# IWC cares not for COSC certifications?



## WnS (Feb 20, 2011)

I was browsing IWC's collection a few days ago and noticed that there were no chronometers (at least not to my knowledge). I find it odd that one of the biggest names in Swiss watches doesn't bother with COSC certifications. 

Does IWC believe that COSC certificates are pointless when they can do all regulation and testing in house?

I'm just curious, not a chronometer fanatic by any stretch.


----------



## Jez4 (Apr 20, 2010)

WnS said:


> I was browsing IWC's collection a few days ago and noticed that there were no chronometers (at least not to my knowledge). I find it odd that one of the biggest names in Swiss watches doesn't bother with COSC certifications.
> 
> Does IWC believe that COSC certificates are pointless when they can do all regulation and testing in house?
> 
> I'm just curious, not a chronometer fanatic by any stretch.


IWC say that they regulate their watches to better than COSC specs, as they are not prepared, for example, for a watch to run slow. I think their specs are 0 to +7 secs per day. If your IWC is running outside that while in warranty, they will regulate it to within those specs. It also means that they don't have to pay for COSC testing and certification, of course!


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

And neither does JLC.


----------



## ~tc~ (Dec 9, 2011)

I would MUCH rather have a watch run 0-2 seconds slow than 7+ fast. I can't say I'm super impressed with the accuracy of my IWC.


----------



## WnS (Feb 20, 2011)

Watchbreath said:


> And neither does JLC.


Come to think of it, neither does Blancpain nor PP. Seems COSC tends to matter more to less prestigious brands.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

It looks nice on the dial.


WnS said:


> Come to think of it, neither does Blancpain nor PP. Seems COSC tends to matter more to less prestigious brands.


----------



## tctan (Jul 10, 2011)

i recall the first page of their watch manuals says something like "when you demand more than just accuracy" lol. 

iwc doesn't have to pay for cosc certifications so they don't have to pass the cost on to the consumer. this is totally awsome considering the $5k+ prices for the ETA based mark and new inge models. i love the watches but they're veering towards the rich person segment where those people don't know anything about watches.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Are you implying that the more money you have, the less smarts you have about watches?


tctan said:


> i recall the first page of their watch manuals says something like "when you demand more than just accuracy" lol.
> 
> iwc doesn't have to pay for cosc certifications so they don't have to pass the cost on to the consumer. this is totally awsome considering the $5k+ prices for the ETA based mark and new inge models. i love the watches but they're veering towards the rich person segment where those people don't know anything about watches.


----------



## tctan (Jul 10, 2011)

i'm saying that they type of people who know more about what makes a watch tick are less inclined to drop money on these when they know the price vs value ratio considering the movement. it has the whole rolex situation thing going on.



Watchbreath said:


> Are you implying that the more money you have, the less smarts you have about watches?


----------



## WnS (Feb 20, 2011)

tctan said:


> i'm saying that they type of people who know more about what makes a watch tick are less inclined to drop money on these when they know the price vs value ratio considering the movement. it has the whole rolex situation thing going on.


Nicely said, all the watches I'm seriously into are less than $2000, except the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms.


----------



## iim7v7im7 (Dec 19, 2008)

*A couple points*

Regarding IWC watch accuracy:

1) IWC guarantee -0, +7 sec./day for the complete watch (like JLCs and other makes) not just the movement outside the case like COSC. Movement certifications outside of the case are fairly meaningless.

2) This 7 sec. range is actually tighter than COSC which is 10 sec. (-4, + 6 sec) and even Grand Seiko's 8 sec. (-3,+5 sec.). IWC's are set to +3-4 sec. fast as opposed to COSC which are set to +1-2 sec). This philosophy is driven by the very Swiss idea of never being late to an appointment.

My two IWCs are both quite accurate watches in my experience. The IWCs that tend to be less accurate are their longer power reserves and slower beat rates.

my $.02


----------



## sidestreaker (Oct 3, 2012)

*Re: A couple points*

I suppose COSC certificates does gives confidence to consumers for some 'entry-level' brands of luxury brand watches that they are keeping good time within the swiss authority specifications. One has to bear in mind that this is included in the price tag as the cost is transferred to the customer.

Higher level brands like JLC, IWC, VC, PP and others has no need for as they are targeting consumers that are looking for something more exclusive and special and more than just accuracy.

Although, there seems to be a lot of complaints about the accuracy of certain models of IWC which performs worst than lesser brands. This issue alone seems to be deciding point if the brand is good or bad, and later became the brand bashing-point.


----------



## Raff (Sep 10, 2012)

*Re: A couple points*



sidestreaker said:


> I suppose COSC certificates does gives confidence to consumers for some 'entry-level' brands of luxury brand watches that they are keeping good time within the swiss authority specifications. One has to bear in mind that this is included in the price tag as the cost is transferred to the customer.
> 
> Higher level brands like JLC, IWC, VC, PP and others has no need for as they are targeting consumers that are looking for something more exclusive and special and more than just accuracy.
> 
> Although, there seems to be a lot of complaints about the accuracy of certain models of IWC which performs worst than lesser brands. This issue alone seems to be deciding point if the brand is good or bad, and later became the brand bashing-point.


I think that putting IWC in the same league as VC, PP and even JLC is way off tbh. You can definitely say that some IWC in-house movements are high-end, but you can't really make a sweeping statement putting IWC in the 'high-end' category when a lot of their movements are modified ETA, such as some found in their pilot watches. These watches I'd not even put in the same league as say, some Omega movements, such as the 8500.

That being said, I love the Mark XVI and XVII but they are way off high-end. There are some lovely Rolex watches that I'd consider higher-end and these have COSC on them. They are also in-house movements and are not what I'd consider 'entry-level' or 'lesser' than IWC. They certainly aren't 'entry-level luxury brands'.


----------



## sidestreaker (Oct 3, 2012)

*Re: A couple points*



Raff said:


> I think that putting IWC in the same league as VC, PP and even JLC is way off tbh. You can definitely say that some IWC in-house movements are high-end, but you can't really make a sweeping statement putting IWC in the 'high-end' category when a lot of their movements are modified ETA, such as some found in their pilot watches. These watches I'd not even put in the same league as say, some Omega movements, such as the 8500.
> 
> That being said, I love the Mark XVI and XVII but they are way off high-end. There are some lovely Rolex watches that I'd consider higher-end and these have COSC on them. They are also in-house movements and are not what I'd consider 'entry-level' or 'lesser' than IWC. They certainly aren't 'entry-level luxury brands'.


Oh dear, did I put them on the same sentence. What was I thinking? The Watch Fairies won't be happy 

Anyway, it's not my intention to put them in the same league, they are obviously of varying status and levels. But the discussion here is why don't these brand has COSC certification on their watches? Their contributions to the advancement in horology by these companies are more obvious than others. This gives value to their brand name, hence they'd forgo any further certification. They set the standards at various degree.

And what's wrong with being an 'entry-level luxury' watch company anyway? That doesn't mean that they're bad watches or in anyway downplay their image. It's just that the level of complication throughout the range offered is not as sophisticated as the other manufacturers, and they do price themselves more competitively and hence offer better value. Their sales still show that they are top and cater for the larger market. I'd pick up an Explorer or a Speedmaster anytime of the day.


----------



## Raff (Sep 10, 2012)

*Re: A couple points*



sidestreaker said:


> Oh dear, did I put them on the same sentence. What was I thinking? The Watch Fairies won't be happy
> 
> Anyway, it's not my intention to put them in the same league, they are obviously of varying status and levels. But the discussion here is why don't these brand has COSC certification on their watches? Their contributions to the advancement in horology by these companies are more obvious than others. This gives value to their brand name, hence they'd forgo any further certification. They set the standards at various degree.
> 
> And what's wrong with being an 'entry-level luxury' watch company anyway? That doesn't mean that they're bad watches or in anyway downplay their image. It's just that the level of complication throughout the range offered is not as sophisticated as the other manufacturers, and they do price themselves more competitively and hence offer better value. Their sales still show that they are top and cater for the larger market. I'd pick up an Explorer or a Speedmaster anytime of the day.


Sorry mate, but I can only go off what you said, not what you were thinking or meant to say.

It was just quite clear by your wording that COSC certified brands are 'lesser' due to that certification. to specifically quote you it was

'I suppose COSC certificates does gives confidence to consumers for some 'entry-level' brands of luxury brand watches that they are keeping good time within the swiss authority specifications'

Followed later by

'Although, there seems to be a lot of complaints about the accuracy of certain models of IWC which performs worst than lesser brands.'

You didn't mention which brands but it's reasonable to think that you mean COSC certified brands. There are some, such as Ball, and are ofc lesser brands than IWC and are entry level but many COSC certified brands aren't. My point is just that these COSC brands are not necessarily 'lesser' because of COSC certification, and for sure, a 7 day power reserve running at +12 a day definitely doesn't suggest superiority (as in the case of some IWCs).

I'm not attacking you or your statement; just disagreeing with part of it. An entry level luxury watch would be something like a Raymond Weil or Ball, but most COSC are luxury watches full stop. Rolex and Omega are the obvious examples.

_'Their contributions to the advancement in horology by these companies are more obvious than others. This gives value to their brand name, hence they'd forgo any further certification. They set the standards at various degree.'
_
This I agree with this fully


----------



## ~tc~ (Dec 9, 2011)

*Re: A couple points*



Raff said:


> You didn't mention which brands but it's reasonable to think that you mean COSC certified brands. There are some, such as Ball, and are ofc lesser brands than IWC and are entry level but many COSC certified brands aren't. My point is just that these COSC brands are not necessarily 'lesser' because of COSC certification, and for sure, a 7 day power reserve running at +12 a day definitely doesn't suggest superiority (as in the case of some IWCs).
> 
> I'm not attacking you or your statement; just disagreeing with part of it. An entry level luxury watch would be something like a Raymond Weil or Ball, but most COSC are luxury watches full stop. Rolex and Omega are the obvious examples.


Interesting you bring up Ball as "lesser" when they are the ones who created what eventually was watered down to the Swiss capability resulting in COSC.

either of my non-COSC Ball watches is more accurate than my in-house (and FAR more expensive) IWC


----------



## Raff (Sep 10, 2012)

*Re: A couple points*



~tc~ said:


> Interesting you bring up Ball as "lesser" when they are the ones who created what eventually was watered down to the Swiss capability resulting in COSC.
> 
> either of my non-COSC Ball watches is more accurate than my in-house (and FAR more expensive) IWC


Sorry, but I don't really understand how Ball's link to the creation of COSC has anything to do with the quality of the brand. Yes, COSC is a measure of quality but being the founder or 'creator' of what eventually became COSC doesn't really have a bearing on their quality.

The fact is, they are what many would consider 'entry-level' luxury watches. I actually think Ball has some lovely watches but are they considered 'lesser' than other brands that gain COSC certification? I'd say so, but I'm not talking fact here; just my opinion, and I'd hazard a guess the opinion of a great many others.


----------



## ~tc~ (Dec 9, 2011)

In case any one is curious, the number of COSC certificates is public info (where sales is frequently not). From data published in WatchTime a few months ago >85% of COSC certifications performed are for Rolex (>700k), Omega (>500k), and Breitling (~85k). It falls off VERY quickly from there to Mido, Ball, and many many others at 10,000 units or less.


----------



## gyang333 (Jun 12, 2010)

i think it was a wise decision by IWC not to pursue COSC certification. I mean, if they did, some of their movements certainly wouldn't pass COSC...


----------



## DasStig (Aug 18, 2012)

Just so it's clear, a watch that doesn't have COSC certification doesn't mean it's not a chronometer. Chronometer means accurate time keeper. It's not a standard but more like a definition.


----------



## georges zaslavsky (Feb 11, 2006)

A lot of Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin and AP movements have been based on Lemania, Piguet and Jaeger Le Coultre Ebauches


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

georges zaslavsky said:


> A lot of Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin and AP movements have been based on Lemania, Piguet and Jaeger Le Coultre Ebauches


Indeed. Personally I'm glad to see that not all Swiss brands accept -4 to +6 as "good enough" for their consumers.


----------



## ~tc~ (Dec 9, 2011)

I would rather my watch be aimed at +1 to meet a +6/-4 spec than aimed at +5 to meet a +10/-0 that IWC appears to use (except where isochronism is involved where it becomes more like +15/-0)


----------



## Grahamsjz (Jun 21, 2012)

Don't know where you get your figures from. IWC standards are from 0 to +7 secs per day.


----------



## ~tc~ (Dec 9, 2011)

Mine didn't perform that well, but I'll still take a watch aimed at +1 instead of +4

For the extra premium over models with essentially the same movement, the accuracy should be MUCH better IMHO.


----------



## Grahamsjz (Jun 21, 2012)

IWC would have to relax their standards by just under 43% to allow a 10 second variance as opposed to their 7 second variance.

As for where the average lies within each range COSC and IWC - I don't know, let's say it is in the middle so IWC run 2.5 secs per day faster than COSC because they are set to never run slow. Is that really important in life?


----------



## Archer7 (Nov 21, 2013)

I'm with IWC. on this one. My Mark XVI is well within COSC specs and I didn't have to pay the pass through cost of the cert. makes me a happy camper.

I wish more reputable brands would do this.


----------



## ~tc~ (Dec 9, 2011)

Archer7 said:


> I'm with IWC. on this one. My Mark XVI is well within COSC specs and I didn't have to pay the pass through cost of the cert. makes me a happy camper.
> 
> I wish more reputable brands would do this.


The "IWC premium" is a helluva lot more than any manufacturer's "COSC pass through" cost LOL


----------



## Grahamsjz (Jun 21, 2012)

~tc~ said:


> The "IWC premium" is a helluva lot more than any manufacturer's "COSC pass through" cost LOL


The IWC premium is not just for the tight movement tolerances they operate to. The value of a watch is made up of the many aspects of a watch which make it appealing to people. The most obvious value people place on a watch is how much hard earned cash they are willing to spend.


----------



## ~tc~ (Dec 9, 2011)

Agreed, but IWC's "name brand premium" is a lot more than many others, with arguable benefit. I personally believe Rolex prices are downright highway robbery, but at least you get incredible resale value. Compare the Portugese chrono with the Hamilton Jazzmaster - very similar looks and finishing (I actually prefer the Hamilton due to the better integrated pushers), pretty much the same movement, but the IWC costs 10x what the Hamilton does.

At least with a "COSC cert premium" you are getting some evidence/proof that your watch is accurate. You just kinda have to take IWCs word for it ... And it has been demonstrated in several cases with the long power reserve movements in particular, that they lie. Actual accuracy is significantly outside their +7/-0 window


----------



## Grahamsjz (Jun 21, 2012)

Hi tc,

I tend to agree with you over IWC pricing. I also struggle with the way IWC go about a major relaunch every year, pushing the prices up and delivering 'fashion' watches at quite some price. 

What I will say which is positive is I have a genuine belief in the quality of the watches and am very happy with the ones I have. 

I was hugely tempted by the relaunched Ing line last year until I tried them on. Still not seen a post here or on other forums (including the IWC one) from enthusiasts who have purchased one with the notable exception of the 3239. 

This year Aquatimer range does not excite me in the photos, maybe it will in the flesh. Doubt it though. Despite the publicity about them being back to their heritage I don't see it. I do agree it looks like a Porsche Design IWC but is that really heritage? If so pick any individual watch from the past and say the same thing even if that watch itself is nothing like the rest of the history.

Enthusiasts pick the 3536 as the perfect Aquatimer, the existing range has watches closer to at than the soon to be launched range.

I do realise I have wandered off the point of this thread, I have a couple of COSC certified watches, the poorest timekeepers I have had (until serviced at which point they do deliver). Maybe my experience has jaded me, I think the companies which choose not to go for the certification should not be looked down on when their specs are tighter than COSC. IWC will adjust your watch for no fee (which is a pain in the @rse) if it is outside the 0-7 secs per day. At least they are willing to spend money to fix those watches which unfortunately are delivered out of spec.

Sorry for the ramble

Graham


----------



## GaryF (Dec 18, 2009)

I love my Ingy 3239 but, out of several watches I have which share its base movement, it is the least accurate by some margin at over +5 per day.


~tc~ said:


> Agreed, but IWC's "name brand premium" is a lot more than many others, with arguable benefit. I personally believe Rolex prices are downright highway robbery, but at least you get incredible resale value. Compare the Portugese chrono with the Hamilton Jazzmaster - very similar looks and finishing (I actually prefer the Hamilton due to the better integrated pushers), pretty much the same movement, but the IWC costs 10x what the Hamilton does.
> 
> At least with a "COSC cert premium" you are getting some evidence/proof that your watch is accurate. You just kinda have to take IWCs word for it ... And it has been demonstrated in several cases with the long power reserve movements in particular, that they lie. Actual accuracy is significantly outside their +7/-0 window


----------



## ~tc~ (Dec 9, 2011)

Grahamsjz said:


> Maybe my experience has jaded me, I think the companies which choose not to go for the certification should not be looked down on when their specs are tighter than COSC. IWC will adjust your watch for no fee (which is a pain in the @rse) if it is outside the 0-7 secs per day. At least they are willing to spend money to fix those watches which unfortunately are delivered out of spec.


Unfortunately ...



GaryF said:


> I love my Ingy 3239 but, out of several watches I have which share its base movement, it is the least accurate by some margin at over +5 per day.


This is my beef. I'm OK with IWC charging what they do IF the service and delivered watch show something "extra", but they don't. I don't give a rats ass what their internal standard is if EVERY watch they deliver doesn't meet it!


----------



## WTSP (May 6, 2012)

Personally, I think COSC certification is only relevent for new movements recently put on the market. We all know that the ETA movements can all be regulated to COSC specs. It might have been good for IWC to aim for certification of the 500X calibers at the time of launch (in so far as it's possible for an extended power reserve model).


----------



## Denizen (Jun 30, 2006)

DasStig said:


> Just so it's clear, a watch that doesn't have COSC certification doesn't mean it's not a chronometer. Chronometer means accurate time keeper. It's not a standard but more like a definition.


not quite.

if it's a swiss made watch, in order for to it be called a chronometer, it must be COSC certified.

IOW, you might own a timepiece that keeps very accurate time, even within COSC specs, but it would be technically incorrect in WIS terms to call it a chronometer if it was never submitted for and passed COSC certification.

the COSC certification legally allows the watch manufacturer to put 'Chronometer' or 'Chronometre' on the dial, [or to use the word chronometer when describing the watch or incorporating it into the name]. If the watch did not pass COSC certification, technically, you cannot have that word on the dial.


----------



## Grahamsjz (Jun 21, 2012)

~tc~ said:


> Unfortunately ...
> 
> This is my beef. I'm OK with IWC charging what they do IF the service and delivered watch show something "extra", but they don't. I don't give a rats ass what their internal standard is if EVERY watch they deliver doesn't meet it!


I have some IWC all of which meet their standards, it is not correct to say every watch delivered does not meet their standard.


----------



## ~tc~ (Dec 9, 2011)

Grahamsjz said:


> I have some IWC all of which meet their standards, it is not correct to say every watch delivered does not meet their standard.


That's not what I said. I said SOME of the watches they ship do NOT meet their standard, and that is unacceptable at this price level.


----------

