Watchlords

Controversy About the New TAG-Heuer Mvmnt: Cal 1887By:Jeff Stein
Date: 12/8/09 00:35 GMT
I am too busy with work to get into the details at the moment, but I wanted our readers to be aware of a controversy that has been brewing, relating to TAG-Heuer's intorduction of its new in-house movement, the Cal. 1887.


Sorry to have to rely on other forums, to get you the information, but here is a quick recap:


•Here is a posting describing the new movement -- http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tree&goto=4819658&rid=3020

•Some readers on TimeZone immediately post messages suggesting that this movement is nothing more than the Seiko --
http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tree&th=1393019&mid=4819684&rid=3020&rev=&reveal=

•And here is the text af a message, from Jean-Christophe, posted on WatchUseek --
Hi, I'm J.C. Babin the CEO of TAG Heuer, and YES, the new Caliber 1887 is based on a SII (Seiko Instruments Inc.) TC78 platform developped and patented in 1997 (filing) and eversince produced in very limited quantities, apparently for Junghans and Seiko watches in Japan. The caliber we propose and announced last week in London is a major evolution of this platform even though I aknowledge that the overall construction may look similar at first glance. However, the TAG Heuer movement is much different in terms of components, size and eventually performances, not to mention it is manufactured (all its key components including plate, bridges, assortment, cannon pinion, eccentrics etc....) in Switzerland in TAG Heuer workshops of Cornol (Cortech - a company owned by TAG Heuer and already producing TAG Heuer and Zenith cases) and La Chaux-de-Fonds (where we have also the HQs and where we added 30.000 sq feet more last year for movements assembling and other manufacturig projects) as well as from "best in class" partners such as Nivarox.

- Dimensions: it's broader (29.3 mm vs 28 mm) and thinner (7.13 mm vs 7.27 mm)

- Therefore the main plate, bridges - especially the chronograph bridge - and oscillating mass have been significantly modified to allow this evolution

- Its assortment is a swiss asortment specifically developped by Nivarox for TAG Heuer, and allowing to improve further accuracy and shocks resistancy

- New assortment centring of the balance wheel also specifically developped by KIF, a leading swiss expert company in balance wheels centrings

- Change and development of a new swiss engineered cannon pinion to increase time-setting overtime reliability

- Redesign of the fixing of ball bearings of the mass to contribute reducing the thickness

- Adjustements to pass the famous "60 TAG Heuer torture tests" in terms of accuracy, reliability, thermical and physical shocks resistancy, chemical agressions etc....

We have today already 45 TAG Heuer people working full time on that project in Switzerland and work with 21 other suppliers for additional parts, most being swiss. Total investment is several tenth of mio USD.

I would therefore qualify that movement as really in-house and manufactured by TAG Heuer even though, yes, the original IP has been acquired from SII. Please note that the original SII Caliber has always been praised by watches experts.

I hope I answer your questions as well as our fellow Watchuseek lovers !!!

Good evening - JCB



http://www.chronocentric.com/forums/heuer/index.cgi?md=read;id=33587

Another home run by Seiko!

Yeap , that was a shame... a Tag PR disaster, fitted more for an Invicta like Co.

Yup, but at least they owned up in the end and didn't quibble about it

I remember when this first broke, I was a a Jared store and the Tag rep was there. He was not to happy when I asked him about it.

Even the big boys have skeletons in the closet.

Anyone remember this fiasco?

Manufacturing TAG Heuer - New mechanism 1887

Of the 60 patents filed since 1860 by TAG Heuer, 14 have been obtained in the last 4 years and 12 will be recorded throughout 2009. Still, missing the best ... TAG Heuer announces that the next five years will present more than 150 major innovations.



The first one is about to be revealed. This is the new Caliber 1887, the fourth movement Developed exclusively by TAG Heuer concluded after the Caliber 360, Caliber S and Caliber V. This new movement will have its chronograph function is controlled by a column wheel, its components will be manufactured at the premises of TAG Heuer Cornol and then assembled at its headquarters in La Chaux de Fonds.


The completion of the new mechanism, besides the increase of activity in different areas of development of the firm has led to a necessary enlargement of the premises of TAG Heuer headquarters. 3000 square meters of usable space were added to the current 10,000 square meters.

It will probably be presented at Basel 2010...

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f25/manufa ... 31186.html

Interesting read...an 1887 is still on my desired list, though..

Years later, that fiasco was still causing shitstorms at WUS. TAG fans were, of course, shouting about how it is purely in-house, because TH bought the rights to use that baseplate "fair and square" from Seiko. Only TH weren't so fair in their claims of having developed the movement by themselves. It's not a generic movement, but it's not in-house either. Is it good? Yes. It's quite a lovely movement, by all means, although they forgot the important seasoning for that dish - that seasoning being honesty, plain and simple.

As to TAG Heuer's fiascos, they have a particular proclivity for fails - from a Seiko in disguise to Hublotesque designs. They have made a lot of progress in the last few years, with some really great reissues (Monaco, the Carrera "telemeter", the Monza, now the Autavia), and they do seem to try developing proper movements on their own now.
Oh, and they did get Jack Heuer back into the company. Technically a good move...which move they fucked up, as he seems to be sort of a "decoration man", and it's JCB pulling the strings anyway. But, of course, they just had to bring that pest Jean the Flawed Beaver on board, resulting in Hublotification of TAG Heuer. Still, here it's the LVMH that's to be blamed for that, as they're likely fully aware that the Beaver dope brings the Curse of the Whoblows upon every company he's put in charge of.

At least Bremont was nice enough to divert some of the heat from the 1887 onto themselves by virtue of the all in-house La Joux-Perret found in the Wright Flyer.

It's almost like "market driven deception". If the average consumer will pay for something not easily verified whether "Swiss" on the dial or the bragging rights associated with an "in house" movement it's pretty much inevitable that someone will put "Swiss" on a Chinese watch or buy movements from a Citizen division and call it "in house". If the market refused to pay extra for these things then the temptation to lie about them would evaporate.

However "Swiss Made" has come to be a mark of quality rather than simple geography and not without cause. Conversely, "in-house" is pretty much lacking any evidence that it's worth more money - if it was Seiko 5s wouldn't be 85 bucks. In house movements shouldn't really add any cost to a watch but I'd wager the claim of being in-house factored into the Wright Flyer's pricing. This is a little bit strange because in most areas of human business endeavor one saves money and gains independence by moving purchased goods to in-house fabrication. There's the matter of recouping development and implementation costs but it's financially advantageous in the long term.

Hawk wrote:At least Bremont was nice enough to divert some of the heat from the 1887 onto themselves by virtue of the all in-house La Joux-Perret found in the Wright Flyer.

It's almost like "market driven deception". If the average consumer will pay for something not easily verified whether "Swiss" on the dial or the bragging rights associated with an "in house" movement it's pretty much inevitable that someone will put "Swiss" on a Chinese watch or buy movements from a Citizen division and call it "in house". If the market refused to pay extra for these things then the temptation to lie about them would evaporate.

However "Swiss Made" has come to be a mark of quality rather than simple geography and not without cause. Conversely, "in-house" is pretty much lacking any evidence that it's worth more money - if it was Seiko 5s wouldn't be 85 bucks. In house movements shouldn't really add any cost to a watch but I'd wager the claim of being in-house factored into the Wright Flyer's pricing. This is a little bit strange because in most areas of human business endeavor one saves money and gains independence by moving purchased goods to in-house fabrication. There's the matter of recouping development and implementation costs but it's financially advantageous in the long term.

Quite so. "In house" or, for the Archie Luxurys around us, "manufacture", is one of those terms that only collectors and WISs really appreciate. By the same token, while telling a non-WIS that a watch is Swiss made will elicit a certain admiration, starting to explain to them about "in house" makes their eyes glaze over, and starts the interlocutor searching for the nearest fire exit.

Yup. And the eyes glazing over is pretty much justified.

Any distinction common to Rolex, Seagull, Patek and Seiko isn't much of a distinction and explaining why it should be isn't a gratifying exercise.

But watching TAG and Bremont stumbling over their own dicks is grand entertainment.

Hawk wrote:At least Bremont was nice enough to divert some of the heat from the 1887 onto themselves by virtue of the all in-house La Joux-Perret found in the Wright Flyer.

It's almost like "market driven deception". If the average consumer will pay for something not easily verified whether "Swiss" on the dial or the bragging rights associated with an "in house" movement it's pretty much inevitable that someone will put "Swiss" on a Chinese watch or buy movements from a Citizen division and call it "in house". If the market refused to pay extra for these things then the temptation to lie about them would evaporate.

However "Swiss Made" has come to be a mark of quality rather than simple geography and not without cause. Conversely, "in-house" is pretty much lacking any evidence that it's worth more money - if it was Seiko 5s wouldn't be 85 bucks. In house movements shouldn't really add any cost to a watch but I'd wager the claim of being in-house factored into the Wright Flyer's pricing. This is a little bit strange because in most areas of human business endeavor one saves money and gains independence by moving purchased goods to in-house fabrication. There's the matter of recouping development and implementation costs but it's financially advantageous in the long term.

Well said.

The term "in-house" is so loosely defined that it has indeed become merely a moniker of marketing rather than a mark of distinction for high end watchmaking.