# How does the Mark XVIII have a modified ETA?



## bbuckbbuck

Everything I've been reading says the IWC Mark XVIII (18) carries a modified ETA 2892. I guess ETA sends them the ebauche (?) and then they modify it and regulate it at several positions. 

All sounds good, except: 

I was under the impression that ETA stopped supplying movements outside of the Swatch group? Why is IWC able to use the ETA instead of a Selitta clone? Also, didn't the Mark XVII (17) carry a Selitta? So what changed?


----------



## alex-w

Modified ebauche movements are a thing of the past. Official line is "our movements are made to our specs by the supplier", so they should be Top spec grade, but we won't know without a thorough disassembly and comparison. My 3239 with that movement keeps good time, but then you can have a Steinhart or Epos with ETA 2892 for a fraction of the entry IWC.


----------



## mkws

The movement is supplied by Sellita- it's a cal. SW-300, which is a clone of the 2892.


----------



## bbuckbbuck

mkws said:


> The movement is supplied by Sellita- it's a cal. SW-300, which is a clone of the 2892.


That's what I thought too. so is Hodinkee wrong? Is their correction wrong?

here's the link from which I pulled this screenshot:
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-iwc-mark-xviii-2


----------



## bbuckbbuck

alex-w said:


> but then you can have a Steinhart or Epos *with ETA* 2892 for a fraction of the entry IWC.


But I thought the whole deal was that ETA had stopped supplying movements to third parties. Since Swatch didn't want to supply movements to competitors.


----------



## Keaman

Guys, the Mark's (XV onwards) are all ETA 2892 based, NOT Sellita. As is the 3239 Ingenieur. They are 30110's. The new Portofino 3 handers however use a Sellita SW300 base movement. They are 35110's. I speak from experience, as I've had a LOT of 2892 based watches, including all the ones I've mentioned. You can tell it's a 2982 due to how solid the hand movement is when you adjust the time. The SW300 however has quite wiggly hand movement, nowhere near as satisfying as the 2892 based movements (that's my experience anyway, someone please correct me if I just had a dodgy one).
_Why _IWC still has access to ETA movements is something I've been very curious about since the whole restricted access thing began. I guess only IWC (and Swatch) will ever know.


----------



## alex-w

They still do, but it's my impression they are more expensive than Sellita for the same product. For me it looks like ETA works hard to stop being treated as a monopoly and purposefully shed market share.


----------



## mkws

That's a bizarre situation- either IWC (or someone in the Richemont Group on IWC's behalf) and the Swatch group have worked out some arrangement behind the scenes, or the gradual restriction of access to ETA movements has IWC somewhere at the end of the line. The Swatch Group supplying to one external client (IWC) is not a state of things that they'd be able to keep for long, not without causing some outrage in the industry, and possibly facing some legal consequences in terms of monopolistic practices, maybe unfair competition (dunno how the Swiss law regulates these two issues). While they still might be ETA, I somehow don't think that that's a state of things that both parties can afford to maintain.

Hoodwinkee, aka the Donkeys, is wrong about many things, but then again, while I hate them wholeheartedly, they weren't the only ones who made that mistake. I'm fairly certain that Monochrome also mentioned that the movements in question are by Sellita, and here's an article at Fratellowatches (from 2 years ago), which also claims that IWC uses Sellita:
https://www.fratellowatches.com/hands-on-iwc-ingenieur-reference-3239-review/ 
Truth be told, the only mistake I've noticed that Mr. Broer made, was that he mentioned it's an SW-200 (clone of the 2824), not an SW-300 (2892).


----------



## Wally71

Nothing strange in ETA currently supplying movements to third parties, IWC included. The phase out of ETA movements was something on long term scale (2019), so watchmaking brands could find an alternative solution.
They are actually thinking of stepping back from that decision, due to watch industry crisis: Swatch backpaddles on phasing out watch movement deliveries | Reuters


----------



## bbuckbbuck

mkws said:


> The Swatch Group supplying to *one external client *(IWC) is not a state of things that they'd be able to keep for long.


On what basis are you so sure ETA is only supplying to "one" external client?


----------



## mkws

bbuckbbuck said:


> On what basis are you so sure ETA is only supplying to "one" external client?


You've misunderstood what I meant. I didn't say they're their only external client- I said it's not a state of things they *would* be able to keep for long, if that was the case- no idea how many companies does ETA (and that said, the SG) still supply. Quite a few, likely, but then again, looking into the tech specs of watches by a lot of known ETA users, I've noticed the progressing transition to Sellita (and others- Soprod, Fossil/STP, La Joux-Perret) over a fairly short period of time, so it looks like the SG was trying somewhat harder to put that policy of theirs into reality. If they'd keep one client only, there would have been an earthquake in the industry already. 
I hope they backpaddle on that- but they were doing some nasty shenanigans lately, like restricting Omega parts supply (for which they got sued by Cousins UK, though I haven't been following that case lately).


----------



## alex-w

It's possible that even IWC public relations people don't have full info about origins of movement in basic lines. Hodinkee is a lifestyle watch blog with a strong commercial bent but Fratello Watches is usually pretty solid. It's also possible IWC uses both interchangeably like some other companies.


----------



## WTSP

You may get some answers here:
http://www.iwc.com/forum/en/discussion/69652/

Personally, I don't place much importance on whether a 2892/SW300 comes from Sellita or from ETA. The grade is also a minor concern. Proper regulation and servicing can make any 2892/SW300 run at COSC specs.

IWC owners and fans do these mental contortions about ETA movements which owners of other brands do not. I think we all just have to let this go, or just go out and buy a Sinn/Alpina/Epos. At least that way one won't be subject to so much cognitive dissonance over the relation between product content and price that seems to be inherent with IWC.


----------



## alex-w

So far my 3239 has never went outside the inhouse IWC spec (0 to +6) assuming the watch has decent power reserve and is worn daily. Of course it's not COSC accuracy but for everyday use it's good enough.


----------



## WTSP

alex-w said:


> So far my 3239 has never went outside the inhouse IWC spec (0 to +6) assuming the watch has decent power reserve and is worn daily. Of course it's not COSC accuracy but for everyday use it's good enough.


It seems to me that IWC's standard as you describe it is actually better than COSC.


----------



## alex-w

They are regulated so the watch is never slow. I see the logic in that compared to COSC. Of course over a longer period of time they may drift farther than -4s to +6s of COSC.


----------



## Keaman

Well it seems the thinning out of ETA movements outside of Swatch is continuing. Was just checking out the new Ingenieur's on IWC's website, and they no longer have calibre 30110, rather calibre 35111 (Sellita SW300 based). So another reason for me to appreciate my 3239 Ingy (on top of the boring new "back to roots" cases of the new versions). I think that just leaves the Aquatimer automatic and Mark XVIII running ETA based movements now.


----------



## sierra11b

Keaman said:


> Guys, the Mark's (XV onwards) are all ETA 2892 based, NOT Sellita. As is the 3239 Ingenieur. They are 30110's. The new Portofino 3 handers however use a Sellita SW300 base movement. They are 35110's.


Correct.

I believe the smaller 36mm fliegers have the Sellita which is where the confusion started for the XVIII.


----------



## Robertus

As I'm in chronographs I can add my two cents on this issue: IWC buys both ETA and Sellita lately: e. g. Aquatimers and Pilots still use ETA while Portofino uses Sellita clone. (Chronograph) movement numbers beginning with 79 come from ETA while 75 comes from Sellita. Somthing similar 1-2 grades lower: Sinn uses the ETA 7750 at most of their pilot chronographs like the 103 while they use Sellita SW 500 at the 356 and 903. I think that supply is limited so factories try to use the ETA for their relatively higher ranking lines but there are some controversies - right there at Sinn which has the 356 and 358 prectically only differing in case size while movements are of a different origin - as written above. I'm happy that all my "7750"-s (in my IWC and Sinn watches, in the IWC the Pilot and Aquatimer lines) still are made by ETA. From cca. 2007 even the assembly is made at ETA while earlier the kits were assembled in Schaffhausen. I hope I could help a bit.
Best,
Robert


----------



## dhtjr

mkws said:


> That's a bizarre situation- either IWC (or someone in the Richemont Group on IWC's behalf) and the Swatch group have worked out some arrangement behind the scenes, or the gradual restriction of access to ETA movements has IWC somewhere at the end of the line. The Swatch Group supplying to one external client (IWC) is not a state of things that they'd be able to keep for long, not without causing some outrage in the industry, and possibly facing some legal consequences in terms of monopolistic practices, maybe unfair competition (dunno how the Swiss law regulates these two issues). While they still might be ETA, I somehow don't think that that's a state of things that both parties can afford to maintain.
> 
> Hoodwinkee, aka the Donkeys, is wrong about many things, but then again, while I hate them wholeheartedly, they weren't the only ones who made that mistake. I'm fairly certain that Monochrome also mentioned that the movements in question are by Sellita, and here's an article at Fratellowatches (from 2 years ago), which also claims that IWC uses Sellita:
> https://www.fratellowatches.com/hands-on-iwc-ingenieur-reference-3239-review/
> Truth be told, the only mistake I've noticed that Mr. Broer made, was that he mentioned it's an SW-200 (clone of the 2824), not an SW-300 (2892).


Just an educated guess, but IWC years ago (the ebauche days) improved the original 2892, and ETA adopted the improvements into the 2892A2; at least that's my understanding. So perhaps IWC, given its history with this caliber, does get a sweetheart deal from Swatch.

Just curious, why the contempt for Hodinkee? Not that I'm a fanboy, but I do find some of their articles interesting, especially the ones delving into the nuts and bolts of some of the more historic and interesting movements, as well as aspects of the artistry and craftsmanship in watchmaking.


----------



## cuthbert

Keaman said:


> _Why _IWC still has access to ETA movements is something I've been very curious about since the whole restricted access thing began. I guess only IWC (and Swatch) will ever know.


1) Old stock
2) ETA officially supplies other companies, for instance Laco, it might be they are still supplying some small scale customers.


----------



## alex-w

Hodinkee often feels "pay so we like it". Probably most watch blogs play this game, but 'dink goes to a different level with the shop and collaborations.


----------



## James Russle

Keaman said:


> Guys, the Mark's (XV onwards) are all ETA 2892 based, NOT Sellita. As is the 3239 Ingenieur. They are 30110's. The new Portofino 3 handers however use a Sellita SW300 base movement. They are 35110's. I speak from experience, as I've had a LOT of 2892 based watches, including all the ones I've mentioned. You can tell it's a 2982 due to how solid the hand movement is when you adjust the time. The SW300 however has quite wiggly hand movement, nowhere near as satisfying as the 2892 based movements (that's my experience anyway, someone please correct me if I just had a dodgy one).
> _Why _IWC still has access to ETA movements is something I've been very curious about since the whole restricted access thing began. I guess only IWC (and Swatch) will ever know.


so why is the date window on the dial so terribly misaligned? Me thinks its a selita issue


----------



## autofiend

James Russle said:


> so why is the date window on the dial so terribly misaligned? Me thinks its a selita issue


Huh?


----------



## jayogolmic

alex-w said:


> Hodinkee often feels "pay so we like it". Probably most watch blogs play this game, but 'dink goes to a different level with the shop and collaborations.


Ha! You DONT have $600 for a loupe?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

