A new Hongi 3101 finds a home at the AMCHPR...

The blue peacock variant:













to go with these...



and

Mortuus wrote:Those are just plain way cool...when were they produced?

As far as I can tell, they'd be late 70s or early 80s. There were a number of coloured dial watches produced by a range of companies, especially the lacquer dials like this one but, so far as I've seen, only Hongqi or "red flag" (which was a Liaoning product) did the applique on top.

Thanks...I agree, they are way cool and I really like them.

Nice, like the pandas dial, did Hongi made their own movements?

eddiea wrote:Nice, like the pandas dial, did Hongi made their own movements?

Yes. Liaoning, the maker of Hongqi, was/is a true manufacture and made their own movements. Liaoning still exists and they still do make movements.

AlbertaTime wrote:Yes. Liaoning, the maker of Hongqi, was/is a true manufacture and made their own movements. Liaoning still exists and they still do make movements.

How do they compare with Seagull's movements from the same timeframe?

Well:

1) they were both categorized as a "Grade 1" brand of watches by the Chinese government at the time.

2) Liaoning was at that time producing the SZL1A which was their version of the Chinese standard movement as mandated by the Chinese government. This had followed Liaoning production of their own designed movements, the SL-1 and SL-2 but production of those had ceased by decree.

3) Sea-Gull's ST5 movement, on the other hand (and along with the Zuanshi SM1Ak movement), had been exempted from the requirement to produce the "standard" movement as their in-house design (ST5) were judged to have already exceeded build and performance the specifications set forth under the plan for the "standard".

4) However, once Liaoning began to produce the SZL1A, they were quickly recognized as a superior and Grade 1 build along with the Shanghai and Beijing "standard' versions.

My experience backs up that history. Mind you, I also think the SL2 was heck of a movement ;-) . My Liaoning watches all run very well. They're durable, dependable, easily accurate within normal daily wear standards and smooth winding.

All that said: there's a strong case to be made that the Diamond/Zuanshi movement, the SM1Ak was the best of the bunch of that era as it won the annual Chinese government prize for what we'd call "best Chinese watch movement" 10 times.

Interesting stuff Ron....are any of the Chinese manufacturers making (or have any plans to make) a high/mid-end watch ? and I mean something to compete at, say Omega level.

eddiea wrote:Interesting stuff Ron....are any of the Chinese manufacturers making (or have any plans to make) a high/mid-end watch ? and I mean something to compete at, say Omega level.

Barring tourbillons and one-offs, I haven't seen any Chinese watches at that price range or even well over that I think are aimed at that market. There are certainly highly complicated production pieces at much higher than, say, the $3000-$5000 range but they're what I'd call "flashy-formal/impress your neighbour" pieces or "look what we can do" efforts more than watches meant for normal daily wear.

In the mid-high range, I think for the most part the Chinese themselves prefer brands like Rolex, Omega, Breitling to a degree but dive-style and pilot-chrono watches aren't big in China yet, ...and brands like Longines and Zenith and so on are also held in high regard.

I think also a big part of the reason is that the Chinese manufacturers are well aware that even a highly regarded brand like Seiko has difficulty convincing the buying public that a three-hander Grand Seiko is on a par with the high-mid Swiss brands, even if a number of well-informed WIS types would argue they were, and with good reason. The Chinese manufacturers are consequently well aware that they don't yet have the proven track record to compete well in that market, so they aim lower for mass production...and well higher to show their competence, hoping the future might bring changes at some point.

All excellent information, Ron! An excellent read, as well; many thanks, sir!