The Fondation de la Haute Horlogerie has established a definition for what it considers fine watchmaking. Hong Kong Tatler's watch expert explains the process and considers its implications

Watch_coverpic.jpg

Photo by ThinkStock/Ann_Mei

The term haute horology, or fine watchmaking, is often seen, but what does it mean exactly? What determines whether a watch or brand qualifies for that particular label? And why does it matter to you when you walk into a boutique and face an unprecedented range from which to select your next acquisition?

The latter question is a highly personal one, but it goes to the very definition of fine watchmaking. The Fondation de la Haute Horlogerie (FHH) was founded in 2005 to be a guardian and authority of what constitutes fine watchmaking, and to communicate and educate all levels of the watchmaking industry, from the brands to the retailers and customers.

Its mission hasn’t always been straightforward, though, largely because of the lack of a clear-cut definition of fine watchmaking. So for the past few years, the foundation has worked to develop a methodology that would lead to not only an accepted definition of the term fine watchmaking, but also an industry classification of which brands would be accepted within its perimeter.

To do so, the FHH turned to its cultural council, which comprises 46 individuals such as collectors, watchmakers, designers, historians, retailers and media. I’ve been honoured to be a member for the past two years. Rather than ask each member for their subjective impressions of a particular brand, the FHH developed a very detailed methodology which breaks down fine watchmaking into seven fundamental areas: R&D, production and technical expertise; style, design and artistic expertise; history and DNA; distribution and after-sales service; connoisseurs and collectors; brand image and communication; and training.

watch3.jpg

Photo by ThinkStock/Mary_stocker

Each member of the cultural council is attached to one or more of these areas and was asked to answer a lengthy questionnaire on each area, and for 86 brands. The resulting analysis determined whether a brand operates within the perimeter of fine watchmaking. To level the playing field, as it would not be fair to expect the small independent watchmakers to be able to operate in the same way as the large brands, the perimeter itself is further broken down into four segments—historic maisons, contemporary brands, luxury brands, and artisan creators.

The questionnaires were distilled into a specific rating for each of the 86 brands; if the score was 6 or above, the brand was automatically within the fine watchmaking perimeter. To account for some statistical variation, the council was asked to make a further evaluation of the brands that fell just below the benchmark score, and whether we felt they should be included in fine watchmaking or not. Out of those 86 brands, 64 are included in the perimeter. Or course, this is not a static exercise; it will be repeated every two to three years (and I’m glad it’s not more frequent, as it took a significant amount of time and effort).

There is no avoiding some intellectual and emotional challenges to this new perimeter, but there is a lot to be said for the fact that the evaluation process was done in a very empirical fashion, and with a wide cross-section of industry experts. It’s also important to note that it’s not a statement of a particular brand’s worth, but simply of its perceived mission and position within the wider watch industry.

There are numerous brands that are extremely well perceived and yet have no intention or desire to obtain the fine watchmaking label. Perhaps it will spur some brands, which may have expected to make the grade, to intensify their efforts leading up to the next round of evaluations. At the very least, it will help the industry concretely answer the question of what is fine watchmaking and which brands are the best examples, within their respective segments, of the expression of the art of mechanical timepieces.

Technical and precious fine watchmaking perimeter 


Contemporary Brands

  • Armin Strom
  • Ateliers Louis Moinet
  • Cabestan
  • Christophe Claret
  • De Bethune 
  • DeWitt
  • FP Journe
  • Greubel Forsey 
  • Hautlence 
  • Hublot
  • HYT 
  • Laurent Ferrier 
  • Maîtres du Temps
  • MB&F 
  • MCT 
  • Parmigiani Fleurier
  • Ressence 
  • Richard Mille
  • Roger Dubuis 
  • Romain Gauthier
  • Romain Jerome
  • Speake Marin 
  • Urwerk

 Historic Maisons

  • A Lange & Söhne
  • Audemars Piguet
  • Blancpain
  • Bovet Fleurier
  • Breguet
  • Breitling
  • Bulgari
  • Cartier
  • Chopard
  • Girard-Perregaux
  • Glashütte Original
  • H Moser & Cie
  • Harry Winston
  • IWC
  • Jaeger-LeCoultre
  • Jaquet Droz
  • Officine Panerai
  • Omega
  • Patek Philippe
  • Piaget
  • Rolex
  • Tag Heuer
  • Ulysse Nardin
  • Vacheron Constantin
  • Van Cleef & Arpels
  • Zenith

Artisan Creators

  • Andreas Strehler
  • Antoine Preziuso
  • Beat Haldimann
  • Christiaan van der Klaauw
  • Grönefeld
  • Kari Voutilainen
  • Philippe Dufour
  • Roger W Smith Sarpaneva
  • Thomas Prescher
  • Vianney Halter

Luxury Brands

  • Chanel
  • Hermès
  • Louis Vuitton
  • Montblanc

 This article was originally published in Hong Kong Tatler August Issue