Microbrands and independent watchmakers are two unique groups within the watch industry. What they share is that they operate outside the large corporate structures like Swatch Group, LVMH, and Richemont. However, the lines between them can be fuzzy.
A common question I get is whether Weiss is a microbrand or an independent. Personally, I consider us an independent, and I'll explain why, but it's worth noting that the distinction between a microbrand and an independent is largely a matter of personal opinion. I’m interested to hear your thoughts in the comments since this is a topic I live with every day as an independent watchmaker.
I love all watches, whether they come from an independent, a microbrand, or a larger watchmaking group, and I don’t believe that any one category is inherently better or worse than another. My experience includes working for both types—an independent, Audemars Piguet, and a large group, the Richemont Group, through Vacheron Constantin. From an insider’s perspective, there are clear differences when working for these companies, but from the outside, as a consumer or enthusiast, it’s not as clear.
In the U.S., we’re particularly in tune with the growth of microbrands, a relatively new phenomenon in the watch world. I believe that microbrands have become a significant part of the market here due to the limited watchmaking infrastructure in the U.S. In my view, a microbrand is not just a small company but a new entry into watchmaking. It doesn’t necessarily have to exist beyond producing one watch, and that one watch can be great—a valuable product with an amazing story. However, it might not be around for the long term.
For me, the difference between a microbrand and an independent is that a microbrand typically utilizes existing structures, possibly led by just one person who designs and creates a watch or a few watches. Microbrands may not have watchmakers or designers on staff, and they might not even hold inventory, relying instead on platforms like Kickstarter. This allows individuals to enter the watch industry without substantial investment, just a bit of time.
Microbrands can evolve into independents and may eventually be purchased by larger groups. I don’t think a brand necessarily stays in one category forever—there’s always movement. For example, Vacheron was once independent, and Audemars Piguet might one day join a larger group. When I first started Weiss, we were a microbrand. I began in my apartment, working for Vacheron Constantin at the time, with a small home workshop. I made one watch with one dial color and one strap option. At that point, I could have decided that was the only watch I would produce. Instead, I wanted to build it into something more, eventually transitioning into the independent category. We now have a large workshop, service and repair our watches, and manufacture components.
There’s room for brands to move around within these categories, and I don’t believe that being a microbrand or an independent is inherently better or worse. The increased interest in watches over the past 20 years has opened the market to more small brands, leading to more unique identities and product offerings. Some may be reasonably priced, while others might be rare and expensive, contributing to a more interesting landscape for watch enthusiasts and collectors.
When you walk into most watch retailers, you’ll find that most of the brands on the shelves are owned by just two or three companies, which can sometimes be a bit boring, stifling creativity. Having independents and microbrands in the mix makes things more exciting. However, without the large corporate structures willing to purchase these brands, their history, and employ watchmakers in Switzerland and other parts of the world, the industry would have likely fizzled out and disappeared.
We owe a lot to the big companies like Swatch Group, Richemont, and LVMH. These brands hold much of the knowledge and history of watchmaking and have kept it alive. They also have the resources to invest in research and development, pushing watchmaking forward with innovations like silicon hairsprings, ceramic cases, and other new materials. For example, the coaxial escapement was developed by George Daniels, one of the greatest watchmakers in recent history. Daniels was an independent, but his legacy lives on in the millions of Omega coaxial escapement watches sold today, thanks to Omega and Swatch Group.
The lines between independent and corporate-owned brands can be blurry, and both are necessary to make watchmaking more interesting. Microbrands and independents also rely heavily on the infrastructure provided by larger companies. For instance, Swatch Group owns Incabloc, and I use Incabloc shock protection in every watch we make. We also use parts from ETA, another Swatch Group company, along with many other independents and microbrands.
Without the foresight of people like Nicolas Hayek, the CEO of Swatch Group, and the formation of that group, the microbrand and independent sectors of watchmaking wouldn’t exist today. They are the ones who saved mechanical watchmaking.
Over my time in the industry, I’ve developed my own thoughts on what it means to be a microbrand versus an independent. I believe an independent will have the ability to service their watches after they’re sold and will have more invested in their brand and company—such as offices, employees, knowledge, and tools. A microbrand, on the other hand, could simply be one person at home designing a watch to be made in a factory on the other side of the world.
The coolest part about being in the watch industry today is that it’s completely possible to have a day job and start a watch company, creating a brand with relatively little investment. There’s an accessible path to move into microbrands, and if things get serious, to move into independent watchmaking, and possibly even sell to a group. There are a lot of opportunities in the watch industry across different tiers and levels for various brands.
