Do you consider Tudor’s movements in-house?

[Daniel23456]

Guys,

Was wondering about this for quite a while but don’t see anyone mention it.

Tudor is using a 3rd party movement company, Kenisi(?) to produce their movement, so technically not really in-house. Yet, everyone refers to Tudor’s movements as in-house.

I am picking up a 54 soon and had a BB58 in the past.

Has it ever bothered anyone?

[Giovannibravo]

I have no issues. The movements are reliable and keep good time.

[chro.nic]

This is from Kenissi.ch/history:


"In 2010 the TUDOR watch brand launched an ambitious project to develop its industrial production capacity for mechanical movements. To this end, the brand brought together a group of experts and presented an initial calibre manufactured by TUDOR at Baselworld in 2015, in variations to equip two different watches.

The following year the Genevan watch brand created the Kenissi company to oversee the development and production of its movements and, in parallel, offer its technical expertise in the field of movements to third-party brands. The first industrial partnership was then forged with Breitling. As its business developed, in 2018 Kenissi then formed an industrial alliance with Chanel, supplying the calibre for its new J12.

Today Kenissi offers a wide range of self-winding movements derived from the TUDOR Manufacture calibres. These customisable, high-performance, highly robust movements are entirely developed and produced in Switzerland."

.nic

[douglasf13]

Tudor started Kenissi, and they even share a building in the new Le Locle manufacture. The difference is that Kenissi started opening up movement sales to other companies, and some, like Chanel, now also own a stake in the company.

FWIW, Rolex didn’t technically have in-house movements until they bought the movement factory from the Aegler family in 2004.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by Daniel23456

Guys,

Was wondering about this for quite a while but don’t see anyone mention it.

Tudor is using a 3rd party movement company, Kenisi(?) to produce their movement, so technically not really in-house. Yet, everyone refers to Tudor’s movements as in-house.

I am picking up a 54 soon and had a BB58 in the past.

Has it ever bothered anyone?

The same modus operandi Rolex has used for decades. For example, Rolex didn't make their own bracelets until the 90's when they purchased the company. Same with many other of their in house labeled components.
dP

[minute_man]

Yes.

Posts #3, 4 & 5 sum it up.

[padi56]

In house made movements don't always mean they are better over the past few decades there have been quite a few in-house movements that have been quite mediocre.

[nickscaps]

It doesn't bother me - I am very satisfied with the timekeeping of my BB58. I personally wouldn't consider them in house, more like configurations that are exclusive to Tudor, even though they helped found Kenissi and manufacture the original movement (?).

[ryangambrill]

Does not bother me one way or the other. If "In-house" pedigree is the most important feature, then I would put LJC at the top of your list.

[Agamemnon]

These are collaborations that have always existed.
The movements can be considered internal.

[Jack T]

Originally Posted by padi56

In house made movements don't always mean they are better over the past few decades there have been quite a few in-house movements that have been quite mediocre.

And many third party movements are as reliable, durable and accurate as in-house calibers from high end brands.

[Tim Plains]

I consider them in-house, yes.

[Brich436]

My BB58 runs at -1 spd very consistently.

Tudor owns the majority of Kenissi - yes I consider it in house. The fact that they make movements for other brands help keep Tudor prices low and the value equation high. What’s not to like?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kevin of Larchmont]

I don’t consider Tudor’s movements. All my Tudors have ETAs.

[CedCraig]

I don’t. The early history of Kenissi is somewhat murky, though obviously Tudor’s “history” is what they want it to be. As a reminder, Tudor SA doesn’t manufacture any other watch components either. To be clear: Tudor watches are top quality at a fair price, with great designs and the Kenissi movements have proven to be top quality (early GMT glitches aside).

Likewise, I don’t consider Swatch group watches that use ETA movements to have “in-house” movements. They have ETA movements. Tudor have Kenissi movements, as do seven other brands: Chanel, Breitling, Norquain, Fortis, TAG Heuer, Bell & Ross, Ultramarine. My guess is Kenissi will supply more brands as their production capacity increases. I consider Kenissi a higher-tier mini-ETA.

One thing I don’t like about Tudor is their hot-swap service model.

Here’s an interesting tidbit:
https://www.letemps.ch/economie/locl...-grandir-tudor (translated via Google translate):
“This two-part construction is explained by two companies participating in the project: Kenissi and Tudor. Little known in the industry, the first belongs to a very discreet independent industrialist which supplies all the largest watch groups with sapphire crystals. He could take advantage of this site to expand some of his activities.”

[enjoythemusic]

Yes, like a TV series, they're a 'spinoff'.

[Spoonage]

Sure it's cool to have an in-house movement, but if someone can make it better I would prefer to use that widget than something in-house.

[Toproll85]

They clearly laugh in your face with the term "in house": because it's nothing but outsourcing !
Kenissi = industrial partnerships with Breitling, Chanel, Norqain, Tudor...


There are manufactures making their movement in-house (Rolex, Patek, JLC, Zenith, Blancpain, for example) but NOT Tudor.

[douglasf13]

As I mentioned above, it's all a bit murky. Rolex started buying up their suppliers over the last few decades, and they didn't buy their movement maker until 2004, and then built their own movement manufacture that opened in 2012, finally making them fully in-house.

FWIW, Seiko is the most vertically integrated of all watchmakers. Rolex is probably #2, and SWATCH group is also right up there, if you're talking about the entire group, rather than its pieces.

[cornerstore]

Swatch makes Omega movements . Swatch makes other movements for multiple brands.

Kensis makes Tudor movements. Kensis makes other movements for multiple brands. Tudor owns Kensis in conjunction with partners.

If Omega is considered an in-house movement, then Tudor is an in house movement . They just share the house with roomies.

Tudor and non Swatch owned brands were forced by Swatch to discontinue buying ETA Swatch movements. Swatch did it as a power play on numerous brands thinking those brands would disappear. Tudor had an agreement with Swatch to stay out of North America during those later ETA years. That’s why Tudor faded away for years in NA. When Swatch dropped the hammer . Swatches power-play backfired on them. Those brands that they discontinued like Tudor have formed their own partnership Kensis. Once Swatch would no longer sell Tudor ETA movements Tudor was free to reenter North America and reestablish the brand.They have done a Phenomenal job considering it’s only been a few years. And I’m sure they’ve taken away some Swatch marketshare as a result. Swatches greed bite them in the a$$.

[Daniel23456]

Very interesting perspectives guys.

I am not sure if it changes anything in how I view it, but definitely changed my perspective about Rolex movements from the past & Omegas offering currently.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Jack T

And many third party movements are as reliable, durable and accurate as in-house calibers from high end brands.

IMHO that Rolex's tendency to be now 100% independent has its good and bad sides. On one hand, independence in business is good, but on the other hand it makes manufacturing much less flexible. And now being forced to make there there own escapement parts for the first time, as the Swatch group stated they are to cut of supplies of the Nivarox hairsprings to all outside the group. And today its very expensive to design and tool up to make these parts but I would doubt in the real world would the average wearer notice any difference.

But now Rolex could say almost 100% in-house built now they still out-source a few things its doubtful if Rolex themselves make there own movement/bracelet screws, plus a few things are still out sourced by Rolex, like mainsprings they are made by Schwab-Feller AG, all movement bearing and cap jewels, watch crystals, spring-bars, and a firm called Aiguilles makes all the watch hands for all models.. There are very huge costs today associated with producing a new caliber, and replacing an old caliber with a new one has to be justified economically. That's why Rolex sometimes (well most of the time) uses older conceptions and decisions in its movements and just slightly mod them like the Cal 3130 cal 3132 and the Cal 3186/87 and now the 32 series.Just like the modern day car they use the same floor pan for many models,with just a different brand and body.Today all the mens line up except for the Chronos are basically now clones of the Cal 3135 with or without complications..Plus now a fancy name for a ceramic inserts but real new models I think not just mostly tarted up old ones now with movement changes.

Some other great movements.

Take the ETA 2892-A2, ETA 2824/2T chronometer grade, ETA Valjoux 7750,Unitas 6497/8,Omega 2500, JLC 889/2 , JLC 960, Longines 990 (Lemania 8815), PP 215, PP 240,now IMHO the Grand Seiko 430 is one of best mechanical movements ever made .Others like the Zenith 400,Zenith 670, GP 3100 all excellent movements, plus there are many more. Would not call any modern movement made today best, whats best in one persons eyes is better in another's. But most mechanical movements today even from Alpha to every day Seiko, and Miyota all have there place in today's horological world.

[Old Expat Beast]

Yes in-house but I have two ETA Tudors (BB and THR) both around ten years old, developed over several decades, never serviced, still keeping chronometer time, so in-house is not something I would find attractive.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Yes in-house but I have two ETA Tudors (BB and THR) both around ten years old, developed over several decades, never serviced, still keeping chronometer time, so in-house is not something I would find attractive.

Both my Tudors have out house movements! The THR has an ETA and the Royal 41 has a Sellita movement. They both work nicely.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by HogwldFLTR

Both my Tudors have out house movements! The THR has an ETA and the Royal 41 has a Sellita movement. They both work nicely.

So you're saying they're not $#!++y?!?!

(emphasis mine)

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by douglasf13

As I mentioned above, it's all a bit murky. Rolex started buying up their suppliers over the last few decades, and they didn't buy their movement maker until 2004, and then built their own movement manufacture that opened in 2012, finally making them fully in-house.

Not to go too OT here, but this is very interesting for another reason, too (which I suspect you'll appreciate, given your participation in that other thread): Sounds like the 32xx movements are the first to be designed with movement manufacturing completely under Rolex control, and the first produced entirely in the new facility (opened 2012, w/32xx starting in 2015). That suggests that perhaps certain elements of previous R&D and/or manufacturing processes changed under vertical integration. If there's a fundamental flaw in design or production, perhaps this is where someone should start looking from a process standpoint.

[HogwldFLTR]

Originally Posted by dannyp

So you're saying they're not $#!++y?!?!

(emphasis mine)

I couldn't help myself (isn't that the opposite of inhouse?), I really do like the Eta and Sellita movements in my watches. There have been issues with Rolex and Tudor inhouse movements (as well as early design with Omega's Co-axial).

[1William]

I consider them in-house.

[Cru Jones]

They are clearly not “in-house”. The movements come from a consortium that produces movements for several brands.

Not that it matters to me either way.

[douglasf13]

Originally Posted by dannyp

Not to go too OT here, but this is very interesting for another reason, too (which I suspect you'll appreciate, given your participation in that other thread): Sounds like the 32xx movements are the first to be designed with movement manufacturing completely under Rolex control, and the first produced entirely in the new facility (opened 2012, w/32xx starting in 2015). That suggests that perhaps certain elements of previous R&D and/or manufacturing processes changed under vertical integration. If there's a fundamental flaw in design or production, perhaps this is where someone should start looking from a process standpoint.

That’s an interesting point I hadn’t considered…but I’m not touching that one!