A review of the multifaceted world of independent watchmaking. From lone artisans to industry giants, discover how ownership, creativity, and technical prowess shape horological freedom. Explore the AHCI perspective, microbrand phenomenon, and collaborative models in the landscape of luxury watches.
I enjoyed your thinking here. As somebody who somewhat recently excised their last watch made by a conglomerate, It's something I've given some thought to myself. While it's nifty (and self-satisfying) that I've curated a smallish collection of Independents, from microbrands to entry-level Haute Horology, I'm not necessarily opposed to owning another watch from Swatch, LVMH or Richemont, but I don't exactly find myself inspired by their output either and in some cases their business strategies (looking at Richemont in particular...) are active turnoffs.
“It depends” is probably the most appropriate qualifier to add to the calculation of horological independence. Among the verticals of independence you shared, creative independence is what rings most true to me.
Whether it’s Max sitting on his toilet concocting his latest invention, or other brands essentially saying GFY and buy a G-Shock, that willingness to tread an unexpected path is what I would have to see from a watchmaker who is said to be independent.
Independence can take many forms as you say and might be found in odd places. One example which might cause others to question my sanity or horological bona fides is my appreciation for the independence of Glashutte Original. Looking at their catalog over the past decade or two one finds several completely unexpected pieces from GO, pieces which I maintain show an independent streak completely detached from their corporate ownership.
Many thanks for yet another thought provoking and well written piece, my liege.
Really enjoyed this article - I guess philosophically Im a big fat post modern/existentialist so anything that says "there is no correct answer, ground is always shifting and theres always another vantage point" will get my vote.
Just one thing Id like to add though is a bit of nuance around brands owned by conglomerates. I get the theory as traded for profit enterprises they are (in theory) all about profits and quarterly earning etc - thats a common mantra online. But in practice it never seems to quite play out that way. The Hayeks/Arnaults/Ruperts really seem to treat their watch brands more like passion/vanity projects - routinely doing things that make little sense commercially but just because they wanted to do it. Not claiming that these brands are 'independent' of the profit motive (is anyone really?) but I suspect they are less a slave to it than we imagine.
Sorry, last point. I would like to record another vote for the idea of creative independence and how this can be incompatible with inhouse manufacture. I think its no coincidence that since many big players went inhouse the array of quirky complications (tide timers/soccer timers/etc) or odd representations of time has reduced as what was possible as a module over a third party movement isnt possible on your bespoke calibre. Also, as Tudor has found, once you've got an inhouse hammer every watch has to be a nail that matches.
Fair point on the profit motives versus vanity etc - great addition.
And agreed on the in-house drive leading to a creativity drought. Of course it would. Instead of the absolute BEST craftspeople in their field doing one thing really well, we have everyone trying to to everything, but all a bit less well (and sometimes a LOT less well) - but only so they can say ‘we did it all ourselves’. A suboptimal situation, to be frank.
Is this term "independent" really even important? Given how much "it depends" seems to have become something similar to "in-house". Trying to consider all of these different approaches under one generic term like this and having a debate around it seems like horological masturbation. It is more interesting to me to just discuss the different approaches and what they deliver without the label (as you've done here, wonderfully I might add). When I see someone trying to vehemently define and defend a particular definition, I usually just roll my eyes.
That said, if we are talking about what I think most watch aficionados value at its core, the ACHI model seems the best fit as the purest interpretation of the term. That doesn't necessarily take away from the many wonderful results derived from the others though. As you point out, their successes are no less meaningful because they happen to fall under one definition/model or another.
I enjoyed your thinking here. As somebody who somewhat recently excised their last watch made by a conglomerate, It's something I've given some thought to myself. While it's nifty (and self-satisfying) that I've curated a smallish collection of Independents, from microbrands to entry-level Haute Horology, I'm not necessarily opposed to owning another watch from Swatch, LVMH or Richemont, but I don't exactly find myself inspired by their output either and in some cases their business strategies (looking at Richemont in particular...) are active turnoffs.
“It depends” is probably the most appropriate qualifier to add to the calculation of horological independence. Among the verticals of independence you shared, creative independence is what rings most true to me.
Whether it’s Max sitting on his toilet concocting his latest invention, or other brands essentially saying GFY and buy a G-Shock, that willingness to tread an unexpected path is what I would have to see from a watchmaker who is said to be independent.
Independence can take many forms as you say and might be found in odd places. One example which might cause others to question my sanity or horological bona fides is my appreciation for the independence of Glashutte Original. Looking at their catalog over the past decade or two one finds several completely unexpected pieces from GO, pieces which I maintain show an independent streak completely detached from their corporate ownership.
Many thanks for yet another thought provoking and well written piece, my liege.
Really enjoyed this article - I guess philosophically Im a big fat post modern/existentialist so anything that says "there is no correct answer, ground is always shifting and theres always another vantage point" will get my vote.
Just one thing Id like to add though is a bit of nuance around brands owned by conglomerates. I get the theory as traded for profit enterprises they are (in theory) all about profits and quarterly earning etc - thats a common mantra online. But in practice it never seems to quite play out that way. The Hayeks/Arnaults/Ruperts really seem to treat their watch brands more like passion/vanity projects - routinely doing things that make little sense commercially but just because they wanted to do it. Not claiming that these brands are 'independent' of the profit motive (is anyone really?) but I suspect they are less a slave to it than we imagine.
Sorry, last point. I would like to record another vote for the idea of creative independence and how this can be incompatible with inhouse manufacture. I think its no coincidence that since many big players went inhouse the array of quirky complications (tide timers/soccer timers/etc) or odd representations of time has reduced as what was possible as a module over a third party movement isnt possible on your bespoke calibre. Also, as Tudor has found, once you've got an inhouse hammer every watch has to be a nail that matches.
Fair point on the profit motives versus vanity etc - great addition.
And agreed on the in-house drive leading to a creativity drought. Of course it would. Instead of the absolute BEST craftspeople in their field doing one thing really well, we have everyone trying to to everything, but all a bit less well (and sometimes a LOT less well) - but only so they can say ‘we did it all ourselves’. A suboptimal situation, to be frank.
Is this term "independent" really even important? Given how much "it depends" seems to have become something similar to "in-house". Trying to consider all of these different approaches under one generic term like this and having a debate around it seems like horological masturbation. It is more interesting to me to just discuss the different approaches and what they deliver without the label (as you've done here, wonderfully I might add). When I see someone trying to vehemently define and defend a particular definition, I usually just roll my eyes.
That said, if we are talking about what I think most watch aficionados value at its core, the ACHI model seems the best fit as the purest interpretation of the term. That doesn't necessarily take away from the many wonderful results derived from the others though. As you point out, their successes are no less meaningful because they happen to fall under one definition/model or another.