If you think your secs @ 12 suck, check this out!

[turboGUATE]

Propably it has been said before, that even the gens had trouble with their movements (until the recent "in-house" movement was developed and introduced in the current line-up of ROO) but never the less, think about spending $12K or more into a "Ferrari with a 4 cylender"... check this out:

AP ROO gen movement article

Cheers!

[anton]

Well, the same can be said for an ETA 2894. Modular chnorograph; and I've got one in a Breitling Crosswind. But seven years later and it works as well as the day I brought it home.

[ubiquitous]

Ehhh... The new 3126/3840 is still the same DD module on top of the inhouse 3120.

[Fidestro]

I posted in Dani's thread where he complained about missing the Juan Pablo AP something about comparing an AP to a Tag, Omega, or Rolex (I think those were the brands, not 100 percent but I know Rolex was in there). Someone posted some comment about "how dare I compare", except in some really snotty way. I posted that a watch was a watch. I already knew several years ago that the AP had the Depraz chromo module, as do several other brands such as Omega and Tag Heuer. The difference it that for some reason Omega and Tag Heuer are not seen as "high horology brands" (a term I despise) and AP is. I have never had a problem with the Depraz model in my Omega Speedy Reduced or either of my Tag's with it but I did not pay the AP price for it either. Quite frankly at the price they charge, I would be [censored] if it were a 7750. If AP is going to position themselves the way they are then they should be making their own movements.

[ubiquitous]

Fidestro-

They are making their own movements- the 3120 caliber is an in house development. So, in this particular case, they are using the DD module on their proprietary base caliber. Not entirely in-house, but more in house than most others using the same module...

[turboGUATE]

Fidestro-

They are making their own movements- the 3120 caliber is an in house development. So, in this particular case, they are using the DD module on their proprietary base caliber. Not entirely in-house, but more in house than most others using the same module...

True, but I think Fidestro got the point: why pay an enormous amount of money for something that is not worth? (Hence the remark: "a Ferrari with a 4 cylinder").

Makes me think about this:

"You're born, you take [censored]. You get out in the world, you take more [censored]. You climb a little higher, you take less [censored]. Till one day you're up in the rarefied atmosphere and you've forgotten what [censored] even looks like. Welcome to the layer cake son." Eddie Temple, Layer Cake

[ubiquitous]

My point is- With the other brands, you're paying for an ETA 2892 with DD module to get a 2894; in AP's case, you're paying more for either the JLC base, or for the AP in house caliber. It's not an apples to apples comparison. The only constant is the non-integrated module based chrono add on. However, AP is producing their own movements; just not the full stretch with their chronographs as of yet (they're still using the FP1185 in the 25860).

One's perception of worth is subjective, however there is a little more cost justification with an in-house base. As a basis, a new, off the shelf 15300 Royal Oak with the 15300 is around $12,500 MSRP on it's own. Is the ROO case, module add on and other differences worth the extra premium? Obviously, there is a market willing to shell out the cash for it...

[Logan]

Branding.. is the art of getting customers to pay a higher price for your product.

These watches are a fashion item, and they are expensive because the branding convinces us that they should be. All the nonsense about "in-house", and "finishing" and so on is just marketing really.

The true manufacturing cost of these branded watches is staggeringly low.. You're paying for the (30 yr old) design, the rarity, and most of all the marketing effort behind the brand.

Call me cynical.. but there's a reason I collect rep's and not genuines.

[Pugwash]

Wow, someone is underestimating the quality of the JLC/DD movement.

It's much rarer than a 2894, and it's basically not a crappy movement in any way.

In the next post on the blog, the guy goes on to tell you having a basic ETA in your watch is a good thing. I smell controversy-posting for hits.

[Fidestro]

I understand that by definition ANY luxury item is overpriced and that we all have different tolerance levels for what we consider overpriced. I work with people who think my Seiko Monsters at 200 bucks are overpriced. Overpriced is relative depending on who you are talking to. Some would think Rolex Daytona Chronos are overpriced, but they are still completely in-house movements at a similar price to the AP. The base JLC movement may be a fine movement, my main problem with the DD module however is that I have yet to hear of a watchsmith who would work on one. Most watchmakers that I have heard of (on the watch forums I frequent anyway) simply toss the DD module and pop a new one on.

With all respects to Pugwash, rarity of a movement should not be an issue. Realistically Rolex movements are not that rare and yet they get a premium because they are Rolex movements.

[ubiquitous]

When talking about about an in house movement, you have to take into account that the manufacturer has to recover investmentment in R&D of the movement, tooling, and other overhead. The 4130 was in the design/development stages for several years, as was the AP 3120.

DD modules are convenient for a manufacturer who wants to implement a chronograph/stopwatch without having to take on the expenditure to get there. Especially when they can implement the base caliber across diverse product lines to help ammortize costs.

Besides, AP/R&P would rather invest that money into their haute complications, where the cost is a little more justified...

[Fidestro]

seiko movementsare in house movements, inferior movements and cheaper materials sure, but they are still in house movements. I am sure they are not losing money on them.

[ubiquitous]

You're correct. However, Seiko has already made the costs back on their investment for the Miyota powered line. To contrast, if you were to look at their Spring Drive line, or Credor line, the same logic as I mentioned above applies- New designs and applications in movements at a higher price. They have to make back their investment, and these lines are produced at a higher quality to tap into the market share.

[Fidestro]

You're correct. However, Seiko has already made the costs back on their investment for the Miyota powered line. To contrast, if you were to look at their Spring Drive line, or Credor line, the same logic as I mentioned above applies- New designs and applications in movements at a higher price. They have to make back their investment, and these lines are produced at a higher quality to tap into the market share.

I am sure JLC has made back their investment many times over and are making a killing on these movements, which brings us back to the luxury aspect. Luxury being the one thing you refute as to being the reason these are artifically expensive. Since the article linked in the original post had a car reference, I would like to go back to one. I read the other day that Porsche profits around 20k per 911 they sell, and the 911 produced now still resembles a 911 from 20 years ago (more or less, when compared to how other cars have aged). I am sure they had development costs, etc. but I am sure they recovered their investment quite quickly and continue to do so each year that they upgrade and revise them.

I always get a kick out of the "tooling" reference when talking about the production of watch movements. Our Asian 21j, 7750, Unitas clone, etc., etc. also had tooling costs to be able to produce the movements and yet they can do so at a reasonable cost. They also have some design cost as well when you figure reverse engineering and in some cases improvements over old ETA designs. I am sure that they spent less time in development than the JLC but it again points you to the luxury cost tacked on the JLC movement.

[ubiquitous]

Heh... I get a kick out of people who get a kick out of people who get a kick from tooling references.

[Fidestro]

Heh... I get a kick out of people who get a kick out of people who get a kick from tooling references.

I don't mean you any disrespect, it is something I see a lot on watch forums. It hits close to home as I involved in a company with a tooling business. Tooling costs are involved in everything, from pencil erasers to AP watches. Different economics I am sure but it seems people only mention R and D and tooling costs on high dollar items.

[ubiquitous]

Oh, I don't refute the fact that there is high price attached to the items only because of the haute brand name; however, I do see how the cost of R&D would be factored into the price of either a 3120 AP movement or a 4130 Rolex movement. Both are quite new, having only been released for a few years per. Not enough ammortization yet to earn back investment costs.

Rather, my initial argument was on the basis of the whole '4 cylinder on a Ferrari' reference. The point that I wanted to get across was that it's still the same DD module being used on a base caliber. However, at least the cost is somewhat justified as now one is buying into a newer in house basis. Doesn't necessarily make it any more reliable though...

P.S. No offense taken. Just ribbin' ya!