# ETA IWC Movements



## FlyPenFly

In the other big watch forum, it seems to be taken as gospel now that IWC is no longer receiving ebauches and modifying them to their specs. It seems since sometime around 2007 ETA delivers fully assembled movements to IWC now made with their specs.

Does this bother anyone? I'm thinking of purchasing a 3717 on strap and while the watch sings to me and I love the design, its hard to wrap my head around paying so much for an untouched by IWC ETA movement.


----------



## NightScar

To be honest, it doesn't bother me one bit. Think about it this way, if IWC stops outsourcing movements and starts putting their in-house movements, their watches will probably double in price. 

I am not a movement snob and I am pretty happy at the accuracy and reliability of the modified ETA in my IWCs. IWC does demand the movements to be calibrated within COSC specifications, the same way as before, so I am pretty content with it.


----------



## blimey

get bracelet version, and add the strap. dont make the same mistake i made. i ended up buying bracelet for msrp... beautiful watch. 

i would think the 3717 out now only has the heavily modified eta movement... the new movements only apply for future built watches... i think iwc has stock up on already modified eta movements on 3717 and current offering.


----------



## Hary

blimey said:


> i would think the 3717 out now only has the heavily modified eta movement... the new movements only apply for future built watches... i think iwc has stock up on already modified eta movements on 3717 and current offering.


Since mid 2007 ETA has been using fully assembled movement by ETA. According to discussion in German forum, even the in-house developed movement like caliber 8xxxx is being produced by ETA, not in Schaffhausen.

Don't worry about ETA or inhouse modified ETA, the movements are robust, easy servicing, more accurate than the real inhouse (cal. 5xxxx) movement as per my experience


----------



## Redleader

Assuming the information on the other forum is correct my thoughts are:

The ETA movement is without doubt a very good work horse but I have a problem with them arriving straight from ETA and being put in an IWC case and sold at IWC prices. For me the watch movement is the heart of the watch and if the heart is 100% Swatch Group what does that make the watch?

It's nothing new for watch manufacturers to make cases/dials/bracelets and put someone else's movement in it but however capable these ETA movements are, they are not special. Previously heavily modifying it at IWC went a long way towards making them acceptable.

IWC was a great brand but Richemont Group cherry pick great names to acquire and then milk their profits for all they are worth. The luxury group owned, brand named, companies loose their passion and magic and just become a vehicle for consumer fashion and profit making.

The prices of the in house movement are deliberately set high to add perceived value amongst consumers. I have no doubt that they could be sold for a lot less. Richemont Group will get away with this because most buyers are either shallow, not knowledgeable enough about what they are buying or just not demanding enough.


----------



## Michael Schott

Redleader said:


> Assuming the information on the other forum is correct my thoughts are:
> 
> The ETA movement is without doubt a very good work horse but I have a problem with them arriving straight from ETA and being put in an IWC case and sold at IWC prices. For me the watch movement is the heart of the watch and if the heart is 100% Swatch Group what does that make the watch?
> 
> It's nothing new for watch manufacturers to make cases/dials/bracelets and put someone else's movement in it but however capable these ETA movements are, they are not special. Previously heavily modifying it at IWC went a long way towards making them acceptable.
> 
> IWC was a great brand but Richemont Group cherry pick great names to acquire and then milk their profits for all they are worth. The luxury group owned, brand named, companies loose their passion and magic and just become a vehicle for consumer fashion and profit making.
> 
> The prices of the in house movement are deliberately set high to add perceived value amongst consumers. I have no doubt that they could be sold for a lot less. Richemont Group will get away with this because most buyers are either shallow, not knowledgeable enough about what they are buying or just not demanding enough.


A few comments:

ETA is providing movements to IWC that are made to the same specifications as when IWC was doing the modifications. You may not like it that IWC is not doing the work but the product is the same.

Regarding the pricing of luxury watches with in-house movements, they can be priced at whatever point the market will bear. It's a luxury product after all. Many buyers may not have deep knowledge of what they buy but they know it's a quality product with a prestigious name and in this case the product lives up to the billing.


----------



## akit110

Michael Schott said:


> A few comments:
> 
> ETA is providing movements to IWC that are made to the same specifications as when IWC was doing the modifications. You may not like it that IWC is not doing the work but the product is the same.
> 
> Regarding the pricing of luxury watches with in-house movements, they can be priced at whatever point the market will bear. It's a luxury product after all. Many buyers may not have deep knowledge of what they buy but they know it's a quality product with a prestigious name and in this case the product lives up to the billing.


But I understand the sentiment.:think: If IWC had the cases made in China to their very high specs, wouldn't people resist this too? *Even *if you could show that this case was indistinguishable from the ones made in Schaffhausen?

So yes, the product is the same in material terms with the entirely ETA modified movement, but it's _not_ the same in terms of that elusive something (pedigree?) that defines and drives the enduring appeal and high price a higher end mechanical watch from a company like IWC.


----------



## NightScar

akit110 said:


> But I understand the sentiment.:think: If IWC had the cases made in China to their very high specs, wouldn't people resist this too? *Even *if you could show that this case was indistinguishable from the ones made in Schaffhausen?
> 
> So yes, the product is the same in material terms with the entirely ETA modified movement, but it's _not_ the same in terms of that elusive something (pedigree?) that defines and drives the enduring appeal and high price a higher end mechanical watch from a company like IWC.


The difference with that analogy is where it is made or comes from. It'll be like with shoes, one is made in Italy to Nikes specs while the other is from China to Nikes specs, the one in Italy wills till hold higher value.

ETA also has different levels, theres 3 levels within the 2824 and then theres the higher scale 2892. Kind of like how Armani has Armani Exchange and Armani Jeans as their entry level, then Emporio Armani and Armani Collezione and then Giorgio Armani up top. Same with ETA, they specifically calibrate it within COSC specs w/o the certification.


----------



## akit110

NightScar said:


> The difference with that analogy is where it is made or comes from. It'll be like with shoes, one is made in Italy to Nikes specs while the other is from China to Nikes specs, the one in Italy wills till hold higher value.
> 
> ETA also has different levels, theres 3 levels within the 2824 and then theres the higher scale 2892. Kind of like how Armani has Armani Exchange and Armani Jeans as their entry level, then Emporio Armani and Armani Collezione and then Giorgio Armani up top. Same with ETA, they specifically calibrate it within COSC specs w/o the certification.


I think you are missing the larger point i.e. where something is made - particularly a luxury branded product - can greatly influence it's perceived value even if the product is made to identical specs.

In my case analogy, it was China vs. Switzerland. In the case of the ETA movement modification, it is ETA in Grenchen, Switzerland vs IWC in Schaffhausen, Switzerland. In either example, there is a typically preference for the latter. The China/Switzerland example is more extreme but that's a difference in degree rather than in kind.

The two most common ETA calibres and the various grades of these calibres (standard, elabore, top and chronometer) are not really material to my point. No one is arguing that ETA cannot make a high quality movement. I am saying that some people - in lieu of an IWC in-house movement - have a strong preference for an ETA movement that was modified within IWC itself (as was done in the past). As the purchase of high end mechanical watches in 2010 is generally an emotional rather than a practical decision, many people like the idea of IWC directly having worked on the movement in the watch that bears their name.


----------



## EuroTrash

Hey, it could be worse. At least IWC doesn't use ETA movements and then charge a price as if it were an in-house movement. *ahem* Panerai *ahem*


----------



## craniotes

Hary said:


> Since mid 2007 ETA has been using fully assembled movement by ETA. According to discussion in German forum, even the in-house developed movement like caliber 8xxxx is being produced by ETA, not in Schaffhausen.


WTF? Now that's where I draw the line. In-house means developed _and_ manufactured. Period. If IWC is indeed outsourcing production of the 80110/1, then AFAIC, it no longer qualifies as in-house.

As for the issue at hand, it does bother me that the elves at IWC are no longer sprinkling their peculiar brand of fairy dust on the watches they produce. It bothers me a lot, in fact, which is why I made a point of securing an Aquatimer that predates this nonsense. As for my Ingenieur, it too was produced early enough to ensure that its guts come from the correct address.

Regards,
Adam


----------



## akit110

craniotes said:


> WTF? Now that's where I draw the line. In-house means developed _and_ manufactured. Period. If IWC is indeed outsourcing production of the 80110/1, then AFAIC, it no longer qualifies as in-house.
> 
> As for the issue at hand, it does bother me that the elves at IWC are no longer sprinkling their peculiar brand of fairy dust on the watches they produce. It bothers me a lot, in fact, which is why I made a point of securing an Aquatimer that predates this nonsense. As for my Ingenieur, it too was produced early enough to ensure that its guts come from the correct address.
> 
> Regards,
> Adam


Thank you for exemplifying my point. It _does_ matter to many people. Saying that the movements are manufactured to IWC specs by ETA may be sufficient for some consumers, but certainly not all.


----------



## craniotes

akit110 said:


> Thank you for exemplifying my point. It _does_ matter to many people. Saying that the movements are manufactured to IWC specs by ETA may be sufficient for some consumers, but certainly not all.


I don't have a problem with bog-standard movements in $4-$5K watches from say UTS or Kobold (though in the case of the latter, buying used helps with the sticker shock) because this is advertised to the buyer going in -- i.e. what you see is what you get. In the case of IWC, however, it's implied that you're getting something, well, special. And going one further, it's implied that they're the ones adding the "special". When I throw down the bones for a "c.30110" movement, I don't mind that it isn't 100% in-house so long as I know that IWC has breathed on it enough to make it uniquely their own. Did you know that the mainspring in my 2006 vintage AT 2000 was replaced from stock, and manually unwound and rewound by a "regluse", a woman whose sole job is to do just that (apparently women are preferred for this exacting job because it requires a level of manual dexterity that men have trouble achieving)?

Read:

"Like the Ocean 2000, the GST Aquatimer movement was based on an ETA 2892 base. This time, the movement was IWC calibre 37524 and significantly enhanced by IWC. One magazine, _WatchTime,_ reports that IWC's changes to the base movement were such that 'you could almost describe it as a total revision&#8230;.Nearly all critical components along the path from the escapement to the mainspring are removed from the movement and replaced with corresponding components from IWC's own manufacture.' In 2003, the GST Aquatimer's movement was redesignated as IWC calibre 30110, due to significant changes in finishing, including changing from gold plating to nickel plating as traditionally used in many of IWC's classic movements."

Today all of these modifications are made by ETA from ETA parts, and, if some are to be believed, the current 2892 is exactly the same as the "improved" c.30110. Not cool in my book.

Regards,
Adam


----------



## NightScar

I have no problems with the ETA movements not going through IWC anymore but if their in-house movements are in fact being made somewhere else then I guess I'll be saving a few $$$ because that will be an easy pass on the 5001 I plan on getting in the future. I still do not believe it at this point though, so far it seems like just a here-say-here-say and I have not seen/read a solid source but I would hate for IWC to go that route. So I still do not exactly feel mislead by IWC... yet.


----------



## Michael Schott

craniotes said:


> WTF? Now that's where I draw the line. In-house means developed _and_ manufactured. Period. If IWC is indeed outsourcing production of the 80110/1, then AFAIC, it no longer qualifies as in-house.
> 
> As for the issue at hand, it does bother me that the elves at IWC are no longer sprinkling their peculiar brand of fairy dust on the watches they produce. It bothers me a lot, in fact, which is why I made a point of securing an Aquatimer that predates this nonsense. As for my Ingenieur, it too was produced early enough to ensure that its guts come from the correct address.
> 
> Regards,
> Adam


Adam, do you understand that very soon ETA will stop shipping movement ebauches (part kits) to those outside of the Swatch Group? That means that IWC would not even have the option of rebuilding a 2892 in-house to their specifications. They used to buy the ebauche and add parts to meet their criteria. Likely this is the reason they decided a few years ago to let ETA build the entire movement to their specifications.

The reality (as far as we know) is the 30110 movements in current IWC's are exactly the same as those in the past. That ETA is doing the work should not matter. The finished product is based on IWC's design and philosophy.

The alternative to this would be to put an in-house movement in the entry level models which would drive up their prices. This is not a feasible solution in my opinion. What else are they to do?

I understand you don't like the outsourced movements but there is no alternative if in fact this theory holds true.


----------



## FlyPenFly

I actually wouldn't mind if they picked up a Sellita ebauche.

In my mind IWC produced movement made from a Sellita ebauche is far superior than ETA produced movement made from IWC specifications.


----------



## craniotes

As I have said ad nauseum, I accept that since 2007 IWC has had no choice but to purchase fully assembled movements from ETA thanks to Swatch Group's policies regarding movement sales. No, I'm not happy about it, but what's done is done, and I have little doubt that these new movements are well-made, accurate and reliable. My issue centered on statements some folks have made -- which they backed up with comments attributed to George Kern and other officials within IWC -- to the effect that the modifications specified by IWC had been incorporated into public-consumption 2892s, this diluting the exclusiveness of c.30110.

As for the c.8011x, I'm pleased to report to the IWC board here -- courtesy of Michael's research and contacts -- that there is no basis of truth to the contention that these movements are produced anywhere other than on-site at IWC's manufacturing facilities. |>

Regards,
Adam

PS - For those who are unfamiliar with Mr. Schott's CV, he is the long-time moderator of the IWC board at TimeZone and a well-respected member of the WIS community at large.


----------



## Michael Schott

craniotes said:


> As I have said ad nauseum, I accept that since 2007 IWC has had no choice but to purchase fully assembled movements from ETA thanks to Swatch Group's policies regarding movement sales. No, I'm not happy about it, but what's done is done, and I have little doubt that these new movements are well-made, accurate and reliable. My issue centered on statements some folks have made -- which they backed up with comments attributed to George Kern and other officials within IWC -- to the effect that the modifications specified by IWC had been incorporated into public-consumption 2892s, this diluting the exclusiveness of c.30110.
> 
> As for the c.8011x, I'm pleased to report to the IWC board here -- courtesy of Michael's research and contacts -- that there is no basis of truth to the contention that these movements are produced anywhere other than on-site at IWC's manufacturing facilities. |>
> 
> Regards,
> Adam
> 
> PS - For those who are unfamiliar with Mr. Schott's CV, he is the long-time moderator of the IWC board at TimeZone and a well-respected member of the WIS community at large.


Thank you Adam but where did you read that Mr. Kern or anyone in the know said that the IWC enhancements to the 2892 are now part of all 2892's no matter who buys them? I seriously doubt this is the case and have never read this as fact. Unless you have a direct quote from someone at IWC, once again you are spreading rumor and conjecture.


----------



## craniotes

Michael Schott said:


> Thank you Adam but where did you read that Mr. Kern or anyone in the know said that the IWC enhancements to the 2892 are now part of all 2892's no matter who buys them? I seriously doubt this is the case and have never read this as fact. Unless you have a direct quote from someone at IWC, once again you are spreading rumor and conjecture.


Do you actually read the threads on your forum? I have to ask, because if you did, you'd know that I'm not pulling this crap out of my arse, but rather am trying to get confirmation from the "experts" to refute claims made by others. Others on your forum. In this instance, you (the "expert") were able to confirm that the c.8011x is manufactured on-site in spite of Hary's insistence that Mr. Kern stated the opposite on a "German forum". And for your efforts in this matter I thank you. This same German forum has also been cited on several occasions with respect to the c.30110 controversy. Do I know where this forum is located? Nope. Do I read German? Nope. But I know that folks are quoting it and spreading dreaded "rumor and conjecture." Since this sort of thing actually pisses me off as well, I figured if a big enough stink were raised, someone might actually get to the bottom of it.

So, if you want to be useful, go and confirm that the c.30110 is still modified to the same standards it was before ETA started building it, and that these modifications haven't trickled down to the public-consumption 2892s. Do that, and you'll get another thank you.

Regards,
Adam

PS - To help jog your memory:

http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=msg&goto=4827406&rid=20979#msg_4827406


----------



## socalbreeze

NightScar said:


> The difference with that analogy is where it is made or comes from. It'll be like with shoes, one is made in Italy to Nikes specs while the other is from China to Nikes specs, the one in Italy wills till hold higher value.
> 
> ETA also has different levels, theres 3 levels within the 2824 and then theres the higher scale 2892. Kind of like how Armani has Armani Exchange and Armani Jeans as their entry level, then Emporio Armani and Armani Collezione and then Giorgio Armani up top. Same with ETA, they specifically calibrate it within COSC specs w/o the certification.


Giorgio Armani SOLD Armani Xchange to a Malaysian millionnaire over 10 years ago. The relationship between the two labels had ceased then. Armani Jeans is the only entry level line for Armani.


----------



## watchhound

It bothers me but not too surprising, given the direction the industry keeps going in. I also would not fault collectors and hobbyists for "spreading rumors" as this is more of a reflection of the secrecy that the Swiss watch industry approaches the consumer with. 

Once, this was a noble thing but now, at least in my opinion, it has become a shield to keep the consumer ignorant of rampant outsourcing of dials, hands, cases, bracelets, etc, etc, from Asia to increase profits. If Swiss watch companies were more honest and transparent with the consumer, you would have less rumors as someone from the company would simply clear up the issue. 

Instead, what I often see happen is that legitimate questions get asked and others poo-poo the question itself (never actually answering it) and it gets knocked around the boards for awhile and goes away. 

Once the avg consumer becomes more sophisticated and discerning (as many WIS are), perhaps things will change. Until then, companies will do everything they can to get profits as long as it does not start to impact sales.


----------



## akit110

watchhound said:


> It bothers me but not too surprising, given the direction the industry keeps going in. I also would not fault collectors and hobbyists for "spreading rumors" as this is more of a reflection of the secrecy that the Swiss watch industry approaches the consumer with.
> 
> Once, this was a noble thing but now, at least in my opinion, it has become a shield to keep the consumer ignorant of rampant outsourcing of dials, hands, cases, bracelets, etc, etc, from Asia to increase profits. If Swiss watch companies were more honest and transparent with the consumer, you would have less rumors as someone from the company would simply clear up the issue.
> 
> Instead, what I often see happen is that legitimate questions get asked and others poo-poo the question itself (never actually answering it) and it gets knocked around the boards for awhile and goes away.
> 
> Once the avg consumer becomes more sophisticated and discerning (as many WIS are), perhaps things will change. Until then, companies will do everything they can to get profits as long as it does not start to impact sales.


An excellent post.


----------



## watchhound

akit110 said:


> An excellent post.


Thank you, sir.


----------



## Michael Schott

craniotes said:


> Do you actually read the threads on your forum? I have to ask, because if you did, you'd know that I'm not pulling this crap out of my arse, but rather am trying to get confirmation from the "experts" to refute claims made by others. Others on your forum. In this instance, you (the "expert") were able to confirm that the c.8011x is manufactured on-site in spite of Hary's insistence that Mr. Kern stated the opposite on a "German forum". And for your efforts in this matter I thank you. This same German forum has also been cited on several occasions with respect to the c.30110 controversy. Do I know where this forum is located? Nope. Do I read German? Nope. But I know that folks are quoting it and spreading dreaded "rumor and conjecture." Since this sort of thing actually pisses me off as well, I figured if a big enough stink were raised, someone might actually get to the bottom of it.
> 
> So, if you want to be useful, go and confirm that the c.30110 is still modified to the same standards it was before ETA started building it, and that these modifications haven't trickled down to the public-consumption 2892s. Do that, and you'll get another thank you.
> 
> Regards,
> Adam
> 
> PS - To help jog your memory:
> 
> http://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=msg&goto=4827406&rid=20979#msg_4827406


Here's how I see this Adam. Some random person on the internet claims to be in the know about something and eventually people start thinking it's true. It's the nature of the web and of forums like these. Why should IWC be forced to defend themselves against unfounded rumors? I personally am not going to chase down my friendly and helpful contacts at IWC every time someone throws out something like this. Personally I think it's irresponsible to spread the rumors and just as bad to give them any credence.


----------



## AAv8r

I don't want to get in the mud with this one, but I'm getting ready to purchase a new Aquatimer 2000 and I would like to know the answer to the question raised by craniotes. I am sure this issue could be presented to the powers to be in a resprectable manner. The idea that IWC doesn't have to dignify these remarks may be slightly arrogant. I would think that IWC would want to shout from the mountain the virtues of it's 2892. Thank you.

So, if you want to be useful, go and confirm that the c.30110 is still modified to the same standards it was before ETA started building it, and that these modifications haven't trickled down to the public-consumption 2892s. Do that, and you'll get another thank you.


----------



## AAv8r

...to clarify my last post, the second paragraph should have been in quotes in that it was the actual question raised by craniotes and not my own...sorry for the omission.


----------



## Hary

Well, this topic has been discussed lengthy at official IWC forum (German speaking). I personally believe the story of outsourcing is true. There wasn't a knee-jerk reaction nor denial from the well known forum moderator there, who I believe is closer to the IWC than any other forums moderators out there. By the way, there were no words from the mod there blaming people spreading rumours, the discussion was constructive.


----------



## Michael Schott

AAv8r said:


> I don't want to get in the mud with this one, but I'm getting ready to purchase a new Aquatimer 2000 and I would like to know the answer to the question raised by craniotes. I am sure this issue could be presented to the powers to be in a resprectable manner. The idea that IWC doesn't have to dignify these remarks may be slightly arrogant. I would think that IWC would want to shout from the mountain the virtues of it's 2892. Thank you.
> 
> So, if you want to be useful, go and confirm that the c.30110 is still modified to the same standards it was before ETA started building it, and that these modifications haven't trickled down to the public-consumption 2892s. Do that, and you'll get another thank you.


Perhaps you didn't see the post on another site where I asked IWC these questions and posted their response. Either that or you are not satisfied with the response. If the latter is the case then I suggest you go to the IWC website and ask your questions on the Collectors Forum. I am satifisfied with their answer and feel no need for the skepticism I see here.


----------



## watchhound

Michael Schott said:


> Here's how I see this Adam. Some random person on the internet claims to be in the know about something and eventually people start thinking it's true. It's the nature of the web and of forums like these. Why should IWC be forced to defend themselves against unfounded rumors? I personally am not going to chase down my friendly and helpful contacts at IWC every time someone throws out something like this. Personally I think it's irresponsible to spread the rumors and just as bad to give them any credence.


Michael- with all due respect, this is not just a "little rumor", it is, if correct, a major change in production for a major watch brand that has marketed itself, at least in part, on highly modifying stock movements themselves and using this as a indication of greater quality than competitors who do not make such modification of stock movements.

If you chose not to try to find out if there is any truth to it or not - that is certainly your prerogative but this is an issue that IWC purists are likely to care about. While I agree that companies should not have to respond to every little rumor that crops up - this is a pretty significant one and I would think than a company who cares about what collectors think would want to address it.

That said, I expect that we won't get an answer and this post will slowly go away - which is what usually happens in this situations. When enthusiasts decide that they want to know the facts before laying out significant sums of money for a brand, this will change but until then, as long as there are buyers - these questions can be safely ignored.


----------



## watchhound

Michael Schott said:


> Perhaps you didn't see the post on another site where I asked IWC these questions and posted their response. Either that or you are not satisfied with the response. If the latter is the case then I suggest you go to the IWC website and ask your questions on the Collectors Forum. I am satifisfied with their answer and feel no need for the skepticism I see here.


No - I did not see that - what was the answer? Can it be posted here? Thanks.


----------



## Carrera 3

I don't really have a problem with IWC receiving fully assembled ETA movements so as long as it's whithin IWC quality control. 

I'd assume if they did that (I hope I'm not starting another rumour!!), they would have at least have a quality control process to ensure they were all within specifications.

What I do know is my Mark XVI is running exceptionally well. +1 seconds p/day for an ETA movement and it is just a classic yet brilliant looking pilot watch.


----------



## Michael Schott

watchhound said:


> No - I did not see that - what was the answer? Can it be posted here? Thanks.


It's on the watch site where I moderate the IWC forum. To avoid conflicts of interest and in deference to Ernie Romers, I would ask you to please look for it yourself.

Basically IWC said they order movements from ETA produced to IWC's standards which undergo the same inspection and test procedures to assure they meet IWC's standards. If this is not good enough for you I suggest you ask this question on IWC's own Collector's Forum on their website.


----------



## subrosa

sigh, IWC was on my short list for my next big watch. This is kind of a let down. I am not a huge movement guy, but for the price IWC is asking I am not going to be ok with a run of the mill ETA movement at any grade. 

I bet getting it repaired costs a lot more then the base ETA as well....


----------



## akit110

Carrera 3 said:


> I don't really have a problem with IWC receiving fully assembled ETA movements so as long as it's whithin IWC quality control.


I wish I could say the same :-(.

For me, this type of thing blurs the line between a micro-brand like UTS which makes its own case and puts in an outsourced top grade ETA movement and a major Swiss brand like IWC which makes its own case and puts in an outsourced top grade ETA movt (albeit modified to their own specs). :think:


----------



## Michael Schott

subrosa said:


> sigh, IWC was on my short list for my next big watch. This is kind of a let down. I am not a huge movement guy, but for the price IWC is asking I am not going to be ok with a run of the mill ETA movement at any grade.
> 
> I bet getting it repaired costs a lot more then the base ETA as well....


I'm not sure what you are saying. IWC has been using ETA movements in entry level watches for years. By the way entry level IWC's are under $4K. There are plenty of watches out there that cost more and provide less.

If you are referring to the conversation in this thread inferring that IWC is using unmodified ETA movements, that is strictly rumor and IWC has officially commented that this is not the case.

This is exactly why I think spreading unproven information on the internet is bad. People like this person believe what they read and make uninformed decisions.


----------



## Michael Schott

akit110 said:


> I wish I could say the same :-(.
> 
> For me, this type of thing blurs the line between a micro-brand like UTS which makes its own case and puts in an outsourced top grade ETA movement and a major Swiss brand like IWC which makes its own case and puts in an outsourced top grade ETA movt (albeit modified to their own specs). :think:


If you've read this entire thread you know that you should blame Swatch for this situation and not IWC. Swatch will no longer sell IWC the parts kit so IWC can modify the movements in-house. In reality it is very likely that the movement is exactly the same as when IWC was doing the work. Does it really make any difference whether the work was done in Schaffhausen or at the ETA factory when the end product is identical?


----------



## NightScar

Ok, so can we clear it up and summarize everything we know and are proven fact to separate it from what has been said?

So far, we can confirm that IWC has admitted that they do not modify the ETA movements in their facility anymore and that ETA make the whole movements to IWCs specs and IWC doesn't do any further work on it before putting it into the case. Right? 

I do not want to say that is 100% true but I just want to clarify some things and let's take it one step at a time.


----------



## craniotes

NightScar said:


> Ok, so can we clear it up and summarize everything we know and are proven fact to separate it from what has been said?
> 
> So far, we can confirm that IWC has admitted that they do not modify the ETA movements in their facility anymore and that ETA make the whole movements to IWCs specs and IWC doesn't do any further work on it before putting it into the case. Right?
> 
> I do not want to say that is 100% true but I just want to clarify some things and let's take it one step at a time.


Yup, that's 100% true, and no one, least of all me is disputing this. As Michael has said (and so have I), IWC has acknowledged that ETA has been supplying them with fully assembled movements -- movements that have been modified to IWC's specifications -- since 2007. This has nothing to do with any desire to cut costs on IWC's behalf, but rather is due to a business decision made by Swatch Group, in which they will no longer provide kits (ebauches) to companies that are not part of Swatch Group. I freely admit that this diminishes the cachet of IWC's ETA-based portfolio in my eyes -- which is why I took pains to secure an AT 2000 that predates this practice -- but Swatch Group has left them with no alternative.

None of this is in dispute. The question at hand -- now that Michael was gracious enough to lay the specious c.8011x allegations to rest -- is whether or not these modifications, which are quite extensive, have found their way into ETA's regular production movements, thus diluting the exclusiveness of the brand. This issue was brought to light after comments surfaced on IWC's officlal forum that seemed to indicate that this was indeed the case. It has yet to be adequately addressed in spite of Michael's assertion to the contrary.

So, rumor and conjecture? Sure, why not (never mind that the source is IWC's own official forum). Can it be laid to rest quickly and easliy with a simple, straightforward answer that's free of holier-than-thou chest thumping? In a word, yes.

Regards,
Adam


----------



## Barnaby

Maybe they should just rebrand everything with 'Swatch' on the dial...:-d


----------



## sandgroper

A few members seem to be confusing the issue. ETA movement is not used by all IWC's. For clarity, and copied from Wikipedia (verbatim)...

"Some modern movements in watches of IWC are based on movements supplied by ETA and heavily modified by IWC. This is common practice by many high end watch marques. In particular, the Caliber 30110 is a modified ETA 2892A2, and the Caliber 79230/79320/79350 is a modified ETA/Valjoux 7750. Like all high end automatic watches, IWC watches lose or gain approximately 4 seconds a day.
Movements not based on ETA movements include the Caliber 5000 and the Caliber 8000, which use the Pellaton winding system, and the pocket watch movements used in the Portuguese F.A. Jones and other IWC pocket watches. IWC also used a JLC meca-quartz movement in their older Portofino chronographs."

I'm sure IWC would be quick to rectify wiki if it was incorrect... Whether or not you are happy with an ETA (vs full in-house) is obviously a personal choice, but at least now you hopefully are more informed...


----------



## Michael Schott

craniotes said:


> Yup, that's 100% true, and no one, least of all me is disputing this. As Michael has said (and so have I), IWC has acknowledged that ETA has been supplying them with fully assembled movements -- movements that have been modified to IWC's specifications -- since 2007. This has nothing to do with any desire to cut costs on IWC's behalf, but rather is due to a business decision made by Swatch Group, in which they will no longer provide kits (ebauches) to companies that are not part of Swatch Group. I freely admit that this diminishes the cachet of IWC's ETA-based portfolio in my eyes -- which is why I took pains to secure an AT 2000 that predates this practice -- but Swatch Group has left them with no alternative.
> 
> None of this is in dispute. The question at hand -- now that Michael was gracious enough to lay the specious c.8011x allegations to rest -- _is whether or not these modifications, which are quite extensive, have found their way into ETA's regular production movements, thus diluting the exclusiveness of the brand. This issue was brought to light after comments surfaced on IWC's officlal forum that seemed to indicate that this was indeed the case. It has yet to be adequately addressed in spite of Michael's assertion to the contrary._
> 
> So, rumor and conjecture? Sure, why not (*never mind that the source is IWC's own official forum)*. Can it be laid to rest quickly and easliy with a simple, straightforward answer that's free of holier-than-thou chest thumping? In a word, yes.
> 
> Regards,
> Adam


Two corrections. The source you site is IWC's German forum and it's quite possible that something was lost in the translation. I've suggested and so far no one as taken action that someone ask the specific question on IWC's US Collectors Forum.

Second correction: I never asserted that we know with certainty Adam's underlined words above. All I know is we have no proof that this is fact and that it's once again, all rumor and conjecture. Once more I will say that I think it's irresponsible to spread this in this way without having deeper knowledge of the reality and once again I've suggested how to get the answer yourself.


----------



## Hary

sandgroper said:


> A few members seem to be confusing the issue. ETA movement is not used by all IWC's. For clarity, and copied from Wikipedia (verbatim)...
> 
> "Some modern movements in watches of IWC are based on movements supplied by ETA and heavily modified by IWC. This is common practice by many high end watch marques. In particular, the Caliber 30110 is a modified ETA 2892A2, and the Caliber 79230/79320/79350 is a modified ETA/Valjoux 7750. Like all high end automatic watches, IWC watches lose or gain approximately 4 seconds a day.
> Movements not based on ETA movements include the Caliber 5000 and the Caliber 8000, which use the Pellaton winding system, and the pocket watch movements used in the Portuguese F.A. Jones and other IWC pocket watches. IWC also used a JLC meca-quartz movement in their older Portofino chronographs."
> 
> I'm sure IWC would be quick to rectify wiki if it was incorrect... Whether or not you are happy with an ETA (vs full in-house) is obviously a personal choice, but at least now you hopefully are more informed...


I think majority of us or I can assume most of IWC lovers know well that some of IWC watches use ETA movement. This is not the discussion point here. The discussion here is about:

In the past, ETA claimed to rework heavily ETA ebauches and even replaced some of the components with better quality one. This claim made many people happy (including myself), that ETA movements used by IWC is not the same as mass ETA movements out there because IWC put "personal touch" to the ETA movements.

Now since 2007 IWC admitted they are not doing this modification anymore, as ETA produces movements according to IWC high standards. What forum members wanted to know, is there any difference between ETA mass movements and the movements that they supply to IWC?

There was also a discussion, that even the so called inhouse movement caliber 8xxxx is assembled not in Schaffhausen, but by ETA. That trigger the debate about the definition of inhouse movements.


----------



## Hary

Michael Schott said:


> Two corrections. The source you site is IWC's German forum and it's quite possible that something was lost in the translation. I've suggested and so far no one as taken action that someone ask the specific question on IWC's US Collectors Forum.


I followed the discussion in the IWC's German forum. I dare to say that despite being a non German, my German is as good as native. Hence I would like to clear doubt about lost in translation from the discussions in the German forum


----------



## Michael Schott

Hary said:


> I followed the discussion in the IWC's German forum. I dare to say that despite being a non German, my German is as good as native. Hence I would like to clear doubt about lost in translation from the discussions in the German forum


So what exactly did that forum say? I know what IWC has directly told me in English. That response has been posted on the internet.


----------



## Hary

Michael Schott said:


> So what exactly did that forum say? I know what IWC has directly told me in English. That response has been posted on the internet.


For those who read German, please visit IWC official forum, go to the date Jan 26,2010, find theposts posted by "diaphane", go to the his post with the title part "Fortsetzung III", you will find interview with Mr. Kern.

There you can read the answer from Mr. Kern to the question how is IWC's strategy towards buying movements from 3rd party like ETA and Selita.

I do not translate words by words, but the key messages:


IWC will keep continue producing watches in the price segment of Euro 3K, however for this price segment it would never use inhouse movement (due to cost factor)
IWC will continue buying movements from 3rd party (for example Selita, ETA, Piaget or Fleurier (who builds Jones caliber exclusively for ETA). *ETA builds the caliber 8000 exclusively for IWC*
IWC will continue increasing the portion (over 60%) of inhouse movements, BUT only for watches with complications
IWC has always been in good partnership with ETA and this strong partnership will also continue in the future

Hope it helps


----------



## FlyPenFly

Isn't the "in house" 8000 series with the Pellaton system based heavily on the 7750, as in it's almost a 7750 with the winding system replaced?

If so, its very likely that ETA is producing those as well.

To me this is akin to buying a BMW M car that was made in BMW's US plants instead of being made in Munich. Sure, same great parts and high quality but as a buyer, it doesn't feel the same. 

In the case of ETA and IWC, we're not even sure if the parts are in fact the same, the workers who work on it are certainly not. While IWC and ETA quality might be similar ... without actual specifications, we really have no idea unless someone does a side by side take apart comparison with a pre 2007 and a new current movement.


----------



## akit110

Michael Schott said:


> If you've read this entire thread you know that you should blame Swatch for this situation and not IWC. Swatch will no longer sell IWC the parts kit so IWC can modify the movements in-house. In reality it is very likely that the movement is exactly the same as when IWC was doing the work. Does it really make any difference whether the work was done in Schaffhausen or at the ETA factory when the end product is identical?


As I posted earlier, materially I will concede to your point - it likely makes no difference.

Psychologically, it makes a difference. In the same way, but to a far lesser degree, how IWC enthusiasts (perhaps you too?) would not be happy if the case was made in China rather than in Switzerland even if made to IWC specs.

As I said earlier, difference in degree not kind from the China example. It does matter for a luxury product where it was made (i.e. contributes to perception pedigree). Having something made in Schaffhausen factory is more desirable than in ETA factory.

Why do people keep acting like we are talking about a hammer or something? i.e. a practical item/commodity where its point of manufacture makes no difference to anyone.


----------



## Michael Schott

akit110 said:


> As I posted earlier, materially I will concede to your point - it likely makes no difference.
> 
> Psychologically, it makes a difference. In the same way, but to a far lesser degree, how IWC enthusiasts (perhaps you too?) would not be happy if the case was made in China rather than in Switzerland even if made to IWC specs.
> 
> As I said earlier, difference in degree not kind from the China example. It does matter for a luxury product where it was made (i.e. contributes to perception pedigree). Having something made in Schaffhausen factory is more desirable than in ETA factory.
> 
> Why do people keep acting like we are talking about a hammer or something? i.e. a practical item/commodity where its point of manufacture makes no difference to anyone.


It doesn't matter. How many times can I say that IWC can no longer buy movement kits and make the modifications themselves. ETA (Swatch Group) will not allow this. I understand this may to you take away some the cache but there's nothing IWC can do.


----------



## Michael Schott

FlyPenFly said:


> Isn't the "in house" 8000 series with the Pellaton system based heavily on the 7750, as in it's almost a 7750 with the winding system replaced?
> 
> If so, its very likely that ETA is producing those as well.
> 
> To me this is akin to buying a BMW M car that was made in BMW's US plants instead of being made in Munich. Sure, same great parts and high quality but as a buyer, it doesn't feel the same.
> 
> In the case of ETA and IWC, we're not even sure if the parts are in fact the same, the workers who work on it are certainly not. While IWC and ETA quality might be similar ... without actual specifications, we really have no idea unless someone does a side by side take apart comparison with a pre 2007 and a new current movement.


Again, an internet post that is materially wrong. This was addressed when the 3227 Inge was first introduced and you're information is wildly speculative. There is so much wrong with your first paragraph that I don't know where to start. I'll start with the fact that one is a chronograph and the other is time only with center seconds and not a seconds subdial. Please stop posting things where you have no actual knowledge.


----------



## FlyPenFly

Michael Schott said:


> Again, an internet post that is materially wrong. This was addressed when the 3227 Inge was first introduced and you're information is wildly speculative. There is so much wrong with your first paragraph that I don't know where to start. I'll start with the fact that one is a chronograph and the other is time only with center seconds and not a seconds subdial. Please stop posting things where you have no actual knowledge.


you really should do more reading before making accusations as you're showing your own ignorance. The 80110 is based heavily on the 7750 and if you look at the movement itself parts will look very familiar.


----------



## akit110

Michael Schott said:


> It doesn't matter. How many times can I say that IWC can no longer buy movement kits and make the modifications themselves. ETA (Swatch Group) will not allow this. I understand this may to you take away some the cache but there's nothing IWC can do.


Michael, to you point - I was going to edit my post to acknowledge that I understand that IWC's options are very limited on this matter. And that I understand little can be done about it (my posts on this thread are not a call to action but more a lament about something small but significant that has been lost in this whole ETA movement kit embargo). :-(


----------



## Michael Schott

FlyPenFly said:


> you really should do more reading before making accusations as you're showing your own ignorance. The 80110 is based heavily on the 7750 and if you look at the movement itself parts will look very familiar.


Dude, I know all about this and IWC has acknowledged that the basic design of the 80110 is based on the 7765 which was a hand wound version of the 7750. There are significant differences, among them the lack of a chronograph, the center seconds and the winding mechanism. I think it's a reach to say it's a 7750 with a Pellaton winding system as it clearly is much more than that. The escapement by the way is not the same either.

Also, my sources at IWC say the 80110 is not being built by ETA and in fact IWC has recently increased their in-house movement production capabilities so why would they have ETA make this for them?


----------



## Carrera 3

I have no issues whatsoever if my 2008 bought Mark XVI has a movement that was fully assembled by ETA with IWC specs. I see no difference at all. 

I think if you should feel the difference, you may well be wanting to some degree deny that it was in fact an ETA movement from the begining and that IWC made it (with lots of work and effort) to some degree partially in house and that it was worth the money you splash out for something that tells the time.

Cars, TVs, Furnitures, Lap tops, Whitegoods and even the house that I live in has materials, panels, CPUs, engines and parts that are made from different parts of the world.....My CASIO G Shock RISEMAN is made in Thailand.

In this case it's merely made and configured in a different factory in Switzerland. I'd say, it would a matter of a different process which IWC had not much say.

I think it was very up front of IWC and ETA to have made it clear and if the product is par in quality, it's just a matter of time before the market has to accept (unless there is an alternative) that is what you are going to get for the price. The price may dip should people feel inferior and that would be great. I'll then be getting the Portuguese Choronograph Gold Case when that happens but I seriously doubt it will....

It is a very informative thread. Thanks guys.


----------



## FlyPenFly

Michael Schott said:


> Dude, I know all about this and IWC has acknowledged that the basic design of the 80110 is based on the 7765 which was a hand wound version of the 7750. There are significant differences, among them the lack of a chronograph, the center seconds and the winding mechanism. I think it's a reach to say it's a 7750 with a Pellaton winding system as it clearly is much more than that. The escapement by the way is not the same either.
> 
> Also, my sources at IWC say the 80110 is not being built by ETA and in fact IWC has recently increased their in-house movement production capabilities so why would they have ETA make this for them?


Go ahead and tell me exactly how the escapement is different. I'm ready to be amused.

Are you going to tell me about a female horoligcal expert? OF COURSE THE CHRONOGRAPH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE TRADITIONAL 3 HAND. jeez.


----------



## craniotes

FlyPenFly said:


> Go ahead and tell me exactly how the escapement is different. I'm ready to be amused.
> 
> Are you going to tell me about a female horoligcal expert? OF COURSE THE CHRONOGRAPH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE TRADITIONAL 3 HAND. jeez.


This can of worms has been opened, spilled out, fried up, and served with a side of bacon a hundred times over. IWC has made no bones about the inspiration for the c.8011x, and indeed there are some visual similarities between it and the venerable Valjoux, but the fact of the matter is that no parts are interchangeable between the two, nor are any sourced from ETA. This is why I had so much trouble believing that IWC had summarily handed over production of the c.8011x to ETA. Of course, nothing I say, Michael says, or IWC says to the contrary will convince some folks otherwise, but so be it. In this instance I'm satisfied with the horse's mouth. And as soon as I hear that IWC's (extensive) modifications to their ETA-sourced movements aren't being funneled into ETA's public-consumption movements from that self-same horse (read: IWC/Mr. Kern), I'll be satisfied once more.

Regards,
Adam


----------

