A Watchmaking Icon Steps Back: What Does Stephen Forsey's Departure Mean for Greubel Forsey?
In a move that has sent ripples through the luxury watch industry, Stephen Forsey, the co-founder of the renowned Swiss watchmaker Greubel Forsey, has stepped down from the company’s board of directors. But here's where it gets intriguing: while Forsey will no longer be involved in the day-to-day operations, designs, or business decisions, he remains a significant minority shareholder, according to Michel Nydegger, the company’s CEO.
Forsey, alongside his partner Robert Greubel, founded Greubel Forsey in 2004, establishing the brand as a pioneer in haute horology. Known for their boundary-pushing complications, meticulous finishing, and innovative designs—like the iconic double tourbillon launched in their debut year—the duo has cemented their legacy in the watchmaking world. The brand’s commitment to excellence has earned it seven Grand Prix d'Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG) awards, with the most recent win in 2025 for the Nano Foudroyante model.
But here’s the part most people miss: Forsey’s departure from the board isn’t entirely unexpected. Nydegger revealed that Forsey had been gradually stepping back from active involvement in recent years, even as he served as the public face of the brand, articulating its vision for technical innovation and artistic craftsmanship. His role became less prominent as new executives, including Nydegger, took the helm.
And this is where it gets controversial: What does Forsey’s reduced role mean for the future of Greubel Forsey? With Nydegger abandoning the previous strategy to increase production and lower prices—a plan initiated by former CEO Antonio Calce—the brand remains firmly positioned in the ultra-high-end market, producing fewer than 200 pieces annually. Is this the right move in an evolving luxury landscape? Or does it risk limiting the brand’s reach and relevance?
Greubel Forsey’s recent spotlight moment came when Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg was spotted wearing their timepieces, including the Hand Made 1, priced at over $900,000. This high-profile endorsement underscores the brand’s elite status, but it also raises questions about accessibility and growth.
Here’s a thought-provoking question for you: As Greubel Forsey continues to operate without Forsey’s direct input, will the brand maintain its reputation for innovation and craftsmanship? Or will his absence leave a void that even the most skilled executives can’t fill?
Nydegger assures that the brand is not seeking external investors or considering a sale, with Greubel and Forsey remaining the sole shareholders. But in an industry where change is constant, only time will tell how this transition shapes the future of one of watchmaking’s most revered names.
What’s your take? Do you think Greubel Forsey can thrive without Stephen Forsey’s active involvement, or is this the beginning of a new chapter that may alter the brand’s identity? Let us know in the comments below!
