My recent Instagram post ignited a firestorm of discussion, unearthing a truth that many in the watch community had long suspected, yet few dared to openly acknowledge: the Panerai P.9200 caliber, proudly presented as an in-house movement in their new chronograph family, is fundamentally based on a modified ETA 2892-A2 with a Dubois Dépraz chronograph module. This revelation, while shocking to some, opens a Pandora’s Box of questions regarding brand transparency, the definition of "in-house," and the very nature of the luxury watch market. This article delves deep into this discovery, exploring its implications and connecting it to the larger narrative of movement sourcing and the often-murky world of watchmaking.
The term "Rolex Worms," while not directly referencing the P.9200 specifically, alludes to the broader phenomenon of brands leveraging existing movements and modifying them, sometimes extensively, to present them as their own. It evokes a sense of subterfuge, a hidden truth lurking beneath the polished surface of a luxury timepiece. This isn't about condemning the practice itself – many brands, even highly respected ones, utilize modified movements – but rather about the transparency (or lack thereof) surrounding this practice.
Revisiting Panerai’s PAM Of Worms – Vintage Rolex:
This incident brings to mind the historical context of Panerai's movement sourcing. Panerai, with its rich history tied to military diving instruments, has always walked a fine line between leveraging existing technology and developing its own. While their early watches utilized movements from other manufacturers, the brand has made significant strides in developing in-house calibers. However, the P.9200 revelation casts a shadow over this progress, raising concerns about the brand's commitment to genuine in-house manufacturing in certain segments. The "PAM of Worms" metaphor, referring to the historical use of seemingly "worm-like" modifications to existing movements, perfectly captures the essence of this situation. It is a subtle yet powerful reminder that even within the esteemed world of luxury watches, the truth can often be obscured. The use of vintage Rolex movements in some earlier Panerai models, though not directly related to the P.9200, further highlights the brand's historical reliance on external movement suppliers. This historical context underscores that the use of a base ETA movement, even with significant modification, is not unprecedented in Panerai's history. However, the level of marketing surrounding the P.9200 as a fully in-house movement is what makes this particular instance so controversial.
Panerai In:
The question of what truly constitutes an "in-house" movement is central to this discussion. Panerai, like many other brands, faces the pressure to offer fully in-house movements to justify their high price points and maintain their prestige. The development of a completely new movement from scratch is an incredibly expensive and time-consuming undertaking. Therefore, modifying an existing movement, like the ETA 2892-A2, and adding a Dubois Dépraz chronograph module, represents a cost-effective alternative. This approach allows brands to offer complex features without incurring the substantial R&D costs associated with completely in-house development. But the line blurs when marketing emphasizes "in-house" without clearly stating the extent of the modification. Panerai's handling of the P.9200's origins highlights the ethical complexities involved in this decision. The lack of transparency regarding the movement's base components raises questions about consumer trust and the integrity of the brand's marketing claims.
current url：https://gzmvkc.e518c.com/global/rolex-worms-17361
prada nylon handbag ffffff patek philippe geneve 58152 qiymeti