 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Sat Dec 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Ohio, N. Carolina & Delta Seat 1C |
| Posts: | 3836 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
I have been asked to personally clarify the confusion with the markings on the watches. I feel I have a confident and open enough relationship with our customers to make a clear statement and get this matter clarified once and for all. While I know that it is impossible to satisfy everyone, it is our commitment to keep a top level relationship with our very loyal customer base.
There is a definite gray area in the use of the words “Swiss”, “Swiss Made”, “Swiss Movements”, “Swiss Parts”, “Swiss Components”, and “Swiss Registration”. The fact of the matter is that, like in many “multiple-component” products, where the country of origin adds value to the product, we tend to highlight that.
A perfect example is the auto industry. You might buy a Mercedes that is manufactured in Mexico using German engineering, some German parts, etc. The brand focuses on highlighting their “German” standards. Much in the same way, the watch industry does when Swiss is present. Without mentioning brands, it is important to understand that Switzerland almost produces NO watch components except parts associated with the movements, and assembly. What this means is that if you bought a $6000.00 Swiss Made Chronograph from “Brand X”, what you are likely buying is a watch that houses a Swiss Made movement (And even the movement components themselves have their own complicated breakdown value. For instance, even if a movement is “Swiss Made”, it does not mean every part in the movement was made in Switzerland, only a given percentage of that ) and the watch was assembled and tested in Switzerland. We do the same, and hopefully that brings clarity to everyone that when we mark a watch “Swiss Made”, you are buying a Swiss Made watch with a Swiss made movement, that is assembled in Switzerland.
Then we get into the way we use the word “SWISS”. The the word “Swiss” was used on watches as a description for a watch using a movement with Swiss part Origins. This includes movements that are bought from SWISS COMPANIES, with SWISS ENGENEERING, that are tested in Switzerland, but has components that are sent off to the Far East for cost purposes to be assembled. Examples of these are ETA, Ronda, ISA, “Far East versions”. They were developed to assist in delivering the consumer more value, on an otherwise identical item. Today, the word Swiss is used on watches that are very inexpensive, because the brand used a Swiss Movement Far East assembly version. Yes as companies we do call more attention to this than the fact that the movement is assembled in China, but that’s marketing.
Then there is the talk about the Swiss Federation. I cannot speak too much into the Swiss Federation standard because it is a private foreign entity, not a law dictating body, and we do not belong to it for a variety of reasons I prefer not to go into. I respect companies developing a stamp of approval and charging for it, such as COSC, but to be part of a group that develops standards on watches based on the direction of the “big players” in the watch industry, and attempting to apply them to smaller companies without giving them a fair chance, is a monopoly, and I am strongly against that.
I make this statement on a personal level, and hope that it can bring some level of clarity to this discussion.
Sincerely,
Eyal