MTF
[PuristS]
13383

• Show profile
• Show other posts

FQF Clarification

Graham,

In a previous inteview with Mr KFS, the FQF was described and the founding committee. click here

The only LUC staff in Kong's photos was Mr Wehrli.  The others were either restaurant or FQF personnel.

Regards,

MTF

 

 

On Qualite Fleurier

IW:  Since the establishment of the Qualite Fleurier and initial issue of watches by Chopard, Bovet and Parmigiani, we have not heard much about the QF mark. What do you think of the penetration of the QF mark in the market place?

KFS: There are two things:

First, the bar is pretty high, if not, very high. It prevents the companies from producing too many watches with the QF mark. Every cased watch is tested and takes a longer and finite time. The testing equipment could handle more pieces but not too many more. So, we have to go back to the drawing board in one or two cases. We are working on a new QF movement.

Secondly, as QF an independent organisation, it should communicate independently and not through the founding brands. I was insisting that we should do more to promote QF. When you are alone – decisions are made easily; when you are two parties – it's a little more difficult; when you are three…

IW: Can anybody submit watches for testing at QF?

KFS: Yes – we have had interest from other companies asking for information.

IW: I was thinking more of a consumer mass testing of many brands using the QF as a benchmark. Is there anything in the rules to prevent this, in theory?

KFS: The regulations did not really foresee this question about consumer testing. To apply as a manufacturer, you have to fulfil two criteria – the movements that you present have a cost and the finishing has to reach QF standards. An independent institute does the crash testing. Theoretically, if your watches went through all these, they could proceed to QF testing.

IW: Theoretically, such a consumer test could be an independent assessment not only of watch brands but also of the QF test itself, especially if watches with the Geneva Seal were included as positive controls.

KFS: I agree – that could be interesting.  By the way, the COSC has decided to change their rules as of 2009. Rather than just testing the base movement, if you are adding complication modules (chronograph, calendar etc), you must present the whole assembled movement for testing. It is not quite testing of cased-up watches but still a revolution; I'm glad that QF inspired them. The number of chronometers may drop in 2009 because the standards will be higher and for example, if you test a perpetual calendar for chronometry, the results will not be favourable for a COSC rating.

IW: How has QF affected Chopard processes?

KFS: QF is a long-term project. It has helped us in the development of new movements, testing equipment and attention to details. Those improvements alone are enough to say that QF is an excellent thing.

IW: QF standard includes a very small chronometry window (0 to +5s/day) and a 24-h impact torture test. What have you actually modified on the L.U.C. 9.96 movement that sets it apart from the "usual" L.U.C. 1.96 movement to survive the impacts and still deliver such precision?

KFS: This demonstrates what I said earlier; we had to improve on our anti-shock mechanisms because we realised that we had to pass the QF tests. That alone has convinced us to keep up the QF Initiative and we are planning to increase the number of watches submitted; in fact, Chopard will make the most watches of QF standard in the world.

IW: Watch collectors already know that COSC is not a real world test of chronometry as only the movement (and modules after 2009) is tested; Philippe Dufour has commented that QF is a way forward to test watches. What are your impressions?

KFS: It is as close to real-life testing as we can get and it's like taking a car for a test-drive rather than just an engine test on a dynamometer.

Site Info.