# JLC - industrialized production?



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

JLC is one of the high end brands that mass produce their watch (annual production approx. 60,000). I always thought the numbers were little to big for JLC to be considered high end though. Every other element of the brand is fine; it has a prestige(history), amazing and I mean AMAZING technology, price point, etc. However, if I'm correct, JLC's finishing of their watches do not get that much appreciation, when compared with its other elements.

I want to know if JLC produces all watches by hand. Looking at their production numbers, I definitely think there are some factory machine production involved. I'm sure some of their high end lines are produced solely by hand, but is this true for ALL watches? Most high end brand do produce all of their watches by hand, right?

Another question I came up is whether or not the JLC's movement finishing is in that level of a high end. I haven't seen a lot of JLCs in person, and most photos online / experiences shared by other people suggest that their finishing is pretty weak... and that they have "industrial" finishing. Is this their style with hand finishing, or do they actually not hand finish their watches? Is it an actual fact that JLC's movements finishing are weak compared to other high ends?

Anyone knowledgable about this issue, please do share what you know.

Regardless, I really love the brand, and is trying to save up money to get one in the near future. Quoted from my friend - "it's like they have an alien locked up in their basement making all the crazy stuff for them!"


thanks!


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)

Jaegers entry level stuff don't do much finishing in a display back form, their high end stuff is as good as anything. 

case wise they are finished really well across the board (relative to its price point). 

To be quite frank with you the whole "hand made" stuff is generally nothing more than marketing ploy as apparent quality (and collectors will rabbit on about this as well, usually becuase someone else said so). Doesn't apply to watches only. 

In in an ideal world, what I want is something machine made for most of the part but the very final inspection and subsequent adjustments to be made by an individual. 

Then again im also the kind of person who thinks open display backs on watches are a complete waste of time - unless it's done by ALS or PP


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

Well, I agree with you there that hand-madeness is indeed a marketing scheme, and does not really boost the watch's "quality" in any way. However, it still has that feeling of ... Aesthetic?

I get your point, but then if that's the case why buy high end watches at all? If we buy them just for their function, we should just get apple watches...

Although it is nothing more than an aesthetical value, I still want my watch to be hand crafted, especially if it is expensive! I mean, doesn't that cover for more than half of expensive watches' costs? We are paying for that aestheic value. It's because it requires a human attention, and lots of hours to assemble one watch. If it was crafted mostly by machine, hell no I'm going to spend like $7k (which I think is Jaeger's entry level price range).

I know JLCs have geneva stripe finishing on them, but that's about it on the movement side (at least for the entry models). Hmm.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

I'm not knowledgeable on this but my thoughts: I don't care who makes it, whether all machine, non at all or anything in between. When I hold a watch in my hand that "sings" to me, I will buy it no matter the "price" as long as I can afford it. I have purchased/owned/own a bunch of JLC watches from that perspective and whether or not they are "high end" or not never entered the equation . . .


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)

drhr said:


> I'm not knowledgeable on this but my thoughts: I don't care who makes it, whether all machine, non at all or anything in between. When I hold a watch in my hand that "sings" to me, I will buy it no matter the "price" as long as I can afford it. I have purchased/owned/own a bunch of JLC watches from that perspective and whether or not they are "high end" or not never entered the equation . . .


Well put


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)

humanalien said:


> Well, I agree with you there that hand-madeness is indeed a marketing scheme, and does not really boost the watch's "quality" in any way. However, it still has that feeling of ... Aesthetic?
> 
> I get your point, but then if that's the case why buy high end watches at all? If we buy them just for their function, we should just get apple watches...
> 
> ...


Fair enough, you're spending so much on something you want it to feel special.

I suppose im a bit different from that point - I like hinge well made/finished, regardless of how it is done (ie by machine or by hand) just as long as it is done well I'm happy. Rolex could be an example of this - there's a lot of back and forth about how they make their watches (and a lot I think is nothing more than Internet speculation) but at the end of the day Regardless of if they're done by machine or hand, they are very well made and finished


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

humanalien said:


> JLC is one of the high end brands that mass produce their watch (annual production approx. 60,000). *I always thought the numbers were little to big for JLC to be considered high end though.* Every other element of the brand is fine; it has a prestige(history), amazing and I mean AMAZING technology, price point, etc. However, if I'm correct, JLC's finishing of their watches do not get that much appreciation, when compared with its other elements.
> 
> *I want to know if JLC produces all watches by hand.* Looking at their production numbers, I definitely think there are some factory machine production involved. I'm sure some of their high end lines are produced solely by hand, but *is this true for ALL watches?* *Most high end brand do produce all of their watches by hand, right?*
> 
> ...


Cynics are - beneath it all - only idealists with awkwardly high standards.
― Alain de Botton

Red:
If you feel that the definition you want to apply to the term "high end" includes a production volume aspect, well, then you do. Seeing as there is no accepted definition for the term, you're well within your "rights" to do so. Indeed, each of us has to define that term for ourselves and then find watches that fit the definition.

Blue:
No, not at all. (Photo Essay: A Visit To Manufacture Jaeger-LeCoultre and Swiss watchmaking | The watchmaking craft | Jaeger-LeCoultre) JLC is not alone in that regard. Until one gets into the low-volume range of watch production, one isn't usually going to find 100% hand-made pieces, much less 100% of a firm's entire production output.

That said, Shinola's movements are hand made, but I doubt that they hand construct the cases. There are other makers of hand made watches, however, including mechanical ones. RGM is one example. Ditto Roger Smith, P. Dufour, along with selected pieces offered by various more corporate-feeling companies like JLC, Patek, and ALS.

The Last Great American Watchmaker - MensJournal.com
Roger Smith Hand-Made Watches - A Visit To The Isle Of Man | aBlogtoWatch

You probably need to consider what exactly you expect when you say "hand made." If by that term, you mean that someone is sitting down with a set of tools and an nuggets of metal, glass, plastic, etc. and actually fabricating from scratch, that is from raw materials, by hand every stinkin' piece that goes into the watch, you may have to look far and wide to find that. I think at some point you'll need to define for yourself just what "handmade" means to you, just as you must define what "high end" means for you. You'll need to select where on the spectrum of what makers will call "handmade" the term acquires relevance for you. (Options - Maßuhrenmanufaktur Fischer&Cie.)

I don't know if any watch company other than Rolex and Seiko, perhaps Citizen too, actually cast/mold/sculpt their cases from a raw piece of metal (lost wax method, say, or otherwise), much less whether they do so by hand. More likely is that what most manufactures do is use machines to fabricate the various parts -- be they case parts or movement parts -- that comprise a watch and at various points in the production process use humans to apply finishing treatments, assemble those parts, etc. (Jaeger-LeCoultre - Luxury watches)

Green:
Is what true for "all" watchmakers? That there is some degree of machine performed production? For "all" of them, no. For the overwhelming majority of them, yes.

Purple:
Well, given that you seem to have a production volume aspect to what "high end" means for you, I can't answer your question. I think what you should do is identify watches that appeal to you can call the maker and ask them to what extent the watch in question is handmade vs. machine made. You should probably explain to them what "handmade" means to you because I can assure you that if you think that word means the maker, say, creates base plates by hand, you'll find that a great many of them do not.

Orange:
Of what "level of a high end?"

As for whether JLC's finishing is "weak" or not is a matter of what they have attempted to do vs. what they actually accomplish. I get a sense that you seek absolute point of reference regarding finishing. There just is no such thing. Check out his Hodinkee comparison of three very, very extravagantly finished watches and it'll become clear to you that even at the nth-degrees of execution in finishing, a maker will make deliberate choices about how they want the completed item to appear. (Hands-On: A Critical Comparison Of The Seiko Eichi II, Laurent Ferrier Galet Micro-Rotor, And Philippe Dufour Simplicity â€" HODINKEE)

So even at that lofty extreme of finishing, it's not about what the maker can do, but rather what they decided they wanted to do. That said, at that very refined end of the finishing spectrum, you as the consumer have a lot of say. You're essentially buying a custom made watch that is by and large made entirely by hand, and if you want to request that a given finishing treatment be executed to produce a certain look, that's a conversation point you need to raise with the watchmaker. If the artisan doesn't want to do it the way you want it done, find another craftsman who will. It's not as though there's some great secret that only one individual knows re: finishing. Any of the folks noted here (AHCI | Members), along with some folks who aren't members of that group, can do the work.

All the best.

God is a mean-spirited, pugnacious bully bent on revenge against His children for failing to live up to His impossible standards.
― Walt Whitman


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

humanalien said:


> Well, I agree with you there that hand-madeness is indeed a marketing scheme, and does not really boost the watch's "quality" in any way. However, it still has that feeling of ... Aesthetic?
> 
> I get your point, but then *if that's the case why buy high end watches at all?* If we buy them just for their function, we should just get apple watches...
> 
> ...


I can tell you that I buy them...It's because I don't have an alternative when it comes to wanting a given set of attributes in a single watch and because I can afford to pay for the attributes I want. Do there occasionally arise attributes I want that cost more -- in terms of the watches in which I can find them -- than I'm willing to spend? Sure. Those are the watches I don't buy.

I don't know that I would go so far as to say Geneva striping is all they do to their basic movements. They clearly use _perlage_, they have some beveled/chamfered edges, and they blue some screws too.










I think too that what JLC include in their basic movements they execute as well as it can be executed. Sure, JLC aren't exactly lavish in terms of the finishing techniques they apply to, say, their basic 889 calibre, but they don't mess up the few things they include, at least that's what it looked like to me when I looked at a Reverso movement back when I bought mine. But hey, I'm no "pro" in that regard. I looked using a loupe (one of the few times I have ever done so) and I didn't see anything that looked "half assed" to me.

All in all, I think JLC, in their basic movements, strike a very good balance between visually luxurious aesthetics (finishing) and practicality (price). It's sort of like cooking a steak. One cook can season it only with salt and pepper and grill the thing and another can marinade it and use more/other seasoning/flavoring substances. If both steaks are cooked perfectly, for the diner, it's a matter of what flavor they want most at that moment. JLC "cooks" perfectly, IMO.

All the best.


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

Thanks all, but I didn't plan on talking about whether JLCs are fine watches or not - I deeply think that it is, and I wasn't asking because I was in a dilemma of choosing watches - I just asked because I wanted to know more about JLC specifically.

I know that tons of other brands use machine production, and I understand Tony's story about how only very few assemble watch from a scratch, but to be specific, it was my understanding that other brands, let's say Glashutte Original and Blancpain for an example: they produce less than 10,000 watches per year, and craft every watch by hand (glashutte I'm sure, blancpain not sure but guessing they do). I don't know if this "hand" means they produce everything from a scratch, but I do know for certain that their watch does not feel industrialized as much as JLCs do.

Again, nothing wrong with machine production or industrialized feel, JLC's technology and prestige already proves it's a high end without a doubt, I love JLC, but my question is DO they really produce most of their watch with a machine, and is their movement finishing there but barely visible because of its style, or is it that they actually DON'T spend too much time decorating the movement?

This question is out of pure curiosity. Simple question. How do they handle such large number of annual production? They use machine? Is that why they don't have that much movement finishing? Wait, DO they really have weaker movement finishing than others like GO and Blancpain?

That's all I want to know!


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

tony20009 said:


> I don't know that I would go so far as to say Geneva striping is all they do to their basic movements. They clearly use _perlage_, they have some beveled/chamfered edges, and they blue some screws too


I meant the circular perlage when I said geneva stripes... Didnt use that word because I wasn't sure of the spelling. My bad! Yes, JLC has the circle thingy underneath, and on the top they have the stripe finish. But some seemed like they don't have the stripe finish either (however this is only based on photos online)... not sure.

But yes, so what you're saying is that their movement finishing IS minimal compared to GO, blancpain, and other high ends. Alright, understood.


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

drhr said:


> I'm not knowledgeable on this but my thoughts: I don't care who makes it, whether all machine, non at all or anything in between. When I hold a watch in my hand that "sings" to me, I will buy it no matter the "price" as long as I can afford it. I have purchased/owned/own a bunch of JLC watches from that perspective and whether or not they are "high end" or not never entered the equation . . .


Again, I don't care either, and whether or not they are crafted by hand or machine will not influence my judgement of buying a watch if the watch is truly "speaking" to me. Whether or not they are "high end" is not important as well.

However, I still want to know, out of pure curiosity, if they do craft their watches with machine mostly. I just mentioned other high end brands as an example. So, JLC - more "machine made" compared to high end brands, or not? Movement finishing - minimal compared to high end brands, or not? Please remember, whichever the answer is, JLC is still an awesome brand and is NOT a step behind any other high end brands when you look at the brand as a whole.

Two beautiful ladies, can't compare them against each other as they are both truly awesome, but let's get the thing straight because what I want to know is NOT who is prettier, but about who is shorter/taller - a trait that is *objective and factual.
*


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

humanalien said:


> ...I love JLC, but my question is DO they really produce *most of their watch with a machine*, and is their movement finishing there but barely visible because of its style, or *is it that they actually DON'T spend too much time decorating the movement?*
> 
> This question is out of pure curiosity. Simple question. How do they handle such large number of annual production? *They use machine?* *Is that why they don't have that much movement finishing?* Wait, DO they really have weaker movement finishing than others like GO and Blancpain?
> 
> That's all I want to know!


Look at the link I provided and you'll have your answer. It quite clearly shows that how the accomplish the volume is a mix of efficiencies gained from machines and the extent of finishing techniques applied to the various movements. Here is another link that corroborates what you'll see illustrated at the link I gave you: A Tour of the Jaeger-LeCoultre Manufacture .

Look at the pic below of a GP employee applying _perlage_. Do you consider that doing it by hand or doing it by machine?









(Fratellowatches Visits The Girard-Perregaux Manufacture In La-Chaux-de-Fonds)

In the following pic, one sees a Minerva employee applying _anglage_. There's no question that he does so entirely by hand.









(Like Phoenix from the ashes - the rebirth of Minerva)

The content at the link re: Minerva is probably going to be helpful in providing perspective, although it in no way addresses your specific questions re: JLC.

The thing to keep in mind is that one of the things that made JLC what it is today is their willingness and facility with using machines to accomplish more efficiently that which previously could have only been done entirely by hand. (A Tour of the Jaeger-LeCoultre Manufacture) So essentially you're asking if JLC ignore the one of the key success factors that made them what they are today. I'm telling you the answer is no, they don't.

All the best.


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

tony20009 said:


> Look at the pic below of a GP employee applying _perlage_. Do you consider that doing it by hand or doing it by machine?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I consider that to be hand-crafted, because a "person" is holding the plate, while "machine" is doing something. For JLC, I was expecting more of a "machine" holding the plate in position while another "machine" is doing something.

Wait, so JLC has hand-worked on ALL of their watches, to some extent because of the movement finishing? I'm asking because I thought they could do such finishing decorations with a machine as well. I was thinking more like a factory machine placing components in their positions, like in the movies like Terminator series, and then they screw in, position, fold, overlap, brush stroke, add perlage (by a "machine"), all the parts and voila, finish the watch. Entire process was quick. This was the image of JLC in my head. This was because I saw in other videos from other brands where they manually pick up the component with human hand with a pin set, and place it on the plate to assemble a watch - that takes tons of hours to assemble one watch. But, since JLC has more than six times the annual production numbers, I'm sure they somehow depend more on the machine than human hands for making their watch.

Hmm, I somehow feel the unnecessary "protective comments" about JLC on this thread - again, no need to because I'm not "attacking" JLC at all. So in conclusion, JLC spends less time finishing their movement / crafting a watch with hand, and spends more time doing that with machines, relatively compared to other high end brands. I think that is what everyone is implying in their comments, if you straight up cut to the chase.

That is not a bad thing, and I'd say it's a rather cool thing - all high techy techy. Just wanted to clarify that. Thanks.


----------



## sheon (Dec 15, 2012)

You're right, OP. JLC's movement finishing is, on the whole, 'industrial' compared to, say Lange or VC. But consider their relative price points.

(Within JLC, the Duometre range shows movement finishing equal to 
PP, AP, VC et al.)

I would suggest getting a JLC with a solid caseback, e.g., many of their Reversos, Deep Sea, Geophysic etc. That way, you get the brand pedigree (and a great watch) and don't have to be reminded of the 'industrial' finishing each time you see the back.


----------



## Polke45 (Mar 7, 2015)

Even for watch like Rolex, assembling a watch together requires precise and careful handwork. Using machinery for assembling can be dangerous because one mistake can cost the company the entire watch considering each component is very fragile like if the screw didn't align correctly. Also, the magnetic field from machinery can affect the assembly process

No doubt there are mechanical movement that are made to be easily assemble by machinery like ETA, but it would lack the quality though and messing up an ETA 2824-2 cost far less than messing up a JLC movement

edit: Chances are if the watch cost any more than 5k, it is not purely machinery made


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

shoen said:


> You're right, OP. JLC's movement finishing is, on the whole, 'industrial' compared to, say Lange or VC. But consider their relative price points.


I assumed that it was going to be like that; how about compared to Glashutte Original or Blancpain tho? A step lower high ends.


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

Polke45 said:


> Even for watch like Rolex, assembling a watch together requires precise and careful handwork. Using machinery for assembling can be dangerous because one mistake can cost the company the entire watch considering each component is very fragile like if the screw didn't align correctly. Also, the magnetic field from machinery can affect the assembly process
> 
> No doubt there are mechanical movement that are made to be easily assemble by machinery like ETA, but it would lack the quality though and messing up an ETA 2824-2 cost far less than messing up a JLC movement
> 
> edit: Chances are if the watch cost any more than 5k, it is not purely machinery made


I see! Yes, that makes sense. So could it be that JLCs are not actually using that much machinery in their production as I thought? Thing is, if it was machinery-based I would understand the minimal movement finishing. If they are not, why do they decorate their movements so little? Hmm. or DO they? I really don't know, but most of the online photos and blog reviews about JLC watches tend to say the movement finishing lacks a bit.

Seeing that this thread won't get me 100% of the answers to my question, I sent an email to JLC directly few hours ago about this issue. Am waiting for their reply.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

humanalien said:


> Again, I don't care either, and whether or not they are crafted by hand or machine will not influence my judgement of buying a watch if the watch is truly "speaking" to me. Whether or not they are "high end" is not important as well.
> 
> However, I still want to know, out of pure curiosity, if they do craft their watches with machine mostly. I just mentioned other high end brands as an example. So, JLC - more "machine made" compared to high end brands, or not? Movement finishing - minimal compared to high end brands, or not? Please remember, whichever the answer is, JLC is still an awesome brand and is NOT a step behind any other high end brands when you look at the brand as a whole.
> 
> ...


Yeah, no worries I understand your ? after your elaboration but why would/should it matter unless you're using the info to get to "this one is better (for me) than the other one"? I like attractive females too but I'm a short asian guy so as between your "2 beautiful ladies", one 6 feet tall and the other not 6 feet tall, that would matter only if/as the potential of an actual date approached. Actually, I guess the objective and factual explanation as you say is that you care/are curious about it for some reason and I'm not so will bow out now, sorry for my misunderstanding. Admittedly that doesn't/may not help you, but it's the best I got. Perhaps someone will/has answer/answered with what you're looking for, not sure . . .


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

humanalien said:


> I consider that to be hand-crafted, because a "person" is holding the plate, while "machine" is doing something. For JLC, I was expecting more of a "machine" holding the plate in position while another "machine" is doing something.
> 
> Wait, *so JLC has hand-worked on ALL of their watches, to some extent because of the movement finishing?* I'm asking because I thought they could do such finishing decorations with a machine as well. *I was thinking more like a factory machine placing components in their positions*, *like in the movies* like *Terminator series*, and then they screw in, position, fold, overlap, brush stroke, add perlage (by a "machine"), all the parts and voila, finish the watch. Entire process was quick. This was the image of JLC in my head. *This was because I saw in other videos from other brands* where they manually pick up the component with human hand with a pin set, and place it on the plate to assemble a watch - that takes tons of hours to assemble one watch. But, *since JLC has more than six times the annual production numbers,* I'm sure they somehow depend more on the machine than human hands for making their watch.
> 
> ...


It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
― Arthur Conan Doyle, _Sherlock Holmes _

Red:
Yes, given that you feel the process illustrated by the pic of a GP employee constitutes handiwork, there's a degree of human involvement in the process of creating every JLC watch movement.

Blue:
That's automated or robotic manufacturing. I presume some watch companies use that mode of production, but I couldn't say for sure which ones do or don't, to what extent and with regard to which specific models.

Pink:
I have to ask the following questions:

Are you being completely accurate in your description of how your thoughts re: JLC's production process evolved when you say you watched a video about "Companies X, Y and Z" and the Terminator movies, and then developed from them the idea that JLC might/probably use the same approach as the companies depicted in that video and the movies?
Did the video or movie actually mention, or even imply, that JLC (or any other company for that matter) uses the same methods?
JLC's production volumes, combined with what you saw in a movie and video having nothing to do with JLC, led you to surmise that JLC use a heavily automated production process?

Green:
Rolex, for example, has far higher production volumes than do JLC, and every Rolex movement is hand assembled. (10 Things To Know About How Rolex Makes Watches | aBlogtoWatch) That Rolex does hand assemble every one of their movements doesn't say anything about whether other companies do or don't.

The short is that there is no causal correlation between production volumes and the extent to which machines are involved in the production process. For example, in U.S., if a road needed to be built through/around/over a mountain, the workers making that happen would use a variety of heavy equipment and machinery to do so. In contrast, over the course of a year in the PRC, I witnessed daily the tearing down of a small mountain entirely by hand as done by literally thousands of workers bearing jack hammers, pick-axes, reed baskets and wheel barrels. Never once did I see anything resembling, say a backhoe, bulldozer, crane or any other such heavy equipment.

Purple:
I can assure you my comments have nothing to do with protecting or defending JLC. I can't say what motivated other folks' comments.

Orange:
I'm not so sure even that conclusion is a rational one. I think it safe to say that JLC use machines in parts of their production process and they use human labor in parts of it.

Other:
I think you are seeking some sort of accurate generalization you can make about JLC's production process in comparison to that of other makers, and I think therein lies the problem. Absent very precise knowledge of what JLC and other makers do -- knowledge that only employees of those companies will have and that I have yet to see be freely shared -- one simply cannot do so. At best, one might be able to make the sort of comparison and contrast you're seeking with regard to specific watches that JLC make and specific ones from other makers. How much more or less automation JLC use in comparison with/to other high end makers as a class is probably not a data point you or I are going to be able to definitively obtain.

It's safe to say they use more automation than, say Journe, Dufour, Smith, RGM (Roland), or even Keaton Myrick (Watch Nerdist Interview: KM Independent Watchmaking | Nerdist) whose approach is very similar, though more manually intensive, to what IWC do with their ETA-based movements. It's also likely safe to say that JLC use less automation than do Swatch, Citizen and Rolex. There are almost certainly other companies that can be accurately identified on either side of the coin, so to speak. Short of having a lot of very specific information pertaining to a lot of watch companies, I don't think one can make any more generalizations on the topic you've broached.

I know lots of novice collectors, casual collectors, and basic consumers of high end watches want "quick and easy" rules, if you will, that they can use to assess watches and watch companies at a high level. To be sure, there are some such truisms, but unfortunately they aren't of much use in trying to choose specific watches and the reality is that most (likely all) folks, even the very wealthiest folks, don't intend to buy at least one of every model a given maker has on offer at a particular point in time. Accordingly, the "whole brand" types of generalizations that folks understandably want -- especially folks who aren't keen to put in the time to conduct their own detailed research -- really have no applicability.

I suggest to you, as I do for many folks, that you identify a few specific watches that capture your interest and then ask specific questions about it/them. As for the questions you have about the nature and extent of human involvement, I suggest you direct the question to the maker for nobody else will have a more accurate answer. (I have no idea why so many folks direct questions re: how a maker produces its wares to forums rather than "letting their fingers do the walking.") Forums are good for obtaining user input re: their experiences with various watches and they are good for getting various concepts explained and put into perspective. They're not all that good for specific questions about the manufacture of specific watches or entire lines or classes of watches; those sorts of questions are best asked of the watch's maker(s).

All the best.

When one asks the wrong question of the wrong people, the answer doesn't matter.
-- tony2009 paraphrasing Thomas Pynchon (_Gravity's Rainbow)_


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Polke45 said:


> Even for watch like Rolex, assembling a watch together requires precise and careful handwork. Using machinery for assembling can be dangerous because one mistake can cost the company the entire watch considering each component is very fragile like if the screw didn't align correctly. Also, the magnetic field from machinery can affect the assembly process
> 
> *No doubt there are mechanical movement that are made to be easily assemble by machinery like ETA*, but it would lack the quality though and messing up an ETA 2824-2 cost far less than messing up a JLC movement
> 
> edit: Chances are if the watch cost any more than 5k, it is not purely machinery made


To the best of my knowledge, there is only one watch on the whole planet that has a fully automated production process and that watch is the Swatch Sistem 51. (EXCLUSIVE: An inside view of the ETA high-tech Swatch Sistem51 production in Boncourt in the Swiss Jura) The whole point of that watch, IMO, is to demonstrate that it is possible to produce a quality watch using a fully automated production process.

I wouldn't describe the Sistem 51 as being a watch that lacks quality, but I would absolutely say it lacks a lot of the decorative effects that appear in high end movements. The absence of those adornments makes the watch not elaborately finished, but it doesn't make it low quality. Since Swatch make no attempt to apply things like Geneva stripes, etc., it's not possible to comment on the quality of those aspects of watch finishing. That's not to say the Sistem is a high quality watch, but only that the absence of those finishing elements don't make it poor quality.

Does the Sistem 51 use the same fabrication approaches that we are used to from other mechanical watches? Of course it doesn't. Do the methods and materials Swatch use to construct it work well enough that they allow the watch to perform as Swatch say it does? Yes it does. Quality is a matter of meeting the goals that were set at the start rather than being an absolute attribute that forms the bar against which every item in a class is measured.

At least that's how I gauge it. I think if I didn't, I'd have little choice but to buy the only from among the most expensive items in every class of goods for which I demand the item be a quality one. I don't know about other folks, but I don't always choose the highest obtainable quality every time I want something. For example, the fact is that I like chocolate and sometimes a Milky Way bar is exactly what I want Richart's, Godiva or even Lindt's chocolate is better tasting and higher quality than what I'll get in a Milky Way bar. Given what it is and what Mars intend it to be, the Milky Way chocolate is high quality chocolate. It's no different with a Sistem 51.

All the best.


----------



## Polke45 (Mar 7, 2015)

tony20009 said:


> I wouldn't describe the Sistem 51 as being a watch that lacks quality, but I would absolutely say it lacks a lot of the decorative effects that appear in high end movements. The absence of those adornments makes the watch not elaborately finished, but it doesn't make it low quality. Since Swatch make no attempt to apply things like Geneva stripes, etc., it's not possible to comment on the quality of those aspects of watch finishing. That's not to say the Sistem is a high quality watch, but only that the absence of those finishing elements don't make it poor quality.


I shouldn't use the word quality. When I say quality, I kind of group finishing touch as part of it as well such as geneva strip and perlage in it. No doubt the precision is on par with other movement made by hand

Interesting movement. I wonder if we will see more ETA traditional movement such as 2824-2 to be fully build by machinery soon


----------



## tigerpac (Feb 3, 2011)

Yeah be careful not to mix-up handmade with hand finished. Even Roger Smith uses CNC machines. 

Along the same lines, most companies assemble in sort of a factory style with one person doing the same task over and over. I can only think of two makers where the watches are actually 'bench made' that is, one watchmaker puts it all together, hands, dial, movement, regulation etc. though I'm guessing some more of the micros do it as well. Those two would be Blancpain and FP Journe. Not necessarily an important feature but I think it goes back to your point of industrialized production. 

In any event, JLC's finishing are good per the price of the piece imo, especially the functional finishing but they don't focus on finishing as a selling point necessarily.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Polke45 said:


> I shouldn't use the word quality. When I say quality, I kind of group finishing touch as part of it as well such as geneva strip and perlage in it. No doubt the precision is on par with other movement made by hand
> 
> Interesting movement. *I wonder if we will see more ETA traditional movement such as 2824-2 to be fully build by machinery soon*


I don't know. I've wondered the same thing. Moreover, I've wondered if Swatch's having achieved a fully automated build process will inspire makers who do incorporate elaborate finishing details to devise a fully automated means for building their watches. Hopefully they do, and do so well, and in turn the prices of their watches come down. LOL

All the best.


----------



## sheon (Dec 15, 2012)

humanalien said:


> I assumed that it was going to be like that; how about compared to Glashutte Original or Blancpain tho? A step lower high ends.


I don't own watches from these two brands, but from the few times I've handled a GO (PML) and BP (fifty fathoms Bathyscaphe), and from pics, their movement finishing is good, with beveling, cotes de Geneve/ glashutte ribbing etc.



tony20009 said:


> ...
> 
> Do the methods and materials Swatch use to construct it work well enough that they allow the watch to perform as Swatch say it does? Yes it does. Quality is a matter of meeting the goals that were set at the start rather than being an absolute attribute that forms the bar against which every item in a class is measured.
> 
> ...


OT, but I just read Watchtime's review of the sistem 51 and it wasn't good, with poor precision and isochronism that's far worse than Swatch's claim of -7/+7 s per day.

I like your chocolate analogy, Tony. Give me Wall's ice cream over Haagen-Dazs anyday; I'd just use the savings for my next watch purchase!


----------



## Polke45 (Mar 7, 2015)

humanalien said:


> I assumed that it was going to be like that; how about compared to Glashutte Original or Blancpain tho? A step lower high ends.


I wouldn't say Blancpain is a step lower in the high end watch depending which collection you go for. I have a Blancpain Fifty Fathoms Automatique (5015-1130-52) and it is the best classic looking dive watch. It has a vintage look when view indoor, but under the sun, the curved sapphire and polished dial really shines and stands out from other dive watches. Normally, I would have issue with a 45mm diameter, 15.50mm thickness, and somewhat heavy watch, but somehow, they made the watch so comfortable that half the time, I didn't even feel the watch is there. Well, I like the FF more than the JLC Deep Sea

This is subjective but when it comes to minute repeater, the Blancpain Carrousel Minute Repeater is one of the top 5. Some Blancpain watches are very unique to the industry so that is a major plus in high end luxury

Glashutte Original, on the other hand, feels like a lower version of A Lange & Sohne especially when they have watches that looks similar to each other (Glashutte Original PanoReserve and A Lange & Sohne Lange 1). Not saying I don't like the brand, but A Lange is my 2nd favorite watchmaker


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

Alright, one of the main reasons why I was posting this question - what do you think is the drawback JLC has?

JLC, at least in my eyes, seem to be a high end brand that rests at a position step below Big 5. It is on par with brands like GO and Blancpain. However, if one is to look at their technology level, they are surely, surely on par with Big 5. So then, why the heck are they in the position they are in now? One of the theory I came up was the "they produce watches with machine, and hence weaker finishing than other high ends - that is their only drawback, and that's what caused them to be in the position they are in!". That's why I was trying to make such connection.

JLC is an awesome brand, but there must be a reason why it's below Big 5. Movement finishing? But, Blancpain and GO has a movement finishing a bit less than Big 5 as well. So then, does JLC have the same level of finishing with Blancpain and GO? If it does, then that is same as saying JLC is a step above those two, if you look at their technology level. I think they are the same class, which must mean JLC has a weaker movement finishing then Blancpain and GO.


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)

Who are the Big 5? I know the three and I'm assuming ALS makes up 4 but who is the fifth?

i think it's becuase JLC has such a diverse range of price points and materials used in construction. Whilst that makes it accessible for more customers it also cheapens the brand. Look at Mercedes - 30+ years ago they had just the equivalent of the E and S class; now look at them. More sales yes but they have dropped their quality massively and amongst the proper car crowd at least they have lost brand pedigree. 

in terms of technical innovation as a brand JLC in my opinion trumps all.


----------



## sheon (Dec 15, 2012)

humanalien said:


> Alright, one of the main reasons why I was posting this question - what do you think is the drawback JLC has?
> 
> JLC, at least in my eyes, seem to be a high end brand that rests at a position step below Big 5. It is on par with brands like GO and Blancpain. However, if one is to look at their technology level, they are surely, surely on par with Big 5. So then, why the heck are they in the position they are in now? One of the theory I came up was the "they produce watches with machine, and hence weaker finishing than other high ends - that is their only drawback, and that's what caused them to be in the position they are in!". That's why I was trying to make such connection.
> 
> JLC is an awesome brand, but there must be a reason why it's below Big 5. Movement finishing? But, Blancpain and GO has a movement finishing a bit less than Big 5 as well. So then, does JLC have the same level of finishing with Blancpain and GO? If it does, then that is same as saying JLC is a step above those two, if you look at their technology level. I think they are the same class, which must mean JLC has a weaker movement finishing then Blancpain and GO.


Well, historically (say the 1950s), JLC were never near the level of the 'big 3' (VC, PP, AP). They were content to supply ebauches to the big 3. It was only later, and especially after Richemont bought them (in 2000?), that JLC positioned itself higher up the value chain.

No need to over-analyze this - if you like the watches they make, buy them.


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

Gunnar_917 said:


> Who are the Big 5? I know the three and I'm assuming ALS makes up 4 but who is the fifth?


If my understanding is correct, it's
Patek, Audemars Piguet, ALS, Vacheron Constantin, and Breguet (not in order).


----------



## tigerpac (Feb 3, 2011)

This is quickly devolving into a rankings thread.


----------



## tigerpac (Feb 3, 2011)

humanalien said:


> JLC, at least in my eyes, seem to be a high end brand that rests at a position step below Big 5.
> JLC is an awesome brand, but there must be a reason why it's below Big 5. Movement finishing? But, Blancpain and GO has a movement finishing a bit less than Big 5 as well. So then, does JLC have the same level of finishing with Blancpain and GO? If it does, then that is same as saying JLC is a step above those two, if you look at their technology level. I think they are the same class, which must mean JLC has a weaker movement finishing then Blancpain and GO.


You're going about this backwards. Ranking brands is an exercise in futility. Also, I'd like to see your explanation of "Blancpain and GO has a movement finishing a bit less than Big 5 as well." Between similarly priced pieces with pictures and descriptions.


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

tigerpac said:


> You're going about this backwards. Ranking brands is an exercise in futility. Also, I'd like to see your explanation of "Blancpain and GO has a movement finishing a bit less than Big 5 as well." Between similarly priced pieces with pictures and descriptions.


Please, I'm not trying to do such thing here, because you're right, comparing brands is meaningless and I'm sure they have similar level of details in similar price range. I think you're missing the point; this is not about which brand is "better" or "higher" or "lower", this is about "why" are they in their position as of now. I think it's safe to assume that it is almost a fact that people don't see JLC and Patek as same level. Then my question is, "why is JLC not seen same as Patek when it has such a marvelous technology?". There must be a REASON, whether it's marketing strategy, brand history, price point, details portrayed on their watch, etc. I'm just trying to find out what the reason is. I don't think that is in any way related to "ranking" brands. Or, to put it in a simpler way, you would know for a fact that JLC's price range is lower than Patek. Then WHY, did they put it in that price point? I'm sure even the entry models from JLC has a technology that is suited for A Lange's entry model 1815. So, is their price point only based on the case material? Where does the $10k price difference comes from? Isn't it legit for one to be curious and ask questions?

Same applies to GO and Blancpain. My bad for not clarifying, but I was talking about movement finishing because I suspected THAT was the reason why they are not seen same by the public with the Big 5, and also the reason why their price point is different - the level of finishing on movement, case, etc. It was my assumption so it might not be true, I apologize for making it sound like it's an objective fact. However, that still is my belief, because I cannot imagine any other reason for their different price range + general public's perception.

I hope this cleared any misunderstanding you had about the purpose of this thread.

And, again, I'm not trying to buy any JLC watches nor in dilemma of buying one, this is SOLELY out of my curiosity about a brand. I politely refuse comments like "don't question, just buy one if you like it!" Of course I will buy one if I like it. I like JLC, I like almost all watch brands out there. But what I want is rather a scholarly approach to the matter - I want to learn more about JLC as a brand.

Maybe I was asking a question too big that most of normal people who are not related with watch business will be able to answer...


----------



## sheon (Dec 15, 2012)

humanalien said:


> ...
> 
> Regardless, I really love the brand, and is trying to save up money to get one in the near future. Quoted from my friend - "it's like they have an alien locked up in their basement making all the crazy stuff for them!"
> 
> thanks!





humanalien said:


> ...
> 
> And, again, I'm not trying to buy any JLC watches nor in dilemma of buying one, this is SOLELY out of my curiosity about a brand. I politely refuse comments like "don't question, just buy one if you like it!" Of course I will buy one if I like it. I like JLC, I like almost all watch brands out there. But what I want is rather a scholarly approach to the matter - I want to learn more about JLC as a brand.
> 
> Maybe I was asking a question too big that most of normal people who are not related with watch business will be able to answer...


Sorry, you said in your OP that you were saving up money to buy a JLC watch in the future, hence my advice on looking past the 'industrial' movement finishing and brand ranking and just buy it if you like it.

But you now clarify that you're not looking to buy a JLC watch and are merely curious about the brand.

I actually don't think you will get the answers you want from asking JLC itself. These things (how much their movements are 'hand-made' etc) are usually not divulged.

What I will say is that those who love the brand love it for their reputation as a watchmaker's watchmaker; their deep involvement in the history of haute horology as an ebauche supplier to the big 3 maisons (PP, AP, VC); their ability to craft a compelling watch at a relatively affordable price; and their honesty and integrity as a manufacture. Sure, there are other houses that finish and decorate their movements and cases better (and these deserve our admiration and the price they are asking), but JLC, to its many fans, is truly 'la grande maison'.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

humanalien said:


> Alright, one of the main reasons why I was posting this question - *what do you think is the drawback JLC has?*
> 
> JLC, at least in my eyes, *seem to be a high end brand that rests at a position step below Big 5*. It is on par with brands like GO and Blancpain. However, if one is to look at their technology level, they are surely, surely *on par with Big 5.* So then, *why the heck are they in the position they are in now?* One of the theory I came up was the "they produce watches with machine, and hence weaker finishing than other high ends - that is their only drawback, and that's what caused them to be in the position they are in!". That's why I was trying to make such connection.
> 
> JLC is an awesome brand, but there *must be a reason why it's below Big 5.* Movement finishing? But, Blancpain and GO has a movement finishing a bit less than Big 5 as well. So then, does JLC have the same level of finishing with Blancpain and GO? If it does, then that is same as saying JLC is a step above those two, if you look at their technology level. I think they are the same class, which must mean JLC has a weaker movement finishing then Blancpain and GO.


Red:
I don't think there is a drawback to JLC. If there is one, it's the exact same one that all the rest of the high end makers have: they charge too much for their watches.

Blue:
If you look at various widely published lists of watch companies, you'll find that they are ranked on the basis of production volumes or some other objective criteria. When you encounter subjective rankings from credible writers/publishers, what you'll see is specific watches identified.

As for the "Big 5," as you put it, I may have at one point thought I knew what that term is supposed to mean. I'm pretty sure now that I have no idea what it means. I think the vast majority of why you or anyone else applies such a term has to do largely with popularity, renown and the companies' ability to and success at promoting themselves, not whether they or their products are better than every other companies, not whether they produce better finished watches. When I look at the companies noted on this page -- Brands - Fondation de la Haute Horlogerie -- all I see is larger and smaller companies that focus on various things, but all of them do that which they see as "their thing" quite well.

The fact is that the "Big 5" aren't even that because they are the largest watchmakers, the oldest watchmakers, or anything else that I can identify as a rational basis for their being so. Unlike the so-called "holy trinity of Swiss watchmaking," there's not one thing, besides public awareness, that I can identify as why there is anything called the "Big 5." If you bother to use the term "Big 5," you tell us what what criteria you used to choose the five.

You keep mentioning finishing as the thing that most appeals to you and you want to then rank companies on the basis of the finishing they incorporate into their watches. If that's what you want to do, why have you failed to mention Seiko's Credor line? What do you think is inferior about the finishing offered by any number of makers such as some of the ones noted at the link I provided above? What about the makers, such as Laurent Ferrier for example, who aren't even found on that page? Have you made any effort to compare them or even endeavored to go see their products?

I'd think by now you'd see that several folks here have all but said that what you are trying to do -- establish that something is inferior about JLC -- is pointless, yet you persist. The fact of the matter is that JLC attempts to do something that, say, Patek Philippe do not. JLC offer watches that are accessible to a wide range of budgets. In order to offer excellent products that they can sell at sub-$10K prices and products that are stratospherically expensive and elaborate, they necessarily have to include some features on the less pricey ones that they don't include on the more pricey ones. That's got as much, probably more, to do with business -- pricing strategy, product mix, production methods, etc. -- than anything else.

A lot of folks don't want to or bother to consider that first and foremost, watchmakers are in business to make money and they are competing with other watchmakers for the consumer's dollars, euros, pounds, and so on. Folks come up with whatever arbitrary rankings and bases for thinking "this and that" about who does X and Y better than others. I suppose there's nothing wrong with doing so provided when one does so it is consistent with what the companies' core competencies and focus is.

Look at what JLC are attempting to do and figure out what it is that the do more effectively than anyone else and when you find that thing, you'll also probably find they are better at it -- that is they can offer watches that are consistent with their focus at more favorable prices -- than their competitors. Indeed, even more likely is that you'll find whatever it is, there may not even be that many other companies attempting to offer that thing. Once you find "that thing," you'll have found what it is that is most worth buying from JLC. I don't know what "that thing" is for JLC, but I do know that to find it, one needs to ignore what "everyone else" thinks about the maker and look at what they actually offer. I know what I think "that thing," _i.e.,_ what they "hang their hat on," is for some companies:

VC -- art and stylishness 
Arnold & Son -- artfully implemented designs and art watches; esoteric complications 
Patek Philippe -- complications 
Audemars Piguet -- complications 
ALS -- grand and esoteric complications 
Breguet -- machined dials and cases 
Rolex -- rock solid basic functionality, construction and ease of ownership 
Omega -- same as Rolex, but at a lower price and with greater style variety 
Tag -- chronographs at mostly reasonable prices 
Gallet -- chronographs 
CVDK -- astronomical complications 
Vianney Halter -- esoteric looks and unusually implemented complications 
Breitling -- chronographs tailored for fliers 
Bovet -- skeleton watches 
Blancpain -- complications 
Assuming the above makers comprise the entire universe of watchmakers, were I looking for a relatively standard complication that's implemented in a basically styled watch, I'd first consider PP, AP, ALS and Blancpain. Were I seeking a chronograph, I'd look to Tag, Gallet and Breitling. If I thought I really wanted something with a _guilloche _dial, I'd check out Breguet before all others. What you'll notice from the preceding statements is that in each case I stated clearly what I specifically want. Frankly, I think that the vast majority of HEW buyers haven't the first idea of what exactly it is they want beyond wanting a very nice watch.

As for finishing, well they each do that to whatever extent they feel appropriate to their business model and target customer(s). Frankly, I don't know that anyone other than P. Dufour has more or less hung their hat on finishing. I think that other makers offer whatever degree of finishing they feel appropriate to their business strategy and target customer. Accordingly, would I or can I rank even the makers listed above? No I wouldn't. I would just look at what they do and do well and determine whether I will buy from them or look elsewhere.

I do the same thing with all manners of things I buy. I like sporting performance in a cars, but I know I'm not the most accomplished driver around, so I buy BMWs because so far every one I've had has satisfied me completely. I don't bother looking at Porsches because I don't have the skills to exact the last ounce of performance and handling from a BMW, so I damn sure don't need to waste my money on the increased capability of a Porsche.

There may be less costly cars that can fully satisfy me as well, but as I say often, there's no point in my "fixing what isn't broken." In that regard, one might say that I buy BMWs because I can and one would be correct. (I'm not a car collector of any sort, so I have no need to buy one of each. LOL) I can afford not to shop around and try out a bunch of cars, and since I'd rather spend my time doing something other than shopping for much of anything be it cars, coats, candy, whatever, I don't. I just go to the BMW store, pick a car, pay for it and 20 minutes after I got there, I'm gone.

I'd suggest the same approach to anyone buying watches and who 

doesn't consider themselves a collector
is willing to buy a watch that might even remotely be considered a HEW, and
doesn't have any specific criteria other than that the watch be a very nice one.
The simple fact is that I don't know one earnest collector who ranks watches at all. Every one I know simply considers each make's offerings for what it is and either wants one or doesn't. It's really that simple.

All the best.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

humanalien said:


> Please, I'm not trying to do such thing here, because you're right, comparing brands is meaningless and I'm sure they have similar level of details in similar price range. *I think you're missing the point; this is not about which brand is "better" or "higher" or "lower", this is about "why" are they in their position as of now.* ....


I think you're missing the point, and point you're missing has nothing to do with watches or watchmakers. Intrinsic to any ranking must be that given the criteria by which any group is ranked is the notion that one is better or worse than the other members of the group. It's not possible to say why one member is ranked #2 and another #3 without identifying what the #2 member is better at than is the #3 one. If there simply is no reason, any list that contains them is just that, a list, not a ranked list.

You're the one who started this ranking business of "Big 5" and whatnot. That's why I bid you in my last post to tell us what your criteria are for membership in the "Big 5."

All the best.


----------



## Polke45 (Mar 7, 2015)

Tony20009 couldn't have said it better. One thing I will say is you should not buy high end watch based on rank or who make the better watch, because in the end, you will not appreciate your purchase. Even if you wear a Patek, VC, ALS, or JLC, no one will know your watch is high end. 

Personally, I don't think of watch as a status symbol or rank, but a persona. Each watch cater to different people. You should buy a watch that you love, not the brand that you love. Why is this important? Because unless you have countless of money, there will always be someone with a more expensive watch and you'll be regretting buying the watch you have


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Polke45 said:


> *Tony20009 couldn't have said it better.* One thing I will say is you should not buy high end watch based on rank or who make the better watch, because in the end, you will not appreciate your purchase. Even if you wear a Patek, VC, ALS, or JLC, no one will know your watch is high end.
> 
> Personally, I don't think of watch as a status symbol or rank, but a persona. Each watch cater to different people. You should buy a watch that you love, not the brand that you love. Why is this important? Because unless you have countless of money, there will always be someone with a more expensive watch and you'll be regretting buying the watch you have


Thank you.

All the best.


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

shoen said:


> Sorry, you said in your OP that you were saving up money to buy a JLC watch in the future, hence my advice on looking past the 'industrial' movement finishing and brand ranking and just buy it if you like it.
> 
> But you now clarify that you're not looking to buy a JLC watch and are merely curious about the brand.


I meant that in general terms - I don't have any watch I'm looking at specifically, but just "hmm JLC is a nice brand so one day I'm going to get their watch" lol. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

tony20009 said:


> Red:
> I don't think there is a drawback to JLC. If there is one, it's the exact same one that all the rest of the high end makers have: they charge too much for their watches.
> 
> Blue:
> ...


Again... Big 5 is a term created by the crowds, and yes, the term is given because of its popularity and NOT necessarily their watch's quality. THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT. What made JLC less popular than Patek? What made JLC less expensive than Patek? WHY? Remember I never asked "why is JLC not as good as Patek?" - but rather "there must be a reason why JLC is less popular/expensive than Patek, and I think the answer is movement finishing". If anyone thinks it's NOT the movement finishing, then please, share with me what you think is the reason why, because all I want to know is what that reason is.

Yes I'm trying to find out what JLC is inferior against Patek, but me doing so never means I want to criticize a brand or drag it down. I want to know the reason. So are you saying, that entry model (let's compare between complications, so time-only JLC watch and time-only Patek watch), if they really do have same amount of quality, then people are paying $10k more for nothing, like a foolish men? I hardly think so. SOMETHING would be different. Aside from finishing, I'd guess case material, but case material would surely not mean it will cost $10k more, that is just ridiculous.

It's like my kid is getting bullied at school, so I'm asking other people "what is wrong with my kid? Let me find out what the problem is so I can take action and help my kid!" but people around me are keep on saying "your kid is just as nice as other kids! Don't worry! Don't think your kid is inferior, and don't try to rank your kids with others!"... I appreciate it, and I agree that my kid is just as awesome, but please, what I want to know is the reason why my kid is getting bullied. Of course I know that inside, my kid is just as awesome as other kids in his class, but that is not what I want to know because I already do know.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

humanalien said:


> Again... Big 5 is a term created by the crowds, and yes, the term is given because of its popularity and NOT necessarily their watch's quality. THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT. What made JLC less popular than Patek? What made JLC less expensive than Patek? WHY? Remember I never asked "why is JLC not as good as Patek?" - but rather "there must be a reason why JLC is less popular/expensive than Patek, and I think the answer is movement finishing". If anyone thinks it's NOT the movement finishing, then please, share with me what you think is the reason why, because all I want to know is what that reason is.
> 
> Yes I'm trying to find out what JLC is inferior against Patek, but me doing so never means I want to criticize a brand or drag it down. I want to know the reason. So are you saying, that entry model (let's compare between complications, so time-only JLC watch and time-only Patek watch), if they really do have same amount of quality, then people are paying $10k more for nothing, like a foolish men? I hardly think so. SOMETHING would be different. Aside from finishing, I'd guess case material, but case material would surely not mean it will cost $10k more, that is just ridiculous.
> 
> It's like my kid is getting bullied at school, so I'm asking other people "what is wrong with my kid? Let me find out what the problem is so I can take action and help my kid!" but *people around me are keep on saying "your kid is just as nice as other kids! Don't worry! Don't think your kid is inferior, and don't try to rank your kids with others!"... I appreciate it, and I agree that my kid is just as awesome, but please, what I want to know is the reason why my kid is getting bullied.* Of course I know that inside, my kid is just as awesome as other kids in his class, but that is not what I want to know because I already do know.


Okay. Fine. I should never have gotten myself into this discussion.

I'm not one of the "bullies," and they aren't "friends of mine," so I can't tell you why "your kid" is being bullied.

All the best.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

humanalien said:


> Again... all I want to know is what that reason is.
> 
> Yes I'm trying to find out what JLC is inferior against Patek, but me doing so never means I want to criticize a brand or drag it down. I want to know the reason. So are you saying, that entry model (let's compare between complications, so time-only JLC watch and time-only Patek watch), if they really do have* same amount of quality*, then people are paying $10k more for nothing, like a foolish men? I hardly think so.* SOMETHING* would be different. Aside from finishing, I'd guess case material, but case material would surely not mean it will cost $10k more, that is just ridiculous.
> 
> It's like my kid . . ..


Well as long as we're putting up reasons and since no one has answered "sensibly/correctly", I'm going intangible/qualitative - my guess is that the other companies you're comparing JLC to have done a better job in creating a brand image (define that anyway you want but it should include both $ and advertising in some way, I'm thinking). Now, that might not be correct and is definitely challengeable but it makes sense to me, ymmv . . . .


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

tony20009 said:


> Okay. Fine. I should never have gotten myself into this discussion.
> 
> I'm not one of the "bullies," and they aren't "friends of mine," so I can't tell you why "your kid" is being bullied.
> 
> All the best.


I understand. Nothing wrong with that. I'm trying to get an answer from someone who knows a lot about JLC, to an extent of a professional. It wouldn't make sense if such person was easy to find, even in WUS... I think. Thanks for your effort though Tony, it always helps.


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

drhr said:


> Well as long as we're putting up reasons and since no one has answered "sensibly/correctly", I'm going intangible/qualitative - my guess is that the other companies you're comparing JLC to have done a better job in creating a brand image (define that anyway you want but it should include both $ and advertising in some way, I'm thinking). Now, that might not be correct and is definitely challengeable but it makes sense to me, ymmv . . . .


I see... so it would be more about the brand image / advertising than the quality difference. I have my doubt, but I can believe that too; makes sense. History could have done part too, as I heard JLC only recently started producing luxury watches since 2002 (not sure if it's true)...

I just wish every watches in the world were sold at prices that represents their quality 100%. Then, there wouldn't be any debates on watch rankings or other bulls, and we could just straight up get to the objective standards... It would be easier for people to make decisions as well, I think. I can't believe stuff like "brand image" could impact so much as to the $10k difference in price. It's absurd! Well, humans can't be perfect, so can the pricing. In the end, I love all of them for what they are!


----------



## tigerpac (Feb 3, 2011)

Wow, just wow.


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

tigerpac said:


> Wow, just wow.


Why, just why?


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

drhr said:


> Well as long as we're putting up reasons and since no one has answered "sensibly/correctly", I'm going intangible/qualitative - my guess is that the other companies you're comparing JLC to have done a *better job in creating a brand image* (define that anyway you want but it should include both $ and advertising in some way, I'm thinking). Now, that might not be correct and is definitely challengeable but it makes sense to me, ymmv . . . .


Truly, I didn't mention "marketing and promotion" as being the drivers because I figured that was obvious and that the answer the OP wanted transcended that. Perhaps, however, I'm wrong, and it's not as obvious to everyone as it is to you and me. ???

Sometimes the answer to a question is really quite simple and some among us, myself included, presume (incorrectly) that the inquirer wants something more than that.

All the best.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

humanalien said:


> I see... so it would be more about the brand image / advertising than the quality difference. I have my doubt, but I can believe that too; makes sense. History could have done part too, as I heard JLC only recently started producing luxury watches since 2002 (not sure if it's true)...
> 
> *I just wish every watches in the world were sold at prices that represents their quality 100%. Then, there wouldn't be any debates on watch rankings or other bulls, and we could just straight up get to the objective standards... *It would be easier for people to make decisions as well, I think. I can't believe stuff like "brand image" could impact so much as to the $10k difference in price. It's absurd! Well, humans can't be perfect, so can the pricing. In the end, I love all of them for what they are!


You may not realize it, but that sentiment is a gripe about the very point and nature of monopolistic competition. The downsides of that form of competition are well known by the competitors and clearly you, as a consumer, see at least one of them as it pertains to the buyer. Regrettably (from the consumer's standpoint), fostering objectivity in comparisons is not to monopolistic competitors' business advantage even though it's clearly to the buyer's advantage.

That their name is even mentioned in any debate/discussion of pros, cons, features, benefits, and downsides regarding their wares if nothing else garners for the seller name recognition and builds awareness. That is something every seller wants. Even if the parties to the discussion conclude that a given seller's product isn't what they want now, that all parties to the discussion see/hear the seller's name makes and leaves open the possibility that that seller may receive consideration, and ideally make a sale, in a future purchase situation. If they simply are never mentioned, it's fairly safe to say they will not at all make a sale to the people who partook in the discussion.

As I tried to tell you before, I'm pretty certain the "thing" causing your struggle is a business (and economics) matter one not a watch one. I believe that once you stop trying to evaluate the matter from a "what's wrong with the watch" perspective and approach it from the principles of business management and economics, you'll no longer be confounded.

All the best.


----------



## WTSP (May 6, 2012)

I think the history of the positioning strategy of brands has to be taken into account. Key points as I perceive them:

1) Prior to the quartz crisis, brands such as JLC, Zenith, Rolex, Girard Perregaux or Blancpain were simply good quality "regular" watches. They were good brands that offered movements and overall build quality that was better than average, but still accessible and designed for the average consumer who was willing to stretch their budget slightly. They may have offered some complications models and precious metal cases, but the majority of their sales were two or three handers in steel.

2) In contrast, prior to the quartz crisis the Patek, Vacheron, Audemars trinity was already doing the luxury thing, producing precious metal complications pieces and occupying the high end of the market.

3) Following the quartz crisis, most surviving mechanical watch brands, and certainly JLC, have rushed to cram into the high end segment in order to find customers for their products. In the meantime, trinity brands have basically been propelled into the stratosphere.

As an example of JLC's historical positioning, take this Club model from the seventies. It's gold plated and features a relatively standard and undecorated 17 jewel movement. It's a nice, good quality "normal" watch that is relatively characteristic of the brand's products for a significant portion of its history. This factors into its pedigree and many consumers' evaluation of the brand.


----------



## sheon (Dec 15, 2012)

I agree with you, WTSP. In the golden age of mechanical watchmaking (the 1950s and 1960s), JLC was a maker of reliable but decidedly less upmarket watches. So, the real question the OP should ask is not 'why is JLC inferior to PP?' but 'how did JLC rise to where it is now?'

I think JLC is a great introduction to the world of haute horlogerie. I love recommending the Master Control to people starting to collect high-end watches; I think it's a great way to experience fine watchmaking without breaking the bank. And chances are, after they have worn a JLC, they would want to buy more high-end watches.

Here's the Master Control:








Here's the movement (calibre 899):









'Industrial'? Sure. But it cost me SGD 6800, cheaper than a Rolex Submariner. And I'd much rather have the JLC. And it has all the savoir faire that manufacture JLC has to offer - free-sprung variable inertia balance wheel, a rotor that spins on ceramic ball bearings (which need no lubrication), instantaneous date change, adjusted in 6 positions etc.

In the same vein, JLC has brought several haute horlogerie complications within reach of more people, in part by casing their watches in SS. I'm referring to the MUT perpetual calendar and Master minute repeater. Before JLC did this, these complications were out of the reach of people like me . (The same thing seems to be happening with Montblanc now that Mr Lambert was transferred from JLC to MB.)


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

tony20009 said:


> Truly, I didn't mention "marketing and promotion" as being the drivers because I figured that was obvious and that the answer the OP wanted transcended that. Perhaps, however, I'm wrong, and it's not as obvious to everyone as it is to you and me. ???
> 
> Sometimes the answer to a question is really quite simple and some among us, myself included, presume (incorrectly) that the inquirer wants something more than that.
> 
> All the best.





WTSP said:


> I think the history of the positioning strategy of brands has to be taken into account. Key points as I perceive them:
> 
> 1) Prior to the quartz crisis, brands such as JLC, Zenith, Rolex, Girard Perregaux or Blancpain were simply good quality "regular" watches. They were good brands that offered movements and overall build quality that was better than average, but still accessible and designed for the average consumer who was willing to stretch their budget slightly. They may have offered some complications models and precious metal cases, but the majority of their sales were two or three handers in steel.
> 
> ...


I see... I couldn't understand at first why people care so much about the "history" of the brands... I thought it was still "luxury and high end" if the brand is doing superbly now. But, now I kind of get why some people think that way.

Tony, although what you directly taught me wasn't the answers to my questions, I still could identify my question more clearly due to you, and I thank you for that. You're right, I wasn't asking simply about marketing strategies, but more like "HOW did that marketing strategy work", and I think WTSP answered that question with the quartz crisis and how JLC, Blancpain, etc were just "normal watch brands" before then. ONLY because watches became relatively super cheap and became accessible to average people, the mechanical watch brands were able to "differentiate themselves", and make people think "we are different - we still have a craftsman's mind - we are for the true watch aficionados! We are for true lover of watches!" I'm guessing that's what happened.

as for quality and movement finishing, I think it's that JLC is "just as good", but Patek and those people "spend more time manually" making the watch. It's like a super well done photoshopped image v.s. a watercolor painting. Both are amazing and requires so much work, but because of "marketing", it is seen to the public as "painters" are more "masterpiece-like"... and photoshop will be seen with the image of "cheating because of using computer". This of course is not necessarily true, but for public, that was what it seemed like, I'm guessing, and that makes up for the difference in price.

There is a watch-bible saying that "people should just get the watch if it is speaking to them without looking at its brand", but for most of people the "brand" will determine that speaking part. It's like ugly flowers with mesmerizing scents. Once you actually smell it, you get how the looks weren't everything and it's the scent that matters, but without that experience, ugly flowers "seem to have" awful smell, hence people think in their unconsciousness "I don't like that flower. It is not speaking to me, so I don't want to smell it." For a watch, it is much harder for people to get that "smelling experience(hands-on-wrist experience)", and therefore harder to not get distracted by the brand name and look straightly into the true contents of the watch.

This is my conclusion - JLC watches aren't "inferior" than Patek watches. However, JLC is "a step behind" Patek, in terms of a high end brand. I'd say value of a high end brand also depends heavily on the prestige, luxury, and history (which all relates to marketing strategies), and that is why Patek could be seen as a brand that is step above JLC. I think when comparing watches, the term "better" should only be applied in time keeping or other complication's functions. The movement finishing, let's remember that their purpose is to "visually please people". And most importantly, people have different sense of what is beautiful and what is ugly. Patek surely have had spent more time in decorating their watch. That is an objective truth. However, if one saw a Patek and JLC and thought "hey, I like the look of JLC better!" - then it is safe to say that Patek's efforts in decorating/finishing the movement failed to impress the buyer - and hence their purpose for decorating the watch is now meaningless. Again, a different person could think Patek is better looking. So, it is nearly impossibly to say which is "better", in terms of movement finishing or look-related matters. I'd recommend using "more detailed" when comparing stuff like that.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Romulux (Nov 22, 2014)

Um OP, you seem to be comparing JLC and Patek as a brand, head to head. Have you considered finding a dealer that carries both brands, pick their similar styles, and compare them in person? I think you'd "get it" better than pages of forum posts.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

WTSP said:


> I think the history of the positioning strategy of brands has to be taken into account. Key points as I perceive them:
> 
> 1) Prior to the quartz crisis, brands such as JLC, Zenith, Rolex, Girard Perregaux or Blancpain were simply good quality "regular" watches. They were good brands that offered movements and overall build quality that was better than average, but still accessible and designed for the average consumer who was willing to stretch their budget slightly. They may have offered some complications models and precious metal cases, but the majority of their sales were two or three handers in steel.
> 
> ...


The principle you've depicted above -- companies' success at promoting a given brand image to justify their comparatively rapid price increases in modern times, increases that were a business necessity in the aftermath of the Quartz Revolution/Crisis (QR), has led to a perception among consumers regarding the relative "quality" of their wares -- is on point. The specifics, however, aren't accurate. For example, JLC and GP, even well before the QR, were luxury watchmakers. Neither of them has never not been a luxury watch producer (at least not in the 20th century and later -- I'm not that familiar with what they made prior to 1900 other than that it was pocket watches), regardless of how luxurious they were compared with/to Patek Philippe or Audemars Piguet, for example. Consider this solid gold JLC from the 1940s.























(Vintage 1946 Jaeger-LeCoultre Solid 18K Rose Gold Triple Date Swiss Made Calendar Watches)

...or this one:























(Vintage Jaeger-LeCoultre Solid Gold Triple Date Moonphase Watches Antique Watch Repair)

...or this one:

























(Jaeger LeCoultre P469 movement chrome with buckle 1948 | Vintage Watches)

"Regular," that is non-luxury, watch companies then as now didn't offer solid gold watches and watch movements. I don't know it for a fact, but I suspect that what one will find is that quite a few of today's companies that existed prior to the 1960s have moved from being luxury makers to mainstream makers. Such is certainly the case for Longines and Hamilton. Others like JLC, PP, AP, GP and more were luxury then and they have without question moved to make their image, if not always their wares, even more luxurious or high end.

You may want to peruse the site referenced above (as well as others -- you'll find quite a few PPs here: watches, vintage watches, pocket watches, railroad watches - Finer Times Vintage Wrist Watches) and visiting some high end vintage sellers (auction houses or retailers) to look at some pre-1970s pieces from the likes of GP, Zenith and others to get a more accurate sense of what they offered in the past. After you've done so, I think you'll conclude, as I have, that in years past there was a lot less difference among the offerings, and particularly among the movements, of the top makers than there is today.

As stated earlier in this thread, business practices and market positioning have a lot to do with consumer perceptions about the relative ranking of high end watch makers. One specific practice that contributes to that some of the top makers chose to make a play to consumers who are less willing to spend "top dollar" on a watch. JLC is one of those makers and Patek is not one of them. JLC today offer some watches that are priced with upper-middle market consumers spending sensibilities in mind and there's no question that those specific models forgo some elaborate/extravagant decorative/finishing features. Other JLC models not targeted to less liberally spending consumers incorporate those features.

Another specific practice that affected the greater differentiation among watches is water resistance (WR). Some 50+ years ago, WR wasn't a common attribute of watches, even high end ones. As a result, the corrosive effect of "stuff" in the air that entered the watch case was a very real concern because that "stuff," over not too long a time period, had a direct impact on a watch's timekeeping ability. The finishing that folks/companies today make a big deal about back then had very real uses. Beveling, mirror polishing, gold plating (or using solid god), rhodium plating, and other treatments reduced "corrosive stuff's" ability to take hold on the watch's movement.

These days, even the most basic watch -- high end or not -- has some degree of WR and having it, "stuff" is far less able to enter the watch case and confound the watch's timekeeping ability. Given that, along with watchmaking technical advances that boost a piece's ability to keep accurate time, these days there is no longer much of a tangible, timekeeping reason to buy a high end mechanical watch like a Patek instead of a more modestly priced chronometer grade one from any maker. (Sure, if one wants a mechanical watch that displays an esoteric measure of time, say sidereal time, for example, one must in all likelihood buy a high end watch.)

Given that today, unlike in days long gone when buying high end had specific user benefits, there is almost no functional reason (esoteric complications being the one that remains) that can justify spending huge sums on a watch, watch companies had to shift the approach and theme of the differentiation messages and appeal and adopt thematically what I call the "Loreal appoach" -- "because you're worth it." Thus in the post-QR era, watch companies had to choose from a mix of possible business strategies and market positions. Some of those strategies include:

Focus on the maker's history of first rate watchmaking
Establishing something of a value proposition by offering first rate timekeeping, but dispensing with some (now) purely decorative features
Upping the luxury factor found in their wares and charging more for it
Others....
No matter what approach the company took, what we see today is merely a reflection of their choice, and what companies chose is based on what they felt best plays to their distinctive competencies and will thus allow them to succeed as businesses. That makers like PP and AP's chosen strategy worked and VC, Piaget, Breguet, JLC and others' didn't work as well -- as evidenced by the fact that each of them needed a "white knight" to acquire them in order for them to continue as going concerns -- is merely a function of there only being so many "well off" folks who can and will pay the price for such watches. Or in other words, it's a reflection of the marketplace, consumers, being more segmented than it was some 50+ years ago.

Back then, wealthy folks could as comfortably bought a JLC as they could a PP. These days, it takes considerably more wealth to do so. How does one know that to be so? Well, for one thing, prior to the 1970s, the typical upper middle to wealthy household existed and enjoyed the luxury of their economic position on the income of one breadwinner. Ask yourself how much many folks who today enjoy a lifestyle filled with Pateks, Mercedes Benzes, private schools, and so on can do so on if one of the two adults in their home earned nothing.

The fact is that the rise in the number of women who contribute as much to household wealth as do men has resulted in comparatively more people aspiring to "the good life." In doing so, most consumers gravitate first toward purchase patterns they see as being consistent with those of the "old guard" and for watch companies, Patek, AP and VC have long been the darlings of the old guard. JLC and GP were too, but they didn't have the same degree of popularity and popularity is now, has always been, and likely always will have a huge impact on the fortunes of businesses. What causes popularity? Marketing.

All the best.

P.S.
The above is my attempt to explain things "in a nutshell," but make no mistake, one can, and some have, write a whole book on how companies have evolved from what they once were to what we see them as today, along with the general principles of business, marketing, and economics. There is no question that I've left a lot out, but hopefully the above will give you a high level idea of what happened.
- T


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

Romulux said:


> Um OP, you seem to be comparing JLC and Patek as a brand, head to head. Have you considered finding a dealer that carries both brands, pick their similar styles, and compare them in person? I think you'd "get it" better than pages of forum posts.


Um Romulux, I politely suggest that you're missing the point here. If I was to compare the watches' quality, I would surely need to do that. However, when comparing brands, it is not 100% necessary. Please note that the actual quality of watches take up only small portion in brand as a whole. I'm not sure if you read my reply to the thread just before this page, but I have mentioned that neither Patek watches or JLC watches are truly "better" than each other - unless you compare two specific models in person and measure their actual timekeeping capabilities. If that's your point, all you did is support my argument - I agree with you.


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

tony20009 said:


> After you've done so, I think you'll conclude, as I have, that in years past there was a lot less difference among the offerings, and particularly among the movements, of the top makers than there is today.
> 
> The above is my attempt to explain things "in a nutshell," but make no mistake, one can, and some have, write a whole book on how companies have evolved from what they once were to what we see them as today, along with the general principles of business, marketing, and economics. There is no question that I've left a lot out, but hopefully the above will give you a high level idea of what happened.
> - T


Please note that as mentioned in a page before, I already made that conclusion, and that there is a lot less difference in "quality" of top makers. As I said, I concluded that Patek is a "higher" brand than JLC, but I DON'T think Patek watches are "better" watches than JLC.

Tony, thanks for your detailed reply. Read them through thoroughly, and learned few things (about how JLC was luxury before too). Well, because two people say different things on a web, I can't really determine who is more to trust, but I still understand what you're saying, and think your argument has a valid point. But, if I'm correct, JLC was content in making the movements in the past, and they weren't particularly "greedy" in making luxury watches. I've talked with a huge bunch of watch aficionados recently, and it surprised me that to them that JLC was seen as a "high end quality movement supplier brand" rather than a "high end brand". Sure, they have the technology needed for them to become a high end, but that does not mean it can suddenly turn easily into a high end. It's like being a genius doesn't always guarantee you will succeed in your life and become rich.

I haven't lived the past, so all I can do is judge something according to the present. As for the movement finishing debate, it wasn't that I thought JLC had a less finishing. It was more like "why is JLC seen as a lower brand than Patek?" -> "Marketing? Patek has a marketing that led them to have $10k difference in price? Even for marketing that difference is too much!" -> "there must be something else..." -> "ah! I heard a lot about how JLC movements weren't decorated much. Maybe that's why public's perception of JLC was lower than Patek?" -> "Let's ask if they really do have less decorated movements here!". That was the reason for posting this question. My image of JLC having an inferior finishing on their movements was my "estimation", not my "opinion". Therefore, I easily was persuaded when Tony supplied me with nice photos + other people's kind explanations, because it was not like I actually thought JLC didn't spend time finishing their movement.... It was just a rumor I heard and wanted to clarify. When I encounter people who talks about this matter, I will show them this thread link for the discussion - another reason I kept on reviving this thread, to lead it to a more detailed discussion.

Thanks guys!


----------



## sheon (Dec 15, 2012)

Tony, that post was a tour de force.


----------



## Romulux (Nov 22, 2014)

humanalien said:


> Tony, thanks for your detailed reply. Read them through thoroughly, and learned few things (about how JLC was luxury before too). _*Well, because two people say different things on a web, I can't really determine who is more to trust*_, but I still understand what you're saying, and think your argument has a valid point. But, if I'm correct, JLC was content in making the movements in the past, and they weren't particularly "greedy" in making luxury watches. _*I've talked with a huge bunch of watch aficionados recently, and it surprised me that to them*_ that JLC was seen as a "high end quality movement supplier brand" rather than a "high end brand". Sure, they have the technology needed for them to become a high end, but that does not mean it can suddenly turn easily into a high end. It's like being a genius doesn't always guarantee you will succeed in your life and become rich.


Yes to be honest I am starting to miss the points and the direction of this thread.

I am sensing that you are too caught up in what afficionados, watch guys, watch experts on the web or otherwise say. The reason I implore you to go check out the watches in person is simple. To me this is a forum where we talk mostly about watches the item. The actual piece you own/aspire to own, the one you wear and enjoy.

If we are going to talk about Patek and JLC as a brand, I'll give these 2 little factoids:
1. What I think Patek can do that no other watch brands can do is that they can repair every single watch they've produced. Doesn't matter how old; if the parts are not made anymore they WILL make it for you.

2. If you respect afficionados, then you must know Ben Clymer of Hodinkee. During one gathering Ben was drinking with a Patek watchmaker and discovered a JLC watch on his wrist. It goes to show how those that truly know watches and even does it for a living, view and respect JLC as a brand.


----------



## plastique999 (May 17, 2014)

tony20009 said:


> Thank you.
> 
> All the best.


2 words, now that is brevity Tony 

Sent from my 16M


----------



## sheon (Dec 15, 2012)

I still maintain, Tony, that the JLC of the 1950s and 1960s was a different animal from the JLC of today - they were decidedly less upmarket, both compared to today and compared to VC, PP and AP of the fifties/ sixties.

Have a look at the JLC P478/BWSBr, the movement used in the Geophysic of the late 1950s:









'Industrial', to say the least.

Now look at V&C's P1008/BS, the exact same movement supplied by JLC to V&C, re-finished by V&C, and used in their Chronometre Royal:









'Industrial'? Hell, no.

Here's an exquisite Chronometre Royal from the early 1960s, showing the details of the dial and case:

























Here's the JLC Geophysic:









A lot simpler, cased in stainless steel. A tool watch, rather than the luxury dress watch from V&C.

Here's the movement used in the modern Tribute to Geophysic 1958, the JLC 898/1:








Note blued screws, cotes de Geneve etc.

Here's the TT Geophysic:









This time, not much different from the vintage, as it's a faithful re-edition. But, all in all, the tribute is a lot more upmarket and priced a lot higher, even accounting for inflation. Even the ads for both watches reflect this (the modern says, "You deserve a legendary watch"; the vintage extols the scientific and technical advances of the watch).

Have a look at this vintage Memovox brochure from 1969 from JLC:









And this modern JLC ad:









I would argue: vastly different target demographics. In fact, the modern JLC ad targets a similar demographic group as this 1970s AP ad:









The same story is seen at Girard-Perregaux. In the 1950s and 1960s, GP was a reliable but more prosaic watch company compared to the 'luxury' watch company of today. Here's a vintage Girard-Perregaux:









Here's a modern GP:









Here's the movement:









Again, I would argue - very much more upmarket.

Whereas PP, AP and VC were always haut de gamme brands, both in the 1950s and today.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Well at least the discussion is now occurring in the correct context: at the watch level. I think given the illustrated pieces in Shoen's and my most recent posts, it's clear that: 


> JLC today offer some watches that are priced with upper-middle market consumers spending sensibilities in mind and there's no question that those specific models forgo some elaborate/extravagant decorative/finishing features. Other JLC models not targeted to less liberally spending consumers incorporate those features.


And it's clear that the same was so prior to the QR. That doesn't make JLC be not a luxury watchmaker, it merely makes them a luxury watchmaker offering watches some of which are more luxurious than others.

All the best.


----------



## humanalien (Feb 17, 2015)

Romulux said:


> Yes to be honest I am starting to miss the points and the direction of this thread.
> 
> I am sensing that you are too caught up in what afficionados, watch guys, watch experts on the web or otherwise say. The reason I implore you to go check out the watches in person is simple. To me this is a forum where we talk mostly about watches the item. The actual piece you own/aspire to own, the one you wear and enjoy.
> 
> ...


I said I posted this thread to clarify what they said; not necessarily I agreed with them or thought what they were saying was right. And, this is high end forum, and yes you said just what I wanted. While I "can't" go and check watches in person, I was sure someone else in this forum had the chances to, so I wanted to ask their opinion: people who did what I couldn't. I already had such love and respect for JLC - so I'm a little confused about people's reactions here. They seemed to think I don't appreciate JLC, wow!

I never thought JLC's watches indeed have inferior finishing compared to Patek - I asked "why is it general public's perception that...", and all i wanted is answers like "No that's not true" or how Tony awesomely described, the brand's history and examples, photos of watches movements, etc. That's why I'm so happy people finally got to reply to thread with actual photos and personal experiences!


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Romulux said:


> Yes to be honest I am starting to miss the points and the direction of this thread.
> 
> I am sensing that you are *too caught up in what afficionados, watch guys, watch experts on the web or otherwise say.* The reason I implore you to go *check out the watches in person* is simple. To me this is a forum where we talk mostly about watches the item. The actual piece you own/aspire to own, the one you wear and enjoy.
> 
> ...


You bring up a very good point, one that reminds me of two things that I think are critical for every consumer who plans to spend what they consider "a lot" of money on a watch to keep squarely in their mind:

A little bit of knowledge can be a very dangerous thing, and
Know clearly what one wants from a watch and why one wants it.

A little bit of knowledge:
I have a BMW 3 Series and a 5 Series and I recently -- I don't recall if it was in this thread or another -- I wrote about why I buy BMWs instead of Porsches. There's no question in my mind that any Porsche is a considerably more capable performance machine than is the closest offering BMW has to it. I know I prefer to drive a car that handles smartly, but I know too that the BMW is capable of handling anything I might want to do.

Were I unclear about the realities of my own situation and needs -- make no mistake, nobody needs a BMW or a Porsche just as nobody needs a JLC or Patek -- I might feel like I want a Porsche. Why? I know that most (if not all) experts say this or that Porsche handles better than does the rival BMW, particularly on a racetrack, and I do from time to time go to a track and enjoy driving closer to the limit than I can safely do on public roads.

Know what and why:
Similarly, I like to be comfortable when I drive around in the city. I might thus want a BMW 7 Series or perhaps some other car that is ostensibly more luxurious than is my 5er. Now before I bought the 5er, I drove a 7er to decide which one I wanted. I could tell that 7er is larger, but whatever greater extent of luxury it offers is lost on me. Sure, I suppose more room is more luxurious, but as I can count on one hand the number of times a year there are more than two people in any car I drive, and because I didn't especially care for the greater heft and exterior physical presence, along with the 5er just looking better to my eye, I had no problem choosing the 5er over the 7er.

Conclusion:
What's the point of the above anecdotes? It's that experts are in a fine position to opine about whether X is more "this" and less "that" than is Y. They often enough may choose to purchase X rather than Y. When we "common folk" begin to parrot their buying behavior on the merit of their having said so about X and Y, however, we often enough find that doing so does not give us the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Why does that happen? Because unlike the experts who always have very clear reasons in their head for why they spend their resources on X or Y -- reasons that are very specific to themselves and not the item in question -- "common folk" generally have a perception created for them by outside influencers and they use the thoughts expressed by those influencers as proxies, as a shortcut of sorts, for defining for themselves what they want and why.

The fact is that expert or not, everyone of us -- from novices to genuine experts -- knows everything we need to know to go to a watch store and choose a watch for their personal enjoyment/use, especially a watch of the ilk of JLC, Rolex, Cartier, VC, PP, and others', and be confident that the one we choose is the right one. When one goes to the store and handles the various watches it becomes patently clear which one likes best, which one costs more than one wants to spend, which one has the features one wants, which has more features than one wants, etc. In that situation, brand and brand image stop mattering because one is dealing with the specifics -- the watches, their look, their feel, and so on -- of the item and not some arbitrary thing -- brand image -- that truly is beneficial only to the brand owner and his business partners.

All the best.

I've heard it said that God is in the details. It's the same with the truth. Leave out the details, the crucial heart, and you can damn someone with the bare bones of it.
― Libba Bray, _A Great and Terrible Beauty _


----------



## WTSP (May 6, 2012)

I think that part of Jaeger LeCoultre's strength is in fact its sophistication in the industrialization of its processes, while still being a relatively traditional manufacture. They've always been regarded as a fine maker of both movements and watches, ranging from simple time only models to the complications pieces posted by Tony.

I think that this breadth of manufacturing ability at JLC has an "averaging" effect, where collectors' perception of the brand is located around the median point of its offerings. While Patek does quartz and time only pieces, they probably don't represent as much of their volume.

Concerning decoration, this can be misleading. The most accurate and highly refined movements used for chronometry competitions are often a little raw. Take this Zenith caliber 707 "potato movement" for example. It may not look like much, but it's like a high performance F1 supercar.










JLC has had its share of success in such competitions and the fine balance in the design of its movements is often not visble to the naked eye. I would say that it's the reason AP and VC have been sourcing movements from them for so long.

http://www.jaeger-lecoultre.com/WW/en/content/top-prizes-in-chronometry


----------



## sheon (Dec 15, 2012)

Romulux said:


> ...
> 
> If we are going to talk about Patek and JLC as a brand, I'll give these 2 little factoids:
> 
> ...


I wonder how Mr Stern felt when he read that


----------



## Trygve Lie (May 6, 2016)

tony20009 said:


> You bring up a very good point, one that reminds me of two things that I think are critical for every consumer who plans to spend what they consider "a lot" of money on a watch to keep squarely in their mind:
> 
> A little bit of knowledge can be a very dangerous thing, and
> Know clearly what one wants from a watch and why one wants it.
> ...


Great anecdote, both with fine watches and cars, the prices reflect both internal aspects (touch, feel, and xperience) and external aspects (what others will think of you).


----------



## Ironawe (9 mo ago)

Gunnar_917 said:


> Jaegers entry level stuff don't do much finishing in a display back form, their high end stuff is as good as anything.
> 
> case wise they are finished really well across the board (relative to its price point).
> 
> ...


----------



## Ironawe (9 mo ago)

humanalien said:


> JLC is one of the high end brands that mass produce their watch (annual production approx. 60,000). I always thought the numbers were little to big for JLC to be considered high end though. Every other element of the brand is fine; it has a prestige(history), amazing and I mean AMAZING technology, price point, etc. However, if I'm correct, JLC's finishing of their watches do not get that much appreciation, when compared with its other elements.
> 
> I want to know if JLC produces all watches by hand. Looking at their production numbers, I definitely think there are some factory machine production involved. I'm sure some of their high end lines are produced solely by hand, but is this true for ALL watches? Most high end brand do produce all of their watches by hand, right?
> 
> ...


JLC Polaris Perpetual Calendar is 100% hand-finished. I asked and JLC confirmed directly with me. Decoration includes geneva stripes, perlage, anglage, chamfers for screes, blued screws, satination, open worked gold rotor… beautiful. May not apply to all models hut perhaps they adjust the level of finishing to the price they charge per watch model.


----------



## blakestarhtown (Jul 14, 2018)

humanalien said:


> JLC is one of the high end brands that mass produce their watch (annual production approx. 60,000). I always thought the numbers were little to big for JLC to be considered high end though. Every other element of the brand is fine; it has a prestige(history), amazing and I mean AMAZING technology, price point, etc. However, if I'm correct, JLC's finishing of their watches do not get that much appreciation, when compared with its other elements.
> 
> I want to know if JLC produces all watches by hand. Looking at their production numbers, I definitely think there are some factory machine production involved. I'm sure some of their high end lines are produced solely by hand, but is this true for ALL watches? Most high end brand do produce all of their watches by hand, right?
> 
> ...


Almost everything nowadays is machine-made. Some parts of the watch do require hand assembly, finishing, and regulation.









Now if you want to go deeper down that rabbit hole, I only have one word for you.


----------



## ajw45 (Apr 24, 2019)

Ironawe said:


> JLC Polaris Perpetual Calendar is 100% hand-finished. I asked and JLC confirmed directly with me. Decoration includes geneva stripes, perlage, anglage, chamfers for screes, blued screws, satination, open worked gold rotor… beautiful. May not apply to all models hut perhaps they adjust the level of finishing to the price they charge per watch model.


lolz, the polaris perpetual is a sad sad exxample of everything that's wrong with JLC. That movement is TINY, they just pulled a dress watch movement that's already not super reliable and stuffed it in a polaris case with probably the biggest movement spacer this side of a panerai. The watchmakers watchmaker hasn't made a new sub $1MM movement in years. Oh, and if you believe you're getting a fully hand finished perpetual for under $40k I have a limited edition handmade moonswatch to sell you.....


----------



## WTSP (May 6, 2012)

Tim Mosso had a good segment on his most recent podcast about myth busting in which he discussed how it’s actually quite rare for most watches to be genuinely hand made or hand finished. Even when a watchmaker is finishing a movement, they tend to use some form of hand held power tool to achieve the desired finishing. Apparently you have to really search hard for anybody who still uses hand tools for the various movement finishing steps. Think Masahiro Kikuno or Romain Gauthier.









‎Talking Time With Tim: Episode 39 - Myth-busting with Tim Mosso on Apple Podcasts


‎Show Talking Time With Tim, Ep Episode 39 - Myth-busting with Tim Mosso - Mar 17, 2022



podcasts.apple.com












Why Do Ultra-High-End Watches Cost So Much? Hand-Finishing At Romain Gauthier Sheds Some Light - Reprise - Quill & Pad


Why do high-end watches cost so much? To answer the question, Ian Skellern looked at low production numbers and high complexity, but the cost he focuses on here is hand-finishing, because unlike low production numbers and high complexity, ultra-high-level hand-finishing is not easy to appreciate.




quillandpad.com


----------



## espresso&watches (Feb 14, 2019)

ajw45 said:


> That movement is TINY, they just pulled a dress watch movement that's already not super reliable and stuffed it in a polaris case with probably the biggest movement spacer this side of a panerai.


A "dress watch movement"? What does that even mean? JLC's cal. 920 was an elegant, ultra-thin, 26mm auto that powered the Royal Oak, Nautilus, among others - is that also a "dress watch movement" stuffed into a sports watch case? Should we deride those watches for it?

As to the diameter of the movement, most manufactures use movements in the 26-30mm range in 38-42mm cases (even Rolex's cal 3235 is 28.5mm in a 41mm submariner case). It's certainly not unique to JLC, and while I personally prefer movements that take up more of the case real estate, I don't think JLC deserves particular scorn for that.


----------



## ajw45 (Apr 24, 2019)

espresso&watches said:


> A "dress watch movement"? What does that even mean? JLC's cal. 920 was an elegant, ultra-thin, 26mm auto that powered the Royal Oak, Nautilus, among others - is that also a "dress watch movement" stuffed into a sports watch case? Should we deride those watches for it?
> 
> As to the diameter of the movement, most manufactures use movements in the 26-30mm range in 38-42mm cases (even Rolex's cal 3235 is 28.5mm in a 41mm submariner case). It's certainly not unique to JLC, and while I personally prefer movements that take up more of the case real estate, I don't think JLC deserves particular scorn for that.


It means exactly what it sounds like, JLC took a movement designed for a dress watch and put it in a sporty case. When ALS launched the Odysseus they reused the langomatic base but moved to a full balance bridge. When MB&F did the Perpetual Evo, they shock mounted the whole movement. When Laurent Ferrier launched the sport auto they dropped the natural escapement in favor of a more durable traditional Swiss lever. If JLC didn't make their own movements and had to buy ots like those that used the 920 or they were selling a closed case back watch for a less than a 1/4 of the price like the Rolex, sure, but this is laziness.


----------



## espresso&watches (Feb 14, 2019)

ajw45 said:


> If JLC didn't make their own movements and had to buy ots like those that used the 920 or they were selling a closed case back watch for a less than a 1/4 of the price like the Rolex, sure, but this is laziness.


Ok, while I disagree with the majority of your original post, this is actually a fair point. 👍


----------

