Gallet’s Return, and the Price of Belief
Somewhere between a trademark filing and a vintage catalogue scan, the industry learns a familiar lesson: it is cheaper to buy a past than to earn a future.
The first time you see a revived brand name, it often appears the way ghosts do in old houses: not as an entrance, but as a detail you swear wasn’t there yesterday. A logo resurfaces on a press image, crisp and newly kerned, hovering above a dial that looks designed to trigger recognition before it triggers thought. Collectors do what collectors always do: they zoom in, they squint at fonts, they argue about whether the case flank is “faithful,” as if fidelity were a measurement rather than a mood. Meanwhile, somewhere off-screen, the real mechanism clicks into place: the purchase of a name that once meant something, now asked to mean something again—quickly, and at margin.
In March 2025, Breitling announced it had acquired Gallet, a long-dormant Swiss brand founded in 1826 and known historically for sturdy chronographs tied to early aviation and travel. The news landed with the soft inevitability of a deal that had already been discussed in collector circles and industry media, less surprise than confirmation. Georges Kern, Breitling’s CEO, framed the acquisition as groundwork for a relaunch planned for 2026, with pricing positioned in a lower band than Breitling proper—roughly CHF 3,000 to CHF 5,000 in several reports, the kind of range that signals “entry point” without admitting the word junior.
On paper, this is heritage. In practice, it is a balance-sheet solution to a cultural problem: in a market where trust has become expensive and time is scarce, buying an old name is a way to rent credibility at scale. The romantic version says brands are rescued. The operational version says brands are acquired—because it is faster to purchase a preloaded narrative than to build one under the fluorescent scrutiny of the internet.
Breitling’s move only looks sentimental if you ignore the recent pattern. Gallet is the second historic brand brought into Breitling’s orbit in a short span, following the acquisition of Universal Genève announced in December 2023. Universal Genève, in particular, is a case study in the modern value of a name: its contemporary business was tiny—Stelux filings cited revenues measured in tens of thousands of Swiss francs and losses in the millions—yet the brand’s collector reputation remained enormous, a kind of cultural asset sitting on a corporate shelf. That disconnect is the entire opportunity. When the present is hard to differentiate and expensive to justify, the past becomes a purchased advantage.
Stelux SA is a Swiss-based holding company that owned Universal Genève prior to its acquisition by Breitling. Rather than operating brands at industrial scale, Stelux functioned primarily as a custodian of trademarks and residual business structures, keeping historic names legally viable while their cultural value continued to accrue among collectors.
The ownership context matters, because revivals often pretend they are driven by curators, when they are usually driven by strategy. Breitling is majority-owned by Partners Group, which increased its stake in late 2022 in a deal that reportedly valued the company at around $4.5 billion. Private equity does not dislike craft; it dislikes slow, unscalable trust-building. A multi-brand structure offers something the single brand cannot: segmented pricing, diversified demand, and multiple narratives that can be tuned to different audiences without diluting the flagship. In plain terms, it allows a group to sell “heritage” at several price levels at once—and to do it using names that already sound like they belong.
Kern himself has been unusually explicit about Breitling’s ambitions to become a multi-brand watchmaker, and the coverage around Gallet treated it less as a nostalgic flourish than as another brick in that architecture. The positioning is almost too legible. Universal Genève, revived properly, can play in the rarified collector theatre where history is fetish and price is a ritual. Gallet can occupy the pragmatic middle ground: historically credible, aesthetically pliable, priced to feel attainable, designed to catch the buyer who wants an origin story but not a doctorate. That buyer exists in large numbers, especially now, when the post-boom mood has cooled and consumers want reassurance more than fireworks.
This is where the revival economy becomes quietly brutal. A defunct brand name is a form of compressed time. It carries an implied backstory without requiring a decade of consistent product, service, and cultural presence. It also arrives with a library of imagery ready for redeployment: old ads, old catalogues, old tool-watch heroism—visual assets that cost nothing to invent, only to select. The revival is not history returning; it is history being used, like a well-worn strap fitted to a new case.
Collectors, naturally, are complicit. Not in the moral sense—more in the behavioural one. The collecting mind is vulnerable to continuity because continuity reduces the risk of feeling foolish later. A new brand asks you to gamble on a future; an old brand invites you to believe the future has already happened, and you are simply arriving late. Even skepticism becomes part of the ritual. The forums fill with doubts about authenticity, and yet the attention itself is the proof of concept. Obsession, after all, is a market signal.
The oddest part is how efficiently the industry now deploys contradiction. We are told heritage is priceless, yet it is traded. We are told a revival honours the past, yet the past is inevitably edited to fit contemporary product requirements, contemporary supply chains, contemporary margins. When Kern says Gallet will relaunch at a lower price point than Breitling, the unspoken detail is that “lower price” is not merely an act of accessibility; it is a way to widen the group’s funnel without asking Breitling’s core customer to step down. A revived brand is often less about new customers discovering history than about existing customers being offered a safer second purchase.
And outside the collector bubble, the wider luxury environment has been jittery enough to make this kind of strategy look less like indulgence and more like prudence. Reporting in recent years has described uneven demand and watch-industry uncertainty in key markets, even as Breitling pursued expansion and brand-building through cultural partnerships and retail growth. In that climate, a revived brand becomes a hedge: a separate narrative, a separate price tier, a separate lever to pull when the flagship needs protecting.
None of this means Gallet’s return will be cynical in execution. It may produce excellent watches. It may even produce something like cultural value. But the motive force is hard to miss: revival as capital efficiency. In a crowded market where newness is loud and trust is slow, the dead brand offers a shortcut—an already-familiar name that can be made to speak again, not because history demands it, but because the present does.
A century ago, a watch brand’s credibility was built by timekeeping and circumstance—railways, wars, expeditions, the small public theatre of reliability. Today, credibility is a cost line item. It can be purchased, packaged, and relaunched on a timetable that would have seemed absurd to the original founders. Gallet does not return because the past needs saving; it returns because belief has become scarce, and scarcity is always monetized.
About the Author
Sergio Galanti is an independent brand strategist and writer in the luxury watch industry. He is the editor of WatchDossier, a publication devoted to the cultural and philosophical undercurrents of modern horology.
No compensation or brand affiliation influenced this essay. Opinions are the author’s own.
Subscribe to watchdossier.ch to receive more insights on luxury, craftsmanship, and collecting.