Velociphile is not one to mince words, but he really tears my beloved Big Bang (Hublot continues “their dull theme of apeing the Royal Oak albeit without nicely aligned bezel screws”) a new pooper. The most egregious offense? Calling a modified ETA movement an “in-house” piece.
My view is simple. The predominating IP in this design is from outside ETA/Valjoux. All the tricky side of it, the tolerancing, productionisation and so on was hard won by Valjoux a long time ago. Making it to drawing is easy peasy; simply substituting another material and upgrading with a few bushes and bits and bobs no great shakes. I have no evidence but would surmise Hublot still buy in the geartrain and possibly escapement from ETA. And, you can anglage and polish it till you can see your face think Lemania 2310 in Patek 5070 but it doesnt change its genes and the fact that Hublot had NO part in creating the base clever, super cheap and effective tractor. However, admittedly, what theyve done is at least one step – no lets be generous two steps – up from buying in a finished movement.
