# IWC Mark XVI, IWC MARK XVIII modified movement



## Knisse

Hi,

After many years an Omega fan, i have grown tired of their continuously larger and larger cases. Each year i await and get dissapointed, therefore i am considering another route - either the MARK XVI or the newer XVIII.

From my understanding they both used the IWC cal.30100 - which is an "IWC modified" ETA 2892.

My question is, does anyone actually know what IWC exactly modify with the ETA 2892? I was unable to find this answered online, all i found was two ditches 1) IWC is just an assembly line that merely slap its brand name on already done movements 2) IWC actually modify the ETA movement, but without further explanation.

An example of these trench positions would be this thread: https://www.iwc.com/forum/en/discussion/27417/?page=1

I do not consider myself an in-house snob, but i would like to understand what i am actually buying.

Thanks.


----------



## franco60

I just bought a Mark XVIII blue dial and couldn't be happier. I too was a bit concerned about the price absent an in-house movement, but as many say, the 2892 is no slouch and is imminently serviceable. The lack of an exhibition back doesn't allow one to view any embellishments but that doesn't bother me as the Petit Prince case back is cool enough. 

I'll say this: My IWC is running +.6, so whatever they do, they definitely regulate the dickens out of it. The quality of fit and finish is impeccable. I also have a Tudor that has the lowly utilitarian ETA 2824 and it runs +3.2, within COSC specs. Quality and finish are not even close to IWC however. The Tudor, as much as I love it, isn't a baby Rolex. I am interested in the Breitling made in-house COSC certified Chrono Tudor has partnered with for their BB Chrono. 

I never even considered a pilot, but I'd buy my Mark XVIII again in a heartbeat. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Knisse

franco60 said:


> I just bought a Mark XVIII blue dial and couldn't be happier. I too was a bit concerned about the price absent an in-house movement, but as many say, the 2892 is no slouch and is imminently serviceable. The lack of an exhibition back doesn't allow one to view any embellishments but that doesn't bother me as the Petit Prince case back is cool enough.
> 
> I'll say this: My IWC is running +.6, so whatever they do, they definitely regulate the dickens out of it. The quality of fit and finish is impeccable. I also have a Tudor that has the lowly utilitarian ETA 2824 and it runs +3.2, within COSC specs. Quality and finish are not even close to IWC however. The Tudor, as much as I love it, isn't a baby Rolex. I am interested in the Breitling made in-house COSC certified Chrono Tudor has partnered with for their BB Chrono.
> 
> I never even considered a pilot, but I'd buy my Mark XVIII again in a heartbeat.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


But what exactly do they modify? The size? Quality of material? Just decorative engraving? (if some offers see-through case back)
The specs you are encountering sounds impressive, but hardly enough of a sample to say anything with confidence.


----------



## oso2276

Text from Watchtime, Dec. 2002, p. 96

"Although this pilot's watch is powered by a 2892-A2, the watchmakers in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, have gone to the trouble of so luxuriously rebuilding the base calibre that you could almost describe it as a total revision. The most immediately notable feature of the modified calibre is the gold plating. After subjecting the calibre to comprehensive upgrading, it operates with significantly less friction and its balance swings through a larger arc. IWC insists on closer tolerances for endshake, meshing and truing in the flat than ETA permits. A lever is individually made for each movement. 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. The escapement and balance are optimally fine-tuned and painstakingly adjusted." 

In summary:

- the gear train
- wheels and levers
- mainspring and barrel 

I don't think IWC gold plate the movement anymore, but chances are that currently the movements are produced entirety by ETA using IWC specifications. It its my guess and I'm ok with it, if this happens to be true 

Enviado desde mi Moto G (5) Plus mediante Tapatalk


----------



## franco60

oso2276 said:


> Text from Watchtime, Dec. 2002, p. 96
> 
> "Although this pilot's watch is powered by a 2892-A2, the watchmakers in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, have gone to the trouble of so luxuriously rebuilding the base calibre that you could almost describe it as a total revision. The most immediately notable feature of the modified calibre is the gold plating. After subjecting the calibre to comprehensive upgrading, it operates with significantly less friction and its balance swings through a larger arc. IWC insists on closer tolerances for endshake, meshing and truing in the flat than ETA permits. A lever is individually made for each movement. 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. The escapement and balance are optimally fine-tuned and painstakingly adjusted."
> 
> In summary:
> 
> - the gear train
> - wheels and levers
> - mainspring and barrel
> 
> I don't think IWC gold plate the movement anymore, but chances are that currently the movements are produced entirety by ETA using IWC specifications. It its my guess and I'm ok with it, if this happens to be true
> 
> Enviado desde mi Moto G (5) Plus mediante Tapatalk


Thanks oso2276. If the above analysis is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, that's a pretty good amount of revision short of making everything in-house. I see no reason fro IWC to detail those revisions if they outsource them to ETA by just giving them the specs. IWC is not know as a watch assembler. They are a watchmaker with a long history and reputation to protect and I'd doubt they'd risk that to have ETA do all their work for them. If they didn't make a number of calibers in-house, I might question how much they do, but given their total vertical capabilities, those revisions would be pretty straightforward. Again, to me, that's quite a bit and I'm comfortable their not just tossing a garden-variety 2892 in their pieces. It's a heck of lot of work to the guts to improve the movement rather than just some fancy machining on the rotor.

Thanks for researching that. I'm reassured by that information and love mine regardless of any opinions out there.


----------



## Knisse

Thank you oso, that was kind of you.



oso2276 said:


> I don't think IWC gold plate the movement anymore, but chances are that currently the movements are produced entirety by ETA using IWC specifications. It its my guess and I'm ok with it, if this happens to be true


Out of curiosity, why did you write this? I understand the reasoning for cutting costs in an increasingly competitive industry, but wouldnt this be the equivalence to Mercedes getting Toyota to install and use their proven engine? In my opinion that would ruin alot of their prestige.

Like i mentioned above, i am not a movement "in-house" snob, i have no problem with a significantly modified ETA, but i would be dissapointed if ETA does all the difficult work - according to IWC specification granted - and IWC merely slap it into their cases.


----------



## franco60

franco60 said:


> Thanks oso2276. If the above analysis is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, that's a pretty good amount of revision short of making everything in-house. I see no reason fro IWC to detail those revisions if they outsource them to ETA by just giving them the specs. IWC is not know as a watch assembler. They are a watchmaker with a long history and reputation to protect and I'd doubt they'd risk that to have ETA do all their work for them. If they didn't make a number of calibers in-house, I might question how much they do, but given their total vertical capabilities, those revisions would be pretty straightforward. Again, to me, that's quite a bit and I'm comfortable their not just tossing a garden-variety 2892 in their pieces. It's a heck of lot of work to the guts to improve the movement rather than just some fancy machining on the rotor.
> 
> Thanks for researching that. I'm reassured by that information and love mine regardless of any opinions out there.


After writing the above, there seems to be quite a lot of info out there that ETA does make the movements for IWC. I'm not sure how people who are not close to IWC and their manufacturing process know authoritatively, but I'll take it at face value and enjoy my Mark XVII nonetheless.

Thanks gents!


----------



## Knisse

franco60 said:


> After writing the above, there seems to be quite a lot of info out there that ETA does make the movements for IWC.


You can easily enjoy your IWC. Having an ETA based movement is having a reliable, proven and most likely lower service costs than having an in-house movement (in-house doesnt mean that it is actually better).

But would you kindly link to those information? I really would like some hard facts on this.


----------



## franco60

Here's some links, but again, nothing authoritative, just a bunch of guys speculating. Some even reference Selitta as the maker. I'd take it all with a grain of salt.

IWC Pilot's Watch Mark XVII : calibre 30110 automatic movement

https://www.watchuseek.com/f350/eta-iwc-movements-368030-2.html

After reading these, you'll see what I mean - some are older posts, some newer. After reading these, it'll be clear as mud. Not sure anyone knows what the hell they're talking about. I'd love to get a straight story from IWC, even if an unapologetic "yes, we outsource to ETA according to our rigorous specs". Good enough.

https://www.watchuseek.com/f350/new-pilot-mark-xviii-2750578-6.html

https://www.iwc.com/forum/en/discussion/69652/

https://www.iwc.com/forum/en/discussion/30639/


----------



## Knisse

I read some of it, and yes i must admit - without knowing for sure - that IWC probably get ETA to manufacture it completely. Perhaps it is even wishful thinking that IWC should make any modification to it. 

ETA is not bad, but i feel strangely betrayed then they re-name it IWC cal.30100, seems like some misleading marketing ploy.
I agree with you completely, it would be nice to get some straight answers from IWC.

If anyone has solid knowledge then please chip in.


----------



## AlexJozwicki

Couple of years back, ETA decided to stop supplying movement as a kit, that companies could then modify.
So now, it's all completely done by ETA, but up to IWC specs, or nothing.
Mark XVI was still before this time, so it was modified by IWC. Mark XVIII is supplied by ETA.
There's another reference at IWC for the Sellita that they also used, I think it's the Portofino.

I recently bought the last Aquatimer with this ETA movement.
I monitored it the last couple of days: it gained 1 second, total, in the last 5 days.
As much as I like the nice in-house movement in my Jaeger, there's also beauty in "plain" mass produced movement, but that ticks like a workhorse.
In this case, it's a lot more precise


----------



## AlexJozwicki

After thinking about it... maybe the last "couple of years" have passed a little quicker than I thought.
Don't take my word that the XVI was still with the modified movement.


----------



## Knisse

Not really sure how i feel about this, ETA is a solid movement, but i did expect that IWC made the modification themselves. It is strange because ETA probably has equally skilled technicians as IWC, but still something is not right. I am going to ask in the Omega found regarding the cal. 1120 if they was equally done solely by ETA, with some Omega 'modifications'. 

I cannot shake this feeling that this is murky waters.


----------



## AlexJozwicki

Used to feel a bit the same way once, especially when you can almost have a JLC or Omega at this price, with in-house movement.
Initially, I even couldn't care less about the Aquatimer, and never looked at it twice online.
And then I tried it on while at a boutique, out of curiosity, and absolutely loved it.

A watch is much more than a movement in the end, and IWC are really good at case, dial and even buckle details.
Compared to my Master Compressor Chrono on these points, I really do think it's at least on the same level. Buckle is way nicer actually.
Sure, Omega has some nice movement lately, but I cannot stand the thickness at all.

My advice is go try them out, and see what you really like.
And don't forget that it's still a stunner of a movement, and not a standard 2892 either you could find elsewhere.
Even today, Audemars Piguet doesn't have in-house movement in all of their watches.

As for the 1120, it's quite old now, so it must have been finished by Omega. It was before ETA stopped providing movement as a kit.


----------



## heb

I too feel a little gypped when a $5000+ watch has a non-manufactured movement in it. But with the exception of a Rolex movement, an ETA produced one that has been finely tuned and placed in an IWC, Breitling or some other quality brand watch is the most precise and durable mechanical movement in the world.


----------



## Knisse

AlexJozwicki said:


> Used to feel a bit the same way once, especially when you can almost have a JLC or Omega at this price, with in-house movement.
> Initially, I even couldn't care less about the Aquatimer, and never looked at it twice online.
> And then I tried it on while at a boutique, out of curiosity, and absolutely loved it.
> 
> A watch is much more than a movement in the end, and IWC are really good at case, dial and even buckle details.
> Compared to my Master Compressor Chrono on these points, I really do think it's at least on the same level. Buckle is way nicer actually.
> Sure, Omega has some nice movement lately, but I cannot stand the thickness at all.
> 
> My advice is go try them out, and see what you really like.
> And don't forget that it's still a stunner of a movement, and not a standard 2892 either you could find elsewhere.
> Even today, Audemars Piguet doesn't have in-house movement in all of their watches.
> 
> As for the 1120, it's quite old now, so it must have been finished by Omega. It was before ETA stopped providing movement as a kit.


I agree with you in the aspect that design, finish etc are absolutely more important to me aswell. I know what watches i like, and this is why i am asking these questions, i want to know more about them. I am pragmatic and purchase watches that i tick enough boxes for me, one of these - secondary to design and finish - is how the movement is completed.

I agree with you as well with Omega, it has been an continuing annoyance that they are not able to keep the thickness down on their 8500 movement, some of the planet oceans and even aqua terra are just ridiculous..

But, i do find it tedious that you completely disregard attempting to learn and just phrase it "And don't forget that it's still a stunner of a movement, and not a standard 2892 either you could find elsewhere."

How do you know that? That is the entire point of this thread, if ETA does it all - granted by IWC instructions - then you have honestly no idea. All this "modified by IWC standards" could just be a big load of marketing stunt. It would ruin it for me not knowing abit more, and this has nothing to do with an naive love of in-house movements as i have no problem with building on a great ETA base.



heb said:


> I too feel a little gypped when a $5000+ watch has a non-manufactured movement in it. But with the exception of a Rolex movement, an ETA produced one that has been finely tuned and placed in an IWC, Breitling or some other quality brand watch is the most precise and durable mechanical movement in the world.


I completely agree that ETA is great, period. But for IWC kind of money i want more than just IWC paying ETA to do all the work - granted by IWC instructions - and just slapping their IWC logo on the case. If this is what IWC does in their entry price range, then i will probably venture into other brands. I know myself well enough that down the line this aspect of the Mark would result in me selling it.


----------



## oso2276

When ETA absorbed Lemania, Valjoux, Unitas and others, it became the movement manufacturer. Lots of people uses their movements as is or modified. Technically is ETA the one producing movements for Omega, Breguet or Longines. The 8500 is produced by ETA for Omega. The same happens to the Omega's 3330 Co-Axial automatic chronograph movement. The column wheel-equipped 3330 is similar to the Longines L688 but boasts Omega's Co-Axial escapement as well as their Si14 silicon balance. These are derived of Valjoux 7750 and are used exclusively for Omega and Longines. Is that really a problem? If you desing sometig and clearly specify tolerances, standard, measures, materials, and then you find someone that could build it to your specs, it is still the product you designed. And different to others products that the company builds. The same here. I have several IWC and several Omega. To me Omega 2500 is a great small movement built by ETA for Omega. Love the 7750 for its sturdiness and versatile. It only sin its that is common. To me after certain quality level is meet, the differentiation is in the case dial, bracelet, finish... 

As several people has mentioned in this forum, I feel like these discussions are symilar to what is the best technology for mechanical type writers. 

Old technology that for some of us is cool to keep alive, but not really a necessity for the current world 

So if you like a watch, get it an enjoy it ⌚👍

Enviado desde mi Moto G (5) Plus mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Seaswirl

Knisse said:


> I agree with you in the aspect that design, finish etc are absolutely more important to me aswell. I know what watches i like, and this is why i am asking these questions, i want to know more about them. I am pragmatic and purchase watches that i tick enough boxes for me, one of these - secondary to design and finish - is how the movement is completed.
> 
> I agree with you as well with Omega, it has been an continuing annoyance that they are not able to keep the thickness down on their 8500 movement, some of the planet oceans and even aqua terra are just ridiculous..
> 
> But, i do find it tedious that you completely disregard attempting to learn and just phrase it "And don't forget that it's still a stunner of a movement, and not a standard 2892 either you could find elsewhere."
> 
> How do you know that? That is the entire point of this thread, if ETA does it all - granted by IWC instructions - then you have honestly no idea. All this "modified by IWC standards" could just be a big load of marketing stunt. It would ruin it for me not knowing abit more, and this has nothing to do with an naive love of in-house movements as i have no problem with building on a great ETA base.
> 
> I completely agree that ETA is great, period. But for IWC kind of money i want more than just IWC paying ETA to do all the work - granted by IWC instructions - and just slapping their IWC logo on the case. If this is what IWC does in their entry price range, then i will probably venture into other brands. I know myself well enough that down the line this aspect of the Mark would result in me selling it.


You're point is a valid one and, frankly, it seems that no one knows what exactly IWC requires of third party manufacturers. It would seem like an easy thing to find out if true and if IWC's specs were meaningful ones. Bottom line, if the uniqueness of the movement is important to you, then I'd move on from certain IWCs at this price point as I doubt there is much customization. I'd love it though if someone jumped in and proved me wrong.


----------



## Knisse

Thanks for your post Oso. 

Overall, i am just dissapointed as it appears that IWC does not perform the work themselves. Just as i would be dissapointed if i purchased a Ferrari and discovered that Skoda manufatured the engine - granted this is most likely an exaggerating, but it is is illustrative to my point. Especially if Ferrari in this case would rebrand the Skoda engine and call them the master ferrari turbo engine - it just seems fishy that they have to rebrand it. 

In real life these expectation of me does not mean anything, ETA is most likely doing just a good job as IWC/Omega would have. It is just an intangible feeling that i would have perferred if the main brand carried out the entire work. That little negative aspect that might end up spoiling an otherwise great product.


----------



## AlexJozwicki

Well, for the car analogy, Pagani come with a Mercedes engine, and they're above Ferrari.
Don't take it the wrong way, I'm not trying to argue, I'm just pointing out examples of AP or MB&F, because I was thinking exactly the same as you once.
Discovering a bit more that this was and still is common practice even with high-end brands changed my view.


ETA always had several grades of their calibre, all the way to the Chronometer grade used by top brands, ready for COSC certification.
Between these grades, several components are changed, as well as the finishing.
Last I heard Hamilton was using Elaborée grade, so even without changes specific to IWC there's a big difference, that's why I was pointing out it's not the same as elsewhere.
Searching for 2982 grades will actually yield more information than searching for the IWC specs.

Bottom line is that as far as I know, there's no details available of what is this "up to IWC spec", and it could very well just be marketing gimmicks.
I would love to know, and still plan to ask my watchmaker next time I see him.

But we know for sure that IWC doesn't do the work.
If you cannot shake the feeling, as Seaswirl was suggesting, unfortunately you will need to either move to another price point at IWC or another brand.


----------



## logan2z

It's been discussed many times on this forum and elsewhere that IWC no longer makes modifications to the ETA 2892 used in it's watches. The A2 variant of the 2892 was originally spec'd by IWC but those modifications were incorporated by ETA around 2007. The 2892-A2 used by IWC is the same 2892-A2 used by other manufacturers.


----------



## korneevy

Yawn... we've been down this road before. Many times over. IWC does not do anything to ETA movements they source from ETA - and haven't since a while back after being bought up by Richemont, all movements come to Shaffhausen fully assembled with engravings, rotors etc . Take it or leave it as thy say... or you can go down IWC inhouse route but case sizes there will make Omega pale in comparison. It is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Knisse

korneevy said:


> Yawn... we've been down this road before. Many times over. IWC does not do anything to ETA movements they source from ETA - and haven't since a while back after being bought up by Richemont, all movements come to Shaffhausen fully assembled with engravings, rotors etc . Take it or leave it as thy say... or you can go down IWC inhouse route but case sizes there will make Omega pale in comparison. It is what it is.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wow, talk about passive aggressive  
Do you know about Omega as well? Both their calibre 1120 and the 2500? I like straight answers.


----------



## korneevy

Knisse said:


> Wow, talk about passive aggressive
> Do you know about Omega as well? Both their calibre 1120 and the 2500? I like straight answers.


Haha... where is aggressive? If anything, I am sorry this this come across as that... typing on mobile phone while having lunch in a middle of a busy day is prob not the ideal way to reflect on these topics in lengthy, diplomatic way, so I normally cut to the chase and share what's a well known fact which has been discussed here, there, and pretty much everywhere ad nauseum. I thought the point of the Q was just that, but if missed a request to deliberate this yet again then my bad, and I am sorry for it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Knisse

korneevy said:


> Haha... where is aggressive? If anything, I am sorry this this come across as that... typing on mobile phone while having lunch in a middle of a busy day is prob not the ideal way to reflect on these topics in lengthy, diplomatic way, so I normally cut to the chase and share what's a well known fact which has been discussed here, there, and pretty much everywhere ad nauseum. I thought the point of the Q was just that, but if missed a request to deliberate this yet again then my bad, and I am sorry for it.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hehe, it was said in abit of jest, you just replied (and was being helpful) but still irritated regarding this has apparently been discussed many times over before.

In fact in this regard i do like straight answer so it is definitely fine. Others have mentioned similar replies as yours, but none has hardly mentioned this as common knowledge as you think it is.

Again if you have knowledge regarding the two mentioned Omega calibres 1120 and the 2500 i would very much like to hear what you know about these as well.


----------



## korneevy

Knisse said:


> Hehe, it was said in abit of jest, you just replied (and was being helpful) but still irritated regarding this has apparently been discussed many times over before.
> 
> In fact in this regard i do like straight answer so it is definitely fine. Others have mentioned similar replies as yours, but none has hardly mentioned this as common knowledge as you think it is.
> 
> Again if you have knowledge regarding the two mentioned Omega calibres 1120 and the 2500 i would very much like to hear what you know about these as well.


Cool, cheers to that. I know next to nothing about omega - except that I have a speedmaster and love it, but rest of omega line up does nothing for me, so can't help am afraid.


----------



## soaking.fused

IWC no longer modifies the movements themselves, but does have ETA manufacture a modified version of the 2892-A2 to their specs.


----------



## Jeep99dad

And it looks good
(Sorry for reviving this thread )
Borrowed pic. Forgot who took it, I saved it in my phone a whole back


----------



## Will_f

Jeep99dad said:


> And it looks good
> (Sorry for reviving this thread )
> Borrowed pic. Forgot who took it, I saved it in my phone a whole back


Nice picture! Which year watch is it?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Matthew Janicki

ETA 2892 inside Mark XV from 2005


----------



## slashd0t

soaking.fused said:


> IWC no longer modifies the movements themselves, but does have ETA manufacture a modified version of the 2892-A2 to their specs.


This is all marketing BS that has been lost in translation.. ETA doesn't modify anything on behalf of IWC other than the rotor..


----------



## Dudeman1973

slashd0t said:


> This is all marketing BS that has been lost in translation.. ETA doesn't modify anything on behalf of IWC other than the rotor..


Wow. Holy mis-information.

Why so much speculation? The article was correct.

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-iwc-mark-xviii-2

Nothing wrong with a ETA movement.


http://www.chronometrie.com/rolex3135/rolex3135.html

Hodinkee got their information straight from IWC.

Apparently people have little regard for IWC as a brand or need to do their homework. Do you really think IWC would leave it up to ETA or selita for their movements alterations?

IWC has their own in house movements. Why do you think they have to rely on ETA for modifications? For their 150th anniversary they made the most complicated movement in the world. As a manufacturer they have few peers. For quality it can be argued Rolex and Omega which are mass produced 10X of IWC are of inferior quality.

I have a e'mail from IWC's technology group?

I have to find it but will post it when i do. I asked them a bunch of questions. They answered every single one! I thought every knew they modified their ETA movements?


----------



## Lucien369

Dudeman1973 said:


> I thought every knew they modified their ETA movements?
> [/FONT]


I knew they it did in the past.

But now ?


----------



## Knisse

Dudeman1973 said:


> I have a e'mail from IWC's technology group?
> 
> I have to find it but will post it when i do. I asked them a bunch of questions. They answered every single one! I thought every knew they modified their ETA movements?


Do please post that, i would be interested to see it.


----------



## slashd0t

Dudeman1973 said:


> Wow. Holy mis-information.
> 
> Why so much speculation? The article was correct.
> 
> https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-iwc-mark-xviii-2
> 
> Nothing wrong with a ETA movement.
> 
> 
> http://www.chronometrie.com/rolex3135/rolex3135.html
> 
> Hodinkee got their information straight from IWC.
> 
> Apparently people have little regard for IWC as a brand or need to do their homework. Do you really think IWC would leave it up to ETA or selita for their movements alterations?
> 
> IWC has their own in house movements. Why do you think they have to rely on ETA for modifications? For their 150th anniversary they made the most complicated movement in the world. As a manufacturer they have few peers. For quality it can be argued Rolex and Omega which are mass produced 10X of IWC are of inferior quality.
> 
> I have a e'mail from IWC's technology group?
> 
> I have to find it but will post it when i do. I asked them a bunch of questions. They answered every single one! I thought every knew they modified their ETA movements?


Keep digging past the marketing is all I'm saying... IWC used to buy movements in pieces and would assembled them and modify them to suite their needs.. After awhile, ETA incorporated IWC's recommendations into their top grade movements on both the 2892/7750 etc... I have no doubt that IWC adjusts the timing of the watches before they leave the factory, but what brand doesn't?

This doesn't change my enjoyment for IWC .. I've owned numerous 2892 IWC's (and currently own a Mark XVI and 3706) as well as a top gun perpetual ... I'm a huge fan of the brand and have dug deep on this topic...


----------



## UofRSpider

You can polish it, gold plate it, and update the gear train, but it's still an ETA.

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk


----------



## korneevy

Let me get this right... for a millionth time: IWC.....does not...do anything to ETA movements.... that they buy from Swatch.

End of story.

It's a drop-in-case assembly situation and that's all.

You either accept it or not - some like to sugar coat it with all sorts of "technical" terms but it is what it is.

I am ok with it - I only have IWCs that are driven by ETA. Does not bother me one bit - they are quality movement, made to high specs, well regulated, cheap to fix, so no drama... but then I did not pay retail for them either. And never will for any IWC, ETA or not.

That's my part of the bargain


----------



## WillC310

I must not be a huge watch snob to really care that much if its a straight up ETA, modified ETA, or in house. I mean, I guess it's nice to say that my watch has an in-house movement but really, it doesn't mean much to me since I can't really speak to what the details are. I just want a watch that I like, keeps accurate time, has good value (to me), and looks good on my wrist.


----------



## Lucien369

Forget about ETA. They use Sellita’s now.


----------



## Jeep99dad

Lucien369 said:


> Forget about ETA. They use Sellita's now.


Nope. Depends on model. Some use ETA 2892 and others like the Tribute and Heritage use Sw300


----------



## Lucien369

Jeep99dad said:


> Nope. Depends on model.


For how long ?


----------



## Jeep99dad

Lucien369 said:


> For how long ?


Not sure exactly what you are asking but that's how it is currently


----------



## Lucien369

Jeep99dad said:


> Not sure exactly what you are asking but that's how it is currently


I know.

Did you see any recent release with an ETA ?

I don't think they will swap mouvement in any current production models, but as soon there is a modification (a different model number) they will issue it with a Sellita.

Like on the Tribute and Heritage Mark VIII , current Ingenieur Automatic, Portofino Automatic Edition «.150 Years.» or the just released Mark XVIII Laureus.


----------



## mattldm

I don’t really think it matters which movement is the base, eta or selita... they are for all intents and purposes, identical. And IWC “finishes” the movements before installing them anyway so it really doesn’t matter.


----------



## Lucien369

mattldm said:


> I don't really think it matters which movement is the base, eta or selita... they are for all intents and purposes, identical. And IWC "finishes" the movements before installing them anyway so it really doesn't matter.


ETA only sell finished mouvements since sometimes thanks to the late Nicolas Hayek. He didn't want his non-Swatch Group customers to make the gain by finishing the mouvements themselves.

And now Sellita is replacing ETA as the provider of many Watchmakers like IWC, etc.

Wrong move !


----------



## Don Draper

oso2276 said:


> When ETA absorbed Lemania, Valjoux, Unitas and others, it became the movement manufacturer. Lots of people uses their movements as is or modified. Technically is ETA the one producing movements for Omega, Breguet or Longines. The 8500 is produced by ETA for Omega. The same happens to the Omega's 3330 Co-Axial automatic chronograph movement. The column wheel-equipped 3330 is similar to the Longines L688 but boasts Omega's Co-Axial escapement as well as their Si14 silicon balance. These are derived of Valjoux 7750 and are used exclusively for Omega and Longines. Is that really a problem? If you desing sometig and clearly specify tolerances, standard, measures, materials, and then you find someone that could build it to your specs, it is still the product you designed. And different to others products that the company builds. The same here. I have several IWC and several Omega. To me Omega 2500 is a great small movement built by ETA for Omega. Love the 7750 for its sturdiness and versatile. It only sin its that is common. To me after certain quality level is meet, the differentiation is in the case dial, bracelet, finish...
> 
> As several people has mentioned in this forum, I feel like these discussions are symilar to what is the best technology for mechanical type writers.
> 
> Old technology that for some of us is cool to keep alive, but not really a necessity for the current world
> 
> So if you like a watch, get it an enjoy it
> 
> Enviado desde mi Moto G (5) Plus mediante Tapatalk


Bien dicho 

Sent from my Z978 using Tapatalk


----------



## flame2000

mattldm said:


> I don't really think it matters which movement is the base, eta or selita... they are for all intents and purposes, identical. And IWC "finishes" the movements before installing them anyway so it really doesn't matter.


I do think it matter a lot to many especially when we are going to pay so much for a ETA/Sellita equipped watch. With the internet, a lot of watch buyers are well informed of what they are paying for nowadays. It all boils down to whether one is willing to pay so much for it when there are other better choices.


----------



## mattldm

flame2000 said:


> I do think it matter a lot to many especially when we are going to pay so much for a ETA/Sellita equipped watch. With the internet, a lot of watch buyers are well informed of what they are paying for nowadays. It all boils down to whether one is willing to pay so much for it when there are other better choices.


My point was that it doesn't matter if the base movement is eta or selita, it's exactly the same.
But what are the "better choices" you speak of? Are you implying that the eta movement is in some way inferior because IWC didn't make it In house? Eta/selita haves proven history of service, and reliability. 
People are far too hung up on "in house" these days but this is as much marketing to increase prices as it is any benefit. Most "in house" movements are still built with parts sourced from who knows where. Bottom line is there is nothing wrong or inferior to eta based movements especially in a simple tool watch.


----------



## flame2000

mattldm said:


> My point was that it doesn't matter if the base movement is eta or selita, it's exactly the same.
> But what are the "better choices" you speak of? Are you implying that the eta movement is in some way inferior because IWC didn't make it In house? Eta/selita haves proven history of service, and reliability.
> People are far too hung up on "in house" these days but this is as much marketing to increase prices as it is any benefit. Most "in house" movements are still built with parts sourced from who knows where. Bottom line is there is nothing wrong or inferior to eta based movements especially in a simple tool watch.


I don't care much for in-house either, but I guess the only reason I can nitpick at IWC is that they are charging too much for their ETA/Sellita watches. One is better off going in-house at the same price point. Although having an ETA/Sellita movement makes servicing a lot more affordable.
There are some notable in-house or choices that I would pick over an ETA/Sellita equipped IWC watches anytime. 
Tudor and Nomos makes some great in-house movement. I am not a fan of Tudor watches at the moment, but their in-house movement seems to be performing extremely well. That might change if they release a Tudor sub this Basel 2018!

Below is a long article on their in-house movement which might interest you.
https://www.watchuseek.com/f23/new-tudor-movement-vs-omega-grand-seiko-winner-4556551.html


----------



## mattldm

flame2000 said:


> I don't care much for in-house either, but I guess the only reason I can nitpick at IWC is that they are charging too much for their ETA/Sellita watches. One is better off going in-house at the same price point. Although having an ETA/Sellita movement makes servicing a lot more affordable.
> There are some notable in-house or choices that I would pick over an ETA/Sellita equipped IWC watches anytime.
> Tudor and Nomos makes some great in-house movement. I am not a fan of Tudor watches at the moment, but their in-house movement seems to be performing extremely well. That might change if they release a Tudor sub this Basel 2018!
> 
> Below is a long article on their in-house movement which might interest you.
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f23/new-tudor-movement-vs-omega-grand-seiko-winner-4556551.html


I am not knocking in house movements, some of them do have technological advancements that make them worth the extra cost. Tudor's in house vs the older 2824's for example have a 70hr power reserve, that in itself is worth the price of admission over a 40hr eta. 
I just don't think that "in house" is better every time. 
And let's be honest here, we wear watches because we like how they look or make us feel, not because it keeps +/- 2 seconds a day; our cellphone keeps perfect time


----------



## roseskunk

I've been away from watches for a while now, after having been on this forum too often. I own three IWC's- two Mark 16's and a 3706, as well as other watches. One of the reasons I think I walked away- well, one, I ran out of money... but I also started becoming more interested in the watch movement, rather than the look of the watch itself. Trouble is, with most mid-price watches, you're talking about an ETA or Sellita. These movements can be bought for 2-400 bucks on Otto Frei. At some point, like the original poster, I started to wonder what, exactly, am I buying? Let's assume that IWC buys their movements in bulk, and even if they do something special to them- let's say they cost 400 bucks each. you can buy a complete case for fifty bucks, ok, let's say 100... A Mark 18 is what 4k? That's a pretty good mark-up. Yeah, they're nice and all. But something doesn't add up. 

Maybe it's my age- just turned sixty. Hmmm... I used to collect fly-fishing reels. Hardy of England is a good brand; but when they stopped making them in England, I lost all interest- even though it was argued that the reels were better than the English reels. It's sort of the same for me with watches. Simple Rolexes are approaching 10k. A Mark 18 is what, 4000? Honestly, a Mark "should" cost 1500.00 brand new, considering how long it takes me to earn my money. I like to think that these watches are all made by some watch guy just working away in his little shop in Switzerland. But more and more I'm thinking the movement comes from someone else, the cases and faces might well be made in China. Takes some of the fun and fantasy out of it for me.

But like I said, maybe I'm just getting old.


----------



## manofrolex

roseskunk said:


> I've been away from watches for a while now, after having been on this forum too often. I own three IWC's- two Mark 16's and a 3706, as well as other watches. One of the reasons I think I walked away- well, one, I ran out of money... but I also started becoming more interested in the watch movement, rather than the look of the watch itself. Trouble is, with most mid-price watches, you're talking about an ETA or Sellita. These movements can be bought for 2-400 bucks on Otto Frei. At some point, like the original poster, I started to wonder what, exactly, am I buying? Let's assume that IWC buys their movements in bulk, and even if they do something special to them- let's say they cost 400 bucks each. you can buy a complete case for fifty bucks, ok, let's say 100... A Mark 18 is what 4k? That's a pretty good mark-up. Yeah, they're nice and all. But something doesn't add up.
> 
> Maybe it's my age- just turned sixty. Hmmm... I used to collect fly-fishing reels. Hardy of England is a good brand; but when they stopped making them in England, I lost all interest- even though it was argued that the reels were better than the English reels. It's sort of the same for me with watches. Simple Rolexes are approaching 10k. A Mark 18 is what, 4000? Honestly, a Mark "should" cost 1500.00 brand new, considering how long it takes me to earn my money. I like to think that these watches are all made by some watch guy just working away in his little shop in Switzerland. But more and more I'm thinking the movement comes from someone else, the cases and faces might well be made in China. Takes some of the fun and fantasy out of it for me.
> 
> But like I said, maybe I'm just getting old.


Nothing wrong with asking what you are paying for and no a Mark XVIII should not be 4K but truth be told it is what folks are willing to pay for it and certainly not "worth" the price but that is the name of the game for luxury goods. Wife went to LV saw a bag she liked it was 3.5k to me it was not worth it but she disagreed. now do I feel a little peeved when buying a high end piece w and eta then the answer is yes which is why i have stopped buying those 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LodeRunner

jmanlay said:


> Nothing wrong with asking what you are paying for and no a Mark XVIII should not be 4K but truth be told it is what folks are willing to pay for it and certainly not "worth" the price but that is the name of the game for luxury goods. Wife went to LV saw a bag she liked it was 3.5k to me it was not worth it but she disagreed. now do I feel a little peeved when buying a high end piece w and eta then the answer is yes which is why i have stopped buying those
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're paying for everything else other than the movement; the dial, case design, bracelet (if you get the bracelet), and of course, the heritage and the healthy markup that comes from being an IWC.

One of the problems with looking at the price of the movement from third party sellers like Otto Frei is that ETA and Sellita have several different grades of movements. For example, the ETA 2892 can be purchased in three different grades: 1) elabore (the cheapest; what they stick in Tissot and most Longines watches), 2) top and 3) chronometer (what IWC uses, what Breitling and Tudor used before going in-house, and what Omega used before co-axial). The chrono is the best grade by far, and the most expensive, and the one that IWC purchases. Most of the aftermarket ETA 2892 movements out there from places like Otto Frei look like they're elabore-grade ETAs.

But even assuming IWC can source the movement cheap, even at the highest grade, that's not a great argument against IWC pricing. If you're talking about a mass produced movement, no matter who makes it, the production costs are going to be low. Rolex makes about a million watches per year, and I would bet that they can mass produce their 3135 movement (which many think is basically on par with the ETA 2982) for a couple hundred bucks, which they slap into $8K Submariners. With an IWC, if you get one with an ETA or Sellita, you're paying for the other intangibles mentioned above. Think of it like a luxury car; it may cost $60K and have an engine that cost less than $3K to produce.


----------



## atdegs

So these are from my Mk XVIII LPP. Can anybody tell me what, if anything, is different than a standard 2892-A2? I have other higher magnification photos of some of the details if it helps.


----------

