cartier manufacture movements specifically.


----------



## Mbappe (May 13, 2020)

Cartier is a brand that I appreciate from a design perspective, but their movements are average, apart from the super high end pieces. They largely outsource their movement manufacturing.


----------



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

Mbappe said:


> Cartier is a brand that I appreciate from a design perspective, but their movements are average, apart from the super high end pieces. They largely outsource their movement manufacturing.


From whom?

I know they used to use ETA movements, but much of their current line uses movements that are unique. So where are they coming from now?


----------



## Sturmovik (Apr 1, 2017)

MrDisco99 said:


> From whom?
> 
> I know they used to use ETA movements, but much of their current line uses movements that are unique. So where are they coming from now?


Cartier is owned by Richemont group who also owns the movement design and manufacturing company ValFleurier. Many of Richemont's brands, including Cartier, source their mechanical movements from ValFleurier. Here are some interesting articles about that relationship to help you get started. I'm currently looking for more information on their quartz and new solar movements but have found little.









ValFleurier – Vintage Panerai and other iconic timepieces under the loupe at Perezcope


Posts about ValFleurier written by Jose Pereztroika




perezcope.com













Conspicuous Production – The Obsession with In-House Movements | SJX Watches


Examining the pursuit of




watchesbysjx.com





Personally, I don't view Cartier's current inhouse movements as much of an improvement over their previous ETA-sourced movements currently. It's the one thing holding me back from a Santos. Richemont were sued by Swatch, Rolex, and Patek for violating some patents related to silicon in watch movements. However, those patents expire this and the next year so I anticipate that Richemont will introduce upgraded movements sometime soonish. 









Swiss watchmaker litigating about silicon hairspring?


The NZZaS reported yesterday that Richemont is fighting with a consortium of Rolex, Patek Philippe and the Swatch Group over a silicon hairspring technology




www.patentlitigation.ch










Twinspir [Watch Wiki]







www.watch-wiki.net


----------



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

Sturmovik said:


> Cartier is owned by Richemont group who also owns the movement design and manufacturing company ValFleurier. Many of Richemont's brands, including Cartier, source their mechanical movements from ValFleurier. Here are some interesting articles about that relationship to help you get started. I'm currently looking for more information on their quartz and new solar movements but have found little.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks... these will make for some interesting reading later.

As for quartz, look at Ebel. Apparently Cartier and Ebel have a long running partnership for quartz movements. Don't know if that includes the new solarbeat or not, though.


----------



## MZhammer (Feb 27, 2009)

All of my favorite Cartiers have sourced movements, can't understand the "In-House is better" position.

I've got an NSO Tank Louis on order that will have a JLC derived movement and I'm perfectly happy with it.


----------



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

MrDisco99 said:


> Thanks... these will make for some interesting reading later.
> 
> As for quartz, look at Ebel. Apparently Cartier and Ebel have a long running partnership for quartz movements. Don't know if that includes the new solarbeat or not, though.


Welp, I just found out on the Ebel thread in the public forum that Ebel doesn't make them anymore. So I'm back to square one on figuring that out.

The "157" seems to be the ubiquitous two-hand quartz movement found in entry level Tanks and such. I'm still trying to figure out who makes it. I'm pretty sure it's not ETA or Ronda.


----------



## Sturmovik (Apr 1, 2017)

MrDisco99 said:


> Welp, I just found out on the Ebel thread in the public forum that Ebel doesn't make them anymore. So I'm back to square one on figuring that out.
> 
> The "157" seems to be the ubiquitous two-hand quartz movement found in entry level Tanks and such. I'm still trying to figure out who makes it. I'm pretty sure it's not ETA or Ronda.


Looking at Richemont's site, there's a couple of positions open that seem related to quartz watch movements. Both of these jobs are in Buttes, Neuchâtel, Switzerland. Turns out its the same place where ValFleurier is based. 






Ingénieur.e microélectronique/Chef.fe de projets R&I


Ingénieur.e microélectronique/Chef.fe de projets R&I




jobs.richemont.com










Stage R&I - Caractérisation et recherche de solutions de monitoring de batteries


Stage R&I - Caractérisation et recherche de solutions de monitoring de batteries




jobs.richemont.com





And going to LinkedIn, you can find people working at ValFluerier doing quartz movement assembly. I don't want to doxx anyone so I won't post links to their profiles here, but it definitely seems that ValFleurier does indeed manufacture quartz movements along with mechanicals. Now this should not be too surprising as Richemont have plenty of other brands besides Cartier, such as Baume and Mercier, which have large collections of quartz watches. Here's a Baume and Mercier quartz watch that has a MHH057 movement. Related perhaps to the Ebel/Cartier 057?






Hampton 10670 Watch for men | Check Prices on Baume & Mercier


Discover the Hampton 10670 White dial & Brown watch for men with Quartz movement, designed by Baume et Mercier, Manufacturer of Swiss Watches




www.baume-et-mercier.com





I'm having trouble finding what exact quartz movements they make and I'm not surprised that they would try to obfuscate that information. Basically any brand in the Richemont group could be using ValFleurier's quartz movements. 

Now let's look for a second at Cartier's solar movement. I can't find any specific information on the movement in the SolarBeat. But here's a company who specializes in "ambient energy harvesting" and low power circuitry. Guess which device is using their technology?






What applications do we work with


e-peas delivers best performing Energy Harvesting solutionsto a wide range of IoT applications. Contact us to check if your application can be autonomous.




e-peas.com





Front and center, a Cartier solar watch. Here's a press release from the company regarding the Cartier SolarBeat:









E-PEAS Creates Ultra-Compact Custom Power Management Solution for Cartier’s First Solar Energy Harvesting Watch


20th January 2022 – Once again underlining the heightening interest in the company’s power management ICs (PMICs) for energy harvesting applications, plus its ability to work with the world’s leadi…




www.eejournal.com





And a quote from a Cartier exec: "It took us 4 years to develop this innovative movement with the help of Richemont Innovation and Manufacture Horlogère de Val Fleurier."

So we know that ValFluerier played a part in the creation of the SolarBeat movement along with this company e-peas. My guess is that ValFluerier is also playing a role in Cartier's normal battery powered movements. ValFluerier stamps their logo on their mechanical movements, so if they do make the quartz movement for the Tank Must, presumably we'd find their their logo there as well. It's surprisingly hard to find a picture of the current Tank Must with the movement exposed. Anyone care to open their Tank Must, in the name of science?


----------



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

Sturmovik said:


> Looking at Richemont's site, there's a couple of positions open that seem related to quartz watch movements. Both of these jobs are in Buttes, Neuchâtel, Switzerland. Turns out its the same place where ValFleurier is based.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice sleuthing! Some more interesting reading.


----------



## Brian Eno’s Watch (Apr 10, 2021)

Because @YoureTerrific graciously opened his SolarBeat, I’m reviving this thread with a side by side comparison of the Ebel Caliber 157, the Cartier “High Efficiency Quartz” movement (which per their website debuted in 2018 but is numbered 157), and the Cartier SolarBeat movement (which is numbered 157S).


----------



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

Brian Eno’s Watch said:


> Because @YoureTerrific graciously opened his SolarBeat, I’m reviving this thread with a side by side comparison of the Ebel Caliber 157, the Cartier “High Efficiency Quartz” movement (which per their website debuted in 2018 but is numbered 157), and the Cartier SolarBeat movement (which is numbered 157S).
> View attachment 16689342


Amazing.

I guess ValFleurier retained the IP of the old Ebel movement and makes it in-house now for the Richemont brands.

I wonder if they source components like the quartz crystals and stepper motor magnets from Swatch Group.


----------



## Brian Eno’s Watch (Apr 10, 2021)

MrDisco99 said:


> Amazing.
> 
> I guess ValFleurier retained the IP of the old Ebel movement and makes it in-house now for the Richemont brands.
> 
> I wonder if they source components like the quartz crystals and stepper motor magnets from Swatch Group.


Interestingly, it appears that Cartier partnered with Ebel directly in the first instance and built up its in-house capabilities in the quartz realm. ValFleurier seems to be a later move by the broader Richemont group driven by the supply issues with ETA.

Per Time and Tide:


> Cartier decided to start making its own mechanical movements a year or so after Fornas became CEO in 2002. Cartier then, as now, produced several hundred thousand watches annually (the firm does not disclose the exact number). *It was already vertically integrated for its quartz-watch production, a legacy of the 1980s and 1990s when Cartier was a quartz-watch powerhouse. In the 1990s, 80 percent of Cartier’s production was quartz. It produced almost all (90 percent) of its quartz movements in-house *and manufactured a significant percentage of its cases and bracelets.


Europa Star provides more background on the Ebel partnership:


> *In 1992, Cartier also founded the watch manufacturer CEC in La Chaux-de-Fonds, in cooperation with Ebel, which had been manufacturing Cartier watches under licence since the early 1970s. *The takeover of Ebel by InvestCorp (1994), followed by the departure of its director Pierre-Alain Blum (1996), led to the separation of the two partners (1998), with Cartier opening its own factory in La Chaux-de-Fonds (2000). The process of internalisation was complete: Cartier had become a watchmaker in its own right.


----------



## MrDisco99 (Jul 5, 2018)

Brian Eno’s Watch said:


> Interestingly, it appears that Cartier partnered with Ebel directly in the first instance and built up its in-house capabilities in the quartz realm. ValFleurier seems to be a later move by the broader Richemont group driven by the supply issues with ETA.
> 
> Per Time and Tide:
> 
> ...


Interesting... so it sounds like CEC temporarily became Cartier's in-house quartz manufacture when Ebel dropped out, and then that was absorbed into ValFleurier when that became a thing.


----------



## Rdenney (Dec 24, 2012)

CEC and CEC2 were joint ventures between Ebel and Cartier, but they were principally owned and fully managed by Ebel. Ebel didn’t make make Cartier watches under “license”. They made them under _contract,_ from the early 70’s to the late 90’s. Alain-Dominique Perrin (the architect of Cartier du Monde) and Pierre-Alain Blum were good friends and collaborators. The jointly branded quartz movements were Ebel’s design. Europa Star got right that the departure of Blum ended that relationship. I do not know to what extent those designs are still made, but the designs are owned now by Cartier. 

Cartier watches are all about design, and need quality movements, which they have always had. 

Nobody buys a Cartier to boast of their superlative certified this or that. And I don’t know many who buy a Rolex because they make a style statement. (A brand statement is a whole different thing, and both do that.)

Cartier’s manufacture exists in three dimensions right on the highway between La Chaux-de-Fonds and Le Locle. They consolidated several factories into that facility over time. You can see them from Sellita’s parking lot. Cartier is as much a watch company as many others, but it is not a Rolex, LeCoultre, or Zenith. 

Rick “whose decade-old Santos has an excellently performing 2892 that anyone can service” Denney


----------



## KeepTheTime (Jan 11, 2009)

Brian Eno’s Watch said:


>


Top left photo credit (the one with the watermark partially cropped out): https://calibercorner.com/ebel-caliber-157/

Also, some Cartier comparisons if it helps: Cartier 157 and Cartier 057


----------

