# DC 56 vs IWC 3701-01



## frankier

Hopefully I did not start a riot on the IWC forum on TZ.;-)

http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=msg&goto=2863673&rid=7907#msg_2863673

Would love to hear your opinion as well.... :thanks

Here they are (official pics):


----------



## Anomaly

I am sure you will ruffle a few feathers...

:-!

I am partial to the Damasko.


----------



## Guest

Qua price-ratio I vote for Damasko; would like to see the hands of the IWC on a DC 56 or DC 66 ;-)


----------



## Wouter van Willigen

I've never handled both watches and I would never pay some $ 4000,- for this type IWC, but ...

I like the IWC hands much better. The sub-dial hands on the damasko (on pictures) are to small and flimpsy IMHO.

The sub-dials of the Damasko never had a great appeal to me. Esp. the dial at the 9.

So given the choice ... I'd choose the IWC. If I had to spend that kind of money on a watch, Í would buy the Tangomat black dial :-!


----------



## Guest

Wouter van Willigen said:


> The sub-dials of the Damasko never had a great appeal to me. Esp. the dial at the 9.


Well, I like the sub dial at 9. It's telling me the watch is working. Missed that at the competitor watch made by Sinn. And keep in mind the IWC is double you have to pay for the Damasko chrono.;-)


----------



## pugridiron

frankier said:


> Hopefully I did not start a riot on the IWC forum on TZ.;-)
> 
> http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=msg&goto=2863673&rid=7907#msg_2863673
> 
> Would love to hear your opinion as well.... :thanks
> 
> Here they are (official pics):


No contest. The IWC 3717-01 blows the DC56 and Sinn 756/757 away with it's classic lines. I have never owned a DC56, but have owned both the Sinn 756 and the new 757. They are both tuna cans with very poor lines. They both are uncomfortable to wear. The DC56 looks the same. The 42 mm diameter IWC 3717-01 fits my 7.25" wrist comfortably.

My IWC 3717-01:










The Sinn 757 I recently sold and replaced with the IWC 3717-01. I could not be happier with this decision. :-!


----------



## thodgins

The Damasko is smaller than the IWC. The case is 40mm and only 13.7mm thick. I think the Damasko has some clean lines as well. Aesthetically, the IWC has the cooler recessed subdials and cooler hands.

I personally could go for either.


----------



## richard kagan

Hi All:
I like both, but you are comparing an apple and an orange. Or in car terms, an Aston Martin to a Mitsubishi Eclipse.
Regards:
Richard


----------



## Tragic

Rotate daily and wear both five years and see which still looks new ;-)


----------



## frankier

*Good responses although emotional rather than technical....*

Thanks guys. A lot of good responses, although most of them emotional rather than technical

It would be interesting to have a side by side photographic report. Pugridiron, you are in Chicago. Depending on where we live, maybe we can get together to get it done.

Below are my impressions which are far from being technically relevant or capable of enhancing anyone's technical knowledge of either watches :-d. Plus, while I own a DC 56, I don't own a IWC 3701 (I do own a 3714 though).

Let's break it down:

Movmt: both use the 7750. IWC reworked and finished by them. Damasko use Chronometer grade (not 100% sure though). Advantages of rework & finish? Accuracy? Longer maintainance intervals?

Case: IWC does not advertise much their case construction process or if they manufacture it in house. Plenty of info on Damasko's process (Ice-hardened to 60 HRC or 710 Vickers). Is it safe to assume that IWC uses "normal" 314L? If so, can we say that Damasko's case is more resistant to daily wear?

Crown and Pushers: Not sure for the IWC - Damasko's are superb!

Dial - Legibility: IWC is clearly the winner here. Recessed subdials and a very elegant solution for the seconds subdial. Small, unobstrusive, and really integrated with the rest of the dial. Damasko's second subdial seems that it does not belong there in terms of design. Also, on the minutes subdial, it is really hard to make out elapsed time within each 10 mins chapter. IWC has a 5 min subchapter that makes it easier to tell elapsed time. I believe numerals on the IWC are Luminova. This would put the IWC ahead of the Damasko in this category

Dial - Quality - Really cannot say anything here.

Hands - Everyone wants the IWC hands... so

Crystal: Both able to deal with pressure changes. AR on both (IWC only inside?)

Resistance to Magnetic Fields: IWC not sure vs. Damasko 80,000 A/m or 100 mT. I am sure that IWC is comparable

WR: Damasko 100m vs. IWC 60m - Equivalent?

Strap: Damasko uses a nice WR calf vs an alligator for IWC. Honestly, if I have to use the watch as a tool, I prefer Damasko's strap so that I don't have to worry about it. Worst case scenario, I am $50 under vs $250.

Your side of the story now...


----------



## Tragic

Tragic said:


> Rotate daily and wear both five years and see which still looks new ;-)


I agree with this clever fellow and rest my case.


----------



## richard kagan

Hi Frankier:
Some very good points. I didn't base my response on emotion, only what I read and hear from some old time watchmakers that I know. Just a little on IWC. Established in 1868 in Switzerland. In 1948 introduced the Mark 11 model. It became an instant classic. Aviators could not get enough of them. One of it's speciaal characteristics was that it had a soft iron core which protected the watch from magnetic fields. This is still one of their specialties today.
Regards:
Richard


----------



## Watchbreath

Allthough this may be one of the best IWCs to come down the pike in some time, I'll go with the DC 56. I use to be a fan of IWC, but there're not what they were once were. (I sold them.) See quite a few that were
poorly tuned and QC was suspect, but not with this model and you can't 
keep them in stock and there's a two month leed, as of a month ago. But,
since there're chronos - <|

:-d I'll probably be burned at the stake tommarow.


----------



## frankier

Thanks for your response Richard and the tidbits of the brand history.

I wanted to stress that I am not favoring the Damasko over the IWC (... all right!! , maybe a little bit, but just b/c I own one!:-d). I am sure that the IWC is worth all its price tag. Just trying to rationalize why does it cost so much more. Marketing costs anyone ? ;-)



richard kagan said:


> Hi Frankier:
> Some very good points. I didn't base my response on emotion, only what I read and hear from some old time watchmakers that I know. Just a little on IWC. Established in 1868 in Switzerland. In 1948 introduced the Mark 11 model. It became an instant classic. Aviators could not get enough of them. One of it's speciaal characteristics was that it had a soft iron core which protected the watch from magnetic fields. This is still one of their specialties today.
> Regards:
> Richard


----------



## richard kagan

Hi Frankier:
I don't really know why it costs so much more. Probably one of those things, where it is established as an upper level brand over time and it has created that aura as one of the best, such as Montblanc, Mercedes, etc. Also a long history over 125 years.
Best regards:
Richard


----------



## abraxas

After reading this article:
http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tree&goto=1072934&rid=0

I kept an eye on the two above and after one year's use the IWC only had two tiny swirlies that could hardly be seen with the naked eye.

At the time (about 3 years ago) the IWC was 3 times the price of the DC56 but I don't think you got 3 times the watch. Especially when considering all the new technologies in the Damasko. The IWC is tradition at its best whilst the Damasko case is techologically superior.









On the other hand the IWC movement is really nicely decorated.










The Damasko movements are finished and timed by Soprod but are not decorated in any way.

john


----------



## Watchbreath

I vote for timing.


abraxas said:


> After reading this article:
> http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=tree&goto=1072934&rid=0
> 
> I kept an eye on the two above and after one year's use the IWC only had two tiny swirlies that could hardly be seen with the naked eye.
> 
> At the time (about 3 years ago) the IWC was 3 times the price of the DC56 but I don't think you got 3 times the watch. Especially when considering all the new technologies in the Damasko. The IWC is tradition at its best whilst the Damasko case is techologically superior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand the IWC movement is really nicely decorated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Damasko movements are finished and timed by Soprod but are not decorated in any way.
> 
> john


----------



## Holden

The IWC for training.
The Damasko for combat.


----------



## abraxas

.
As it happens these days I wear a Damasko DC66 ... but I rate IWC very-very highly and often recommend them. There have been some issues in the recent past but situations always get sorted out. I would rather wear an IWC over (let's say) a Breitling, any day. But that is just my opinion. 

... and I like Damasko because they are so totally tool.

john


----------



## g-banger

Holden said:


> The IWC for training.
> The Damasko for combat.


i agree!!

question is that IWC anti-magenetic??
also how much more would a service (overhaul) for the IWC....

End of the day id choose the DC56, but i love my sinn 756 more:-!


----------



## Crusader

g-banger said:


> question is that IWC anti-magenetic??


Yes, to 40'000 A/m (the Damasko is antimagnetic to 80'000 A/m).


----------



## frankier

Has anyone ran into the "real life" translation of these values.

Is 80,000 A/m really that much better than 40,000 A/m. 
What is the highest A/m to which human beings can be exposed without danger?

For instance, a computer screen generates xxx A/m
Or, an X-Ray machine generates yyy A/m 
Or, an MRI machine generates zzz A/m.



Crusader said:


> Yes, to 40'000 A/m (the Damasko is antimagnetic to 80'000 A/m).


----------



## Holden

" The German DIN 8309 (DIN means _D_eutsche _I_ndustrie-_N_orm; German industry norm, comparable to the American ASI) defines a mechanical watch as "antimagnetic" when its daily rate isn't changed by more than ± 30 seconds per day after it has been exposed to a magnetic field of 4,800 A/m (Ampère per meter)."

"Where do we stand with our 4,800 A/m "antimagnetic" watch in relation to a 1.5 T MRI scanner? The relation between the several units mentioned here is
1 Gauss = 103 / 4 * π A/m
1 Tesla = 104 Gauss
Some work with a calculator reveals that 4,800 A/m are equal to 6 mT (milliTesla), i.e., 0.006 T.
It is evident why you should not wear even an "antimagnetic" mechanical watch around a clinical MRI unit - a 1.5 T scanner exceeds your watch's antimagnetic protective capacity by a factor of 250!
"
From http://www.ozdoba.net/swisswatch/magnetism.html


----------



## Rahbari

As for looks: take that!


Johannes


----------



## frankier

Thanks for the useful info!

So, a Damasko should be 0.1T (=100mT), which is still not even close to the 1.5T of an MRI machine. There it goes the marketing project of selling the DC 56 to all MRI technicians worldwide:-d.

Seriously, compared to the DIN 8309 of 6mT, the Damasko case is really on top of its game when it comes to antimagnetic properties.:-!



Holden said:


> " The German DIN 8309 (DIN means _D_eutsche _I_ndustrie-_N_orm; German industry norm, comparable to the American ASI) defines a mechanical watch as "antimagnetic" when its daily rate isn't changed by more than ± 30 seconds per day after it has been exposed to a magnetic field of 4,800 A/m (Ampère per meter)."
> 
> "Where do we stand with our 4,800 A/m "antimagnetic" watch in relation to a 1.5 T MRI scanner? The relation between the several units mentioned here is
> 1 Gauss = 103 / 4 * π A/m
> 1 Tesla = 104 Gauss
> Some work with a calculator reveals that 4,800 A/m are equal to 6 mT (milliTesla), i.e., 0.006 T.
> It is evident why you should not wear even an "antimagnetic" mechanical watch around a clinical MRI unit - a 1.5 T scanner exceeds your watch's antimagnetic protective capacity by a factor of 250!
> "
> From http://www.ozdoba.net/swisswatch/magnetism.html


----------



## fachiro1

I've only been able to handle the IWC and in terms of quality between the other wtaches I have handled (Panerai, Breightling, Rolex, some others) it is the best finished out of the lot. 

In terms of which one would I want and want to wear, I'd go with the Damasko. The IWC is special, but the Damasko is special in its own way.


----------

