beginning with the WORST of the tried and true (historically) Swiss high horology marketing machine tactic - that of highly dubious statements about their history.
"Proud of its nearly 300 years of uninterrupted history..."
My memory isn't what it used to be, so the following would need to be fact checked with more static (thus reliable, though static also freezes MIS-information as well... ) historical references, but
a. Favre-Leuba was an interesting and fairly successful brand, but it was not "high horology" in the classical, or even vintage, sense. (neither was/is Rolex, by the way) One of the most loosely, overused terms in watch collecting is "high horology..."
Throughout the mid-20th century, during what can be arguably said to be it's "glory period" (in terms of model range, global distribution, and overall turnover) they produced interesting, entry level and mid-level watches - mostly workmanlike bought in movements, decently finished (but in no case up to contemporaneous Vacheron or Patek standards) cased in interestingly designed cases and dials. I seem to remember they did have one or two "in-house" movements, which I also seem to remember were co-developed with another (other) brand(s) (Longines, Movado, Angelus, and Pierce did as well, which, back in those days, was important but not nearly as "beatifying" for a brand as it seems to be today)
b. At their peak, they were producing large numbers of branded watches (I seem to recall figures over half a million pieces a year, a large number for sure) and were distributed worldwide, with particular success in India. Comparable brands which were somewhat contemporaneous but equally "forgotten" today were Cyma, Mido.
c. Their most commercially "famous" models were true "tool" watches - the Bivouac, and the Bathy (for climing, and diving, respectively) and somewhat sought after by vintage collectors. They are still surprisingly affordable, as most iconic models are from the 1960's and 1970's. They also exhibit the typical 1960's and especially 1970's design elements of being large and clunky (or big and beautiful, depending on your aesthetic sensibilities)
d. I have a serious problem with statements like "nearly 300 years of uninterrupted history" (nightmares of BS statements from BP "since 1735" and even brands with a bit more continuous historical legitimacy like Vacheron Constantin and Girard Perregaux who seem to keep pushing back further and further their "since xxxx" dates keep raising its ugly head...Interestingly, a brand can operate for a complete generation or more with that "unknown" or "undiscovered" previous ancienne history, then suddenly a document is discovered or a DNA sample for a hair in an old movement is found, and suddenly, voila, another 100 years of ancient history! Egads... :-(
Plea with new brands and brand launches - can you PLEASE STOP with this historical BS?!? The downside when found out far outweighs the commercial benefits of faux ancient-ness...(yes, I realize ancient generally refers, in historical contexts, to millenia, not centuries...)
Among high horology brands, Breguet has had a continous commercial existence as a watchmaking brand ; VC, PP, AP as well. Somewhat shorter are GP (some would argue whether GP AS A BRAND was high horology before the 1970's-1980's; same with JLC - I make these statements BASED ON BRANDED PRODUCTS as well as marketing statements, and market positioning. I'm expecting the fanatic brand fan boys to weigh in with their rebuttals and maybe offer a piece or two as counterexamples. Again, my statements are based on their OVERALL BRANDED product offerings of the period, not the minority "high end" examples for brand fans of the period. Contrast this to VC, PP, and AP which consistently produced and occupied their chosen haute de gamme positions, backed by haute de gamme products.
Let me put this another way - you will find about as many high end haute de gamme branded JLC and GP product, pre-1980's, as you will find less than haute de gamme pieces from VC, PP, and AP during that same period) Piaget could arguably find a rightful place among the historically significant high horology brands with continuous histories...
BUT ONLY AP AND SEIKO have remained substantially in their founding family's ownership since their founding...not even PP and VC can rightfully claim this. (is this important? not to me, but it is to some...and no, you can't have it both ways - to claim it is important when you think it applies to you, then dismiss it when you find out it cannot honestly be claimed anymore...)
(yikes, I see I've gotten off the subject, which was, originally, Favre-Leuba...)
I seem to recall (though the following are fuzzy memories, so please consider accordingly) that they were acquired/merged with another then-famous chronograph brand (Leonidas? Heuer? Record?) under a larger umbrella group, and at some point was substantially owned by an Indian family/group in India (?)
The current models seem interesting, and designs attractive for what they are intended to be. If the current management team really, truly respects the "soul" and DNA of the brand, and chose to resurrect/acquire the brand for some intrinsic reason (rather than "hey, let's find some old brand that has fallen off the radar and see what we can spin out of it?") I hope they will respect the historical legitimacy and accuracy of their history as well.
If they just wanted to resurrect a brand that might have some snowball's chance in ...well, you know where...of striking a chord with someone who might remember the brand from its glory days, then fine, I have no problem with that either (it is a cool sounding name) but then stay away from the revisionist historical fantasy. That tactic worked well when myths could be perpetuated amongst disparate and separated, isolated aficionados and collectors. Today, when fact checking is but a few clicks away, access to those who really remember and know the real history are just a post away (at least on PuristSPro - and I'm NOT referring to myself!!! - where marketing myths are not just parroted, unchecked, mindlessly...) this tack is highly dubious, at best.
Cheers,
TM