When a watch brand brags about having “in-house movements,” that means they made the movements themselves rather than buying them from a third party. At least, it should–but the term has been abused and warped over the years. In the early 2000’s, hubbub about in-house movements still wasn’t really a thing yet. Sometime around 2008, though, the term took off and consumers largely began viewing “in-house movement” as a checkbox that expensive watches should check. The exact definition of the term has become (often intentionally) murky, but in this article we’ll explain what an in-house movement watch is as coherently as we can.
![This A. Lange & Sohne Zeitwerk has a beautiful in-house movement](https://www.luxurybazaar.com/grey-market/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/lange-caseback-1024x683.jpg)
Historically, Swiss watchmaking involved several separate firms. Different parts manufacturers and watchmakers co-existed productively, doing business with each other and helping drive specialization and industry knowledge as a whole. Striving to make a “fully in-house movement”–with every single part made by your firm–would’ve seemed odd in the 19th century. Why would you be particularly proud of not economically supporting any of your neighbors? Regardless, times have changed, so let’s go over some terminology.
Proprietary vs. In-House vs. Manufacture Movements
To some people, “manufacture movement” and “in-house movement” mean the same thing. And, really, they should. But I feel like, colloquially, the definition of an in-house movement has been stretched and stretched more than the definition of a manufacture one (don’t forget those italics). All manufacture movements are in-house movements, but not everything that gets called an in-house movement is a true manufacture movement.
What is a Manufacture Movement?
A manufacture watch movement is one completely designed and manufactured by the brand whose name is on the dial. Well, “completely” can mean “oh, except for the hairspring” in many cases. After all, there are only about ten major Swiss hairspring producers.
Armin Strom, for example, makes every part of their movements in-house except for the hairspring, and I still think of them as manufacture movements. It would be odd to think of Armin Strom movements as less impressive than, say, IWC movements just because IWC is owned by a conglomerate that also owns a hairspring producer.
![Patek 5270R's beautiful in house movement](https://www.luxurybazaar.com/grey-market/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Patek-5270r-movement-CH-29-535-PS-Q.jpg)
What is an In-House Movement, Then?
An in-house watch movement is one that is (at least mostly) designed and manufactured by the brand on the watch. Sometimes some parts are made by sister companies owned by the same conglomerate, or some other firm that the brand has a special/exclusive relationship with. Note that this isn’t an official definition–just my subjective summation of how it seems to be used.
Is a Proprietary Movement the Same Thing?
No. Proprietary movements are made exclusively for the brand, but not necessarily by the brand. Or, they could be third-party movements that have been heavily and uniquely modified by the brand itself.
Tudor In-House Movements: What’s the Deal?
Tudor’s situation is a bit confusing when it comes to in-house movements. They say their Calibre MT5612 is a manufacture movement, and that’s justifiable. I might call it “proprietary” or “in-house” rather than “manufacture” because the movement maker, Kenissi, isn’t entirely owned by Tudor and also sells similar movements to other brands. But the Kenissi factory is literally in the same building as the Tudor factory, and they largely work as one–so that’s just nitpicking.
![The other end of the Tudor factory is for Tudor's in house movement brand, Kenissi](https://www.luxurybazaar.com/grey-market/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/tudor-factory.jpg)
What’s more questionable to me, however, is Tudor’s claim that the Calibre MT5813 is a manufacture chronograph movement…despite clearly stating that it’s based on the Breitling B01. Yes, it has been heavily modified, maybe even modified so heavily that you can justifiably say that it’s in-house. But, to me, that’s just not what a manufacture movement is.
If a heavily modified Breitling movement is a “manufacture” caliber, well, then that means we don’t even have a word for a truly all-manufacturer-made movement. Roger W. Smith painstakingly crafts every single part of his legendary watches himself; should we call that super-duper-in-house? Whatever word we choose will just keep getting subverted. And that brings us to the next topic.
More Watch Fundamentals:
What is a Moonphase Watch?
What is a Grand Complication Watch?
What is a Dive Watch?
What is a World Time Watch?
Stretching the Definition of “In-House Movement”
Here are some other controversies surrounding deceptive “in-house movement” marketing:
- Perezcope noticed that Panerai’s “in-house” P.9200 movement was in fact based on an ETA 2892-A2 movement. The “2892A2” stamp was even visible on the baseplate. Oof.
- TAG Heuer’s Calibre 1887 movement turned out to be based on the Seiko Instruments TC78 movement design. TAG Heuer had purchased the European manufacturing rights to that movement, and they did manufacture it themselves after making numerous changes. Still, it wasn’t a good look for them to have called it “100% in-house.”
- Certain Richemont Group brands like IWC and Panerai have used movements from the group’s ValFleurier facility, which some argue should not qualify as fully in-house since ValFleurier supplies movements to multiple brands. That definition has grown to be more accepted, though.
- Norqain calls one of their movements the “Norqain Manufacture Calibre NN20/1 by Kenissi.” Well which one is it? Is it manufacture or is it by Kenissi? Kenissi is Tudor’s in-house movement maker, not Norqain’s.
- In 2014, Bremont claimed to have made their first in-house movement, but it turned out to be based on a La Joux-Perret base movement. LJP did make several modifications to the movement just for them, though, so it’s at least a “proprietary” movement. Bremont did substantial additional finishing themselves too, so honestly, that arguably does (barely) meet the loosest current definition of “in-house movement.” There was some drama about it at the time, though.
“In-House” Suppliers Aren’t Always Fully Owned By Their Clients
Some luxury watch companies have fixated on purchasing and vertically integrating existing movement manufacturers as a path to having “in-house” movements (like Louis Vuitton buying La Fabrique du Temps, or Swatch buying Frédéric Piguet and making them part of Blancpain). Vertical integration, however, wasn’t even always part of the definition of an in-house movement.
![Rolex's in house movement maker Aegler had a big Rolex sign on their roof for many decades before they were formally acquired](https://www.luxurybazaar.com/grey-market/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/rolex-biel.jpg)
Everyone seems to agree that a Rolex made in 2003 has an in-house movement. And yet, that movement would’ve been made by Aegler SA in Bienne, not Rolex headquarters in Geneva. Aegler had already been Rolex’s exclusive movement supplier for decades, so does it really matter that Rolex didn’t formally buy their corporation until 2004? To me, they already were Rolex’s in-house movement maker, and the giant old “Rolex” sign on top of the factory would agree.
Similarly, collectors almost universally regard Seiko as a gold standard of a genuine watch manufacture. They can truly make every part of a watch. And yet, many of their “in-house” parts come from a third party known as Seiko Epson. Despite the Seiko name, it’s actually an entirely separate company from the Seiko Corporation–although Seiko does own 10% of Seiko Epson. Still, I would consider Seiko Epson an “in-house supplier” for Seiko, because they work closely with them and provide parts that they don’t sell anyone else. But don’t forget that Seiko Epson owns Orient, which is a full-blown direct competitor of Seiko.
Does it Really Matter if a Watch Has an In-House Movement?
In and of itself, no, not really. What watch collectors really want to know is does this have a basic mass-produced ebauche or something more special? And that’s totally reasonable. I think the in-house movement mania started when watch enthusiasts on the whole began to first realize just how many ETA movements were in everything.
![](https://www.luxurybazaar.com/grey-market/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/eta.jpg)
ETA makes rock solid movements, but enthusiasts spending thousands of dollars on a high-end watch have grown to expect something more than a basic $90 unmodified ETA 2824 movement (or a Sellita equivalent). The crux of the issue has never really been about a movement being “in-house” or not, though–it’s about getting an appropriate level of quality and finishing for the price you’re paying. If watch brands are genuinely proud of how they modify and finish third-party ebauches that they purchase, they shouldn’t have to obfuscate the reality of the situation.
Generally, watch enthusiasts don’t really care which conglomerate owns which parts manufacturer. Do collectors scoff at Patek Philippe watches with Lemania movements, or Audemars Piguet chronographs with Jaeger-LeCoultre movements? Of course not. We just want good, reliable, well-finished movements, and we’re not rubes.
Is the Craze Over?
To their credit, most luxury watch brands seem to be leaning away from the “in-house movement” terminology these days. Search for the term “in-house” on most watch companies’ websites and you’ll probably find old press releases and little more. Maybe I’m being optimistic, but I think we’re past peak when it comes to the in-house movement fixation.
Some have argued that the Swiss watch industry needs strict legal definitions of what an “in-house movement” is, but I doubt that would help. Then companies could just use a different word, or start gaming their supply chain to barely meet whatever legal standards are required, etc. Instead, maybe we can just focus on what matters: how the movements look and perform. I don’t care if your parent company owns all the suppliers that provide parts for your watches. I’m into watches, not mergers and acquisitions.
More on the Watch Industry:
The Rolex v. Beckertime Lawsuit: Implications for the Secondhand Watch Industry
Opinion: Grand Seiko’s Marketing Department Needs to Get it Together
The Bucherer Acquisition Will Give Rolex a Storied Maker of High Complications
France Fines Rolex €91,600,000 for Prohibiting Online Sales
Top 10 Luxury Watch Brands