# Ball In-House Movement



## TK-421

does ball have any plans for an in-house movement? they really need to move ahead with it. if ML and Frederique Constant have one, then Ball should too.


----------



## lvt

TK-421 said:


> does ball have any plans for an in-house movement? they really need to move ahead with it. if ML and Frederique Constant have one, then Ball should too.


Can you suggest a type of movement to start with ?


----------



## Ozy

I wonder how many people truly understand the cost associated with developing a true "In house" movement.


----------



## WatchFiend1

Costs or not, IMO if any watch company wants to be considered a real manufacturer then they need to start exploring there own movements.

If ML can develop one then Im sure Ball could as well. I am hoping for the day when most serious watch companies will have their own movement. 

Just taking an ebauche and dropping it in a case is not sufficient any more, especially with the supply taken away by ETA. 

If a watch company is truly serious about earning respect from the WIS community and industry peers, creating your own movement from the ground up and engineering something new and exciting is the best way to do that.

If you don't engineer your own movement, change the name to Ball Watch case company.:thanks


----------



## TheWalrus

WatchFiend1 said:


> Costs or not, IMO if any watch company wants to be considered a real manufacturer then they need to start exploring there own movements.
> 
> If ML can develop one then Im sure Ball could as well. I am hoping for the day when most serious watch companies will have their own movement.
> 
> Just taking an ebauche and dropping it in a case is not sufficient any more, especially with the supply taken away by ETA.
> 
> If a watch company is truly serious about earning respect from the WIS community and industry peers, creating your own movement from the ground up and engineering something new and exciting is the best way to do that.
> 
> If you don't engineer your own movement, change the name to Ball Watch case company.:thanks


Well that's one perspective - but it's certainly not one that I share. I really don't see what makes an 'in house' movement so special in any case. I'd rather have a nice watch design with some interesting movement modifications and special features (Tritium, for instance), than a hyper expensive watch that can lay claim to being all in house.


----------



## Stephanos

TheWalrus said:


> Well that's one perspective - but it's certainly not one that I share. I really don't see what makes an 'in house' movement so special in any case. I'd rather have a nice watch design with some interesting movement modifications and special features (Tritium, for instance), than a hyper expensive watch that can lay claim to being all in house.


It doesn't have to be hyper expensive. Look at Nomos and FC.


----------



## lvt

We often forget that any ETA movement is also a true in-house movement itself ;-)


----------



## TK-421

lvt said:


> Can you suggest a type of movement to start with ?


people always say, " nobody understands the costs associated with developing an in house movement, yada yada yada. no kidding, its not cheap. i read about Frederique Constants developing an in-house movement. the machinery cost a ton of money, i get that. i also get that in-house does not equal better, but it represents complete mastery of the watch making craft.

if none of this mattered, then we would all wear quartz all the time. automatic is not more accurate than quartz, but we like the history and tradition of the craft.

ball seems like such a good watch company that they should go to the next level and develop an in-house movement. that is all i am suggesting.

type of movement you ask...their own, automatic, built by them. they can take the rest from there.


----------



## TK-421

Ozy said:


> I wonder how many people truly understand the cost associated with developing a true "In house" movement.


don't know. Freddie C said it was quite a lot. there was an article on it in Watch Time. they are a small company that started in the 1990's, and have grown into a true manufacturer. i would like to see ball do the same.

does anyone know if they have any plans to do so? that is all i am asking. not whether it is expensive or unnecessary. just wondering if they are thinking of taking the next step.

in-house does not equal better. just neater.


----------



## tempus edax rerum

I'm very practical. I'd rather know that my movement can be serviced by several skilled technicians who don't charge an arm & a leg just because somebody re-invented the wheel for the sake of reinventing the wheel. 

If you're adding truly valuable characteristics, fine. But if you're just gilding the lilies...not with my dollars you're not.


----------



## TheWalrus

Stephanos said:


> It doesn't have to be hyper expensive. Look at Nomos and FC.


I'd still consider those pretty expensive. Nomos starts at, what about $2000 for a pretty nice dress watch? For that same price you can get some very nice mid-range Ball watches - and with intro prices around $1000, there is a significant price difference between the two companies.

Besides, I'll be honest I'm much more concerned about how a watch looks, how it functions, and the history behinds it's name / image than I am about whether or not the movement is made in house.


----------



## TheWalrus

tempus edax rerum said:


> I'm very practical. I'd rather know that my movement can be serviced by several skilled technicians who don't charge an arm & a leg just because somebody re-invented the wheel for the sake of reinventing the wheel.
> 
> If you're adding truly valuable characteristics, fine. But if you're just gilding the lilies...not with my dollars you're not.


Exactly - and besides, Ball Watch Company _never_ actually made their own movements - they always used outsourced innards from Hamilton and the like with their own improvements. So in many ways Ball developing their own movement would be a bit ahistorical.


----------



## TK-421

TheWalrus said:


> Exactly - and besides, Ball Watch Company _never_ actually made their own movements - they always used outsourced innards from Hamilton and the like with their own improvements. So in many ways Ball developing their own movement would be a bit ahistorical.


good point. then most likely they wont venture there. |>


----------



## samanator

If you look at the technology section (link below) under movements you will see a list of the Ball Calibers.
BALL Watch Mechanical Timepieces: Swiss Made, American Owned

Some of these are highly modified from the movement they are based on to the point that they are unrecognizable from the base. IWC does similar things with some of their movements. At what point does a movement become in house? UN is one of the only companies that makes everything including the screws in house so are they the only true one that has a true in house movement? Ball's history is based on modifying mostly other peoples movements to Balls standards. This has always been what the Ball Watch Company did in Webb C's day. So the company is named correctly and it's current operation is aligned with it's history.

Below is a quote from Rob's interview with Jeff Hess at Basel this year on the subject:

"This year, Ball came out with several watches that had unique modifications, and patents of existing movements. We are working on several projects relating to different options with movements, but are not looking to bring out a start to finish Ball Calibre proprietary movement in 2010. If you look at what we did come out with this year, the Diver Date Worldtimer, Spacemaster Orbital, and 21st Century all had unique modifications of existing movements that were innovated by Ball designers."


----------



## TK-421

samanator said:


> If you look at the technology section (link below) under movements you will see a list of the Ball Calibers.
> BALL Watch Mechanical Timepieces: Swiss Made, American Owned
> 
> Some of these are highly modified from the movement they are based on to the point that they are unrecognizable from the base. IWC does similar things with some of their movements. At what point does a movement become in house? UN is one of the only companies that makes everything including the screws in house so are they the only true one that has a true in house movement? Ball's history is based on modifying mostly other peoples movements to Balls standards. This has always been what the Ball Watch Company did in Webb C's day. So the company is named correctly and it's current operation is aligned with it's history.
> 
> Below is a quote from Rob's interview with Jeff Hess at Basel this year on the subject:
> 
> "This year, Ball came out with several watches that had unique modifications, and patents of existing movements. We are working on several projects relating to different options with movements, but are not looking to bring out a start to finish Ball Calibre proprietary movement in 2010. If you look at what we did come out with this year, the Diver Date Worldtimer, Spacemaster Orbital, and 21st Century all had unique modifications of existing movements that were innovated by Ball designers."


thanks for the great answer. :-!


----------



## jhess

. We are working on several projects relating to different options with movements, but are not looking to bring out a start to finish Ball Calibre proprietary movement in 2010"


Please read this carefully. In 2010 we will not and have not done it.

Yet.

Jeff Hess


----------



## TK-421

jhess said:


> . We are working on several projects relating to different options with movements, but are not looking to bring out a start to finish Ball Calibre proprietary movement in 2010"
> 
> Please read this carefully. In 2010 we will not and have not done it.
> 
> Yet.
> 
> Jeff Hess


wow wow wee wow! :-!


----------



## TK-421

jeff,

anything in the works? 2011 is in the 4th quarter.


----------



## samanator

Most likely not 2011, but I can say is based on a few well know watch publications there have been some staff movements to Ball that are defiantly to support this. I don't think how is a question anymore (along with if), now the question are when and what? As has been their policy they are not talking.


----------



## TK-421

thanks.


----------



## bg002h

Hopefully this move by ETA can reignite creativity in the movement market...their movements satisfy most any bodies needs well enough...that no one bothers to try something new...(clearly some watchmakers do!)


----------



## TK-421

i was reading that the new CEO of Ball is from Blancpain and that Swatch will not be happy with this and it could hurt their ability to get ETA movements. i don't know if there is any truth to that, but you get the feeling that Ball is on the rise, with both marketing and quality of pieces. it is bound to happen.


----------



## lvt

TK-421 said:


> i was reading that the new CEO of Ball is from Blancpain and that Swatch will not be happy with this and it could hurt their ability to get ETA movements. i don't know if there is any truth to that, but you get the feeling that Ball is on the rise, with both marketing and quality of pieces. it is bound to happen.


Not necessarily, I think Mr André Meier's connection with Swatch Group should make thinks easy


----------



## samanator

Actually if you watch the movements of people in Watch Time you'll see Ball has been bringing in people over the past few years who are movement guys. Ball continues to assemble quite a team from a technical and design perspective. Look at the movements it has made in the market over the past two years. Top ten in COSC movements certified (#7 ) and 15th in marketing money. When they have their own movement I for one would like to see them take the approach of certifying them to the Webb C. Ball RR standard in house rather than COSC (yes I know COSC came from the Ball standard). Some other brands like Zenith and IWC have done similar things and have no less respect in the industry. This way when it says Official RR Standard on the dial it would be true.


----------



## fuzzyb

samanator said:


> This way when it says Official RR Standard on the dial it would be true.


That would be a great thing! I would rather pay the extra money to Ball's technical team to make an accurate watch than to pay for COSC testing. The quality will speak for itself.


----------



## TK-421

is this something they are talking about? i would love it if they had their own standard.



samanator said:


> Actually if you watch the movements of people in Watch Time you'll see Ball has been bringing in people over the past few years who are movement guys. Ball continues to assemble quite a team from a technical and design perspective. Look at the movements it has made in the market over the past two years. Top ten in COSC movements certified (#7 ) and 15th in marketing money. When they have their own movement I for one would like to see them take the approach of certifying them to the Webb C. Ball RR standard in house rather than COSC (yes I know COSC came from the Ball standard). Some other brands like Zenith and IWC have done similar things and have no less respect in the industry. This way when it says Official RR Standard on the dial it would be true.


----------



## otown

Here Here!


----------



## TK-421

i am looking at ball watches now, but really want to wait until they get an in-house movement. hope they hurry up.


----------



## Will_f

fuzzyb said:


> That would be a great thing! I would rather pay the extra money to Ball's technical team to make an accurate watch than to pay for COSC testing. The quality will speak for itself.


I don't agree. The value of COSC testing isn't that COSC watches are higher quality (lots of non COSC watches would pass the test). It's that the watch has been independently verified to meet a standard for accuracy. I dont know what it costs for COSC testing, but it isn't free if Ball does it in house and it certainly wouldn't be independent.

Admittedly, I only own 1 chronometer certified watch and I don't really rank its accuracy as an important feature. Like most WISs, a nicely decorated movement is more appealing than a super accurate watch. However, if Ball is going to market their watch on the basis of accuracy, it's got to be independently verified to be meaningful.


----------



## dmunz

Will_f said:


> I don't agree. The value of COSC testing isn't that COSC watches are higher quality (lots of non COSC watches would pass the test). It's that the watch has been independently verified to meet a standard for accuracy. I dont know what it costs for COSC testing, but it isn't free if Ball does it in house and it certainly wouldn't be independent.
> 
> Admittedly, I only own 1 chronometer certified watch and I don't really rank its accuracy as an important feature. Like most WISs, _*a nicely decorated movement is more appealing than a super accurate watch. However, if Ball is going to market their watch on the basis of accuracy, it's got to be independently verified to be meaningful*_.


I bolded some of your quote because it highlights the fallacy of COSC. They only test the raw movements. All the cert shows is a condition at a specific point in time. Once the movement is customized, IMHO, the COSC cert is no longer really meaningful.

FWIW
DLM


----------



## Will_f

dmunz said:


> I bolded some of your quote because it highlights the fallacy of COSC. They only test the raw movements. All the cert shows is a condition at a specific point in time. Once the movement is customized, IMHO, the COSC cert is no longer really meaningful.
> 
> FWIW
> DLM


I believe the COSC testing is done after any modification / customization of the movements. You're right that the certification would be pretty meaningless if it was done before. In any case, the important point is that if you advertise your watch as complying with a standard (COSC, ISO diver tested, Ball standard, etc) it means more if it is independently verified. For example, as far as I know, no watch company provides independent verification that their watch complies with ISO standards for divers watches. As a result, almost no one cares if a watch is advertised as compliant and watch companies are unable to charge more for it.


----------



## samanator

dmunz said:


> I bolded some of your quote because it highlights the fallacy of COSC. They only test the raw movements. All the cert shows is a condition at a specific point in time. Once the movement is customized, IMHO, the COSC cert is no longer really meaningful.
> 
> FWIW
> DLM


Not really true. These are submitted after any modifications. That is why they issue the certificate to the manufacturer. Only some of the boutique brands use a ETA direct cert. Also the statement about a point in time would be true for any sort of measurement. Anything could be knocked out of spec just after the measurement.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Freelance

Honestly, one of the draws to Ball Watch, and Doxa, and other ETA based watches, for me, is the fact they are NOT using some in house movement that makes serviceability a challenge.

Since I personally have the skill and tools to DIY service my ETA based watches, it makes the cost of ownership, fun, etc., a more enjoyable experience. (My Co-Axial Omega was at the Omega Service Center for 2 months to fix a keyless works issue. Had it been an ETA I could have fixed it in thirty minutes).

When my ETA based watches become out-of-warranty, I know I can deal with any issues. Even though many brands were buying Ebauches and making tweaks, thus a psedo-ETA+In-House, the repair or simple R&R of a movement is nice and easy.

I will take the "I can fix it if it breaks" approach over the "geek factor of a more proprietary in-house movement"... YMMV


----------



## TK-421

not all balls will be in-house. i am sure there will be plenty that you can buy to tinker with.



Freelance said:


> Honestly, one of the draws to Ball Watch, and Doxa, and other ETA based watches, for me, is the fact they are NOT using some in house movement that makes serviceability a challenge.
> 
> Since I personally have the skill and tools to DIY service my ETA based watches, it makes the cost of ownership, fun, etc., a more enjoyable experience. (My Co-Axial Omega was at the Omega Service Center for 2 months to fix a keyless works issue. Had it been an ETA I could have fixed it in thirty minutes).
> 
> When my ETA based watches become out-of-warranty, I know I can deal with any issues. Even though many brands were buying Ebauches and making tweaks, thus a psedo-ETA+In-House, the repair or simple R&R of a movement is nice and easy.
> 
> I will take the "I can fix it if it breaks" approach over the "geek factor of a more proprietary in-house movement"... YMMV


----------



## timefleas

Throughout this entire thread, there are basically two perspectives, one, promoted by the OP, the most frequent contributor to this thread, is that a watch company is not truly legitimate until it produces its own in-house movement--this however, is simply an opinion that has not been supported here with any convincing evidence--it is a kind of watch collector's mantra, but does not have any valid premise. There are a great many watch makers that produce wonderful watches with movements that are not "in-house." 

On the other hand, the second perspective recognizes the value of a movement that is tried and true, easily recognized (and repaired) the world over, and is both economically reasonable, but also functionally precise. To me, from either the watch making perspective, or the watch collecting perspective, which choice makes more sense is rather elementary. 

Until someone can come up with a rock solid argument of why an in-house movement that needs to be designed from scratch, from the bottom up, would be a better choice than taking an already tried and proven movement to which even more refinements can be made, resulting in an even better movement, I will take the trusted ETA, or if they actually do stop making them, their derivative, of which there are many, any day--and my pocket book will be all the happier for it, while the precision of my timekeeping will unlikely to have suffered a bit from it.

My two cents at least.
Peter


----------



## Will_f

timefleas said:


> Throughout this entire thread, there are basically two perspectives, one, promoted by the OP, the most frequent contributor to this thread, is that a watch company is not truly legitimate until it produces its own in-house movement--this however, is simply an opinion that has not been supported here with any convincing evidence--it is a kind of watch collector's mantra, but does not have any valid premise. There are a great many watch makers that produce wonderful watches with movements that are not "in-house."
> 
> On the other hand, the second perspective recognizes the value of a movement that is tried and true, easily recognized (and repaired) the world over, and is both economically reasonable, but also functionally precise. To me, from either the watch making perspective, or the watch collecting perspective, which choice makes more sense is rather elementary.
> 
> Until someone can come up with a rock solid argument of why an in-house movement that needs to be designed from scratch, from the bottom up, would be a better choice than taking an already tried and proven movement to which even more refinements can be made, resulting in an even better movement, I will take the trusted ETA, or if they actually do stop making them, their derivative, of which there are many, any day--and my pocket book will be all the happier for it, while the precision of my timekeeping will unlikely to have suffered a bit from it.
> 
> My two cents at least.
> Peter


I like the ETA movements quite a bit. My favorite watch has an ETA movement which I've found to be accurate, reliable, and euphonic. I also agree that in-house doesn't necessarily mean better. However, I'm very pleased that so many companies are coming out with in-house movements.

Variety in movements certainly makes things more interesting and it spurs a healthy competition to improve. Sure, it's going to cost more to service, just like it costs more to buy the watch, but let's face it: if you're spending the kind of money an in house movement costs, money isn't your first concern and you probably don't fix your own watches. If you do, then you're either a watch nut or a watch maker and you're on the right forum.


----------



## bg002h

Innovation is the only reason to make your own movement...the ETA were precise enough and functional enough that most everyone's needs were at least mostly met...Hence, the eta movements of today are really really similar to those in 1980...and there hasn't been market pressure to innovate...or certainly there would be more if eta closed the floodgate of well tested 30 yr old movements.


----------



## jhess

While it is true that Ball has assembled a terrific team , headed up by Philippe Antille our Chief inventor and CTO , we have no in house movement at this time. In the future, who knows? All companies with a look to the future will certainly be making their own movements..... since the 21st century is sure to be a renaissance in movement making. But for now, we have nothing concrete in place. Mr. Antilles will continue to lead his team with new executions for sure with ETA. Ball, though, is indeed, working with a sister-brand for "improved movement technology". But we love ETA and they make the best and most available movements out there right now. Mr. Antilles executes some terrific modifications. What will the future hold? We shall see!

Rest assured that


----------



## samanator

Given the Swiss courts decision to side with Swatch a week ago I'm curious what will happen since they now can shut off supply? The Swiss government was preventing that up until this happened.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Will_f

samanator said:


> Given the Swiss courts decision to side with Swatch a week ago I'm curious what will happen since they now can shut off supply? The Swiss government was preventing that up until this happened.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Probably some panic buying, followed by rapid price increases of ETA movements, and a lot more watches with Sellita and Seagull movements dropped in instead. The brands with good quality control will probably not see much of a hiccup, and a lot of buyers may decide they really like the much more decorated Seagull movements. My guess is, Swatch just did a huge favor for the competition, but I don't really know. We might even see Swatch coming out with some new movements, but I suspect they're going to keep those movements brand specific (GO, Omega, etc).


----------



## Freelance

Since most Ball Watches are based on ETA 28xx/75xx series, and the patent on those movements are up-- (this is how Sellita basically makes a 1:1 clone of the movement without repercussions), there is nothing stopping any of the companies that used these movements from joining forces with or without Sellita and essentially making their own in-house version of the same watches they have been making all these years. They could then say "in-house", and have interchangeable spare parts.


----------



## Perseus

WatchFiend1 said:


> Costs or not, IMO if any watch company wants to be considered a real manufacturer then they need to start exploring there own movements.
> 
> If ML can develop one then Im sure Ball could as well. I am hoping for the day when most serious watch companies will have their own movement.
> 
> Just taking an ebauche and dropping it in a case is not sufficient any more, especially with the supply taken away by ETA.
> 
> If a watch company is truly serious about earning respect from the WIS community and industry peers, creating your own movement from the ground up and engineering something new and exciting is the best way to do that.
> 
> If you don't engineer your own movement, change the name to Ball Watch case company.:thanks


I think comments like this are VERY shortsighted. Historically no manufactures made in-house movement and for a long time it was actually illegal in Switzerland to manufacture and assemble all parts of the watch. Marketing is the real reason people want in-house movements. Once Swatch bought up ETA and other movement manufactures it became about bragging rights to have that in-house movement.

At the end of the day if you want an in-house movement be prepared to pay Rolex prices. Not convinced? Look at the price jump on the new Omega PO and Aqua Terra models with the in-house 8500 movement.


----------



## Will_f

Perseus said:


> I think comments like this are VERY shortsighted. Historically no manufactures made in-house movement and for a long time it was actually illegal in Switzerland to manufacture and assemble all parts of the watch. Marketing is the real reason people want in-house movements. Once Swatch bought up ETA and other movement manufactures it became about bragging rights to have that in-house movement.
> 
> At the end of the day if you want an in-house movement be prepared to pay Rolex prices. Not convinced? Look at the price jump on the new Omega PO and Aqua Terra models with the in-house 8500 movement.


Valid points, but:

An 8500 movement watch costs a lot less than a Rolex, and Rolex does serious volume. A much smaller manufacturer like Nomos is quite a bit cheaper than Rolex, and has smaller volume than Omega/swatch. Their movements are beautiful and priced closer to Omega than Rolex.
Thanks to ultra high precision CNC machining and CAD/CAM, making your own movement isn't as hard as it once was.

That said, for those of us who aren't rich and want a watch for more than being part of a collection, a Selita, ETA, seiko citizen etc. movement is by far the better choice because of lower maintenance cost and better parts availability.


----------



## TK-421

revue thommen also has an affordable in-house movement. frederique constant's in-house is not outrageous either. the Omega's have been marked up because Swatch is trying to propel the Omega brand to a more elite status. the easiest way to make your brand elite is to raise prices.


----------



## ~tc~

Maybe they could get movements from RGM and come full circle ...


----------



## Fatz028

I said this before in another post. I would like to see ball go back to there roots. Maybe make a limited piece with a Hamilton movement in it. Like what RGM does. I agree with you tc.


----------



## TK-421

the CEOs of watch companies that do not make in-house movements.



Gordon5878 said:


> I wonder how many people truly understand the cost associated with developing a true "In house" movement.


----------



## lvt

Gordon5878 said:


> I wonder how many people truly understand the cost associated with developing a true "In house" movement.


The importance is how many of them (those watches with an in-house movement) will be sold.

To reduce cost Ball could design the movement and have it made by ETA (just like Omega does).


----------



## TK-421

a birdy told me that IWC's in-house movement department is located inside of ETA.



lvt said:


> The importance is how many of them (those watches with an in-house movement) will be sold.
> 
> To reduce cost Ball could design the movement and have it made by ETA (just like Omega does).


----------



## lvt

TK-421 said:


> a birdie told me that IWC's in-house movement department is located inside of ETA.


Hmmm, now I know why their watches are so expensive : they need to pay for the office rental space along with the movements


----------



## TK-421

i think it must be there for ease of parts, but the watchmakers are paid by IWC.



lvt said:


> Hmmm, now I know why their watches are so expensive : they need to pay for the office rental space along with the movements


----------



## ~tc~

lvt said:


> To reduce cost Ball could design the movement and have it made by ETA (just like Omega does).


Yeah, but Omega is Swatch Group.

Of course, if you look at it that way, does that mean Tissot and Hamilton have in-house ETA movements?


----------



## TK-421

my longines column wheel chrono also has an exclusive movement from ETA. this is the closest thing to in-house that longines will have any time soon.











samanator said:


> Actually in some cases yes. In this months Watch Time there is a Hamilton that uses a Hamilton only ETA chronograph movement. It is a high grade column wheel chronograph designed specifically for Hamilton. It timed out to be near perfect in their test (Something the new Omega Coaxial Chronograph did not come close to doing). Given the Swiss courts recent decision many ETA movements will most likely become exclusive to a specific Swatch brand.


----------



## packM65W

, change the name to Ball Watch case company.:thanks


----------



## ton2

a bit off topic, but is the column wheel chronograph movement of longines really good? just curious since I am also eyeing one of their watches with that movement.

thanks



TK-421 said:


> my longines column wheel chrono also has an exclusive movement from ETA. this is the closest thing to in-house that longines will have any time soon.


----------



## TK-421

the quality of the watch is excellent. it is as nice as any watch i have seen under $3K. the movement is very nice looking. the column wheel is blued steel. i will take a picture of the movement and try to post to the longines forum.



ton2 said:


> a bit off topic, but is the column wheel chronograph movement of longines really good? just curious since I am also eyeing one of their watches with that movement.
> 
> thanks


----------



## lvt

ton2 said:


> a bit off topic, but is the column wheel chronograph movement of longines really good? just curious since I am also eyeing one of their watches with that movement.
> 
> thanks


Having a chronograph with column wheel is always recommended, a part from a nicely looking mechanism through the transparent caseback (if yours has one), the column wheel design is likely less exposed to damages.


----------



## Reginald432

I wonder how many people truly understand the cost associated with developing a true "In house" movement.


----------



## TK-421

the CEOs of watch companies that do not make in-house movements.



Reginald432 said:


> I wonder how many people truly understand the cost associated with developing a true "In house" movement.


----------



## TK-421

any word on the progress of ball making their own start-to-finish movement?


----------



## omega1234

I wish Ball made an in house movement, its the only thing keeping me from buying one.


----------



## clarencek

The latest issue of watch time has a whole section on Ball. They are making their own movements. 

"Ball's in-house movement is still in development and remains essentially under wraps. It will be a three hand, day-date, base movement, designed by Antille, that will be assembled at Ball Watch's La Chaux-de-Fonds factory, where Ball currently modifies movements and assembles watches with supplied movements. Ball intends to produce all but 5 to 10 components of the new movement in house, Antille says. Prototypes of the movement were finished a year ago. Because it is their first effort, Ball executives hesitate to predict when they will begin producing the movement. It could take a year or two. "It always takes time," Meier says. "But this is the direction we are going."


----------



## ~tc~

omega1234 said:


> I wish Ball made an in house movement, its the only thing keeping me from buying one.


I must say that's a bit ridiculous. Your Breitling is not in-house. The watch functions no differently with in house vs modified ETA (which IMHO is what all Ball watches have) vs bone stock ETA.

Currently, I think Ball watches represent a great value. I am concerned what is going to happen to prices across the line when the in-house movement comes out, as most brands see it as a license to get obscene with the prices, especially on servicing and parts.


----------



## bg002h

TK-421 said:


> any word on the progress of ball making their own start-to-finish movement?


It's discussed briefly in (what I presume to be) the new WatchTime issue...I can't remember what they said and I'm too tired to look now...good article on Ball though---10+ pages.


----------



## omega1234

~tc~ said:


> I must say that's a bit ridiculous. Your Breitling is not in-house. The watch functions no differently with in house vs modified ETA (which IMHO is what all Ball watches have) vs bone stock ETA.
> 
> Currently, I think Ball watches represent a great value. I am concerned what is going to happen to prices across the line when the in-house movement comes out, as most brands see it as a license to get obscene with the prices, especially on servicing and parts.


1. I bought that before I knew the difference.
2. Its quartz.
3. Its for sale.


----------



## Tuff_Guy_Tony

So I guess Panerai should not be considered a watch manufacturer either then.



WatchFiend1 said:


> Costs or not, IMO if any watch company wants to be considered a real manufacturer then they need to start exploring there own movements.
> 
> If ML can develop one then Im sure Ball could as well. I am hoping for the day when most serious watch companies will have their own movement.
> 
> Just taking an ebauche and dropping it in a case is not sufficient any more, especially with the supply taken away by ETA.
> 
> If a watch company is truly serious about earning respect from the WIS community and industry peers, creating your own movement from the ground up and engineering something new and exciting is the best way to do that.
> 
> If you don't engineer your own movement, change the name to Ball Watch case company.:thanks


----------



## mdatta

clarencek said:


> The latest issue of watch time has a whole section on Ball. They are making their own movements.
> 
> "Ball's in-house movement is still in development and remains essentially under wraps. It will be a three hand, day-date, base movement, designed by Antille, that will be assembled at Ball Watch's La Chaux-de-Fonds factory, where Ball currently modifies movements and assembles watches with supplied movements. Ball intends to produce all but 5 to 10 components of the new movement in house, Antille says. Prototypes of the movement were finished a year ago. Because it is their first effort, Ball executives hesitate to predict when they will begin producing the movement. It could take a year or two. "It always takes time," Meier says. "But this is the direction we are going."


I find this exciting (albeit not surprising). As I also own Zeniths with their El Primero movements I really appreciate owning a part of an in house movement history. The only thing I wonder is if, ten years down the line, I'll be looking at my ETA based Ball Trainmaster Pulsemeter COSC and thinking "great watch, wish I had the one with a Ball movement". Kinda like the old Universal Geneve I have that has a Valjoux 72 movement, not their original UG/Martel movement.

Milt


----------



## TK-421

just got my watchtime and read the article. glad to hear.


----------



## samanator

My hope is Philipps latest effort is as good or better than what he did at Rolex. People can fault Rolex for not having the most appealing to the eye movement, but you have to respect the accuracy and durability of them. Panerai and a few others have not been nearly as successful in this aspects (accuracy has never been a great Panerai trait...I've owned 12). I think Breitling is the only other that has done nearly as well with the BR- 1 cal. Give us something under this model, I can go other places for pretty.


----------



## TK-421

i hope he works on the lug issue with the Hydrocarbon's as well. too many people have bought and sold those within months because of the discomfort.











samanator said:


> My hope is Philipps latest effort is as good or better than what he did at Rolex. People can fault Rolex for not having the most appealing to the eye movement, but you have to respect the accuracy and durability of them. Panerai and a few others have not been nearly as successful in this aspects (accuracy has never been a great Panerai trait...I've owned 12). I think Breitling is the only other that has done nearly as well with the BR- 1 cal. Give us something under this model, I can go other places for pretty.


----------



## TK-421

in-house, what is the ETA on the non-ETA?


----------



## samanator

Don't have one yet.


----------



## MountainMike

Coming soon, looking at the progress that Ball is making, i.e. Springlock, Amortiser II... 

Cheers,
MountainMike


----------



## samanator

MountainMike said:


> Coming soon, looking at the progress that Ball is making, i.e. Springlock, Amortiser II...
> 
> Cheers,
> MountainMike


Yes we are getting it in pieces.


----------



## TK-421

And?


----------



## zephyrus17

Sorry for raising this thread from the dead, but have there been any more news from Ball regarding an in-house movement?


----------



## kirbystrunk

Next year is the 125th anniversary Of Ball. I am hoping to see the in house movement in a special anniversary watch.


----------



## Fatz028

Yeah and get ready to pay a hefty price.


----------



## kirbystrunk

All the anniversary watches have been expensive due to the 18k gold. If they use a in house movement some people will think that it will help justify the price. An in house movement does not have to be expensive. There are plenty of watches with in house movements that sell for under $4000 from various manufactures. I like the idea of an in house movement, but I also know that when it comes time for service you will most likely have to send it back to the OEM or certified service center and that usually cost more.


----------



## sea0bass

That's exactly the point. There are plenty of watches with in house movement Ball does not need to be one of them unless there is shortage of outsourced movements. It is far more interesting to see something that has unique features like spring lock and case back iris.


----------



## Sparrowhawk

Not sure it is the point. An in house movement would be a great thing, if there are benefits to it, for example, more accurate, more reliable, potentially fewer moving parts, spring lock and amortizer light integrated, more anti-magnetic, possible mu metal parts.

There are various upsides and downsides to an in house movement or movements, just because a movement is in house doesn't make it better than what Ball is using, ETA and Soprod, nor does it make it worse.

I just hope Ball does not take an ETA movement and modify it and then call it an in house movement as some other brands have done. I don't think they would do this, even though they do rename ETA and Soprod movements with Ball movement names. I think they have too much integrity to do this. In addition, they already modify movements as stated above with modifications such as SpringLock and Amortizer and those movements are not labeled as in house, correctly so.

So I would say an in house movement that costs more with little to no practical benefits over the current movements Ball is using does not hold much interest for me, but if there are advancements such as I referenced above, at a competitive price, I'd be very interested.

I'd just about kill for a Ball DeepQuest Dual Time, Triple Date, Alarm with a specially commissioned Seiko Spring Drive movement. Technically this would not be in house, but it would be awesome. A modified version of SpringLock would be excellent as well, however I do not know if this is possible due to the differences in the Spring Drive movement.



sea0bass said:


> That's exactly the point. There are plenty of watches with in house movement Ball does not need to be one of them unless there is shortage of outsourced movements. It is far more interesting to see something that has unique features like spring lock and case back iris.


----------



## samanator

Remember where Phillip came from and it will be no surprise that the mock ups I've seen look more Rolex like than ETA. 

Currently it appears that Ball has secured a sufficient supply of ETA movements and the 2015 line indicates COSC variations must be cost effectively available in good numbers. For example the Skindriver II is larger, HEV and COSC at the same price as the original non HEV and COSC version. Most 2015 releases are COSC. This supply has lessened the need for a Ball movement.


----------



## TK-421

Still waiting for the In-House.


----------



## TAYHAS

An in-house movement for Ball Watch Co. would be a big deal for sure, and it might not be a bad idea to get started 


Times are changing as always, and I hope this company will continue long into the future.


----------



## samanator

TAYHAS said:


> An in-house movement for Ball Watch Co. would be a big deal for sure, and it might not be a bad idea to get started
> 
> Times are changing as always, and I hope this company will continue long into the future.


As noted in this thread and in many articles like the one in Watch time a few years ago it is well past that. It's more a case of need ,which currently it does not appear the well of ETA movement (and even COSC ETA movement) has not dried up. Breitling that has several iterations of it's Chronograph in-house movement continues to use COSC ETA also for it's three hand watches. Strange that Swatch Group has not chosen to use COSC movements in it's mid level brands like Longines.


----------



## TK-421

Any update? They should pull the trigger. How modified are their movements?


----------



## clarken

They have a few modifications like the spring lock and amortizer 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kirbystrunk

Just a guess on my part, but I would expect that since 2016 is the 125th Anniversary of Ball that they may release it in a special edition. They have been working on an in house movement for awhile now. I hope we see it soon.


----------



## samanator

See my post #85. This is on hold now.


----------

