Patrik Hoffmann

Introduction

Few terms in Swiss watchmaking are used as liberally as heritage, independence and manufacture. Brands invoke histories spanning centuries, even when the companies operating under those names today have little in common with their predecessors. In-house movements are presented as proof of independence, while collaboration with specialist constructors is sometimes treated as something best left unmentioned.

Patrik Hoffmann knows this industry from a perspective collectors rarely get to see. For years he was associated with Ulysse Nardin, where he worked alongside Rolf Schnyder and took part in the company’s transformation into a producer developing its own movements. After Schnyder’s death, he took the helm of the business, which was acquired by Kering in 2014. Hoffmann subsequently gained experience in the pre-owned market at WatchBox.

Today he leads Favre Leuba, a brand whose history dates back to 1737 and which, over recent decades, has changed hands several times while struggling to find its place in the market. Historic models such as the Deep Blue, Bivouac and Harpoon remain familiar to enthusiasts of vintage watches. Heritage alone, however, is not enough to build a contemporary business.

The return of Favre Leuba also has an unusual Polish dimension. A collaboration between the brand and the Polish Watch and Clock Enthusiasts Club (Klub Miłośników Zegarów i Zegarków, KMZiZ) has resulted in a 66-piece limited edition of the Harpoon Revival dedicated to the characters of the celebrated Polish comic series Tytus, Romek i A’Tomek, created by Henryk Jerzy Chmielewski, known as Papcio Chmiel. The project, also presented by publisher Prószyński i S-ka, brings together Swiss watchmaking history and Polish popular culture. The common reference is 1966, the year associated with the original Harpoon and the first Tytus, Romek i A’Tomek album. It is an example of how collaboration with a collectors’ community can give a historic watch a new cultural context.

The return of Favre Leuba raises broader questions, however. How far can a brand draw on its archives without turning a new collection into a catalogue of reissues? Can a company working with specialists such as Chronode, La Joux-Perret and AMT claim a distinct technical identity? Where does the constructor’s role end and the manager’s responsibility begin? And what can the pre-owned market teach us about the actual value of watches?

In this conversation with WoW, Hoffmann addresses these questions, reflects on his years at Ulysse Nardin and explains why he does not regard growth in production volume, in itself, as a threat to a brand’s character.

WoW:

You have spent most of your career not as a watchmaker or movement constructor, but as a manager building markets, distribution and brands. When you take responsibility for a company with almost three centuries of history, where does a contemporary manager’s legitimate freedom to reinterpret that history end? At what point does continuity become the creation of a new brand using an old name?

Patrik Hoffmann:

I approach leading Favre Leuba with great respect and a strong sense of responsibility. I see myself as a custodian of its heritage, not its owner.

When we began developing the relaunch collection, our ambition was to pick up the thread of the brand’s history where it was interrupted by the quartz crisis and the family’s sale of the company. That does not mean reproducing old watches. Favre Leuba has always been a brand of exploration and technical ambition, and our job is to express that spirit in watches people want to wear today.

For me, the boundary is authenticity. We have the freedom to reinterpret designs and develop new ideas, but they must have a credible connection to what Favre Leuba stood for. If the name were the only link to the past, we would have crossed the line.

WoW:

At Favre Leuba, you distinguish between “Revival”, which remains very close to historical models, and “Renaissance”, which allows much greater freedom in interpreting the original codes. How do you decide what genuinely belongs to the DNA of Favre Leuba and what is simply a historical detail that can be left behind? And who today has the authority to make that distinction?

Patrik Hoffmann:

Two years after our preview at Geneva Watch Days 2024, I am convinced we made the right decision to pursue both Revival and Renaissance. There is a real appetite for faithful interpretations of historic watches, and our Revival pieces respond to that. But if Favre Leuba is to have a future, we also need contemporary watches that people want to wear today.

Deciding what belongs to a brand’s DNA is not an exact science. We study the archives and ask which elements express something enduring about Favre Leuba’s character, rather than simply reflecting the taste or technical constraints of a particular decade. Then we listen to customers. Their response helps us understand which elements still resonate.

Ultimately, the responsibility for that distinction rests with me and the team, in dialogue with our stakeholders. We have to exercise judgment, and we have to be willing to stand behind it.

WoW:

Favre Leuba works with external specialists including La Joux-Perret and Chronode, while you have also spoken about progressively internalising parts of the operation. In today’s industry, what does the word “manufacture” honestly mean to you? Does a brand need to design and produce its own movements in order to possess a genuine watchmaking identity, or can the intelligent integration of external expertise be equally legitimate?

Patrik Hoffmann:

I have been in this industry for many years, and I think the word “manufacture” has been used so broadly that it has lost much of its meaning. What it meant a hundred years ago is very different from how it is often used today. I would rather be precise about what we do ourselves and where we work with specialists.

Working with movement partners such as Chronode, La Joux-Perret and AMT does not diminish Favre Leuba’s watchmaking identity. We define the watch we want to make, choose the right expertise and take responsibility for the finished product. These partnerships give us access to excellent quality, which is especially important as we build a brand with ambitions beyond a small niche.

Will we develop more of our own capabilities and bring certain processes in-house? Absolutely. But we will do so at a pace that makes sense for the brand and, above all, improves the watches we deliver to our customers.

WoW:

At Ulysse Nardin, you worked in a company whose technical identity was shaped by people such as Rolf Schnyder, Ludwig Oechslin and the teams behind silicon technology, the Freak and the manufacture calibres. What did that period teach you about the difference between managing innovation and actually creating it? And how, in your view, should a CEO speak about technical achievements that are ultimately the work of constructors, engineers and watchmakers?

Patrik Hoffmann:

I see myself as a conductor. I can bring people together, set a direction and give them the confidence and resources to do their best work. But the creativity and technical expertise come from the people around me. Nothing happens without them.

I was fortunate to learn from extraordinary people at Ulysse Nardin: from Rolf Schnyder, whose courage and conviction were unlike anyone else I have known; from Ludwig Oechslin, who taught me the power of “complexity in simplicity”; and from Stéphane von Gunten, a true inventor with around 30 patents, whose new project I am pleased to support.

That experience taught me that a CEO can create the conditions for innovation, but should never claim to have personally created what engineers, constructors and watchmakers have achieved. It also made me careful with the word “innovation.” It is used too freely in our industry. You will hear me use it only when something is genuinely new.

WoW:

When Rolf Schnyder passed away in 2011, independence remained an important part of Ulysse Nardin’s identity. Three years later, the company was sold to Kering. Looking back at that period today — not through the language of an acquisition announcement, but as the person responsible for the company — what did it teach you about the financial realities of high-end watchmaking? Does true independence become increasingly difficult once a manufacture commits to financing its own movements, technologies and industrial infrastructure?

Patrik Hoffmann:

I will keep this short. When I took the helm in 2011, my priorities were to complete Ulysse Nardin’s transition from an établisseur to a manufacture, bring our first in-house calibre intended for volume production, the UN-118, to market, and move the company from patron-led to management-led leadership. We ultimately sold a highly profitable, entrepreneurial manufacture. Again, the company was highly profitable.

WoW:

At the time of the acquisition, Kering was presented as a long-term partner capable of giving Ulysse Nardin financial strength while preserving its identity. You left in 2017, and five years later Kering divested both Ulysse Nardin and Girard-Perregaux. With the benefit of hindsight, what did that experience teach you about the relationship between traditional watchmaking and the logic of a large luxury conglomerate? And has it influenced the ownership and governance model you consider more appropriate for Favre Leuba today?

Patrik Hoffmann:

I will not be able to answer this one.

WoW:

You later spent several years at WatchBox, working directly inside the pre-owned watch market. At the same time, you have often emphasised that watches should be worn rather than treated primarily as financial assets. Did your experience at WatchBox change your view of speculation, scarcity and value? Is the secondary market simply a more transparent reflection of real demand, or has it begun to influence the way brands themselves create products and desirability?

Patrik Hoffmann:

WatchBox was a tremendous learning experience. It brought me out of early retirement sooner than I had expected, and I am proud to have helped build it into an international name.

The experience reinforced my belief that watches should first be worn and enjoyed. Some watches appreciate in value, but they are a small part of the overall market. Buying a watch primarily as an investment can take away the pleasure of owning it.

The secondary market gives us a clearer view of what collectors are actually willing to pay, beyond retail prices and waiting lists. Brands should pay attention to that signal, but they should be careful about designing watches simply to create speculation. Scarcity can support desirability; it cannot replace a product people genuinely want. As the saying goes, “Price is what you pay; value is what you get.” That applies to watches as much as anything else in life.

WoW:

India occupies a unique position in the current Favre Leuba project, both as a key market and through the ownership and strong retail infrastructure behind the brand. How do you prevent this major commercial advantage from beginning to define the identity of the company itself? Is Favre Leuba being rebuilt as an international Swiss watch brand with an exceptionally strong base in India, or is India today the economic centre around which the global strategy is being constructed?

Patrik Hoffmann:

Favre Leuba is a Swiss brand, based in Switzerland and making Swiss watches. Our connection to India is a considerable advantage: the ownership’s commitment and retail infrastructure have helped us bring the brand back onto the global stage.

India is an important market, but our ambition is to build an international brand and we are on track.

A balanced global presence makes commercial sense. Economic and geopolitical challenges affect different regions at different times. Strong distribution across several markets gives Favre Leuba a more resilient foundation for the long term.

WoW:

You have spoken about building Favre Leuba over a long horizon and eventually reaching a substantial annual production volume. At what point does scale begin to change the nature of a brand? Can a company built around historical continuity and careful reconstruction remain the same company once it begins producing tens of thousands of watches per year?

Patrik Hoffmann:

Yes, I believe we can. I have been part of a company that grew substantially over a period of 10 years so I know that growth does not automatically change a brand’s character.

The question is how you grow. Favre Leuba can grow substantially and still be recognisably Favre Leuba.

After the Conversation

What stands out in Patrik Hoffmann’s answers is his distance from several terms the watch industry uses almost automatically. He does not believe a manufacture must do everything itself. He does not take credit for the achievements of the constructors with whom he has worked. Nor does he see the pre-owned market solely as a place for speculation, but also as a source of information about what customers are actually prepared to pay for a particular watch.

His answer concerning the sale of Ulysse Nardin to Kering is worth noting. Hoffmann stresses twice that the company being sold was highly profitable. This matters because acquisitions in the watch industry are often associated with financial difficulties, restructuring or the search for capital needed to survive. Ulysse Nardin, by Hoffmann’s account, was instead a profitable manufacture with an entrepreneurial character. Its sale was not presented by him as a rescue operation.

For Favre Leuba, a question remains: will the experience of its manager, historic designs and cooperation with respected movement specialists be enough to establish a lasting position in the market? History provides the material for a story, but it cannot guarantee commercial success. Ultimately, the outcome will depend on the watches themselves: their quality, pricing, availability and whether customers see in them something more than an archive put to good use.

Hoffmann has already helped build the value of a company that attracted one of the world’s major luxury groups as a buyer. He now faces a different, perhaps more difficult task. He must demonstrate that a historic watch brand can regain its relevance without pretending that the past several decades never happened.