Can a watch company really claim heritage

Post Reply
User avatar
koimaster
Founder
Posts: 42492
Joined: December 16th 2009, 11:00pm
Location: Oregon, Thanks for visiting! Now go back home!
Contact:

Can a watch company really claim heritage

Post by koimaster » January 2nd 2021, 10:45pm

if it wasn't in continuous operation?

For example, Blancpain was founded in 1735 and family owned for about 200 years but eventually was sold to a third party in the 1920s and went out of business completely in the 1960s. Then the name was bought out in the 1980s by Jean-Claude Biver and is now owned by Swatch.

Nobody of any relation of the original founder of the company has any involvement in the operations of the company.

I don't know why but it strikes me as disingenuous to say that Blancpain as a company has been making watches since 1735. The current iteration of the company has existed since 1983.

Ball also like to push their railroad heritage. Originally an American company, now owned by "Hong Kong group Asia Commercial Holdings Ltd." that supposedly manufactures their watches in Switzerland. The current iteration of "BALL watch company" has absolutely no relation to the company that was founded by Webb C. Ball in 1891 other than the name.


Invicta Watch Group has nothing to do with the original company in any shape or form. Doxa is another example as is Stowa.
Image

1946-2006

“Your heart was warm and happy

With the lilt of Irish laughter

Every day and in every way

Now forever and ever after."
User avatar
TemerityB
ASSHAT
Posts: 17437
Joined: June 12th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Can a watch company really claim heritage

Post by TemerityB » January 3rd 2021, 12:34am

I like Hamilton, but I think their constant pushing of themselves as "the American brand" is quite laughable.

Invicta isn't a watch brand, it's a marketing company, at best.

A headline from Inc. Magazine about Shinola: "The Real History of America's Most Authentic Fake Brand." I rest my case.

I do agree - same company, passed through generations, can claim heritage. Everything else is pure bupkis - cripes, you have brands like Stuhrling Original talking about their "histories."

Get a load of this hooey. Can you name the brand?

(Fill in the blank) is revered as a legend and pioneer in the field of Horology. Born in Manchester, England in 1749, he was celebrated for his work in refining, and improving upon the Marine Chronometers of the era. It was those Marine Chronometers, crucial to the journeys taken by the boats in the Royal Navy as they circled the globe during a golden era in English history of science and exploration.


This is hype copy from the website of Thomas Earnshaw, Wiley Lowe's "luxury" mushroom brand. The watch dials say "Earnshaw 1805" on them. Most of the company's watches are based in China, of course, in Hong Kong, China and Japan movements and China assembling. It's Dartmouth Brands Ltd (Spinnaker, AVI-8), which proclaims on the site: "Our mission is the same now as when Thomas Earnshaw first started making watches in the 1700’s." Some of the watches have said "Swiss Made" on the dials. By who, per chance? More from Dartmouth: "With our manufacturing and assemblies joined by global partners in Germany, The United Kingdom, China and of course Switzerland, we leverage over 30 years of manufacturing some of the most famous brands in the world to our own stable of brands, providing excellence in quality and workmanship at each location and for each brand."

In case you're interested in Earnshaw, right now they are selling some of their automatic watches as BOGOs on their website. Brand heritage, ya know. There are 176 Thomas Earnshaw watches on the ShopHQ website, buried as fuck; they're not even listed among the "featured brands." Given the other brands they sell, that's almost impossible. Jomashop has a bunch of 'em at whack prices, but Ashford has shitloads of 'em, some as low as $49.99. Heritage costs, don't ya know.

If a watch brand doesn't have its own factories, don't buy it. And if a company talked about its "rich heritage" ... don't buy it.
Best of luck to all my longtime friends here. Please stay safe, always.
User avatar
codguy
ASSHAT
Posts: 7600
Joined: June 9th 2011, 10:00pm
Contact:

Re: Can a watch company really claim heritage

Post by codguy » January 3rd 2021, 9:06am

.

-------> I give the Glashutte companies slack because they were taken over by Russian force.


Playing loose with heritage, should we consider a break in manufacturing......... and/or company ownership??

-Chaumet, Tag Heuer, BVLGARI, Zenith & others (LVMH)
-Blancpain, Breguet, Jaquet Droz, Harry Winston, Omega, Longines & others (Swatch Group)

to cecil, adding;

- Harley-Davidson (AMF)
- Indian Motorcycle (break in manufacturing then to Polaris)
- Rover Group (BMW, TATA Motors, Ford)
- RollsRoyce (BMW)
- Ferrari (FIAT)
- Colt Firearms (Cannae Holdings)
- Smith & Wesson (Winchester, Bangor Punta, American Outdoors)
etc., etc.

A lot of companies play loose with their heritage, where should the line be drawn?
.

Welcome to the watchlords liberal echo chamber.






.
User avatar
TemerityB
ASSHAT
Posts: 17437
Joined: June 12th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Can a watch company really claim heritage

Post by TemerityB » January 3rd 2021, 4:26pm

Falstaff wrote:
January 3rd 2021, 9:20am
You buy the name, you get the heritage. Make a crappy product and the heritage goes down the tubes.
Yep. My point exactly - no amount of pointing at a dead watchmaker can make a Thomas Earnshaw Cornwall be anything but a POS.
Best of luck to all my longtime friends here. Please stay safe, always.
User avatar
TemerityB
ASSHAT
Posts: 17437
Joined: June 12th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Can a watch company really claim heritage

Post by TemerityB » January 4th 2021, 1:23pm

Hawk wrote:
January 4th 2021, 8:13am
Concurrently, one resurrects a dead, bombed into atoms brand, produces a good product and everybody's happy.
That's a great point. Why can't I think of one; my feeble, aging brain is failing to come up with an example. I keep thinking of stuff like Wittnauer, Lucien Piccard, Gruen, Elgin ... all of which eventually went to hell.
Best of luck to all my longtime friends here. Please stay safe, always.
User avatar
MKTheVintageBloke
Master of Time
Posts: 3630
Joined: December 7th 2016, 2:47pm
Facebook ID: 0
Contact:

Re: Can a watch company really claim heritage

Post by MKTheVintageBloke » January 4th 2021, 6:08pm

I guess the fact of a brand having been ”resurrected” is just that, a dry fact. It’s what’s being done with it that matters.

If it’s something like that: ”We brought a brand name back from oblivion, and while we’re a new company, we’re doing our best to live up to the best that the original brand’s products ever got, or we’re doing it better”
...then I’m OK with it. If there’s no overt dishonesty involved, and the product is good, then why would I not be OK with it?

Meanwhile, I am cross about using „heritage” to nobilitate a bad product, or claiming uninterrupted existence, when it in fact wasn’t.
Similarly, I don’t look kindly upon situations, in which companies that never ceased operations use past glories to claim a bad product (or inferior to their past products) to be the fucking peak of what they’re capable of, and/or justify an obnoxious MSRP.
I always hope for the best. Experience, unfortunately, has taught me to expect the worst.
Elim Garak, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

No good deed ever goes unpunished.
Rule of Acquisition no.285
User avatar
bedlam (Online)
WIS Divemaster
Posts: 9073
Joined: November 12th 2011, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Fremantle, Australia (GMT +8)
Contact:

Re: Can a watch company really claim heritage

Post by bedlam » January 4th 2021, 6:16pm

MKTheVintageBloke wrote:
January 4th 2021, 6:08pm
I guess the fact of a brand having been ”resurrected” is just that, a dry fact. It’s what’s being done with it that matters.

If it’s something like that: ”We brought a brand name back from oblivion, and while we’re a new company, we’re doing our best to live up to the best that the original brand’s products ever got, or we’re doing it better”
...then I’m OK with it. If there’s no overt dishonesty involved, and the product is good, then why would I not be OK with it?

Meanwhile, I am cross about using „heritage” to nobilitate a bad product, or claiming uninterrupted existence, when it in fact wasn’t.
Similarly, I don’t look kindly upon situations, in which companies that never ceased operations use past glories to claim a bad product (or inferior to their past products) to be the fucking peak of what they’re capable of, and/or justify an obnoxious MSRP.
Even if its a decent effort at reissuing a watch, using another person's achievements to say good things about your product is BS.

Looking for credit from other peoples' work is always a shitty move.
Meritocracy: the privilege, wealth and advancement of those who chose their parents wisely.
Post Reply

Return to “General Watch talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jason_recliner, wayback and 3 guests