That is correct, what I meant was that Alpina and more manufactures where using cases made by the company who still called them F.B (for Francois Borgel) even though Taubert have bought it and was running it.
My point was that this casedesigner regardless who owned the company and the stamp name they where using where making very high quality cases. Such as the first waterproof Patek in the 30s, ref 565 which had a design patented by Francois Borgel in late 1800s
馃榾
While we agree completely that the cases were of the highest quality, that is not an entirely accurate representation of what occurred. Yes, Taubert was happy, especially early on, to market
some of their cases as Borgel/FB. But those that Mido employed, to use one example, were not marked "FB".
More importantly, while Taubert did use some of the original designs without modifications, they made modifications to others, and to characterize those as "Borgel" is simply inaccurate. Ironically, you mention the Patek ref. 565, yet the case used in that model was patented in the 1930s, well after Taubert had absorbed Borgel. So that was clearly a Taubert case, albeit obviously derivative in some ways.
The most obvious modification was the adoption of the ten-sided (decagonal) design around the edge of the case back. It is one of the most easily identifiable hallmarks of the Taubert/Borgel cases that are held in such high regard, yet Borgel had nothing to do with it!
The brilliant cork-sealing crown system in Mido models was another important Taubert innovation.
So I make the distinction between the two manufacturers not only for semantic purposes.