Opinion: Bremont Debacle Update

Unless another major notable bit of information comes out of this story, this will hopefully be the last article we write about Bremont’s controversial new movement, the BWC/01. The folks over at A Blog to Watch were able to get the scoop from Bremont themselves to attempt to clear up the confusion.

To make a long story short, it seems as though Bremont’s new caliber was designed and developed by La Joux-Perret, and comprised of certain parts made in London by Bremont. It can further be deduced that this specific caliber will be exclusive to Bremont – which isn’t much different than many other watchmakers’ “in-house” movements. Our issue really isn’t just with Bremont here; we don’t like it when any watchmaker hides the origin of its movement and then claims it as “in-house”. Understanding that it’s nigh impossible to completely vertically integrate caliber manufacture, the consumers still deserve more transparency, especially with prices climbing higher and higher.

The other major issue pointed out by the white knights of the internet was the similarity between this caliber and the Arnold & Son 6003. As we stated in Friday’s article, LJP made Arnold & Son’s movement, and the fact is, they utilize a very consistent “going train” for many of their calibers. To add some clarity behind their reasoning, when movements are created, they need to be designed holistically. The placement of the going train, balance, mainspring, and any complications must be placed in such a way that works conceptually for the movement. In other words, if you design a layout that works, “don’t fix it if it ain’t broke.” This explains why the movements looks similar, but have different diameters. In our opinion, it also takes away from some level of design and development out of the hands of Bremont, moving it even further away from “in-house”. It ends up not being much different than Hamilton or Tissot having exclusive rights to ETA caliber variants, aside from their business relationship with ETA.

In the end, the true problem is with Bremont’s handling of the initial release of the watch. Here they had another limited edition that likely would have been pretty special to a lot of folks, and they decided to muck it up with misleading information. Instead of aviation fanatics going crazy over the historical piece of muslin in the rotor, Bremont ended up with nitpicking horology nuts – ourselves included – buying pitchforks in bulk. There’s NO WAY the original wording of the movement’s origins (i.e. “designed and developed in Britain”) was accidental. You don’t make a release like this without combing through it dozens of times – especially a brand like Bremont, who seems to have marketing down to a science. We said it once, and we’ll say it again, had they been upfront from the beginning, we think many fans of the brand would have been excited for Bremont’s expansion of manufacturing capabilities.

So where does Bremont go from here? Our hope is they can take this one on the chin like tough chaps and move on. They’ve stated that the BWC/01 was one step closer to achieving a truly in-house movement, and hopefully that’s true. In-house movements in some of the toughest mechanical watches on the planet would make them a powerhouse from our perspective. But until then, all we ask is for Bremont to be clearer and more forthcoming with the details of their marketed achievements.

by