back to top

‘Swiss Made’ To Mean A Whole Lot More For Watches In 2017

'Swiss Made' To Mean A Whole Lot More For Watches In 2017 Watch Industry News

“Swiss Made” is a powerful mark applied to some of the world’s best products, but what does it mean? When it comes to watches it will mean a lot more starting in 2017 and is being applied not only to the movement inside of a watch, but the entire watch case, dial, and bracelet as well. “Swiss Made” does not now and will not then mean “100% Swiss Made.” Many people do not know that the extent to which a watch is Swiss Made varies greatly from watch to watch and from one manufacture to the other. Of course “Swiss Made” can apply to other products as well but is most important in the world of timepieces. From what we can gather in 2017 “Swiss Made” as applied to Swiss watches will mean that 60% of the cost of a “Swiss Made” watch movement and case needs to come from Switzerland.

The use of the Swiss Made label for watches is covered by an ordinance of the Federal Council dated December 23, 1971, and a more detailed introduction of this ordinance can be found at the site of the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry FH, here. After doing the math, we end up with legislation that is well over forty years old – and just as the globalized world has come a long way in that time, the legislation is expected to keep up with the pace of those developments. Starting from Jan 1, 2017, some interesting changes will be implemented in the “Swissness” law, so let us see what those changes are, why they were necessary, and how brands are expected to react. Also, aBlogtoWatch covered other recent refinements to what Swiss Made means for watches here.

'Swiss Made' To Mean A Whole Lot More For Watches In 2017 Watch Industry News

On June 21, 2013, the Swiss parliament has voted in favor of a new “Swissness” law, allowing consultation processes concerning its implementation to commence through mid-2015. The intentions are clear: as a result of globalization and swift developments in manufacturing practices, the presently valid ordinance fails in numerous ways to protect the Swiss Made label and the qualities that it was designed to ensure. In short, the concept of “Swiss Made” is being eroded in the eyes of some people in Switzerland, and to preserve the “prestigious” mark the government feels that “Swiss Made” needs to mean just that much more – especially when it comes to watches.

Today, a watch can legally be considered to be Swiss if all of the following are true: a) its movement is Swiss, b) its movement is cased up in Switzerland and c) the manufacturer carries out the final inspection in Switzerland. A movement is Swiss if at least 50% of its value (excluding cost for assembly) has been realized in Switzerland and if it has been assembled and “inspected” by the manufacturer in Switzerland.

'Swiss Made' To Mean A Whole Lot More For Watches In 2017 Watch Industry News

The key problem is that, especially in the low-to-mid price segment, many brands and OEM manufacturers have figured out – and have been harnessing – ways to trick the system and legally label watches as Swiss Made, despite the fact that an extremely small fraction of their value has been generated in Switzerland. Sourcing movements and other key components (cases, dials, hands, etc.) from the Far East is a common method: assembly kits of entire movements are manufactured at an incomparably smaller cost in China, Thailand, and other locations (generally at a considerably inferior level of quality) which, along with the other components, are shipped to Switzerland for assembly.

Manufacturers use a small amount of Swiss-made components, most often balance wheels and springs, along with mainsprings and jewels for these watches; and the cost of these Swiss-made components actually outweigh the cost of all the rest of the Asian-made components – or at least they do in the documents. As a result the 50% threshold for the cost of the movement has been passed, the parts are assembled and cased up in Switzerland and the watch legally receives the Swiss Made designation on the dial.

'Swiss Made' To Mean A Whole Lot More For Watches In 2017 Watch Industry News

The new law is expected to enter into effect on Jan 1, 2017. From then on, all “Swiss Made” watches will have to be manufactured in compliance with the new industry ordinance: the “Swiss Made” designation will no longer apply to the just watch movement, but will apply instead to the entire watch (with a possible exception of the strap/bracelet), whereas at least 60% of the watch’s manufacturing costs will have to be realized in Switzerland, with the watch, of course, also being assembled there. A jump from 50 to 60 percent may not sound like much – especially if we consider that it will have taken nearly an entire decade for the legislative organizations to conceive, approve, and implement the updates – but it will make a difference.

Practically, only half of the value of the movement is presently to be created in Switzerland, with no limitations being made to the origin of any and all other components, including crucially important parts such as the case, dial and hands. That changes if a manufacturer intends to mark not just the dial, but also the case as “Swiss Made”: my understanding is that the case cannot be marked as such unless it meets similar requirements as the movement. With the new legislation – which now requires 60% of the cost of the entire watch to be incurred in Switzerland – a jump in the amount of Swiss made components finding their way into Swiss watches is therefore to be expected.

'Swiss Made' To Mean A Whole Lot More For Watches In 2017 Watch Industry News

The question is how suppliers and Swiss watch brands will prepare for this development and what this will mean in terms of pricing and quality. Given that we still have over two years for the new legislation to take effect, we will be able to witness the changes this incurs on the manufacturing practices of the watch industry – and especially those competing in the low-mid price segments. Over the course of the past five or so years we have seen how deeply the severe reduction in the supply of ETA movements have affected the industry as a whole – those cut off from these supplies had to find alternative sources and/or develop their own movements. This new legislation will cut back on the quantity of purchasable components from outside of Switzerland, in some ways having a similar effect as what we have seen happen with sourced movements. Brands will have to look for new suppliers or start creating their own components.

Ultimately, watch companies in the middle to high-end segment will not be heavily affected, those competing in the “affordable Swiss watch market” – say, in the sub-$1,000 range – will however likely have to raise their prices somewhat once they will be forced to switch to generally more expensive, albeit also higher quality, Swiss suppliers.

About the Author

David Bredan (abtw_david) is a young watch enthusiast based in Budapest, Hungary. He is dedicated to understanding, revealing and discussing as many aspects of fine watch making as possible. Fascinated by the countless admirable details of haute horlogerie, he strives to discover the challenges linked to the manufacturing of fine timepieces and also those related to chronometrical performance. As much as he loves unfolding the mysteries of mechanical timepieces, he also aspires to successfully capture and share the nuances that separate a fine watch and a masterpiece.
Previous Post Jordi Chronograph Red Horizon Watch Review 4 years ago by Ariel Adams



Disqus Debug thread_id: 3991160682

  • aandrianto

    aBlogtoWatch can’t wait for 2017!!!

  • Ulysses31

    This adjustment won’t stop companies from playing the system; it’ll just be a little harder to achieve but they’ll find a way, and nothing will change.  I get the impression that the Swiss watch industry wants to retain this flexibility (or some might say ambiguity) so they can continue to maintain their profit margins.  Do they care that much about their blessed reputation?  Outwardly, they are showing the world that they’re defending their honour – how noble!  Internally, i’m sure all they care about is the cold hard cash.

  • DG Cayse

    Going to call this comment:

    “…(generally at a considerably inferior level of quality)…” 
    As many are discovering, this more correctly should be “generally at a perceived inferior level of quality.” 
    The Swiss are pricing themselves out of the mass market. Their competition is moving in and producing what sells.
    This market is consumer driven. For much too long the “powers that be” (Swiss) have not faced this reality.
    This is why you are seeing some major marques realigning their skus to include more middle and “entry levels” products to being in those who had been previously priced out.
    And also, why their are many ’boutique’ brands bringing closely QC guided products to the market.

    There will always be room for the top shelf products. But it is simply a matter of selling to the widest possible demographic. An that ain’t US$10,000.00’s and up.

  • 5803822

    I fail to see how a brand purchasing parts from 3rd parties based in Switzerland can possibly be sure as to where they were manufactured and probably won;t bother to ask…………………..

  • astronseiko

    Just saying this sites gotten much better over the last couple months with the addition of the new writers. I know many others also felt that the site was getting stagnant with the same rehashed material. Keep up the good work.

  • matrotter


  • Brad Gustafson

    About time!

  • If they include straps, then may be the Swiss will have to start raising their own alligators (which are an American only raw material).
    Seriously, this will only raise prices if the new system is actually adhered to (and not “gamed”). But case stampings will still come from China, even if more of the machining occurs in Switzerland. Movements have long been a funny business as it’s their value, not part count or weight that determines the percentage. As David pointed out, you could have a movement with 80% of the parts made outside Switzerland but the remaining 20% have 50% of the overall value.
    I do wonder what some smaller Swiss players will do when their watches have less than 60% Swiss value but are still more than 50%. So where do they say their watches are “from”? Assembled in Switzerland? Manufactured in Swizterland? But not “Swiss Made”? And what if no one country provided 50% of the value of a watch – let’s say cases from Thailand, movement parts from China, dials and hands from Taiwan, etc. and then assembled and regulated in another country (Switzerland, Germany, the USA, where ever). What should a brand list as the country of origin for customs and trade regulation purposes if no single country accounts for the majority of the value. Global product – “Earth Made”.

    The funny thing is, the Swiss government no doubt caters to the Swiss watch industry with their regulations (which is understandable). But in the end, the big brands are more likely to want customers to buy their watches based on their name and reputation, not the national origin of the watch. Hypothetical example: If Rolex moved everything to Germany, do you think their entire sales would collapse? I doubt it would. Their name is stronger than the country of origin for their watches. 
    And in the end, so long as Swiss brands can maintain a public image of “Swiss-ness”, I would think they will want to have their cake and eat it too – continuing to buy parts from outside Switzerland but sell their wares as “Swiss Made”. Which is none of them really want 100% Swiss.
    I’ve heard the Hayeks (Swatch) say how they want to do all Swiss production and protect Switzerland’s industrial base. Which is fine (if 100% true). But I have to wonder if all of the other Swiss brands really agree both in principle and, more importantly, in fact. But hey, with the secretive nature of the Swiss watch industry, there be cheating but no fessing up about it.

  • somethingnottaken

    So the “affordable” Swiss brands will have to make a choice:Increase prices while keeping quality the same and maintaining Swiss Made status.Keep prices the same while decreasing quality (cutting more corners) and maintaining Swiss Made status.Give up the pretense of being Swiss Made (at which point they might as well use high quality Asian movements) and balance quality and price as they see fit.
    Option 3 is likely viable for many small and micro brands, as their buyers are less likely to care whether the watch is labled “Swiss Made”, versus “Germany”, verus no manufacturing location specified. The biggest impact would seem to be on brands like Tissot and Victorinox.

  • somethingnottaken Tissot is owned by Swatch, so they will remain Swiss Made. Which should no real problem as Swatch is vertically integrated and the Hayeks are committed to staying with Swiss production.

  • iamcalledryan

    Good stuff

  • Sonny Seth

    Did you mention this back in May 2013?

  • Dan Mateo Pineda

    My dream watch! Of course the maker is notable-Rolex, but what I like is the combination of colors blue, white and gold. Only in my dreams.. Haaaay..

  • iamcalledryan

    The Swiss watch industry is not one cynical badguy. And this is the will of the Swiss Parliament, not watch companies. This is absolutely about the “Swiss” brand, the Swiss have every right to be concerned about chumps throwing ETA’s into awful cases and having everything more or less less take place in Taiwan. No doubt there is lobbying and special interest involved but I am a little tired of people just throwing out comments about “they” and “maintain their profit margins”. This change is specifically designed to tighten the reigns around those businesses exploiting the flexibility. In doing so the government will acheive higher tax revenues/GDP from compliant manufacturers and lower from those that choose to exit or do without the Swiss Made mark. And why shouldn’t they when companies are marketing their products as Swiss when all they do is turn up every few months for a board meeting in Zurich airport and have a monkey in Geneva screwing in case backs?

  • KarenHime

    MarkCarson I agree. But the branding power (thus pricing power) that comes with a watch that is completely “Swiss made’ is still very significant. The appeal for the luxury Swiss watch is still very high for the aspiring luxury consumers. For many consumers the point of buying a watch is rarely for its functionality, but for its brand, complexity, history as a status symbol. Thus a brand runs a huge risk claiming to be Swiss made and not actually being so – especially if its going to be labeled as illegal. It would destroy its pricing power and brand name.

    Furthermore, Rolex would probably not have created such a brand name over time had it not started with its pull as a Swiss made mechanical watch. Now that it is established if it were to make a change of location – I must agree with you that I don’t believe there would be such a difference. But for less established brands it would be significant, even for the more high end brands.

    In all honestly, the Swatch Group brands will have the superior advantage in this case – already 100% Swiss made and with an unbeatable industrial capacity they will have few changes to make. It will be interesting to watch the other brands squirm for a while.

  • mgennone

    KarenHime MarkCarson It used to be the words Made In China scared people off cloths, electronics etc. Over time that perception is changed. You can buy Gucci made in China. Used to be all high fashion came from Italy. That is just the facts of it…Swiss Made will mean almost less then nothing in 20 years.

  • Ulysses31

    iamcalledryan They haven’t really changed anything though, have they?  Just moved the goal-posts a few inches to the left.  It’s the same basic system with the same inherent problems.  If they were serious about defending their reputation they’d make it so that this kind of abuse was eliminated completely.  That they haven’t, and that over the years the industry continues to make blatantly self-interested decisions, is all the evidence you need to be cynical about this latest move.  I’m glad you have a lot of faith in them but it isn’t deserved.

  • iamcalledryan

    This has nothing to do with faith. What exactly are you expecting here? That 100% of materials, operations and legal structure reside in Switzerland? It would be absurd for them to enact a draconian, isolationist law that would deny businesses from operating in a 21st century manner. The very fact that there are goalposts at all is great, the government is not obliged to further restrict, but has based on a legitimate concern that the “Swiss Made” mark is being stretched.
    And you keep mistaking this for an industry decision, it is a federal/cultural one.

  • Ryan Bautista

    Achie Atienza

  • Ulysses31

    iamcalledryan I happen to think that the industry and the government must consult each other when it comes to decisions affecting one of their globally famous national exports.  It is too crucial a matter for there not to be some sort of dialogue and negotiation going on, even if it is behind the scenes.  
    I don’t have a problem with them operating in a, as you say, 21st century manner, but then it makes the image they use to sell their products a false one does it not?  It is an image that is worth billions yet it is basically a long-cultivated deceit.  Were I to pick a hundred random people from the street and asked them what “Swiss Made” meant, how many of them would know that parts of these much vaunted watches were made outside of Switzerland?  Whether or not a product is made entirely in the supposed country of origin carries a lot of weight and sway with the consumer – one would think it was something to strive for even if it was very hard to achieve.

  • Mein Uhr

    Who polices this and what the penalty for companies who claim their watches as “Swiss Made” but did not meet the criteria?

  • Shawnnny

    When are people going to realize that a quality watch can be made outside of Switzerland. “Swiss Made” is one of the biggest marketing scams of all time. And, we all have fallen into it.

  • iamcalledryan

    But I am not saying, and neither is the article, that there has been no such dialogue, it is highly likely that the industry lobby has spent countless hours making their position known. There is little doubt that what we have here is an improvement, and a balance between commercial sense and cultural preservation.
    Now, and this is where I think we are in agreement, does the concept of Swiss Made deliberately mislead the consumer? Yes to an extent, but no more than any other marketing tool. There is no doubt that the industry exploits Switzerland and Switzerland hold the industry to a certain level of accountability (tax revenue).
    I think it is perhaps time we moved from a location-based stamp, to one that reflects quality. Putting a geneva seal or another generic, international, quality standard on the dial-side is something I would sooner see. It is very quaint for something to be entirely locally made, but I think people want quality above all. The concern is that if it is not swiss, it is manufactured elsewhere by lesser qualified business and people – but this is not necessarily true anymore.

  • MarkCarson somethingnottaken

    Well, then finally we can introduce my long lasting idea of “Swiss Made in China” and “Well Made in China”…
    I believe that watches and other products today are equally well made any where if the engineers and machines are good. It is all about the engineering that happens before the manufacturing process.
    The Far East stigma is not applicable any more as before. Let’s face it – the world is made in China these days more thank less….

    Fredi Brodmann

  • iamcalledryan

    Not entirely true, there was a time when watchmaking was an apprenticeship process, largely isolated to Switzerland, England, and Germany. People quite rightly wanted to buy into that expertise. But your first sentance is correct, we should no longer assume that Swiss = quality and other locations not. Certainly Glashutte Germany is an already established hub of quality. And today’s students at watchmaking schools in Switzerland appear to be a very international crowd. We no longer live in that old era, the knowledge has proliferated and other countries are capable of manufacturing (perhaps except for the springs and escapements) watches to a high standard. I think the issue is that they are also capable of producing watches to a god-awful standard and to that extent I think people largely trust the “bottom line” of quality that Swiss Made infers.

  • …well, re mechanical movements, I still believe that Switzerland and Germany are leaders – and then Japan next.
    It seems that Chinese mechanical movements are lagging behind in material quality but not in creativity.
    As long as the supply of better steel is kind of prevented the status will stay quo…

  • Fredi Brodmann MarkCarson somethingnottaken True that!

  • MarkCarson Oh dear…and now we have the onslaught of the “rise” of British horological “manufacturing” and the “resurgence” of “Made in USA” brands… 
    Who’s gonna regulate or at least do an exposé on that???

  • somethingnottaken

    MarkCarson somethingnottaken I’m not sure if it’s true or not, but I’ve read that even Swatch uses some Asian made parts. However, abandoning “Swiss Made” really isn’t an option for Swatch and their subsidiaries. Thus I’m interested to see what happens with the entry level Swatch brands, and even moreso, their competitors. Especially because these are the brand making watches that both like and can reasonably afford.

  • DG Cayse I don’t think the Swiss are pricing themselves out of the market at all. If anything, today you have more and more “educated” consumers with the help of sites like this, Hodinkee and all those trend spotting sites like “Uncrate”, “Gear Patrol”, etc. which are all unofficial cheering sections and promoters for uber luxury brands. 
    Couple that with a lot of new wealth (despite doom and gloom talk about economies and the wealth gap) and young people spending on themselves rather than starting families and you have the perfect formula for luxury growth.
    If anything, to get into the game (owning a decent famous brand Swiss watch) you have to pony up at least $5k and they’re not lowering prices in relation to perceived buying power.
    Yes, the market is consumer driven and the consumers that can afford exclusivity want MORE exclusivity. Why do you think there are long waiting lines for Birkin bags or limited production watches/automobiles/yachts?

  • somethingnottaken

    mgennone KarenHime MarkCarson At various times in the past Japan, Germany and Switzerland were all considered producers of low quality junk. Watchmaking moved from the US and UK to Switzerland because Swiss labour was cheap at the time. The stigma attached to “Made in China” won’t last forever.

  • Pipay Perasol

    Merry xmas t2 mike

  • David Bredan

    Mein Uhr Thanks for your comment, that is a good question. I did some research and found the following answer:
    “The unlawful use of a public sign such as the coat of arms, the Swiss cross or an official designation, is an offence prosecuted ex officio by the cantonal authorities. The competence of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) to file criminal charges on behalf of the Confederation is now expressly laid down in the law. Furthermore, any person may – as previously- also file charges with the responsible cantonal authorities.
    Whoever willfully and unlawfully uses public signs will be punished with a custodial sentence of up to one year or a monetary penalty. If the offender acts commercially, the act is punishable with a custodial sentence of up to five years or a monetary penalty. The maximum penalty possible is 360 daily penalty units, which can correspond to a maximum sum of money of CHF 1,080,000. These measures aim to greatly increase punishment for commercial use and to create a more effective deterrent.”
    Source: Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property

  • David Bredan

    astronseiko Thank you for your kind comment! We intend to keep growing and produce even more quality content.

  • David Bredan

    Shawnnny  iamcalledryan Certainly, there can be no doubt about the fact that quality watches can be (and are being) made outside of Switzerland – from the US through Germany all the way to Japan, high value, beautifully made watches can be found, often times without much research.
    Nevertheless, Switzerland still is home to something just as (or perhaps even more!) important than watch manufacturers: quality suppliers. The sheer amount of these Swiss suppliers is overwhelming when compared to other nations – the US has arguably been expanding in this regard but I feel still is incomparable, while Japan is more about the major manufacturers (Seiko, Citizen, etc.) having everything made by themselves, in-house, than about independent Japanese suppliers. And, generally speaking, without specialized suppliers there practically are no fancy hands, beautiful dials, accurate escapements and other precisely manufactured, bespoke components – and today an extremely large % of these specialized suppliers are based in Switzerland.
    In conclusion, sure, a quality watch can be made outside of Switzerland – but in many times those watches are either built exclusively with in-house made components, or often times with components sourced from Swiss suppliers (some major German brands, to a varying extent, included). And while reliance on suppliers is completely normal, the fact remains that most of these companies are Swiss-based today.

  • Fredi Brodmann MarkCarson somethingnottaken Beyond engineering, there are issues with materials and most importantly, quality control and quality standards. If you don’t mind scratched parts on movements that run at slower rates, then Chinese mainstream movements are just right for you. But I will acknowledge that the Chinese are making headway and it would be foolish to discount them in the years to come.

  • iamcalledryan So you really think the Swiss parliament is driving the Swiss watch industry on this issue and not the other way around? 
    BTW – disregard Taiwan for the most part. Here is a more likely scenario. A Swiss watch brand is actually founded and run from Switzerland. They may use ETA or Selitta or Soprod movements (or they may assemble movements using a lot of Chinese made parts that fit into Swiss designed movements). They purchase quality cases from China (yes, they do make some good one besides so many bad ones). They order hands and dials from Hong Kong (which are made across the river in Shenzhen or Dong Guan) and use straps made in China. Then they assemble everything in Switzerland. But by using a (legally) Swiss made movement, which is the most expensive component, they are above the 50% value proposition and can be marked as Swiss Made. 
    Now the disruptive though – so long as the engineering, design and quality control are at a standard that you as the consumer demand, do you really care where the metal stamping for a case was cast? Do you really care where the factory that makes sapphire crystals is located? In the end, we associate countries and companies/brands with a level of quality and reputation based on their past products and services. It’s not that Switzerland as a nation mandates a level of quality. It’s that we have come to expect a level of quality from brand who are located in Switzerland. 
    It is possible to set up a 100% Swiss factory and make total crap. I’m not saying such a watch would sell. Only that in this hypothetical case, “Swiss Made” would not mean quality. Case in point, one of the watches with the highest Swiss content is no doubt the Swatch Sistem 51 (which is assembled by robots). I’m sure the quality control is great, but these plastic cased watches are not what come to mind when I think of “Oh, a Swiss Made watch, how exclusive.”

  • Jeoffrey Santos

    What about time ?

  • Leila Calderon

    Merry christmas

  • iamcalledryan

    No, I think that Swiss sentiment is that the 1971 regulations have been manipulated by the majority of watch manufacturers. Parliament has drafted a revised set of guidelines and the industry has lobbied for it to suit the needs of their respective community – but here’s the deal, conglomerates with a mixed portfolio will have a different set of needs to their more exlusive in-house brethren. The latter would likely push for a soft revision, the former would be happy with something a little more draconian. To simply assume that this is the watch industry using parliament as a puppet is naive.
    And for me personally? I have already said I do not care for location, I am more interested in quality.

  • Spiro Latorre

    bro pmaskuhan ko, hehee…

  • Phillip Agris

    Mrry xmas

  • Cha Gomez

    Merry Christmas

  • DG Cayse

    Chaz_Hen DG Cayse Chaz_Hen, I agree with your correction to my comment. Perhaps I should have expanded on the point you make re:the expansion of the market.
    As I noted, there is always room at the top. And there will always be some with the “ready” to spend on items bought purely for “Flash, Trash or Bragging Rights.” Impulse buys mostly;although a concern for longevity and quality may also factor into the buy.

    Possibly it all comes back to the old manufacturing pricing conundrum – 
    “Do I want to sell one item at $10,000 or do I want to sell 10,000 items @ $1.00?”
    There is substance at either end. Personally, I favor producing a quality reasonable priced item and selling a LOT of them. 
    Exclusivity may get you into the “best parties” but there are many more people outside the velvet ropes.

    Merry Christmas and a Happy and Safe New Years to all. Happy Chanukah if still applicable.

  • iamcalledryan I think that to assume that the Swiss watch industry does not apply huge pressure to the Swiss parliament in naive, but we are each entitled to our own opinions. What I find interesting it is that as of last year, 92% of interviewed Swiss watch executives agreed with the proposed higher content. It’s rare, at least in the U.S., for an industry to agree with their government that greatly. Maybe they are all on the same page, but generally its odd to see any government and industry agree this much unless lobbying has been applied to the government. Maybe I’m just a cynic.
    Here is interesting reading (although for 2013, most of it still applies):
    Happy holidays to all.

  • Oelholm

    MarkCarson They won’t have to raise their own gators, just use gold thread for sewing the straps!

  • iamcalledryan

    Happy holidays – BTW I never said that there wasn’t alot of pressure from industry, but I do not think this is as simple as the tail wagging the dog. Sometimes there are genuinely shared interests. The reason I jumped into this dialoque was because I dislike a default position of cynicism without merit. I would prefer hearing someone weigh up the reasons why governement would be pushing in a different direction and why therefore this must have been an industry led decision. There is every reason why Swiss voters, the industry, and the government would all want to revisit this topic and revise it in the similar direction.

  • nickyb66

    Merry Christmas watch lovers.


    this is about newer rules, Sonny Seth

  • Skeletor

    In 2017, Swiss Made going to mean you a rich douchebag who donated a house mortgage to make a rich Lebanese family richer.

  • Forever Great

    Good! I am sick of these zipperheads in China and their crap watches using eta movements calling then Swiss watches, that and fake dog poop, drink umbrellas, as seen on tv crap, oh and China in general.

  • Mark B

    Is this designed to attract Chineese companies to open factories in Switzerland…..or China will simply make parts in China and ship to Switzerland and assemble using higher labour costs to beef up the value and qualify for Swiss Made