This question arose from a couple of comments in different threads over the last day or two, and has been causing me to wonder.

Let’s start by saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with the so-called “workhorse” movements from the likes of ETA, Sellita and Miyota. They work well, they are industry standards, and I guess watch manufacturing companies use them for a reason.

However, we do occasionally see watches that are, let’s say, ambitiously priced, boasting all sorts of interesting and sometimes even innovative design features; yet when we look beneath the bonnet we find one of these standard movements that may or may not have undergone a little embellishment, perhaps rotor and bridge decoration.

The companies mentioned, certainly ETA and Sellita to my knowledge, DO produce more refined, thinner, higher spec (e.g. COSC) movements, and I just think that if I were paying a ball-park figure north of (say) £1.5k for a beautifully designed and well built watch, I would want to see the best possible movement.

That’s it really, no names no pack drill. I’m just interested in your thoughts.

Gosh- that really opens up a can of worms doesn't it!

I'll start the ball rolling with something controversial. Yep, the Bel Canto. Amazing, celebrated and with a huge following, but the 'workhorse' underneath the bing and bling is nothing special. Does that undermine the excellence of the overall package? Perhaps. But by doing so it no doubt brings the BC to a far wider audience than a bespoke in-house might otherwise.

I do like a nice movement and have been drawn to certain watches over others because of the movement. I bought 2 IWC chronographs that had an IWC in house fly back movements and chose these over the more standard chronographs in their range with the 7750 based movement.

I also have El Primero but bought that because of the overall watch, the movement was a nice bonus.

But then I’m perfectly happy with my “over priced” ETA based IWC MKXVIII. It’s a longstanding member of my collection and I’ve never once thought any less of it because of what’s inside.

I guess when shopping for a new watch the overall price should give you an idea of what is likely to be driving it. Personally I don't like the term 'workhorse' movement, I find it very disingenuous. All movements are there to reliably work, it's their primary function. However, we have all seen examples of watches charging hefty price tags that should be offering something a little more elevated in the engine room. There are a lot of positives for these third party movements, for both manufacturer and consumer, which have been discussed endlessly before.

For me, I want to try and avoid movement repetition in my watch box, that way I can measure one against another. There was quite a time when if you bought a CW of any stripe you ended up with a SW 200; I found that very limiting.

Des

I have both ends of the spectrum in the collection.

I actually prefer, as an example, my original ETA-powered Pelagos to the later in-house powered equivalents, simply due to the dial design being (subjectively) better.

This isn't pointed in any direction - it's something I did myself in my early watchie days. But any time the word 'just' appears in one of the sentences in your head, you may be putting something (or worse, someone) down for no great reason and without much conscious consideration.

It's 'just' an off-the-shelf movement is one of those sentences. Often read on watch forums, usually - as I suggest - by relative newbies who have yet to realise how immense is the rabbit hole they find themselves in

It is a can of worms as @richtel says, but what an incredible can of incredible worms! And as with everything, there's ways to dig around the rabbit hole and continuously find new ways to be fascinated by what's on your wrist - even if it 'just' has an ETA movement inside it.

Here's an article I read recently about the history of all the movement companies operating in Switzerland around the turn of the 19-20th century. Their logos; where they were geographically. And then - the long evolution as these small, isolated companies were brought together to better support and benefit from each other - first under the organisation Ebauches-SA, and later ETA. And this gradual trickling together of expertise took place across an extraordinary century of social, political, military, technological change.

The current ETA movements have a real heritage! And that's something we often value about particular watches or particular companies without thinking too much about what we mean. You might say there are 'better' movements (and there's another loaded word); but what better than being able to dig and understand and appreciate and enjoy what's on your wrist - whatever it is?

https://reference.grail-watch.com/docum ... es-sa/?amp



Anyway, that's all quite esoteric, so I'll batter on and probably get more whimsical
Another thing that I assumed without much thought when I was a newbie was that 'in-house' movements are 'better' than off-the-shelf movements. I'm not diving in here- the water's too deep. But I came to realise that 'in-house' are words that carry far more worms (and are often more dishonest) than 'off-the-shelf' (where there's no fudge at all).

Movement development however it's done, also has its stories reaching back in time, and I will never even leave a fingerprint on that can of worms, never mind scratch the surface or (heaven help me) open it
But there's always interest in digging. The fact that Rolex have taken a UN movement that 'failed' because it was superseded quickly, fixed the problems that waylaid the UN movement, and ended up having to redesign the escapement to produce their new movement (this I'm sure is the least of what they've done...) just captures my imagination. As another example, the history of the coaxial escapement is just immense. I came close to selling my AT, but I love the watch, and feel inspired by the movement all at the same time.

The history of a movement isn't easy to know for someone like me with no basis of knowledge, so I dip my toes in the edges of the waves like this. Plenty further to dig always.



I love knowing about what's making my watch tick. I don't have a great understanding of movements, but I think now I have enough knowledge to be able to read an educated article about a movement and be able to find stuff to appreciate or even marvel about. In concrete terms that means I can't do without a seconds hand to keep me in tune with the movement; it means I love exhibition case-backs even if it's 'just' an ETA movement. It means I love the two-moon moonglow as much as I love my one moon.



Finally, I think (don't know) that maybe 20+ years ago there might have been clearer waters between off-the-shelf movements, and 'better' movements, and which watches were using which. But that 20-30 years has seen massive changes in the rabbit hole with the arrival of CW, the micro brand movement, the 'accessible watch' movement, and a massively better educated watch buying public. I think my JJ04 is one of the best examples of this - a Sellita base to ensure I can afford to buy the watch, with a novel moonphase module. No one else has done a moonphase like this before. Is this a compromise? No - not in the slightest.


Great topic

missF wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 12:19 pm Great topic

Great response!

I was careful to suggest in the OP that there is nothing wrong with these movements; indeed, as you so eloquently point out, they have stood the test of time – or at least the companies that manufacture them have.

One of the things that shaped my thinking is that these movements (call them “off the shelf” if you want) probably have a fixed price point as far as the watch manufacturers are concerned. Therefore, what are the factors driving the obvious differences in price between watches from different manufacturers with the same movement?

I didn’t mention any watch manufacturers by name (deliberately). However, I was struck some time ago (actually, years ago) by the fact that a watch containing one of these movements from a certain company was around double the price of a very similar seeming watch from another company. Both companies were British, and clearly using Swiss movements; both watches were what we might loosely term dress watches (though I’m not fond of the expression) and seem to be made from very similar materials.

All other things being equal, I would have expected the much more expensive watch to have a better grade of movement: chronometer, perhaps, but it didn’t appear to.

I don’t think there are too many right and wrong answers here, but it’s interesting to bat these things around occasionally.

@missF That's a very though provoking post and very well considered. Enjoyed reading it.

Des

Not sure i care as much for the movement, as long as it is easy to service and tells time.

For me its more about the aesthetic of the watch. If it looks good and appeals to my taste at the time, and is not a lemon, then i am good. I will say with all the youtubers, and so much infomation about the mechanics it is beginning to play a part in my decision making.


Specs to me dont make the watch, the "feels" do. Great specs and "value" are a component ( great for reading and learning) albeit a minor one in my purchasing decision

I think the problem is related to that often the movement is used to justify the price of the watch. It is not necessarily (just) the manufacturer, but also the reviewers, journalists, or sometimes we (enthusiasts) try to compare similar watches and one aspect is usually the movement. We used to do the same with cars' engines: petrol/diesel, turbo/naturally aspirated, number of valves, in-line/V, etc. while every modern car takes us from A to B.

If we looked at only the watch design, size, quality and other features and just acknowledged that sure, it has some movement, we would not have this discussion. But I am not sure it is possible to avoid comparison even with endless resources... It can be really difficult to spend twice/thrice as much on watches with the same movement.

And while we would like to make educated decisions finally we buy the one we love the most.

This is a topic on which I find myself blissfully ignorant. Some will remember that my watch-setting, time-telling discipline is somewhat lax (as I type this at 9:17am, my watch reads 11:10). So I'm really not too fussed about whether movements are in-house, 'off-the-shelf' or anywhere inbetween.

So long as they do a basic job of telling the time to within a reasonable accuracy then I'm happy. I like a date function to change once a day, preferably around midnight. On the Bel Canto I like it to chime on the hour. If there's an exhibition caseback and they look nice, so much the better. But other than what people tell me I have no way of really telling whether a movement is simply a 'workhorse' or 'exceptional'.

(I also suspect, by the way, that many who pontificate about the relative merits of various movements are just about as knowledgeable as I am).

So my relative judgement on movement over price is quite honestly mostly based on trust that the seller isn't significantly overcharging for something 'basic'. And what I read on the internet of course.

@chif123

choosing watches for the 'feels' is just the most profound way to choose them - lots of people around who never seem to have mastered that bit but are very good at having opinions about specs

timepieces_and_bags wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 1:27 pm This is a topic on which I find myself blissfully ignorant.

Blissful ignorance is fine. Buying for the 'feels' as @chif123 said, is totally wholesome. There's room for everyone. And blissful ignorance and the 'feels' are far better and more honest places to be than watch snobbery (which comes in many guises ).

Edit : watch snobbery is just fine too. Feeling inclusive all over today. Watchie world is a place for people to be enthusiastic about whatever aspect of themselves and watches they're enthusiastic about

Great topic @Amor Vincit Omnia . Being a "tool guy” at heart, the whole reason for wearing a mechanical watch is a facinaciation with the fine workings of it all. I some times grow weary of all the so called new watches that are nothing more than window dressing. The changes made to a movement needn’t be groundbreaking to be profound. @Ian states that IWC uses an ETA base, but the addition of the pawl winding system and making it windable through the crown, is a brilliant addition and, for the most part, solves the spinning rotor syndrome talked about all too often. As @missF mentions, my Aqua Terra and its co axial escapement is a direct link to the great George Daniels and will be as close as I ever get to owning one of his masterpieces.

A friend has a sports car he calls a Toyota due to its engine.

It's actually a Lotus Exige with (I think) a 3.5 litre V6 powering it made by Toyota. But it's still a Lotus (and a beauty) and no one other than a committed petrol head would know who actually made the engine.