A Pam full of worms, interesting read...

[93 Turbo]

https://perezcope.com/.../panerai-in-house-movements.../...

[hoppyjr]

Not surprised.

[aikiman44]

He’s a great watch journalist.

[JP Chestnut]

If there's a corner to cut, Richemont will cut it. They're the number one purveyor of smoke and mirrors.

[pbj204]

I love the look of most PAMs, but they sure are shady. With better management they could be a hot brand again.

[JP Chestnut]

I love the look of most PAMs, but they sure are shady. With better management they could be a hot brand again.

The basest of base Panerais make sense to me. Good looking, distinctive, with easy to service Unitas movement. I'm not sure if they still sell such a watch but something like that at $3k-$4k seems a good choice. A $10K+ Panerai? I'm not feeling that at all.

[logan2z]

FWIW, Watchbase describes the P.9200 as "Base movement ETA 2892-2 with module for the chronograph". Not clear if it always said that or if it was updated based on more recent information coming to light.

https://watchbase.com/panerai/caliber/p-9200

Panerai isn't alone in this, many companies play fast and loose with the term 'in house'. For example, here's the description of the movement for the Glashutte Original Sixties Chronograph:

Glashütte Original manufactory movement

https://www.glashuette-original.com/en/ ... -03-22-04/

While the base movement may be in-house, nowhere on the web site does it say that the chronograph is a DD module.

However, Watchbase says this:

Modular (Dubois-Depraz) chronograph based on the caliber 39 platform;

https://watchbase.com/glashutte-original/caliber/39-34

So clearly that information was available from somewhere, most likely the manufacturer.

So where does this nonsense start? The marketing department? You'd think if there was some conspiracy to defraud watch buyers supported by the top brass at a company like Richemont, they would be smart enough to remove the 2892 engraving from the movement, or at least not make it plainly visible behind a display caseback.

[matt.wu]

FWIW, Watchbase describes the P.9200 as "Base movement ETA 2892-2 with module for the chronograph". Not clear if it always said that or if it was updated based on more recent information coming to light.

https://watchbase.com/panerai/caliber/p-9200

Was reading the Perez post last night, and it’s likely the latter. Lots of outlets frantically updated once the news broke.

[logan2z]

FWIW, Watchbase describes the P.9200 as "Base movement ETA 2892-2 with module for the chronograph". Not clear if it always said that or if it was updated based on more recent information coming to light.

https://watchbase.com/panerai/caliber/p-9200

Was reading the Perez post last night, and it’s likely the latter. Lots of outlets frantically updated once the news broke.

Could be, but read my amended post above.

[JP Chestnut]

Richemont has a history of overselling things. Those of us with long memories remember when the Inge 3227 was released with the in house 80110 movement. It was initially billed as a clean sheet design, until people realized that the base plate was either identical, functionally identical, or very very very similar to the VJ7750 and started going crazy (watch people actually cared about stuff like that, back then). IWC ended up revising their language around the new movement, and their reasoning was justifiable -- they wanted to be able to port over all their existing complication modules that were designed around the VJ7750 base.

However, the original messaging was overly grandiose.

[JBZ]

FWIW, Watchbase describes the P.9200 as "Base movement ETA 2892-2 with module for the chronograph". Not clear if it always said that or if it was updated based on more recent information coming to light.

https://watchbase.com/panerai/caliber/p-9200

Was reading the Perez post last night, and it’s likely the latter. Lots of outlets frantically updated once the news broke.

Could be, but read my amended post above.

I think the issue is that it was a lie of omission. Panerai never said it was an in-house movement, but they gave it a caliber number that implied it was. The watch press made the assumption, and Panerai didn't step in to say "no," when they should have.

Right or wrong, in-house movements come with a certain elevated status amongst collectors and buyers right now, and it makes good marketing copy for even casual buyers. I think Panerai would have been more than happy to go on letting everyone think the movement was in-house even if they never explicitly said it.

[logan2z]

FWIW, Watchbase describes the P.9200 as "Base movement ETA 2892-2 with module for the chronograph". Not clear if it always said that or if it was updated based on more recent information coming to light.

https://watchbase.com/panerai/caliber/p-9200

Was reading the Perez post last night, and it’s likely the latter. Lots of outlets frantically updated once the news broke.

Could be, but read my amended post above.

I think the issue is that it was a lie of omission. Panerai never said it was an in-house movement, but they gave it a caliber number that implied it was. The watch press made the assumption, and Panerai didn't step in to say "no," when they should have.

Right or wrong, in-house movements come with a certain elevated status amongst collectors and buyers right now, and it makes good marketing copy for even casual buyers. I think Panerai would have been more than happy to go on letting everyone think the movement was in-house even if they never explicitly said it.

No disagreement here. They had to know that calling the movement P.xxxx would lead people to believe it was in-house since they'd always used OP.xxxx for their outsourced movements. Of course they might be the only manufacturer to make such a distinction, most companies use the same naming convention for their outsourced and in-house movements so there's no easy way to distinguish them from name alone.

Sigh, I don't know why watch companies can't just be upfront about such things and save us all the unnecessary drama.

[toxicavenger]

better than a base model 6497. lol

[tattoo chef]

FWIW, Watchbase describes the P.9200 as "Base movement ETA 2892-2 with module for the chronograph". Not clear if it always said that or if it was updated based on more recent information coming to light.

https://watchbase.com/panerai/caliber/p-9200

Was reading the Perez post last night, and it’s likely the latter. Lots of outlets frantically updated once the news broke.

Could be, but read my amended post above.

I think the issue is that it was a lie of omission. Panerai never said it was an in-house movement, but they gave it a caliber number that implied it was. The watch press made the assumption, and Panerai didn't step in to say "no," when they should have.

Right or wrong, in-house movements come with a certain elevated status amongst collectors and buyers right now, and it makes good marketing copy for even casual buyers. I think Panerai would have been more than happy to go on letting everyone think the movement was in-house even if they never explicitly said it.

No disagreement here. They had to know that calling the movement P.xxxx would lead people to believe it was in-house since they'd always used OP.xxxx for their outsourced movements. Of course they might be the only manufacturer to make such a distinction, most companies use the same naming convention for their outsourced and in-house movements so there's no easy way to distinguish them from name alone.

Sigh, I don't know why watch companies can't just be upfront about such things and save us all the unnecessary drama.

It’s simple. Just like everything else, it needs to sound better, so they can justify the pricing they set based on the luxury marketing and advertising do. The watch industry is all about profit. Gone are the days where watch manufacturers make a watch for the enthusiast and want to make a good product for the price.
Top brands outsource to China, Swiss made designation has become a huge joke and these companies lie and deceive all the ways to the bank.

It’s a real shame, but transparency is not a thing in the watch world, and I wonder if it ever will be. I mean, if they were transparent, and tell you exactly where all the parts came from or were produced or what there “in house” movement really is, who would buy it?

The industry is full of smoke and mirrors and marketing that dupes the buyer into thinking they have a special luxury product, and they like it that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[CarloDWC]

FWIW, Watchbase describes the P.9200 as "Base movement ETA 2892-2 with module for the chronograph". Not clear if it always said that or if it was updated based on more recent information coming to light.

https://watchbase.com/panerai/caliber/p-9200

Panerai isn't alone in this, many companies play fast and loose with the term 'in house'. For example, here's the description of the movement for the Glashutte Original Sixties Chronograph:

Glashütte Original manufactory movement

https://www.glashuette-original.com/en/ ... -03-22-04/

While the base movement may be in-house, nowhere on the web site does it say that the chronograph is a DD module.

However, Watchbase says this:

Modular (Dubois-Depraz) chronograph based on the caliber 39 platform;

https://watchbase.com/glashutte-original/caliber/39-34

So clearly that information was available from somewhere, most likely the manufacturer.

So where does this nonsense start? The marketing department? You'd think if there was some conspiracy to defraud watch buyers supported by the top brass at a company like Richemont, they would be smart enough to remove the 2892 engraving from the movement, or at least not make it plainly visible behind a display caseback.

Didn't Omega also used this set up - ETA2891 with the DD module - in some of their chronos? I think to remember the Dynamic Chrono model using this... maybe other ones.

[JBZ]

FWIW, Watchbase describes the P.9200 as "Base movement ETA 2892-2 with module for the chronograph". Not clear if it always said that or if it was updated based on more recent information coming to light.

https://watchbase.com/panerai/caliber/p-9200

Was reading the Perez post last night, and it’s likely the latter. Lots of outlets frantically updated once the news broke.

Could be, but read my amended post above.

I think the issue is that it was a lie of omission. Panerai never said it was an in-house movement, but they gave it a caliber number that implied it was. The watch press made the assumption, and Panerai didn't step in to say "no," when they should have.

Right or wrong, in-house movements come with a certain elevated status amongst collectors and buyers right now, and it makes good marketing copy for even casual buyers. I think Panerai would have been more than happy to go on letting everyone think the movement was in-house even if they never explicitly said it.

No disagreement here. They had to know that calling the movement P.xxxx would lead people to believe it was in-house since they'd always used OP.xxxx for their outsourced movements. Of course they might be the only manufacturer to make such a distinction, most companies use the same naming convention for their outsourced and in-house movements so there's no easy way to distinguish them from name alone.

Sigh, I don't know why watch companies can't just be upfront about such things and save us all the unnecessary drama.

It’s simple. Just like everything else, it needs to sound better, so they can justify the pricing they set based on the luxury marketing and advertising do. The watch industry is all about profit. Gone are the days where watch manufacturers make a watch for the enthusiast and want to make a good product for the price.
Top brands outsource to China, Swiss made designation has become a huge joke and these companies lie and deceive all the ways to the bank.

It’s a real shame, but transparency is not a thing in the watch world, and I wonder if it ever will be. I mean, if they were transparent, and tell you exactly where all the parts came from or were produced or what there “in house” movement really is, who would buy it?

The industry is full of smoke and mirrors and marketing that dupes the buyer into thinking they have a special luxury product, and they like it that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I don't disagree, but some of it is a tempest in a teapot in the sense that only a small subset of people (i.e. geeks like us) care about movement pedigree. Buyers of luxury products certainly want to feel like they're getting something special, but most aren't going to complain about puffery in advertising. They'll only complain if the watch ends up not working correctly. So there probably isn't much downside for watch companies to stretch the truth and to be opaque when it comes to their manufacturing. Even when they're called on it like this, most buyers aren't ever going to know about it, much less care.

[Zidane]

What a joke. Calls into question a lot of the watch media too. Can’t we trust any media these days?

[logan2z]

What a joke. Calls into question a lot of the watch media too. Can’t we trust any media these days?

At least in terms of the watch media, this should answer your question:

https://shop.hodinkee.com/

I knew they were ADs for some brands but I didn't realize the list of brands had become so extensive. Looks like the entire Swatch group.

[DON]

I posted this on another forum and fact is. Loads of companies do the same thing. Movement is inhouse if you want to get technical about it. the company that makes it is owned by Richemont who also owns Panerai. It's not from an outside company.

Until recently. Rolex didn't make it's own movements. They used a company they've been in business with for decades until they bought the company

Swatch makes all the movements for their brands. Probably the tools used to make an Omega movement the next day is making Breguet movements

Your paying for the brand name. Same for any high end product.

My two have ETA movements. Doesn't bother me at all

DON

[rockmastermike]

if/when I buy another Panerai, it will be old school Panerai.

[Steelman]

if/when I buy another Panerai, it will be old school Panerai.

There's no Panerai like old school Panerai. I'll never wear a current Panerai.