Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichiran
I agree popularity (demand) is not the only consideration but it has to be at least one of the determinants, otherwise these Big 3 will not be able to continue as a going concern today.
Moving on to the AP and Lange argument, I remember reading an article that the horological trinity was a concept coined by Swiss journalists in the 60s/70s. Lange ceased operations after WW2 and is German, which probably explained why it was not included then. Along the same vein, when AP was included in the trinity, it does not have the RO line yet, or RO was not really popular in the 70s after it came into existence in 1972. They were there presumably on merit with high complications and innovative (open-work) watches.
Fast forward to 2022, we could of course make a case of Lange over AP due to advancements made by Lange over the past 2-3 decades. AP proponents could also argue that Lange does not have a sport line until 2019, and is Lange self-sustainable without Richemont's support.
The Trinity concept is a subjective one which is why we see many determinants in this thread alone. Nothing is stopping us from buying the brands we love though. Cheers.
|
Respectfully disagree regarding popularity. Obviously a company needs to be viable to continue to operate and innovate; having a working business model does not necessarily make a company "popular".
Regarding AP. I'm not denying their history. I'm not questioning their inclusion in the original Trinity. The question from OP asked to update the Trinity to include companies that have had more recent contributions to horology. In this regard, AP has been surpassed imho.
As you say, this is subjective. We clearly have different criteria, evidenced by you thinking having a robust sport watch line should be a determining factor. My criteria only looks at how a company has recently moved forward horology through innovation. I don't care about popularity. I don't care about sport watches. I don't care about optics.