# IWC Any Reason Why Not?



## cs12 (Aug 19, 2012)

To cut a long story short I have been extremely lucky and will be in a position to purchase my 2nd high end watch very shortly.

I am really tempted by a IWC Pilots Chrono but everytime I mention this to people who I know who are into watches they say

"Ooh IWC I wouldnt get one of those"

and say I should stick with Rolex.

Is there anything bad or wrong with IWC as a brand or with their aftersales?

Sorry if this is a silly question


----------



## CH-dmath (Mar 20, 2012)

IWC is a strong brand with a long history and a strong reputation. In terms of quality and service, I don't think there is any reason not to buy one. I recently bought their Vintage Collection Aquatimer and love it. Over the last 17 days it has a net gain/loss of 0 seconds. Their pilot watches are quite classic. 

I'm not sure if your question about "after sales" refers to service or resale value. If the latter, Rolex will have the edge. I don't worry too much about resale value since I buy watches for enjoyment rather than as an investment. 

Good luck with your decision.


----------



## gyang333 (Jun 12, 2010)

cs12 said:


> To cut a long story short I have been extremely lucky and will be in a position to purchase my 2nd high end watch very shortly.
> 
> I am really tempted by a IWC Pilots Chrono but everytime I mention this to people who I know who are into watches they say
> 
> ...


If you do a search, you might come up with _some_ issues with the Richemont aftersales service. But my bigger question is, maybe you need some better friends


----------



## Spikemauler (Aug 23, 2012)

cs12 said:


> To cut a long story short I have been extremely lucky and will be in a position to purchase my 2nd high end watch very shortly.
> 
> I am really tempted by a IWC Pilots Chrono but everytime I mention this to people who I know who are into watches they say
> 
> ...


Hmm, I'm not a watch expert by any stretch of the imagination but have done a lot of reading on watch brands lately. IWC generally seems to be a very well respected brand within the watch enthusiast community(well, except for that "Watch Snob" guy, lol). The only disparaging remarks I've read about the brand were from people that were disappointed that some of their(IWC)models don't use "in house" movements. Also, Rolex does seem to have an advantage in resale value, but that's industry wide for the most part, no? But, "Ooh, IWC? I wouldn't get one of those..." is a comment and or feeling I've yet to come across, and is not the norm. 
I've recently been shopping for my first "quality" watch. I've looked at, and tried on, *IWC, **Omega, Panerai,* *JLC, Cartier, Breitling *and a few others that I cant remember right now. *Rolex* was never in the picture because I knew I didn't want one. They are great watches but just not for me. Out of all the brands I looked at and tried on i chose the *IWC Portofino 8 Days. *I found I just kept coming back to that watch every time. So I ordered it yesterday and can't wait till it arrives! Nobody I know has ever heard of IWC and I like that. Kind of flies under the radar which is cool by me. I know it's a great watch and that's all that matters...
BTW, next time your with your friends ask them why they don't like IWC. I'm curious about the reasons.


----------



## cs12 (Aug 19, 2012)

Thanks for the responses I guess its due to loss of value but I dont plan on selling.

Only thing thats putting me off is inhouse movements and lack of them.


----------



## Spikemauler (Aug 23, 2012)

cs12 said:


> Thanks for the responses I guess its due to loss of value but I dont plan on selling.
> 
> Only thing thats putting me off is inhouse movements and lack of them.


I think all the Pilot Chronos have in house movements, no?


----------



## tribe125 (Mar 7, 2006)

cs12 said:


> Only thing thats putting me off is inhouse movements and lack of them.


To my mind, genuflection before the deity of 'in-house' movements is a relatively recent phenomena. If you look back through the history of watchmaking, the industry hasn't generally operated in this way because it brings few benefits.

Traditionally, there have been movement specialists who have supplied the rest of the industry. Take Jaeger-LeCoultre, for example, who has supplied movements or parts to most of the top-notch companies in Switzerland, from Audemars Piguet to Breguet, IWC, Omega, Patek Philippe and Vacheron Constantin. These companies weren't diminished by not making everything for themselves, and their customers weren't concerned with where a mainspring was made. Equally, there were (and are) specialist case makers, dial makers and hands makers.

Today, many small specialist companies have been bought up by the better known companies, thus bringing manufacture 'in-house', but there is little intrinsic merit in producing everything under one roof - or more likely, under several rooves belonging to one conglomerate.

Watch enthusiasts like to hang their hat on some reason why 'my watch is better than yours any day, matey', and in-house manufacture is such a peg. With the better makers increasingly concentrated in a few luxury groups, none of it really makes much sense. To me, at any rate. ;-)

I'm also puzzled by the people who have told you to avoid IWC in favour of Rolex. Received wisdom in the last couple of decades has generally been that IWC sits a bit above Rolex in the general scheme of things. These arbitrary rankings have little more merit than assumptions about in-house movements, but do make me wonder about the perceptions of the people you mention.

As far as I was aware, the only issue that people have had with IWC is that their watches have got a bit big, and that they have lost a bit of 'purity' as they have become embedded in the luxury market. Much the same thing that people say about Rolex, in fact... ;-)

Rolex? IWC? They're both excellent, they both make some cracking watches. Be happy with your choice. :-!


----------



## Rjlaero1 (May 31, 2012)

Rolex is a completely different look & vibe compared to IWC.

A watch is a very special thing to the owner, and the 1 piece of jewelry you'll wear most every day.

It's almost like putting on your socks, and how many times does one look
@ your watch everyday?

Most people don't say hey...tell me about your in house movement.

There's a certain amount of Internet watch snobbery that doesn't translate into what most people care about every day.

Rolex has a great resale and I haven't heard much complaints about customer service. IWC does have a good resale as well, but probably a notch below Rolex.

Im not an owner of IWC, but only thing as a bit of a turnoff has been some spotty levels of customer service as resonated by some of the Internet forums.


----------



## slashd0t (Nov 14, 2009)

At the end of the day you should buy what you like and not what your friends like... If the IWC Pilot Chrono sings to you, buy it and enjoy it... If you want what your friends want you to have, go for the Rolex.. You'll be sure to make them much happier - not sure about yourself though...


----------



## toph (Oct 12, 2008)

I own Rolex( I have owned many various models ) and IWC, I would quicker buy another iwc than a Rolex . Go iwc you will know why once you did
cheers


----------



## Back (Mar 2, 2009)

I might (probably will) upset some Rolex owners, but you see a lot more Rolex watches then you do IWC watches (could also be that it is easier to identify a Rolex from afar then it is an IWC).
I like IWC cause of their range of designs - Rolex does have a bit more narrow design (focus on divers in the later years) - and of course the IWC design being awesome (yes, I'm a "bit" objective cause I do have an IWC :-d).

Just my thoughts...:think:


----------



## cs12 (Aug 19, 2012)

Spikemauler said:


> I think all the Pilot Chronos have in house movements, no?


I think only on the newer models but they are a lot more pricey.



tribe125 said:


> To my mind, genuflection before the deity of 'in-house' movements is a relatively recent phenomena. If you look back through the history of watchmaking, the industry hasn't generally operated in this way because it brings few benefits.
> 
> Traditionally, there have been movement specialists who have supplied the rest of the industry. Take Jaeger-LeCoultre, for example, who has supplied movements or parts to most of the top-notch companies in Switzerland, from Audemars Piguet to Breguet, IWC, Omega, Patek Philippe and Vacheron Constantin. These companies weren't diminished by not making everything for themselves, and their customers weren't concerned with where a mainspring was made. Equally, there were (and are) specialist case makers, dial makers and hands makers.
> 
> ...


Good points I suppose its snobbery born out of the fact that Rolex is known to be great.

Not suggesting they are the best brand but the one people know the most.



slashd0t said:


> At the end of the day you should buy what you like and not what your friends like... If the IWC Pilot Chrono sings to you, buy it and enjoy it... If you want what your friends want you to have, go for the Rolex.. You'll be sure to make them much happier - not sure about yourself though...


Agreed and thats usually my advice to people. Not sure why I am not following it myself 



toph said:


> I own Rolex( I have owned many various models ) and IWC, I would quicker buy another iwc than a Rolex . Go iwc you will know why once you did
> cheers






Back said:


> I might (probably will) upset some Rolex owners, but you see a lot more Rolex watches then you do IWC watches (could also be that it is easier to identify a Rolex from afar then it is an IWC).
> I like IWC cause of their range of designs - Rolex does have a bit more narrow design (focus on divers in the later years) - and of course the IWC design being awesome (yes, I'm a "bit" objective cause I do have an IWC :-d).
> 
> Just my thoughts...:think:


Thats one of the reasons I dont want a Sub as everyone has one.

I went to a party recently and five people were wearing them 

The fact less people have them is part of the attraction of IWC.



Rjlaero1 said:


> Rolex is a completely different look & vibe compared to IWC.
> 
> A watch is a very special thing to the owner, and the 1 piece of jewelry you'll wear most every day.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the tips guys I think if anything I am overthinking it and will just get the one I like best and can afford


----------



## Nishant (Apr 7, 2011)

I echo some thoughts in the OP .. I would love to own a Big Pilot .. At some points, I have had the funds too. But the questionable reliability of the 7 day movement and the poor aftersale service feedback on the forum keeps me from pulling the trigger ... 
IWC makes some v handsome pieces .. But there are some nagging issues with a high end IWC purchase that one should always consider before diving in.


----------



## slashd0t (Nov 14, 2009)

Nishant said:


> I echo some thoughts in the OP .. I would love to own a Big Pilot .. At some points, I have had the funds too. But the questionable reliability of the 7 day movement and the poor aftersale service feedback on the forum keeps me from pulling the trigger ...
> IWC makes some v handsome pieces .. But there are some nagging issues with a high end IWC purchase that one should always consider before diving in.


Poor reliability and aftersale service feedback??

I have see zero reliability issues with the 7-Day movement. I have seen complaints that it runs fast (+10-+15), but, no reliability issues.

IWC generally has impeccable service.. Some service centers are worse than others, but, this is common among all brands and certainly isn't worth singling out IWC on..

Among my years of following IWC, I have yet to see wide spread reliability issues with any of their watches.. IWC in-house movements are highly regarded among the watch industry.


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

IWC watches with their own proprietary movements hold a lot more appeal for me than those equipped with ETA-based calibers. I can't see myself spending the asking price for 7750-based IWC, though others do so quite happily. I don't consider in-house movements to be a deity, nor have I ever genuflected before them. But past a certain price point, my preference is for an exclusive caliber. A Vintage Ingenieur is high on my want list.


----------



## craniotes (Jul 29, 2006)

slashd0t said:


> Poor reliability and aftersale service feedback??
> 
> I have see zero reliability issues with the 7-Day movement. I have seen complaints that it runs fast (+10-+15), but, no reliability issues.
> 
> ...


+1

My IWC's have been rock solid, and my communications with IWC have been nothing less than stellar.

Regards,
Adam


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

I would consider a new watch running at +15 to be a service issue. I'll leave the hair-splitting about whether that's technically a reliability issue or not to others.


----------



## mechmovement (Sep 7, 2012)

IMO, IWC is such a solid brand. I admire their Portuguese line above all else though their pilot's watches are gaining traction in my book. Ingenieurs too. Was able to go into the IWC store in Vegas earlier in the Summer. Blown away...


----------



## Rjlaero1 (May 31, 2012)

I think some buyers falsely assume that more expensive watches keep better time.

That isn't always the case. The 7 day movement is nice, but 12-15 seconds fast can be off putting for somebody considering spending $10,000 on a watch. 

I'm probably going to want a certified chronometer if I'm spending that much money. But we all want different things in a watch.

IWC is kinda like owning a fast Italian sports car. You have to make some concessions. 

People are so enamored with the sheer beauty of the iwc watches and they just ooze class and sophistication.

I've read more than a few comments about how IWC owners just love their watches. It's 15 seconds fast, but who cares?


----------



## slashd0t (Nov 14, 2009)

Rjlaero1 said:


> I think some buyers falsely assume that more expensive watches keep better time.
> 
> That isn't always the case. The 7 day movement is nice, but 12-15 seconds fast can be off putting for somebody considering spending $10,000 on a watch.
> 
> ...


Bingo!! If I wanted an accurate watch and that was my main criteria, I could have saved $9,995 and bought a $5 watch at Wal-Mart that would blow any Rolex or IWC or Patek away...

People who spend 2k plus on a watch aren't buying it for the accuracy.

My $4400 (CDN MSRP) Aquatimer keeps +1 in two weeks while my Big Pilot (14k CDN MSRP) keeps around +10 per day. My BP I can assure you is the best watch I have ever owned (had Rolex, various 2892's etc) and it is my least accurate.


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

To me, accuracy is part of the craft. I shouldn't have to choose between fine craftsmasnship and solid timekeeping. And I don't.


----------



## Cybotron (Dec 7, 2006)

Love my Aquatimer and Pilot Chrono. I wouldn't hesitate to get another.


----------



## craniotes (Jul 29, 2006)

RogerP said:


> To me, accuracy is part of the craft. I shouldn't have to choose between fine craftsmasnship and solid timekeeping. And I don't.












Harumph!

Regards,
Adam


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

Posting pics of yourself? :-d


----------



## anonymousmoose (Sep 17, 2007)

RogerP said:


> To me, accuracy is part of the craft. I shouldn't have to choose between fine craftsmasnship and solid timekeeping. And I don't.


Well, my IWC 3717 is about 1-2sec plus a day. Mighty accurate for an Automatic. My Planet Ocean (Omega) is +5 secs a day...

So 'define' and acceptable accuracy for your automatic?


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

anonymousmoose said:


> Well, my IWC 3717 is about 1-2sec plus a day. Mighty accurate for an Automatic. My Planet Ocean (Omega) is +5 secs a day...
> 
> So 'define' and acceptable accuracy for your automatic?


I can define unacceptable for you: +15 sec per day in a luxury mechanical watch. That's for me, of course. Others may be perfectly happy with that kind of performance and that's fine for them.


----------



## ewdi (Aug 5, 2011)

IWC makes grat looking watches, I own two Portofinos and love wearing them, unfortunately aftersale service is a big headache, I think it is Richemont in general, service has been dreadful slow (mine came back with the same defects)

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## watchnuts (Jul 27, 2008)

Well if you choose to go the automatic/mechanical route (aka non-quartz), I think having an accuracy of under 20 secs per day is acceptable. That means you'll only need to reset your watch back a minute once a week. Isn't too difficult is it?

Like the others mentioned, why complain about an accuracy of 15 secs when quartz/battery operated watches give you an accuracy of under 5 secs a month? Granted that you pay top dollar for watches from IWC, but to me for metal gears and pieces put together to be able to show me time is an engineering feat in itself. Having a small inaccuracy is the least of my concerns. Enjoy the movement!


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

watchnuts said:


> Well if you choose to go the automatic/mechanical route (aka non-quartz), I think having an accuracy of under 20 secs per day is acceptable. That means you'll only need to reset your watch back a minute once a week. Isn't too difficult is it?
> 
> Like the others mentioned, why complain about an accuracy of 15 secs when quartz/battery operated watches give you an accuracy of under 5 secs a month? Granted that you pay top dollar for watches from IWC, but to me for metal gears and pieces put together to be able to show me time is an engineering feat in itself. Having a small inaccuracy is the least of my concerns. Enjoy the movement!


For me, it's not a question of either inconvenience ( I rarely wear one watch more than two days in a row, so almost any watch from the rotation is set before wearing) or accuracy in practical terms (I am generally more than a few seconds early for any remotely significant appointment). Rather, it's a question of crafstmanship.

Those gears, springs, levers and plates are carefully assembled not just to "show the time", but to _accurately_ measure the passing of time. Accuracy is the objective measure of how well they are doing their job. It has been the goal of watchmakers for as long as watchmaking has existed. 20 sec / day? Please. My IWC from 1969 does FAR better than that. In fact, every one of my vintage watches (Omega, IWC, Rolex) keeps better time. Why should I expect less of a brand new factory-fresh in-house movement with an asking price several times greater? Sloppy timekeeping suggests sloppy craftsmanship. I understand that some don't care about timekeeping - and that's fine. But it would bother me not at all if IWC devoted a few less dollars to glitzy celbrity bashes and a few more to the careful regulation of their timepieces.


----------



## Vahalis (May 15, 2011)

RogerP said:


> I can define unacceptable for you: +15 sec per day in a luxury mechanical watch. That's for me, of course. Others may be perfectly happy with that kind of performance and that's fine for them.


It's not about plus this or minus that. It's about how stable the watch is. If it's always same, every day of the week, it only needs some regulation. That's something every watchmaker can do.


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

Vahalis said:


> It's not about plus this or minus that. It's about how stable the watch is. If it's always same, every day of the week, it only needs some regulation. That's something every watchmaker can do.


It's both. Stability is important, but so is the rate. A watch that runs reliably at +40 sec per day is not doing well. Yes, it is easier to remedy that - but to suggest that such a rate is acceptable because it is stable is missing half the equation. My brand new factory fresh premium luxury watch shouldn't _have_ to be sent to a watchmaker straight away in order to be made to keep proper time. It should manage that out of the box. For the most part, watches I have purchased have managed that quite admirably. And at varied price points as well.

Roger


----------



## cs12 (Aug 19, 2012)

Mods can lockup decision made


----------



## Spikemauler (Aug 23, 2012)

cs12 said:


> Mods can lockup decision made


What's the decision?


----------



## craniotes (Jul 29, 2006)

RogerP said:


> Posting pics of yourself? :-d


Actually, I look a bit more like this guy:









;-)

All kidding aside, I'm forced to agree that +/- 15 seconds per day ain't kosher for a big-bux Swiss mechanical straight outta the box, and while I'm no longer terribly particular about such things, I wouldn't fault anyone for sending such a piece back to be regulated. Like you, I have vintage pieces that are capable of keeping COSC time, so why shouldn't a brand new watch be expected to follow suit?

Of course, let's bear in mind that these are tiny machines with close tolerances that are subject to vibrations and knocks -- in many cases, prior to delivery -- so a bad apple or two shouldn't be cause to sour on an entire brand. In my case, all of the IWC's I've owned, past and present, keep excellent time; am I the exception or the rule? :think:

Regards,
Adam


----------



## cs12 (Aug 19, 2012)

Spikemauler said:


> What's the decision?


I got something else


----------



## swiss ghost (Dec 27, 2011)

i'd take an IWC aquatimer 2000 all day everyday over a Rolex submariner. IWC simply better built. more solid.

movement? yup, the ETA 2892 w changes made by IWC **Im well aware ETA assembles them now HOWEVER to IWC specs** is on par with the rolex 3135. Some movement enthusiasts actually like the ETA 2892 in base form over the 3135.

ETA also assembles a neat movement some refer to as the omega 8500. 

all that said i take a ROLEX DEEPSEA over any sports watch on the planet BUT not because it has a 'in house' movement. so much more to a watch than just the movement. 

movement snobs will always diss anything ETA based. its a movement snob thing.


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

Why must those who have a preference for in-house or exclusiver calibers be branded as "snobs"? Must be an insecurity thing.

Adam - my past IWCs have all kept very good time as well. But with the exception of vintage pieces, and one contemporary Portuguese with a JLC caliber, all had ETA-based movements. What concerns me is the performance of their newer in-house movements - as represented in this poll:

https://www.watchuseek.com/f350/7-day-movement-timekeeping-poll-331774.html

Far too high a percentage of repondents reporting very poor timekeeping for my liking. Now does this mean I would avoid IWC like the plague? Of course not. It does mean that I would have the vendor time and confirm the performance of any individual piece I might consider purchasing. And I think it also means that IWC can and should pay more attention to the regulation of these movements.

PS - why do I now have a Village People song in my head? :-d Nice watch, and your daughter's adorable.


----------



## DWebber18 (Jul 20, 2012)

I'm in the same boat you were in before making your decision. I've been looking to head up market with my next watch as I currently have an auto Tag Aquaracer and a Tissot Le Locle. I've been looking at the IWC Ingenieur as well as the Aquatimer and the Rolex Explorer. I'd prefer to have an inhouse movement because to me it adds something special to the watch to help justify the price. I also think that an automatic should be accurate. I would regard + or - 10 seconds a day as unacceptable. I know it's not a big deal but it does give me pause as to the quality of the craftsmanship if the watch can't run reasonably well. Thanks for this helpful post.


----------



## swiss ghost (Dec 27, 2011)

RogerP said:


> Why must those who have a preference for in-house or exclusiver calibers be branded as "snobs"? *Must be an insecurity thing.*
> 
> Adam - my past IWCs have all kept very good time as well. But with the exception of vintage pieces, and one contemporary Portuguese with a JLC caliber, all had ETA-based movements. What concerns me is the performance of their newer in-house movements - as represented in this poll:
> 
> ...


hell no! not insecure at all. I have my IN HOUSE ROLEX!!!! yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. Im just simply suggesting to pass on an IWC model with an ETA based caliber on the basis that its not 'in house' is ludicrous. Its all perception. I keep hearing 'justify' the price.....well there it is....a rolex sub costs 3000 US more than a SS aquatimer. is the rolex 3135 worth $3000 more? i hardly think so. Its the Rolex overpriced NOT the ETA based IWC. The IN HOUSE Rolex 3135 is 'different' than the 2892 but both have long proven history. Want to start talking Pateks? VC? etc? well thats a different story but you wont find any of those models in the $5000 range.


----------



## swiss ghost (Dec 27, 2011)

DWebber18 said:


> I'm in the same boat you were in before making your decision. I've been looking to head up market with my next watch as I currently have an auto Tag Aquaracer and a Tissot Le Locle. I've been looking at the IWC Ingenieur as well as the Aquatimer and the Rolex Explorer. I'd prefer to have an inhouse movement because to me it adds something special to the watch to help justify the price. I also think that an automatic should be accurate. I would regard + or - 10 seconds a day as unacceptable. I know it's not a big deal but it does give me pause as to the quality of the craftsmanship if the watch can't run reasonably well. Thanks for this helpful post.


believe me....the Rolex 3135 DOES NOT justify the prices Rolex wants these days. Omegas ETA 'built' 8500 is lightyears ahead. In House movements are all hype in the under $15000 range when compared to ETAs top movements. marketing 101.


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

swiss ghost said:


> Im just simply suggesting to pass on an IWC model with an ETA based caliber on the basis that its not 'in house' is ludicrous..


So those with different priorities than yours are snobs who make ludicrous choices? I stand by my diagnosis. The need to persistently belittle those who hold a different opinion smacks of simpering insecurity. There is nothing ignorant or bone-headed about choosing to purchase an IWC with an ETA caliber if the purchaser values brand, aesthetics and reliability as purchase priorities. It is a perfectly valid purchase choice.

Similarly, there is nothing ludicrous or snobbish about passing on an IWC with an ETA caliber because the purchaser values innovation and exclusivity in movement design in addition to brand and aesthetics. It is just as valid a purchase choice. And such a purchaser may well choose a different IWC, and the brand is capable of satisfying both buyers. Why you feel the need to ridicule buyers with different purchase priorities than your own is an open question.

Roger


----------



## swiss ghost (Dec 27, 2011)

RogerP said:


> So those with different priorities than yours are snobs who make ludicrous choices? I stand by my diagnosis. The need to persistently belittle those who hold a different opinion smacks of simpering insecurity. There is nothing ignorant or bone-headed about choosing to purchase an IWC with an ETA caliber if the purchaser values brand, aesthetics and reliability as purchase priorities. It is a perfectly valid purchase choice.
> 
> Similarly, there is nothing ludicrous or snobbish about passing on an IWC with an ETA caliber because the purchaser values innovation and exclusivity in movement design in addition to brand and aesthetics. It is just as valid a purchase choice. And such a purchaser may well choose a different IWC, and the brand is capable of satisfying both buyers. Why you feel the need to ridicule buyers with different purchase priorities than your own is an open question.
> 
> Roger


sorry Roger. maybe you misunderstood me. i am only belittling those who belittle ETA(aka movement snobs). To prefer in house is fine BUT for those who prefer in house to slam ETA on the basis that there movements are INFERIOR or is ridiculous in the under $15000 price range.


----------



## craniotes (Jul 29, 2006)

DWebber18 said:


> I'm in the same boat you were in before making your decision. I've been looking to head up market with my next watch as I currently have an auto Tag Aquaracer and a Tissot Le Locle. I've been looking at the IWC Ingenieur as well as the Aquatimer and the Rolex Explorer. I'd prefer to have an inhouse movement because to me it adds something special to the watch to help justify the price. I also think that an automatic should be accurate. I would regard + or - 10 seconds a day as unacceptable. I know it's not a big deal but it does give me pause as to the quality of the craftsmanship if the watch can't run reasonably well. Thanks for this helpful post.


I wouldn't waste too much time worrying about the in-house c. 80110 in the Ingenieur (it's one of the toughest, most accurate movements out there), or the c. 30110 in the Aquatimer (it's based on the ETA 2892 and is as rock-solid as they come); either watch represents a huge step up in quality and craftsmanship from your Tissot or TAG. The concerns in this thread center around IWC's c. 5000 family of movements (the 7-day jammies), which do not have the best reputation for accuracy out of the box, yet are still held in high regard in the industry and by collectors.

Regards,
Adam


----------



## RogerP (Mar 7, 2007)

^^^ Agreed.


----------



## gyang333 (Jun 12, 2010)

RogerP said:


> And I think it also means that IWC can and should pay more attention to the regulation of these movements.


I'm not so sure it's simply a regulation thing? If it were, I feel like IWC would have gotten a lot of flack for that being the reason for the large deviations for their 7 day movement and would have taken steps to tighten those deviations. The fact that they say +7-ish is acceptable means something else I think?


----------



## StraitUpSuburbanite (Jul 16, 2012)

I'm a young "collector," but I'm a nut about IWC. Not the most intriguing history (Guy wanted to start a watch factory in Switzerland... starts a Watch factory Switzerland...) but their DESIGNS, are definitively some of my favorites in my short stint in the watch world. Classic and elegant without trying to do TOO much. They're a very respected name, and for my graduation present, I'm looking heavily at an IWC Portofino (Knock on wood.) It's an entry level model, but I find its simplicity gorgeous. A big turn-off of the community right now, though, is the lack of in-house movements in their lower end (to some mid range) models. They're not standard ETA movements, but they're not AMAZINGLY different compared to the original. Do I mind? Not really. ETA Movements are as big of a name as they are for a reason. I'm not really a movement snob. (I have many years to become one though... hehehe.) How many average-joes know the name? Not many. Who knows about Rolex? everyone. Do they make an awesome watch? Heck yes... but it's much more of an appeal to know you bought a quality watch that isn't famous for being faked or owned by sleazy car salesman. It's fun to see the reactions of people who wonder why you didn't buy a rolex with that cash... like getting a great pair of Sennheiser or Audio-Technica headphones versus buying Monster Dr. Dre Beats. There are names that are just great, without bringing the vibe of "haha, look what I got." Go with an IWC, it's good stuff.


----------



## mattjmcd (Oct 2, 2010)

OP- what did you get?


----------



## akit110 (Jan 12, 2008)

I had to post my experience as this has been a very IWC focused month for me: I just got back my ref 3536 ti Aquatimer from Richemont (Texas) and I was at the Schaffhausen factory on Friday.

The service experience from a US perspective was wonderful. I was assigned a 'concierge' or 'consultant' who was my point of contact for queries and other issues from beginning of the service process to the end. All emails were handled quickly and politely and I had several ones. There was no waiting on edge waiting for someone to answer my email. In contrast, my experience with Rolex USA (NYC) has been less personal or warm though they seem equally adept at servicing their watches. On the day before I was to leave to Switzerland, I received an email saying my watch had been shipped but would arrive after I left! I sent an email to the same consultant and they must have accelerated the package status and lo and behold, it arrived just in time. I can't imagine Rolex USA doing that. IWC also provided a wonderful book explaining the service and the 2yr warranty. And a great 'service' box which is perfect for storing your IWC when you travel and have to pass through the airport security (locked in carry-on of course). The service was not cheap but not expensive either by the standards of middle to high end Swiss brands.

The trip to Schaffhausen was also great. The museum and the friendliness of the staff there was stellar. I absolutely dislike any sign of snobbery from people representing high end luxury products. I think this is unforgiveable. But this was not the case, the staff bent over backwards to give their catalog or to answer any questions. I am not sure how many Swiss watch companies have this type of customer experience but it can't be many (museum, factory tour etc). I also like the way IWC was embedded in the center of Schaffhausen. It was not some huge industrial park, but a medium sized building that reflected the moderate production numbers for IWC. I felt good about my watch coming from this place - if that makes any sense.

If I have any misgivings about IWC is that I tend to enjoy their historical pieces more than their larger, thicker, more elaborate modern wristwatches. The 1950s Ingenieurs were just gorgeous in their simplicity and proportions, for example. I sometimes feel we have entered a period - such as what happened in the 1970s for many Swiss brands - where the styling has becomes too 'au courant' too fashionable (but this is very subjective and a very common criticism so I won't go on about it). But still overall, this does not erase the appeal for IWC as I like the fact that they seem to be a company that makes a range of watches at a range of prices and primarily aimed at the enthusiast market with a Teutonic/Swiss-German sensibility which makes them unique among the Swiss brands.


----------



## DWebber18 (Jul 20, 2012)

Just wanted to post back and amend my last post. I finally had the chance to check out the Aquatimer, as well as the JLC Master Compressor memovox and a few watches from Bremont among others. IWC makes a beautiful watch and I much prefer the Aquatimer to the Submariner, or the Bremont Supermarine but that JLC was stunning. Of course, I really like the IWC price more, and I like the idea that the movements are modified by IWC. That makes me feel a little better about spending the money because they put a little extra effort in to it.


----------



## akit110 (Jan 12, 2008)

DWebber18 said:


> Just wanted to post back and amend my last post. I finally had the chance to check out the Aquatimer, as well as the JLC Master Compressor memovox and a few watches from Bremont among others. IWC makes a beautiful watch and I much prefer the Aquatimer to the Submariner, or the Bremont Supermarine but that JLC was stunning. Of course, I really like the IWC price more, and I like the idea that the movements are modified by IWC. That makes me feel a little better about spending the money because they put a little extra effort in to it.


As said above, I really feel good about IWC after visiting their factory in Switzerland. It's a real place with a long history and it's not some huge megacorp (though I realize they are owned by Richemont). It's obvious they are not pumping out watches like iPods or Nike shoes. Incidentally, I have noticed my colleagues in Europe always give a knowing and appreciative comment when they recognize my watch is an IWC as they understand people do not generally buy IWC because they are expensive status symbols or because they represent a 'crown' for your achievement - as there are far better brands for this - but you buy IWC because you appreciate fine wristwatches. If that sort of thing matters to you - I mean the type of place that makes your watch - then I think you can feel pretty good about any IWC on your wrist.


----------

