# Watch Snob's take on Zenith



## CogitoErgoSum (Jul 9, 2011)

"Zenith may just be the best value in timepieces available today. The brand's entire lineup is of high quality, and its prices put manufacture movements within the realm of possibility for mortals like yourself. How can they do it? I would conjecture that it is a recovery effort by the brand to win back a customer base after some years of misguided design and company vision at the hands of its (thankfully) departed former dark lord, Thierry Nataf. And, frankly, the watches are priced where they should be. These are not haute horlogerie watches by and large."


----------



## Hartmut Richter (Feb 13, 2006)

I suppose, that depends on your exact definition of _haute horlogerie_. If Zenith doesn't make it, I can name at least half a dozen others on that level that fail to make the grade (Rolex, Omega, Chronoswiss, IWC, Girard-Perregaux, Chopard, Ulysse Nardin.....)

Hartmut Richter


----------



## CogitoErgoSum (Jul 9, 2011)

I am a big fan of Zenith so I was glad to see some high praise from the "Snob." Previously he said JLC was the best value watch so that suggests that Zenith is heading in the right direction. As far as haute horlogerie is concerned, with the exception of IWC's grand complications, I agree with the watches you mentioned not making the grade. But is that a bad thing, I don't think so. Just because certain watches can not, or should not, be labeled as "haute horlogerie" time peices has no bearing on quality and craftmanship. Take Rolex, Omega, Chronoswiss, IWC, Girard-Perregaux, Chopard, Ulysse Nardin as examples of this.


----------



## LouS (Oct 6, 2009)

Wait, we are taking this buffoon columnist's effusions seriously?


----------



## mmacleodbrown (Jul 10, 2012)

What do we define as _haute horlogerie _should be the first question

Is it design?
Is it the movement?
Does the movement have to be in house?
Is it price?
Workmanship?

There are so many things to consider and no one manufacturer fits them all


----------



## Veritas99 (Dec 15, 2006)

LouS said:


> Wait, we are taking this buffoon columnist's effusions seriously?


No.

Frankly, I'm more interested in what people think about the discussion of Zenith's movement over in Hodinkee's 3-parter on Rolex Daytonas.


----------



## LouS (Oct 6, 2009)

Veritas99 said:


> No.
> 
> Frankly, I'm more interested in what people think about the discussion of Zenith's movement over in Hodinkee's 3-parter on Rolex Daytonas.


Now you're talking. That's an interesting post. I hadn't realized that Rolex added a Breguet overcoil to the balance. As for the rest, I don't consider any of it an improvement.


----------



## D N Ravenna (Apr 30, 2005)

LouS said:


> Now you're talking. That's an interesting post. I hadn't realized that Rolex added a Breguet overcoil to the balance. As for the rest, I don't consider any of it an improvement.


The overcoil is a nice addition. They are finally beginning to add "watch stuff" that gets closer to making them worth what the charge. I remember when they added SELs to the Explorer I years ago. I mean, how could you charge so much for a watch having stamped end pieces?

Rant Off//

;-)

Dan


----------



## Ozy (Aug 10, 2009)

LouS said:


> Wait, we are taking this buffoon columnist's effusions seriously?


Apparently only when it suits.


----------



## Jaqesq (Jun 7, 2012)

D N Ravenna said:


> The overcoil is a nice addition. They are finally beginning to add "watch stuff" that gets closer to making them worth what the charge. I remember when they added SELs to the Explorer I years ago. I mean, how could you charge so much for a watch having stamped end pieces?
> 
> Rant Off//
> 
> ...


They will charge whatever they think people will pay, actual cost of manufacturing probably fits in there somewhere...a little bit.


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

If the Zenith Christophe Colomb Equation of Time isn't haute horologerie, then I don't know what is.


----------



## martin_blank (May 19, 2010)

I guess I read it differently but the statement is "by and large" 

Meaning there is some HH, just not all, like a PP or A. Lang..I kind of assumed that was a reference to the fairly basic, Elite movements.


----------



## Mr.Kane (Mar 6, 2012)

martin_blank said:


> I guess I read it differently but the statement is "by and large"
> 
> Meaning there is some HH, just not all, like a PP or A. Lang..I kind of assumed that was a reference to the fairly basic, Elite movements.


Certainly how I took it...


----------



## Hartmut Richter (Feb 13, 2006)

This gets down again to what you think makes a watch _haute horlogerie_. Although Patek is bets known for its horrendous complications, their main bread and butter watch for volume is the Calatrava. Just an ordinary three hands plus date watch. OK, so the finissage is better than any of the ones I have listed, but if it gets down to what the watch *does *(i.e. how complicated it is), it is just the same as most ETA 2892 watches. And not any better in terms of accuracy and durability. Just more exclusive, more expensive, more likely to hold value.....

All just a matter of definitions! ;-) And I would certainly agree that, if the Christophe Colomb isn't _haute horlogerie_, most of what else is on the market fails miserably too.

Hartmut Richter


----------



## Ed Rooney (Aug 3, 2007)

The watch snob is on twitter now, which should be amusing. No editors or sponsors.


----------



## speedbird_500 (Apr 1, 2009)

The Watch Snob is a lot like Jeremy Clarkson. He says a lot of things he doesn't actually mean.


----------



## ducatidoc (Oct 12, 2009)

mmacleodbrown said:


> What do we define as _haute horlogerie _should be the first question
> 
> Is it design?
> Is it the movement?
> ...





Hartmut Richter said:


> This gets down again to what you think makes a watch _haute horlogerie_. Although Patek is bets known for its horrendous complications, their main bread and butter watch for volume is the Calatrava. Just an ordinary three hands plus date watch. OK, so the finissage is better than any of the ones I have listed, but if it gets down to what the watch *does *(i.e. how complicated it is), it is just the same as most ETA 2892 watches. And not any better in terms of accuracy and durability. Just more exclusive, more expensive, more likely to hold value.....
> 
> All just a matter of definitions! ;-) And I would certainly agree that, if the Christophe Colomb isn't _haute horlogerie_, most of what else is on the market fails miserably too.
> 
> Hartmut Richter


So, in the end, the most likely components are price and exclusivity. Just a thought: does Richard Mille, then, automatically garner the HH description ?


----------



## Hartmut Richter (Feb 13, 2006)

Well, not automatically. If pin pallet movements dies out to the extent that there were few left so that they became exclusive (at least in excellent state and working condition), they still wouldn't be _haute horlogerie_! At least not in my book..... :-d

That said, I am quite sure that Richard Mille are certainly _hh_ - even though I don't much like their style.

Hartmut Richter


----------



## D N Ravenna (Apr 30, 2005)

ducatidoc said:


> So, in the end, the most likely components are price and exclusivity. Just a thought: does Richard Mille, then, automatically garner the HH description ?


To some degree, that is kind of sad. And perhaps in the watch industry, self-fulfilling? There is not much left to do with horology, except for perhaps powering the movement with nuclear power? The overcoil is not new. Neither is the balance bridge that requires no curb pins. Zenith took care of the sound barrier with the EP. ;-) Alarms are always present. Two barrels for power reserve. Etc. Etc.

I still consider the Christophe Colomb hh, and certainly some of the MB&F captures my interest, but not much else.

Cheers!
Dan


----------



## Hartmut Richter (Feb 13, 2006)

Yes, it is kind of sad but the watch industry has fulfilled itself - and thereby made itself slightly redundant. If you compare modern ETA calibre watches, they are easily of the same standard as the best watches 50-70 years ago. Not as exclusive, not as highly finished but the essentials (accuracy and durability) are all there. So, the modern industry is seeking ways of pushing the envelope further: silicon in the escapement, co-axial escapement, other complicated escapements, further friction reduction in the geartrain (e.g. complex way of decoupling the _ratrappante _seconds hand in the A. Lange "Double Split").....

The problem with all that is that it has been implemented inside the last 10-15 years. Therefore, there is a certain lack of experience with it and thus lack of knowledge whether these features really represent a distinct improvement in practice or are just marketing gimmicks. Also, supposing that they really improve the watch, how do you judge the technology that is already there? Is a techically relatively ordinary watch with a perfect finissage (e.g. Patek "Calatrava") no longer _haute horlogerie_?

Maybe it's time to just tighten the accuracy standards of COSC movements a little. That would certainly eliminate a fair share of what is there claiming (pretending?!) to be _haute horlogerie_.....

Hartmut Richter


----------

