Originally Posted by bkotsko
Honestly, I think there is more lather about this than necessary.
They have a movement they supposedly co-developed with another company, of which some of the parts are made in the UK.
They claimed it was an in house movement, but neglected to mention it was co-developed.
Some of the proprietary blueprints were possibly released, when they shouldn't be.
I don't get the hype.
So many of the people on the thread seem to be trying to catch someone in a lie.
Bremont's decisions regarding design are not really under scrutiny. Some people are saying "what's the big deal? It was a smart move to work with LJP." That's fine. It just misses the point entirely. What is being justifiably criticized is that they say verbatim that the movement was "designed and developed in Britain." That's straight from their webpage. The stance now has been amended to include "both in the UK and with our long term movement partner, Le Joux Perret, in Switzerland." Both of those are direct quotes from them and the second flies in the face of the first. For someone to argue that they have been up-front with that fact would be insanity.
There is a lot of gray area when it comes to what manufacturing burden qualifies as an in-house movement. However, it is an altogether much clearer distinction between absolute truth or lie when you tell someone you wrote a novel, and later it comes out that a friend of yours also published that same novel with different character names and a a couple of different minor plot points.
To top it all off, when someone says "Hey I already read that novel, I have valid concerns about the origins of the concept and design" you release a statement accusing people of trying to sabotage your work and threatening legal action. You also then admit you did work with someone else, but go on about how this book was a huge leap in progression towards writing a complete novel by yourself. That is admittedly a rough analogy. The point is the concept of creative process and design. The "big deal" is claiming a creative process as entirely yours and then marketing it as such when it is clearly not. And it is clearly not. They already said so themselves. People saying they technically may not be incorrect are the same sort of intellectuals debating what Bill Clinton considered as "sexual relations" with that woman.
No matter what is said next week in their official statement, it does not change the facts about what already occurred, which are:
1) Bremont releases the watch to press saying it is an in-house movement "designed and developed in Britain."
2) The movement is discovered to closely resemble an existing LJP movement.
3) Bremont responds with a defensive statement that it was also in partnership with LJP and part of the design was done in Switzerland. They also mention legal action.
These are compounding mistakes, in my opinion. In a watch society that prizes design history and technical prowess so dearly, it also seems more emotive of betrayal of trust than likely it would be in other industries. We celebrate brands like Nomos, etc. when they make they make the huge leap forward to make in-house movements. It cheapens their (and really any in-house brand) accomplishments to just stand by and be mute to someone who claims to have done the same and has not.
What Bremont will likely do next week is what Tag Heuer did when it was discovered that they had not designed the 1887 "100% in-house," and claim evolution of pre-existing platform. That is not the same thing.