Hi, Mike, WA.
Several questions come to mind -
What supposedly makes a Patek movement special? I am not questioning that it is, I just want to know people making such statements mean, themselves, when they make such a statement?
Is it the fact that it is "in house?"
Is it the fact that it is supposedly hand finished?
The anglage and perlage and all those other "indicators" of "fine craftsmanship?"
Is it the free sprung balance, variable inertial mass balance?
How well it "keeps time?"
Resistence to shock? long intervals between needed servicing? centuries of reliable functionality of well maintained, properly used?
And once the above are answered, I have to ask - do those applying such "objective" criteria, apply them consistently, evenly, to all subjects under review? Are the criteria used to "validate" a Patek Philippe also used in the same way, with the same rigour, for Montres F-P Journe? Vacheron Constantin? Breguet? Richard Mille?
I ask the above both academically - I obviously don't know, for every single person on earth, and would sincerely like to know, for as many people as I can find out from.
But I also ask rhetorically, because in my experience coming into contact with 100,000's of serious collectors, newbies, casual consumers, and wannabes, my own experience tells me that the answers to my own questions, above, is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the answers are NOT consistent, and more, the criteria not consistently applied.
"This movement is fine because it has a free sprung balance."
"Interesting. So why do you like that movement, which doesn't have a free sprung balance?"
"Oh, well, because..."
=============
"this watch is great because the movement is made in house."
"Oh? So the Hamilton is great because it uses ETA, which is an inhouse movement maker?"
"No, they are just under the same corporate umbrella, it is not really in house, just like Blancpain and F Piguet."
"Oh? So the movement used in the first Patek Nautilus, the one based upon the JLC 920, aka AP 2120, VC 1120, is not a great movement, the original Jumbo Nautilus not a great watch?"
"Oh, well, that's different..."
============
And so it goes on like this, ad nauseum.
In my own humble opinion, as someone who has watched the industry for over 30 years, actively collected for nearly as long, and with a few friends in the industry who are willing to "open the veils" for me, both from a business standpoint, and from a technical standpoint, my own thoughts on the Richard Mille RM-005:
It is expensive for what it is. Any original is - an original Ford GT 40; an original Yamagata or Picasso; an original Hermes Bhirkin or Kelly. Cheaper copies, or even simply "inspired" designs, abound. The original is, what it is.
There is a HUGE difference between "style" and "fashion" - I expect the Richard Mille will be validated by history to be an original "style" setter, not a passing "high price fashion watch" though it cannot be denied there is an element of this last built into the price premium.
Is the movement special? No more or less special than many other movements that occupy exalted places by self-proclaimed "watch experts" - Vaucher is a very highly regarded, specialist watch movement design and production house. There are other, very prominent and highly respected "brands" who do not use Vaucher movements because they are too expensive and "more than what is needed." Yet Richard Mille uses them in the 005, while using the universally respected and exalted Renaud et Papi movements for its high complications models.
Is this a good thing, a compliment? Everyone should decide for themselves.
There are many subtleties in all aspects of the Richard Mille that are not at all obvious to most, from the complexities of the case design and production and assembly, to subtle design and construction elements of the all the movements used in the RM models, the 005 included.
Is it "special?"
To many, it is not. To me, who owns more than one model from RM, including an 005, it most certainly is. When I want a very "unconventional" design that is both avant garde and personally appealing (not often one and same, for those that know me) I usually reach for my RM.
Just another person's personal point of view.
TM
ps: I can just read the comments now - so what is special about the Vaucher movement, Thomas? You didn't answer the original question, you didn't give any specifics. Well, neither did the original question ask specifically, not specifically "qualifying" the examples given of Patek and Journe (I too agree they are special, without qualification) and neither did the follow up reply. What's good for the goose...
Of course, Andrew, as our local RM champion and brand forum moderator, if you would care to elaborate...
