YOU Decide: The NEW Modern Holy Trinity

[Nav01L]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

With 2022 upon us, it is also time we within horology decide a new Holy Trinity.

With a nod to many decades ago, let us remember the Old-School Holy Trinity for its relevance when it was first decided upon by ???? many decades ago. Today, two of the old-school trinity are now part of very large corporate entities. The other one has changed quite a bit, with questions about various mass production quality levels instead of always doing the very best possible at ALL times.

With the Old School Holy Trinity now outdated, without a doubt it is time to choose the Modern Holy Trinity of horology. This is 2022 my friends. Virtually everyone i chat with seems to agree MB&F should be part of the Modern Holy Trinity.

Please post below who you feel are the true independent brands that make up the other two Modern Holy Trinity of today's timepiece invention/creation.

Note: This is Round One as we hone in on which three brands are part of the new Modern Holy Trinity.

Two are part of corporate entities? Did I miss something?

I thought Patek was owned by a family, as is AP.

Only VC is owned by a large group.

I would make a distinction between large watchmaking companies and small, more confidential ones. Let’s draw the limit of the large ones at anything over 4-5,000 watches a year.

In that bracket,

- Patek
I don’t think anyone can fault Patek. While their watches may not be the best from a manufacturing and finishing standpoint, they still are extraordinary and Patek manages with very few exceptions to make them feel „significant“. That is very much deserving of trinity status in my view.

- ALS
In terms of blowing everyone‘s mind, few are as proficient as the good folks in Glashütte. They have changed what we expect to see in a high quality watch and for that, they deserve a spot on the top as well. AP in contrast only deserves to be named here because they make the cases for ALS.

- VC
Despite their all over the place marketing and their consistent failure to position their products properly, the watchmaking at VC is the closest you’re going to get to „made as they should be“ from a large manufacturer. The quality of finishing in even a simple watch like a Traditionelle small seconds, i.e. the 4400 movement, has a quiet and unpretentious excellence that knows few equals among the other brands in that bracket. It’s not as spectacular looking as a Lange perhaps, nor as well marketed as a Patek, but it’s so much more thorough and „pure“ than what you’ll get from both these other houses. So still well deserving of a trinity spot. And their almost cute ineptitude in terms of communicating their qualities adds to the charm.

In the more confidential bracket, I would say the field is so much more open, one can hardly boil it down to three. The only thing I am strongly opposed to is to name a brand with as little proper finishing work as Moser in the same context as truly excellent watchmakers like Greubel Forsey, Kari, Dufour, Akrivia, Gauthier, FPJ, etc. They make nice watches in low numbers but in that company they’re about as well made as a Mc Donald’s burger in a Michelin kitchen.

[Nav01L]

Originally Posted by BLACKHORSE 6

But what they all have in common is a brand identity that goes back to the early days of watch making. When dealing with that type of time horizon, there are undoubtedly going to be peaks and valleys. Market tastes changes, company leadership changes, technology changes, and economic circumstances are constantly in flux. The three original companies of the holy trinity have accomplished quite a feat by even existing this long, much less by maintaining the relevance in the market that they have for so long. I would say that the reason that these three companies still exist is because they make wonderful and innovative products... and because they each have been lucky enough to have a string of leaders inside their organizations that were able to learn and adapt to the watch market and world around them. Now these organizations have an institutional knowledge and tradition of changing/adapting/innovating that will help them survive over the long haul.

So looking at an amazing independent company like FP Journe... you not only have to love their watches, but you have to look at the company itself and make a judgement call on what type of organization it will be. When the founder is no longer involved because he's "no longer with us" what will happen to the company that he built? Fast forward 25 years after that point... will FP Journe still be be in business or be relevant? 50 years? 100 years? The watches that FP Journe is making today may still be desirable to own and collect, but will the company even still exist?

So, maybe one of the original holy trinity is having QC issues. Maybe another of them is a one trick pony that can't break free of a single design. Maybe the member of the holy trinity that comes last in alphabetical order doesn't have the market reach or relevance of Instagram collectors and rappers/athletes driving prices into the stratosphere. All of that may be true. But in my mind, what makes these companies impressive is how long that they've been in the game and how they've navigated every crisis, everything from world wars to the quartz crisis, and still remained in business and relevant. I would hazard a guess and say that its far more likely for the original companies of AP, PP and VC to still be around in 100 years than any of the independent watch companies that have been listed.

But, I also may not know what I'm talking about. I'm not an owner of any of these haute horology brands. I just admire them all from afar while I'm building a career with a young family. Maybe later I'll have the financial capability to buy into one of the old school holy trinity brands or one of the independents listed in this thread. Until then, I'm content to read, research, and enjoy discussions like these on a cool place like TRF.

Thanks for letting me take part.

I think those are some very good points. Watchmaking goes in and out of being recognized as an artform. The ability to endure that should earn one sone recognition.

But I would argue that in the period we witness now, the recognition of watchmaking as an art couldn’t be greater. Social media has given the small actors in the market an equal footing in terms of communicating what they do and it has become visible to the masses. So I‘m fairly confident that brands like FPJ but also smaller ones like Kari, MB&F or maybe even Akrivia can lay the Badis today for something that could endure as well as the big old ones we rever today have. And so in 50 years, we may well regard them equally, as the market appreciates all of Rothko, Picasso, the impressionists and the old Dutch masters as great valuable artists, despite the very different periods they’re from. Heck in 50 years, we might even have to add Banksy and the Cryptopunks to that list.

[baamvino]

Fpj
pp
als

[kunlun]

The real companies to look at are Roger Dubuis and Franck Muller.

Particularly FM would have been tip-top of this discussion circa 2004 or whatever. It's not that now.

Investors always seem to want to take over and run things into the ground, except when those investors are really dedicated to the brand.

That's what makes FPJ special (run by investors who are friends/collectors of FPJ, always has been), and now UJ. Not the case with PSM, L&H, O&J (?), and RD and FM....

Although, maybe when FPJ retires his friends will cash out, so who knows, really. The existence of the FPJ watchmaking school and his continual statements that he has a plan to keep his brand going and independent seem to mediate against that strongly, though. Same question should be asked even more strongly of Groenfeld, Akrivia, etc.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by kunlun

The existence of the FPJ watchmaking school and his continual statements that he has a plan to keep his brand going and independent seem to mediate against that strongly, though. Same question should be asked even more strongly of Groenfeld, Akrivia, etc.

Epic post and THIS imho is far more important than any 'holy list'! Encouraging and helping talented watchmakers who share the same enthusiasm. For the truly passionate, I feel we're only seeing the beginnings of a very strong move towards 'smaller' independents that has only recently begun its (stronger with lots of room to grow) upward trajectory.

The more creative younger, or young at heart, generation also appreciates something outside of the 'typical timepiece'. It has to be... more creative and compelling.

[Easy E]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Epic post and THIS imho is far more important than any 'holy list'! Encouraging and helping talented watchmakers who share the same enthusiasm. For the truly passionate, I feel we're only seeing the beginnings of a very strong move towards 'smaller' independents that has only recently begun its (stronger with lots of room to grow) upward trajectory.

The more creative younger, or young at heart, generation also appreciates something outside of the 'typical timepiece'. It has to be... more creative and compelling.

So you have, directly and indirectly, mentioned younger and creative a few times in this thread. While that is not wrong, does that elevate a brand to Trinity status? No way. It may qualify them for watch of the year, but permanent placement on the horological podium should require a more stringent qualifying lap.

You previously made notion to China entering the high end watchmaking world. So what if the do? Very possible for sure, and also not impossible that they gank the best designs and throw an ass pile of cash at it and make what might be “the best watch ever.” Unlikely, but still possible. Again, so what if they do? Would that ever place them on consideration for Holy Trinity status? It couldn’t or shouldn’t to me anyway.

What is the defining difference between top three watchmakers of the year and Holy Trinity status?

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Easy E

So you have, directly and indirectly, mentioned younger and creative a few times in this thread. While that is not wrong, does that elevate a brand to Trinity status? No way. It may qualify them for watch of the year, but permanent placement on the horological podium should require a more stringent qualifying lap.

Agreed. Mention younger as compared to 'ancient' brands. So younger being 20(??) continuous years in serial production. Could be 30 years, yet just because you're the proverbial 600 lbs Elephant with 100 years of existence imho should not simply give you an assumed right to the title in 2022. Age of existence should have its 'limits' in overall qualifications, and all manufacturers globally should be 'averaged' over the past 20 to 30 years and based on that time period alone (??? perhaps ???).

You previously made notion to China entering the high end watchmaking world. So what if the do? Very possible for sure, and also not impossible that they gank the best designs and throw an ass pile of cash at it and make what might be “the best watch ever.” Unlikely, but still possible. Again, so what if they do? Would that ever place them on consideration for Holy Trinity status? It couldn’t or shouldn’t to me anyway.

Glad you asked, and it has to do with various factors. We can all agree there's a massive population where you could 'cull' the most passionate and talented, and then train them for 10 years before they ever touch a commercial product. It would be akin to what American's think of as an itamae (wiki copy/paste for the remainder of this paragraph) associated with sushi (also commonly referred to simply as "sushi chefs"). In Japan, becoming an itamae of sushi requires years of training and apprenticeship. Typically, after spending approximately five years working with a master itamae, the apprentice is given their first important task related to making sushi: preparation of the sushi rice.

Five years just to have the honor of preparing the rice.

What is the defining difference between top three watchmakers of the year and Holy Trinity status?

Aaaaand that's one of the 'quicksand' questions. Again, let's average them all over the past 20 or 30 years.

In the end, as posted earlier, it is far beyond my pay grade to decide. For me, it simply is self-evident the Old School Holy Trinity is outdated, and seems quite a few others agree. Yet, sadly, seems infighting and questions about qualification, and we all know if this gets traction we'll have the bean counter $$$$$ entities (and, perhaps, militant political 'actors' / stock holders) who may....

--------
--------

Ah well, guess the best thing is to simply take time and help educate those about how common it is for the Internet to be incorrect, from time to time. This is especially true as the decades pass and data becomes outdated. The Internet is still relatively young, especially as compared to how we age things in astronomy. Rest assured, as time passes, we'll see much more of that as the Internet finally 'gets old' decades down the line.

jmho

So, perhaps, let's put things in perspective. And we can add every watchmaker....

Untitled-1.jpg

[uniqueMR]

Audemars Piguet
Patek Philippe
Vacheron Constantin

= Holy Trinity.

[MDP_GTS]

Patek
Vacheron
AP

My holy trinity. Love all 3!

[moting]

Patek
ALS
Vacheron

[Krash]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

If i may ask, am curious of your age?

After various chats, it seems, in some respects, this might also be an older generation versus younger generation situation. Reminds me of my recent discussions with various hi-fi enthusiasts concerning stereo home audio playback versus modern immersivephiles.

Old habits die hard and all that, plus, sure, some fear change. Perhaps longtime herd mentality is now taking its toll and, thus, keeping a closed (minded) system going long after its expiration date. This is not a negative about age per se, am simply trying to best understand the situation in 1960, production numbers back then, how it all started and by whom, etc... that initiated the (now outdated) Old School Holy Trinity.

So we need to honor the past, absolutely. Yet also realize technology and the ability for human handcrafted creation has greatly changed since the 1960s. Am a bit surprised that some fear change, the 1960s is a long bygone era.

I'm a technologist & software developer. Over the course of my career, I have produced software that has disrupted entire markets and industries. It’s funny that someone would portray me as being fearful of change.

I do recoginize there are a lot of extremely impressive watch brands producing absolutely stunning timepieces, no doubt. Many of these brands are producing products on a completely different level.

• Jacob & Co
• Greubel Forsey
• FP Journe
• A. Lange & Sohne
• Richard Mille
• H. Moser

I'm always quick to say, "let's look forward, not backwards." However, in this case, I think history matters, and it matters a lot.

• Patek Phillip founded in 1839.
• Audemars Piguet in 1875.
• Vacheron Constantin in 1755.

I just think the Holy Trinity is still the Holy Trinity, at least for now...

[Easy E]

Blancpain 1735, 1st watch
Breguet 1775, 1st wrist watch

Both brands still relevant today, why did they not make the list? Asking for a friend.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Krash

I'm a technologist & software developer. Over the course of my career, I have produced software that has disrupted entire markets and industries. It’s funny that someone would portray me as being fearful of change.

First, bravo and THANK YOU!!! Am all for 'disrupters' who have an idea and go out there are take the risks. Without a doubt it's not an 'easy path' and THANK YOU for doing it. BIG TIME!

During my talks with quite a few others, my mind somehow seemed to compile that the older gen likes status quo, whereas the younger 'kids' are far more openminded (to change). Again, that is/was my personal perception.

(Said in good friendly humor) i'll let you slide on answering the age question.

See, here's where we REALLY need a meetup in FL. And so yes, am doing a TRF meetup in TPA during Feb (look for new thread).

[brandrea]

Someone would have to define the criteria to entry …

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by brandrea

Someone would have to define the criteria to entry …

Who defined which brands made up the Old School Holy Trinity? What was their criteria? Anyone know all the details?

Anyone at all?

It's almost beginning to feel like someone told 'a lie' often enough many decades ago and people just parroted it over the years, and so then it somehow becomes 'fact'. Please, pretty please prove me wrong and let's chat with those individuals who originally decided many decades ago (if they're even still alive) what should be the 'Modern rules'.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Who defined which brands made up the Old School Holy Trinity? What was their criteria? Anyone know all the details?



Anyone at all?



It's almost beginning to feel like someone told 'a lie' often enough many decades ago and people just parroted it over the years, and so then it somehow becomes 'fact'. Please, pretty please prove me wrong and let's chat with those individuals who originally decided many decades ago (if they're even still alive) what should be the 'Modern rules'.

Thsts what I'm asking Steven ... it was a rhetorical question

I have no idea what the criteria is .... anyone?

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[solaire]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Blancpain 1735, 1st watch
Breguet 1775, 1st wrist watch

Both brands still relevant today, why did they not make the list? Asking for a friend.

I'd say it's more complicated then this but

Breguet French company. Swatch group. Breguet history v current company are very different. If they could have continued their innovation without disruption they always could be argued as why are they not part of it, say over AP?

Blancpain, the new company nowhere near the level of the HT3 watchmakers or even Breguet ( I have owned several)





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SoylentGreenChi]

Originally Posted by Nav01L

Two are part of corporate entities? Did I miss something?

I thought Patek was owned by a family, as is AP.

Only VC is owned by a large group.

I would make a distinction between large watchmaking companies and small, more confidential ones. Let’s draw the limit of the large ones at anything over 4-5,000 watches a year.

In that bracket,

- Patek
I don’t think anyone can fault Patek. While their watches may not be the best from a manufacturing and finishing standpoint, they still are extraordinary and Patek manages with very few exceptions to make them feel „significant“. That is very much deserving of trinity status in my view.

- ALS
In terms of blowing everyone‘s mind, few are as proficient as the good folks in Glashütte. They have changed what we expect to see in a high quality watch and for that, they deserve a spot on the top as well. AP in contrast only deserves to be named here because they make the cases for ALS.

- VC
Despite their all over the place marketing and their consistent failure to position their products properly, the watchmaking at VC is the closest you’re going to get to „made as they should be“ from a large manufacturer. The quality of finishing in even a simple watch like a Traditionelle small seconds, i.e. the 4400 movement, has a quiet and unpretentious excellence that knows few equals among the other brands in that bracket. It’s not as spectacular looking as a Lange perhaps, nor as well marketed as a Patek, but it’s so much more thorough and „pure“ than what you’ll get from both these other houses. So still well deserving of a trinity spot. And their almost cute ineptitude in terms of communicating their qualities adds to the charm.

In the more confidential bracket, I would say the field is so much more open, one can hardly boil it down to three. The only thing I am strongly opposed to is to name a brand with as little proper finishing work as Moser in the same context as truly excellent watchmakers like Greubel Forsey, Kari, Dufour, Akrivia, Gauthier, FPJ, etc. They make nice watches in low numbers but in that company they’re about as well made as a Mc Donald’s burger in a Michelin kitchen.

Thank you for this thoughtful, well-reasoned post. This is the best description of Vacheron I have read in recent memory. Describes perfectly why I bought that Traditionnelle Small Seconds/4400 and helps me understand why it’s become my single favorite piece in my collection. It took me months of reflection to realize my appreciation for VC - I understand now that was because I had to unpack the brand for myself in the face of their confusing, artless marketing. I’m really loving VC today, but it took more effort than the marketing team at VC should have allowed.

Holy Trinity criteria for me is a three legged stool:

1) history of setting benchmarks for beautiful design/aesthetics.
2) engineering and mechanical chops: a track record of contributing to horology innovation
3) sustainable business models that has demonstrated viability over a period measured in decades (I’d say at least 30). I also would add global distribution to the criteria as a measure of scale.

For me, to be in the holy trinity, you need to hit all three marks. Oftentimes on these boards I see criteria criteria 2 and 1 emphasized to the exclusion of criteria 3. But for me, criteria 3 (ie. business scale and sustainability) is what makes this conversation so interesting!

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by SoylentGreenChi

Holy Trinity criteria for me is a three legged stool:

1) history of setting benchmarks for beautiful design/aesthetics.
2) engineering and mechanical chops: a track record of contributing to horology innovation
3) sustainable business models that has demonstrated viability over a period measured in decades (I’d say at least 30) not years. I also would add global distribution to the criteria as a measure of scale.

That's a great list!!!

Think you mean 30 years (not 300), and agree 30 years of consistency. If I may add, the Modern Holy Trinity list should be 'refreshened' every 10 or 15 years. The reason is, some brands could falter, or they get chosen and so 'rest on their laurels'. You have an excellent list

Personally speaking, ALS and VC are strong contenders for 'higher production' brands.

[SoylentGreenChi]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

That's a great list!!!

Think you mean 30 years (not 300), and agree 30 years of consistency. If I may add, the Modern Holy Trinity list should be 'refreshened' every 10 or 15 years. The reason is, some brands could falter, or they get chosen and so 'rest on their laurels'. You have an excellent list

Personally speaking, ALS and VC are strong contenders for 'higher production' brands.

Yes, 30 years (not 30 decades)! :)

I should add that I got the 3 pronged criteria from David Landes’ book Revolution in Time. He divided his history of timekeeping into three categories, 1) history of culture 2) history of science and technology and 3) business and economic history. For shorthand, I call that aesthetics, engineering, and business. I figured a criteria for holy trinity status could benefit from the 3 pronged approach.

Landes:

‘Still, like it or not, there comes time for parturition. The book represents a first attempt at a general history of time measurement and its contribution, for better or worse, to what we call modern civilization. It is a triptych: a study in cultural history; in the history of science and technology; and in social and economic history.’

Page XX, Preface.

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog....=9780674002821

[SoylentGreenChi]

I just realized that using my 3 pronged approach, I myself have to completely revamp my initial answer! Happy to learn and grow here . . .

Initial answer:

Richard Mille
Greubel Forsey
Audemars Piguet

Updated answer:
Patek Philippe
Audemars Piguet
Vacheron Constantin

But, with the new ALS 30 years old now, and FP Journe within a decade of being 30 years old (and actively building a sustainability plan), I can see why this is a tricky question! I could easily and happily swap ALS in for any of the three on my list.

[enjoythemusic]

^^^ Exactly! And this is why it is important to find out the criteria of the original list. We may have discovered that the Old School Holy Trinity fabled list... the Emperor Has No Clothes.

[Nav01L]

Originally Posted by Krash

I do recoginize there are a lot of extremely impressive watch brands producing absolutely stunning timepieces, no doubt. Many of these brands are producing products on a completely different level.

• Jacob & Co
• Greubel Forsey
• FP Journe
• A. Lange & Sohne
• Richard Mille
• H. Moser

This list is interesting because it mixes three brands that are very good at marketing the overall package of their products, but have modern (generous term for widely cnc reliant, lazy and loveless, not to use a third “L” word that ends on ackluster) watchmaking on the one side, with two other brands that have excellent watchmaking that’s ineptly marketed.

Only FPJ seems to really strike the balance between both of these disciplines well, with a very nicely tied together brand story, a distinctive design, excellent communication, opportunistic but effective distribution and credible watchmaking (with good enough but not stellar finishing).

[charger_vital]

Originally Posted by unknown

Tbh,
One brand is not yet mentioned and it’s probably the only one that really deserves it.

Parmigiani!!

I could not agree more. I have been looking at Parmagiani for a while now. I've tried on a couple of pieces as well... They are unbelievable.

What is crazy to me is that they hit all the marks collectors usually care about: finishing (top of the line), in-house manufacturing (these guys are "in-house" all the way down to manufacturing their own screws! They may be more "in-house" than any other brand actually), and independence. But nobody talks about them... Why?

Their marketing is not great since they don't sponsor major events (except for Hot Air Ballooning), they don's have "icons" and they typically aren't found in print ads. Then again... perhaps the fact that they abscond from that stuff, is indeed what makes them great.

I've heard that they have historically run at a loss, and they've never been profitable. Is that true?

[charger_vital]

1) Laurent Ferrier
2) Parmigiani
3) FP Journe

[enjoythemusic]

Well, i've emailed a few magazine editors and whatnot. So far not a single person knows how the Old School Holy Trinity came to be. No one has even bothered to know what the criteria were at the time. No one knows who chose the trinity(!).

From the replies, there's a strong love for:

Rolex
FP Journe


So, who deserves the third spot. My vote is for MB&F.

Again, there are no 'rules' as no one ever set them to begin with. There are no limits of production, again because there are no rules. So we have Rolex and FPJ as what seems to be a universal choice.

[charger_vital]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

Well, i've emailed a few magazine editors and whatnot. So far not a single person knows how the Old School Holy Trinity came to be. No one has even bothered to know what the criteria were at the time. No one knows who chose the trinity(!)

Paul Pluta?

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by charger_vital

Paul Pluta?

Dunno 'em, you can ask and post here. In fact, everyone reading this who 'knows someone' independent/authoritative should email them and post their name/reply here. Am sure you want to hear from those who are considered authorities in the industry. Below is the email / message you send to them

-------
-------

I have a few simple questions:


Who chose which brands were considered the "Holy Trinity" back in 1960s?


What were the criteria used back in 1960, and do you feel the same criteria should be used today?


This list has not been updated in over 60 years, and so....


Do you feel the Holy Trinity list needs updating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ho...nity_(horology)


Thanks for your time.

[solaire]

How does rolex make the modern trilology?

Is their innovation above Omega's?
(It doesn't surpass the origonal 3)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nav01L]

Originally Posted by solaire

How does rolex make the modern trilology?

Is their innovation above Omega's?
(It doesn't surpass the origonal 3)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They don’t