# What is more high-end, Zenith or IWC



## fareastcoast

Ok, I know, neither can really be considered high end. But of these two brands, which do you think is higher end?

I'm inclined to say Zenith because they never repackaged and resold ETA movements, but Zenith has had a bit of a checkered past while IWC has pretty consistently been turning out quality products.


----------



## portauto

Both are considered to be high-end. Generally speaking I would put them at about equal footing. I think this poll needs a third option.

Kindest Regards,
Portauto


----------



## tigerpac

Zenith seems to make more haute pieces now and has the most timing awards of any company.

That said, it's silly to try and rank brands... compare watches not brands.


----------



## hkwatchguy

What price point is your comparison?

I would say IWC outranks Zenith easily on the high end when you're comparing in-house movements.

Zenith is probably a better value than IWC at the ~$5000 range since you're only getting ETA with IWC.

If you're talking about brands. In terms of brand prestige, I would say IWC since the average price point of IWC watches are much higher. 

In terms of brand value (recognizability) though, Zenith is right below Rolex-Omega in ubiquity.


----------



## heuerolexomega

salemyang said:


> What price point is your comparison?
> 
> I would say IWC outranks Zenith easily on the high end when you're comparing in-house movements.
> 
> Zenith is probably a better value than IWC at the ~$5000 range since you're only getting ETA with IWC.
> 
> If you're talking about brands. In terms of brand prestige, I would say IWC since the average price point of IWC watches are much higher.
> 
> In terms of brand value (recognizability) though, Zenith is right below Rolex-Omega in ubiquity.


+1


----------



## shnjb

I like Zenith for their Primero chronograph lineup although I haven't heard of anything interesting otherwise.


----------



## Crunchy

IWC has more watch models in the high end range. Zenith's attempt to be high end with their oversized defy series failed miserably, so they are refocusing on the mid ranged el primero and basic models. Zenith may move up to the higher end in the future, but as of now I don't think they are focusing on the high end range.


----------



## tigerpac

I don't get how IWC always gets a pass on the boards. For the majority of their pieces they are a step lower-end (portofino, mark iv) or a step higher-end (7 days etc) somehow everybody just takes the higher end and forgets the lower end.

Also, I've never seen (and please show me, I'm not saying it doesn't exist I've just never seen) anything on the super-high-end from IWC that ranks with recent Zenith pieces like the Academy Christophe Colomb. I know IWC has a grande complication but haven't seen anything out of the ordinary from them.


----------



## Crunchy

tigerpac said:


> I don't get how IWC always gets a pass on the boards. For the majority of their pieces they are a step lower-end (portofino, mark iv) or a step higher-end (7 days etc) somehow everybody just takes the higher end and forgets the lower end.
> 
> Also, I've never seen (and please show me, I'm not saying it doesn't exist I've just never seen) anything on the super-high-end from IWC that ranks with recent Zenith pieces like the Academy Christophe Colomb. I know IWC has a grande complication but haven't seen anything out of the ordinary from them.


As requested 

View attachment 1009490


View attachment 1009491


View attachment 1009492


http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2012/2...erale-scafusia-live-photos-video-explana.html


----------



## tigerpac

Yeah I saw that, looks pretty cool - doesn't sway me from putting the two brands on par though as a whole. Watches a step below + a step above = the same for me

But that highlights the natural problem with ranking brands vs. watches.

To the IWC fans who rank it higher than Zenith - how do you compare it to JLC?


----------



## heuerolexomega

Lets just say that without JLC a lot of the High End brand watches wouldn't be there. JLC is kind of untouchable


----------



## Crunchy

tigerpac said:


> Yeah I saw that, looks pretty cool - doesn't sway me from putting the two brands on par though as a whole. Watches a step below + a step above = the same for me
> 
> But that highlights the natural problem with ranking brands vs. watches.
> 
> To the IWC fans who rank it higher than Zenith - how do you compare it to JLC?


Yes agreed, we can't easily rank watch brands. Even those two watches can't be said better or worse than the counterpart; zenith has a cooler tourbillon, iwc made a sky map complication. Which one is better, well depends on preferances.

The question of which brand is high end or not can be construed in an objective marketing sense, which doesn't have to put down any brand we are discussing. Manufacturers or businesses choose to associate brands to products for recognizability and assisting consumers searching for the right products at the right budget.

What can be said though, is not that which brands are "better" but which brand is being focused on what market segment. For example, Seiko is perhaps one of the best and most recognizable brands in the world. In terms of monetary value, the Seiko brand is probably worth more than say Blancpain or even Lange. (brand values are indeed ranked in forbes magazine or others ) On that note, Rolex is the only swiss watch brand that has a top 50 or something ranking, with est dollar value at a $4.5 billion.

http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/#page:6_sort:0_direction:asc_search:

However, it's quite clear that seiko is choosing to focus on affordable segment of watches, and therefore seiko is linked to a lower end price range of watch manufactory. Does this make seiko a lesser brand than breguet or UN? Not by a far shot, because the seiko brand is much more recognizable, popular and valuable. But a breguet or UN is probably a more "prestigious" brand, at least for those in the know, just because these brands are focusing on the luxury segment of their marketing, and their product offerings have a minimum pricing value that is much higher that 99% of seiko products. Therefore, these luxury brands can be considered "high end " brands, just due to the fact that they are targetting the high end market. The same analogy can be seen for cars. Toyota is perhaps on of the world's most valuable brands. But they are not considered to be high end. Lexus is. However, when compared to a brand such as Pagani, or Bugatti, Toyota probably still has a higher brand value in terms of $ value, but Pagani or Bugatti makes cars for the super high end market, which toyota does not.

Now whether or not the brand succeeds in targetting the high end is another thing, as seen in the zenith case. Zenith made a great come back recently after CEO change, but previously, they tried to target the high end market through the defy series which didn't work out so well, and finally decided to focus of the roots of making mid priced watches. IWC experienced a general lull as well in the 90s before being bought by Richemont, and refocusing on the mid to lower-high end range.

In the watch making world, I suppose it gets harder to compare brands due to 2 things. 1) Watch brands are mostly associated with manufactory and not just the product 2) Watch brands usually produce a wide range of products for a wider market segment.

For 1) whereas Businesses such as proctor and gamble or Unilever collects brands and produces products for everything, and putting the brand purely as a way to "name" a product, watch brands are the factory or manufactory in itself. Therefore, it's hard to separate the discussion of the brand vs the company, and this is where it gets heated. Nobody will dispute that toyota is a brand focusing on lower end while lexus is focusing on higher segment, and it's both owned by the same company. Take a look at a multi brand conglomerate as Swatch. They clearly differentiate their brand standings with respect to market. Is Blancpain a better brand than Swatch? No way, swatch is a more valuable brand, but Blancpain is a more pretigious one (defined by swatch themselves).

http://www.swatchgroup.com/en/brands_and_companies/watches_and_jewelry/prestige_and_luxury_range

2) Many brands are not focusing on one segment, but manufactures products from mid to high to ultra high range. This is not the same as brands like maurice lacroix and omega who produce a few tourbillon models, just to prove they can but choose to target the mid or lower priced watch market, IWC, Zenith, Panerai, JLC all make for mid to highest ranges, so it'll be difficult to differentiate.

As for the JLC question, JLC imo is a brand that strives to bring the ultra-high range to high range prices, and I love them for that. I would think JLC is to Patek the same way as GO is to Lange. They are all high end focused brands. Which one is better, comes to preferances.


----------



## sheon

Phew. What a tour de force, Crunchy.

I just want to add that IWC, in the words of Walt Odets, has taken the 'honorable approach' to movement finishing: a philosophy that a movement's finishing should be functional and not decorative for its own sake. 

Am not taking sides, as I respect both manufactures and don't own watches from either.

OP: can we know which models you are considering from each manufacture?


----------



## fareastcoast

So, I already own a Zenith, my purpose for this poll is simply to gauge the opinion of the high end enthusiast community. I have the general feeling that Zenith is on the rise right now and has some room to climb while IWC is pretty well settled into its niche and market positioning.


----------



## sheon

Nice. Did you get the El Primero?

I was considering the Captain Winsor once, but it's too large for me. 

It's funny, but there's a construction firm or something here that's named Zenith and the cranes and trucks all have that name emblazoned on their sides. That kinda puts me off the brand. I know it's stupid but....


----------



## BenL

Hard to compare these two, mainly because IWC has a wider range of selection. IWC arguably also has wider recognition, likely due to the same factor.

It may be more helpful to compare two specific models from the two brands.


----------



## vysis

If you're talking about high-end as in prestige/value, then you only need to compare the number of watches that IWC sells which are about 10k+ vs the number Zenith sells.

IWC's models are pretty much all above 10k in all their collection with the exception of 1-2 watches.

I won't comment on Zenith since I'm not familiar with their portfolio.


----------



## heuerolexomega

I found this, 
View attachment 1011632

View attachment 1011635

View attachment 1011636


----------



## tigerpac

That solves it IWC is better than Patek


----------



## heuerolexomega

The important point is that according to this, both Zenith and IWC were considered Haute Brands.
Notice the absence of Rolex.


----------



## shnjb

Amazing post.



heuerolexomega said:


> I found this,
> View attachment 1011632
> 
> View attachment 1011635
> 
> View attachment 1011636


----------



## shnjb

Actually it is strictly among "haute hologerie brands" so I think the absence of certain prominent brands is due to their status as a non-haute hologerie brand, rather than due to lack of popularity.


----------



## iim7v7im7

Jorge,

You need to understand Digital Luxury Group's methodology.

http://www.slideshare.net/Digital-Luxury/wwr-2013-haute-horlogerie-prpreview

It does not reflect actual sales which is the only objective arbiter of popularity, it is just interest based on weighted internet search model. It's not useless, don't get me wrong, you just need to understand the DLG data and use it for what it is, a snap shot in time of Internet searches and or discussions. In fact, Patek far out scores other brands. It is a very noisy measure at best.

My $.02,

Bob



heuerolexomega said:


> I found this,
> View attachment 1011632
> 
> View attachment 1011635
> 
> View attachment 1011636


----------



## heuerolexomega

iim7v7im7 said:


> Jorge,
> 
> You need to understand Digital Luxury Group's methodology.
> 
> http://www.slideshare.net/Digital-Luxury/wwr-2013-haute-horlogerie-prpreview
> 
> It does not reflect actual sales which is the only objective arbiter of popularity, it is just interest based on weighted internet search model. It's not useless, don't get me wrong, you just need to understand the DLG data and use it for what it is, a snap shot in time of Internet searches and or discussions. In fact, Patek far out scores other brands. It is a very noisy measure at best.
> 
> My $.02,
> 
> Bob


Oh yes I totaly understand that, that's why some brands are not represented in a direct relationship of what they really sell. But it gives you a glimpse of the minds of potential buyers.


----------



## fareastcoast

Well, according to our own not entirely scientific WUS poll on this thread, among the high end crowd, Zenith is slightly edging out IWC but the two are statistically tied if we assume our voters to be Poisson distributed.


----------



## heuerolexomega

fareastcoast said:


> Well, according to our own not entirely scientific WUS poll on this thread, among the high end crowd, Zenith is slightly edging out IWC but the two are statistically tied if we assume our voters to be Poisson distributed.


+1


----------



## vysis

That's really interesting, I'd never have thought this forum likes Zenith so much.

What would Zenith's analog to something like IWC's Portuguese Chrono and Port Automatic be? (in terms of price)


----------



## GETS

I say that it is a score draw. The Zenith El Primero is a great watch with a great movement. In fact I think it was Rolex that used to by an ebauche from Zenith such was the quality of the movements they made? IWC have by far the more consistent range within (what I would consider) high end pieces. In fact people rarely speak about Zenith if they are not speaking about the El Primero.

So both are High End in my book but both win ponts in different categories.


----------



## heuerolexomega

GETS said:


> I say that it is a score draw. The Zenith El Primero is a great watch with a great movement. In fact I think it was Rolex that used to by an ebauche from Zenith such was the quality of the movements they made? IWC have by far the more consistent range within (what I would consider) high end pieces. In fact people rarely speak about Zenith if they are not speaking about the El Primero.
> 
> So both are High End in my book but both win ponts in different categories.


+1


----------



## BenL

heuerolexomega said:


> I found this,
> View attachment 1011632
> 
> View attachment 1011635
> 
> View attachment 1011636


Very interesting. I'm actually surprised at Japan's small relative market. China and the US are no surprise.

HK, Taiwan, and Singapore, on the other hand, are impressively large given their relative populations.


----------



## shnjb

Yeah maybe it's a testament to the socialist economic system that Japan has been relying on for a long time (according to my Japanese friends)


----------



## BenL

shnjb said:


> Yeah maybe it's a testament to the socialist economic system that Japan has been relying on for a long time (according to my Japanese friends)


I'm not sure what that means?

I'm also surprised that South Korea doesn't show up on this chart's radar.


----------



## Orex

Even if it had some bumpy years recently, Zenith has much more heritage than IWC. Considering the overall brand history Zenith have had much more horological achievements than IWC.

IWC got lucky in the recent years with their oversized watches (pilots and Portuguese) that matched the market trend. We will see if they manage to maintain their position in the next decade.


----------



## Bruce185

heuerolexomega said:


> Lets just say that without JLC a lot of the High End brand watches wouldn't be there. JLC is kind of untouchable


Agree! JLC is way above Zenith and IWC and is intricately linked with other high-end brands as well as being a high-end brand itself.

The "issue" (if one can consider it an issue!) with JLC is that they make a lot of models available in SS. As a collector, I just thank my lucky stars for that! Otherwise, it will take me a long long time to own a PC or tourbillon!

Back to the OP's question........ difficult to compare the brands..... whilst IWC has more "top end" models (such as their PC, minute repeaters, grand complication and the ones in the previous post's photos) than Zenith, I feel Zenith do better than IWC in the mid-range models. If I was to answer, I would say both brands are similar in "high-endness"!

Chi Kai


----------



## fareastcoast

Completely agree on the point about JLC. It is easy to get deluded that JLC is "cheaper" that PP, VC, AP, until you start to only compare gold pieces. Then you find the prices are comparable.


----------



## Orex

Bruce185 said:


> Agree! JLC is way above Zenith and IWC and is intricately linked with other high-end brands as well as being a high-end brand itself.
> 
> The "issue" (if one can consider it an issue!) with JLC is that they make a lot of models available in SS. As a collector, I just thank my lucky stars for that! Otherwise, it will take me a long long time to own a PC or tourbillon!
> 
> Back to the OP's question........ difficult to compare the brands..... whilst IWC has more "top end" models (such as their PC, minute repeaters, grand complication and the ones in the previous post's photos) than Zenith, I feel Zenith do better than IWC in the mid-range models. If I was to answer, I would say both brands are similar in "high-endness"!
> 
> Chi Kai


The fact that IWC has more top end models should be carefully considered. Usually such watches are commissioned to some independent master watchmakers and only bear the brand name without really being made in-house. Traditionally to Swiss watch industry, the master who really did it remains unknown.


----------



## heuerolexomega

Is not the intention to be snob or anything like that. But I wouldn't qualify IWC or Zenith as High End on a strict sense. 
To me High End is brands like PP,AP,ALS,Breguet,GO,JLC. How do you feel about adding IWC or Zenith names next to those?
Well I would say that they are not at the same "level". To my perception of course, and perception is totally subjective and not entirely accurate.
I might get flamed for this, but that's ok. Is just my honest opinion.


----------



## iim7v7im7

We have passed the "silly" zone a while ago.


Both Zenith and IWC are fine historic watch makers. Both made watches when mechanical watches were standard timekeepers.
 Both today are now divisions of luxury conglomerates (LVMH and Richemont) and both are focused on producing upscale luxury timepieces.
IWC has its focus and Zenith has theirs. It is subjective at best to compare their entire line-ups.
 IWC is known for men's sports watches (aquatimer, pilot, and ingeneur)and some dressier pieces in their portuguese line.
 When I think Zenith, I think about their chronographs with the innovative high-beat movements.
I have analysed the watch market to death evaluating price data and BOTH of these companies median prices lie in the lower end of the 3rd quartile. They are quite comparable in their price positioning. IWC does make more high-end haute horlogerie pieces but they are outliers.


*IWC:* Median: $11,200 ($6,300-$260,000)
*Zenith:* Median $11,200 ($4,900-$77,900)
The lion-share of IWC's offerings (interquartile range) are between $7,450-$23,175 and Zenith's are between $8,000-$18,000. Both are great historic brands and make fine luxury watches. Please stop the silly comparisons. If you like one watch better, get it on its merits.

My $.02,


----------



## GETS

iim7v7im7 said:


> We have passed the "silly" zone a while ago.
> 
> 
> Both Zenith and IWC are fine historic watch makers. Both made watches when mechanical watches were standard timekeepers.
> Both today are now divisions of luxury conglomerates (LVMH and Richemont) and both are focused on producing upscale luxury timepieces.
> IWC has its focus and Zenith has theirs. It is subjective at best to compare their entire line-ups.
> IWC is known for men's sports watches (aquatimer, pilot, and ingeneur)and some dressier pieces in their portuguese line.
> When I think Zenith, I think about their chronographs with the innovative high-beat movements.
> I have analysed the watch market to death evaluating price data and BOTH of these companies median prices lie in the lower end of the 3rd quartile. They are quite comparable in their price positioning. IWC does make more high-end haute horlogerie pieces but they are outliers.
> 
> 
> *IWC:* Median: $11,200 ($6,300-$260,000)
> *Zenith:* Median $11,200 ($4,900-$77,900)
> The lion-share of IWC's offerings (interquartile range) are between $7,450-$23,175 and Zenith's are between $8,000-$18,000. Both are great historic brands and make fine luxury watches. Please stop the silly comparisons. If you like one watch better, get it on its merits.
> 
> My $.02,


An excellent post based on facts.

However I still see nobody discussing Zenith unless it is the El Primero? So whilst I rate their movements more highly than IWC I cannot get past the fact that you see all sorts of discussions on IWC, over a number of their range, whereas you only see discussions about one range on Zenith? That's why I marked them a score draw.

Of course your facts suggest this is a perception maybe? But in my business we state that perception is reality (especially when discussing clients) and that is for the vendor to alter?


----------



## shnjb

Thank you for those data.

Do you mind sharing such data for other brands with the rest of us? Or tell us where/how you got them? Chrono24?



iim7v7im7 said:


> We have passed the "silly" zone a while ago.
> 
> 
> Both Zenith and IWC are fine historic watch makers. Both made watches when mechanical watches were standard timekeepers.
> Both today are now divisions of luxury conglomerates (LVMH and Richemont) and both are focused on producing upscale luxury timepieces.
> IWC has its focus and Zenith has theirs. It is subjective at best to compare their entire line-ups.
> IWC is known for men's sports watches (aquatimer, pilot, and ingeneur)and some dressier pieces in their portuguese line.
> When I think Zenith, I think about their chronographs with the innovative high-beat movements.
> I have analysed the watch market to death evaluating price data and BOTH of these companies median prices lie in the lower end of the 3rd quartile. They are quite comparable in their price positioning. IWC does make more high-end haute horlogerie pieces but they are outliers.
> 
> 
> *IWC:* Median: $11,200 ($6,300-$260,000)
> *Zenith:* Median $11,200 ($4,900-$77,900)
> The lion-share of IWC's offerings (interquartile range) are between $7,450-$23,175 and Zenith's are between $8,000-$18,000. Both are great historic brands and make fine luxury watches. Please stop the silly comparisons. If you like one watch better, get it on its merits.
> 
> My $.02,


----------



## iim7v7im7

shnjb said:


> Thank you for those data.
> 
> Do you mind sharing such data for other brands with the rest of us? Or tell us where/how you got them? Chrono24?


i ran the statistics using the Wristwatch Annual watch data which represents a sample of each line (not complete). I assisted another person who will be using it on his watch blog. I would rather wait until he posts it. I ran the numbers on 40 brands.


----------



## shnjb

iim7v7im7 said:


> i ran the statistics using the Wristwatch Annual watch data which represents a sample of each line (not complete). I assisted another person who will be using it on his watch blog. I would rather wait until he posts it. I ran the numbers on 40 brands.


Wow that is very interesting.
Would you please post a new thread on this forum when he posts it?
As a data geek, I would really like to see that.


----------



## iim7v7im7

shnjb said:


> Wow that is very interesting.
> Would you please post a new thread on this forum when he posts it?
> As a data geek, I would really like to see that.


Sure...the guy also frequents WUS so perhaps he will provide a link when it goes up? If not, I can post some box plots.


----------



## shnjb

iim7v7im7 said:


> Sure...the guy also frequents WUS so perhaps he will provide a link when it goes up? If not, I can post some box plots.


Yes no bar graphs with mean +/- SEM like biologists do on non-Gaussian distribution please


----------



## Crunchy

Zenith has been awesome lately.

This is high on my list. Great design, movement & very useful annual calendar complication for a reasonable price. Besides el primero, if zenith continues this direction it'll be a very tough contender in the mid to entry high end segment.

View attachment 1017630


----------



## shnjb

that's a great looking watch.
what's the name of that?



Crunchy said:


> Zenith has been awesome lately.
> 
> This is high on my list. Great design, movement & very useful annual calendar complication for a reasonable price. Besides el primero, if zenith continues this direction it'll be a very tough contender in the mid to entry high end segment.
> 
> View attachment 1017630


----------



## Crunchy

shnjb said:


> that's a great looking watch.
> what's the name of that?


It's the Zenith captain winsor el primero chronograph annual calendar.

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/1...nith-captain-winsor-the-8700-annual-cale.html

New version coming up in basel 2013

http://blog.perpetuelle.com/watches/zenith-captain-winsor-annual-calendar-boutique-edition/

View attachment 1017759


Best annual calendar in this price range IMO.


----------



## rightrower

I am pretty much sitting on the fence for these 2 brands. I have IWC AT2000 and Zenith Chrono Aero. I'm into dive/sport watches, for your information. Both are well built yet they sport different watch movements. The price between both watches are probably close. 

They speak and wear differently but at the same time, they are my favourite too. Either brand will be good.


----------



## Watermark

heuerolexomega said:


> Is not the intention to be snob or anything like that. But I wouldn't qualify IWC or Zenith as High End on a strict sense.
> To me High End is brands like PP,AP,ALS,Breguet,GO,JLC. How do you feel about adding IWC or Zenith names next to those?
> Well I would say that they are not at the same "level". To my perception of course, and perception is totally subjective and not entirely accurate.
> I might get flamed for this, but that's ok. Is just my honest opinion.


Not snobby just reality.

Iwc makes great looking watches. They fit well and feel great on.

Zenith I can't tell you. I've never seen one that interested me. The times I have seen them I had zero desire to try on.

For me IWC is much more desire able. They make beautiful pieces from $10-$40k with solid design and well done movements ETA refined or not.


----------



## hydrocarbon

Crunchy said:


> Zenith has been awesome lately.
> 
> This is high on my list. Great design, movement & very useful annual calendar complication for a reasonable price. Besides el primero, if zenith continues this direction it'll be a very tough contender in the mid to entry high end segment.





tigerpac said:


> I don't get how IWC always gets a pass on the boards. For the majority of their pieces they are a step lower-end (portofino, mark iv) or a step higher-end (7 days etc) somehow everybody just takes the higher end and forgets the lower end.
> 
> Also, I've never seen (and please show me, I'm not saying it doesn't exist I've just never seen) anything on the super-high-end from IWC that ranks with recent Zenith pieces like the Academy Christophe Colomb. I know IWC has a grande complication but haven't seen anything out of the ordinary from them.


It seems that Zenith has been improving quite a bit since its recent dark period, whereas IWC's offerings since being bought by Richemont have become bloated caricatures of their former selves. It's regrettable, since IWC once made watches that were good-looking and functional, but they've abandoned mostly sober and handsome designs throughout their range in favour of meaningless toys for boys.


----------



## ilikebigbutts

I love this version with the Arabic numerals.


----------



## Watermark

hydrocarbon said:


> It seems that Zenith has been improving quite a bit since its recent dark period, whereas IWC's offerings since being bought by Richemont have become bloated caricatures of their former selves. It's regrettable, since IWC once made watches that were good-looking and functional, but they've abandoned mostly sober and handsome designs throughout their range in favour of meaningless toys for boys.


I normally agree with your posts. This I don't. IWC is no more meaningless of a toy for boys than any other watch made. It just isn't apparently what you like. That's great. I think some have become too big myself but the design cue is right on for me.

So you should only change the one thing.

All watches are meaningless toys for boys. Some of which we like enough to purchase.


----------



## heuerolexomega

On a Personal Note:
There is no Zenith or IWC that I have an interest of buying, they are part of my dead brands group (of course dead "to me" not to the world) along with Omega and others.
Don't get me wrong they are fabulous brands with great achievements on horology, but I really don't care about them. In any event more important than those brands to me are the independent brands (like Speake-Marin). 

Sorry, is no the intention to offend anybody.


----------



## Watermark

heuerolexomega said:


> On a Personal Note:
> There is no Zenith or IWC that I have an interest of buying, they are part of my dead brands group (of course dead "to me" not to the world) along with Omega and others.
> Don't get me wrong they are fabulous brands with great achievements on horology, but I really don't care about them. In any event more important than those brands to me are the independent brands (like Speake-Marin).
> 
> Sorry, is no the intention to offend anybody.


So SM makes a couple of cool watches. What others do you like?

Zenith I also don't like. 
Just curious what you wear and what isn't dead?


----------



## flyingpicasso

Watermark said:


> Just curious what you wear and what isn't dead?


Have you not seen his past and current collection? Holy crap! His sig line is just a drop in the bucket.


----------



## hydrocarbon

Watermark said:


> I normally agree with your posts. This I don't. IWC is no more meaningless of a toy for boys than any other watch made. It just isn't apparently what you like. That's great. I think some have become too big myself but the design cue is right on for me.
> 
> So you should only change the one thing.
> 
> All watches are meaningless toys for boys. Some of which we like enough to purchase.


That's actually very true. I concede the point.

One thing IWC has going for it is that most people who are into watches care enough to have an opinion about them one way or the other.


----------



## mark1958

I like some of the IWC watches. I have the 3777 pilot chrono. It is a great performer. I like the newer IWC spitfire chrono and believe their manual  8-day Portuguese is a nice watch. I have read some not so nice things about that particular movement and hence elected some time ago to take off my list. I am not fond of the Zenith line. There is nothing in their lineup that has turned me on.


----------



## heuerolexomega

Watermark said:


> So SM makes a couple of cool watches. What others do you like?
> 
> Zenith I also don't like.
> Just curious what you wear and what isn't dead?


SM it's an example, what I was trying to say is that it's more interesting (or more appealing) for me the independent brands than IWC or Zenith any day of the week. 
They die to me when their offerings stop being desirable, when there is not a single watch that I want from them. Not trying to lessen their place in horology, not the case. I guess Like any relationship when they not tickle enough boxes they just die.:-(


----------



## Watermark

heuerolexomega said:


> SM it's an example, what I was trying to say is that it's more interesting (or more appealing) for me the independent brands than IWC or Zenith any day of the week.
> They die to me when their offerings stop being desirable, when there is not a single watch that I want from them. Not trying to lessen their place in horology, not the case. I guess Like any relationship when they not tickle enough boxes they just die.:-(


I get that.

I only am really interested in 3-5 brands right now myself. I've had the Speak M on. I think they are a little overpriced. I prefer FPJ.

I still like IWC. I've 3 and will most likely find another one day. My wife just got one as well. That's crazy sexy on her.


----------



## iim7v7im7

fareastcoast said:


> Ok, I know, neither can really be considered high end. But of these two brands, which do you think is higher end?
> 
> I'm inclined to say Zenith because they never repackaged and resold ETA movements, but Zenith has had a bit of a checkered past while IWC has pretty consistently been turning out quality products.


Repackaging and reselling?

I guess we should tell AP, PP and VC that they should never use a Frederic Piguet, Jaeger-LeCoultre or Lemania movement in their watches? Judging a company as being higher end based on a criteria like this is not how I would choose to assess the quality of a mechanical watch or its company. The industry has successfully spent the last two decades convincing people of this. I find it equally amusing as Swatch Group withdraws the supply of ETA from the market and they are presented with a Sellita or Soprod alternative.

Both IWC and Zenith are historic brands of watches, owned by luxury conglomerates Richemont and LVMH. I think of them quite similarly in terms of the quality of their pieces. Both offer diversely priced pieces that vary greatly in their complexity and finish. These threads seem to quickly devolve into "my father is bigger than your father" type discussion.


----------



## DeanAsh

There is much more to Zenith than the legendary El Primero:


























Apologies for the last picture. I haven't managed to get a good picture yet of my Type 20's and the Mark V together.


----------



## yshia

I'm quite surprised at the result of the polls given the conversation of the thread.

Anyways, I'd imagine IWC is more "high-end" as they simply have more of a high-end.

If you take a look at Zenith's most popular in house manufacture, the El Primero, you're talking ~9k
IWC's most popular in house manufacture, probably the Portuguese line or pilot line, you're talking ~13k

Further, demand for IWC is also generally higher:
Watch Brands Of High Value | Blog | Chronolytics

At the lower end, it's probably a different story, but this is the High-end forum, so I imagine we're only dealing with high end watches from each respective line.


----------



## iim7v7im7

yshia said:


> I'm quite surprised at the result of the polls given the conversation of the thread.
> 
> Anyways, I'd imagine IWC is more "high-end" as they simply have more of a high-end.
> 
> If you take a look at Zenith's most popular in house manufacture, the El Primero, you're talking ~9k
> IWC's most popular in house manufacture, probably the Portuguese line or pilot line, you're talking ~13k
> 
> Further, demand for IWC is also generally higher:
> Watch Brands Of High Value | Blog | Chronolytics
> 
> At the lower end, it's probably a different story, but this is the High-end forum, so I imagine we're only dealing with high end watches from each respective line.


For those who are interested, here is another analysis of brands purely based on price (which frankly, has limited utility)

Watchview - Luxury Brand Pricing in 2013 (Part 2) | Watch News and Views


----------



## Watermark

iim7v7im7 said:


> For those who are interested, here is another analysis of brands purely based on price (which frankly, has limited utility)
> 
> Watchview - Luxury Brand Pricing in 2013 (Part 2) | Watch News and Views


That chart isn't even close. 
Thats just a minimal group of watches from each manufacturer pulled from one magazine.

For example they show the average Rolex price at $25k. This would mean they do 25 billion plus a year in business. They don't get close to that. $5 billion or so in 2010. So something's funny there.


----------



## DeanAsh

Don't get me wrong, I like both IWC and Zenith. But you can't base judgement on brand value. There are many manufactures that are extremely high end but will rank very low on brand value. Not many people would know Dufour, Moser, Haldimann etc. You may be right in that the average price of IWC pieces is slightly higher than Zenith, but Zenith do produce $100k+ watches (Academy CC for example). IWC spend more on advertising and brand ambassadors, and they also produce almost double the amount of watches (Zenith I think make only around 40,000 a year, less than PP, and IWC over 100,000). I think the quality of the finish on the movements are similar. The thing that edges me toward voting Zenith is momentum. I see IWC moving sideways where I see Zenith really showing remarkable improvements over the last 10 years (yes, including the Nataf era of changes). Zenith could have lingered and stayed in almost the same category as Invicta, but they have really entered the "high end" and now attract a respectable following amongst collectors.


----------



## Galactic Sushiman

My understanding is that it's not a weighted average price but a catalog average price, which makes sense in this typology exercise.



Watermark said:


> That chart isn't even close.
> Thats just a minimal group of watches from each manufacturer pulled from one magazine.
> 
> For example they show the average Rolex price at $25k. This would mean they do 25 billion plus a year in business. They don't get close to that. $5 billion or so in 2010. So something's funny there.


----------



## shnjb

Such an informative thread.
Typical patek costing nearly 80k
That's crazy lol

Why was Richard Mille not included?


----------



## iim7v7im7

shnjb said:


> Such an informative thread.
> Typical patek costing nearly 80k
> That's crazy lol
> 
> Why was Richard Mille not included?


You can look at a median of a sample in the way that you are. It is the average of what PP presented in the wristwatch annual. It is of course weighted by some of their expensive haute horologerie pieces.

Be a bit gentle, you never know whether one of the authors participates here -)


----------



## shnjb

iim7v7im7 said:


> You can look at a median of a sample in the way that you are. It is the average of what PP presented in the wristwatch annual. It is of course weighted by some of their expensive haute horologerie pieces.
> 
> Be a bit gentle, you never know whether one of the authors participates here -)


Yes thank you very much for providing that info for us.
It's refreshing to see some numbers in the debates.

I'm just curious about the RM. I would imagine it would have the highest median MSRP.


----------



## iim7v7im7

Watermark said:


> That chart isn't even close.
> Thats just a minimal group of watches from each manufacturer pulled from one magazine.
> 
> For example they show the average Rolex price at $25k. This would mean they do 25 billion plus a year in business. They don't get close to that. $5 billion or so in 2010. So something's funny there.


You would use a volume adjusted mean to reflected a weighted average for that calculation which would reflect Rolex's wholesale price and not ORJ retail prices. I suspect that number is more on the order of $5,000.


----------



## mark1958

Look where Chopard ended up.. Category 3.. that is because they sell luxury watches with lots of precious stones etc. That brand does not deserve to be in the same category as its neighbors.



DeanAsh said:


> Don't get me wrong, I like both IWC and Zenith. But you can't base judgement on brand value. There are many manufactures that are extremely high end but will rank very low on brand value. Not many people would know Dufour, Moser, Haldimann etc. You may be right in that the average price of IWC pieces is slightly higher than Zenith, but Zenith do produce $100k+ watches (Academy CC for example). IWC spend more on advertising and brand ambassadors, and they also produce almost double the amount of watches (Zenith I think make only around 40,000 a year, less than PP, and IWC over 100,000). I think the quality of the finish on the movements are similar. The thing that edges me toward voting Zenith is momentum. I see IWC moving sideways where I see Zenith really showing remarkable improvements over the last 10 years (yes, including the Nataf era of changes). Zenith could have lingered and stayed in almost the same category as Invicta, but they have really entered the "high end" and now attract a respectable following amongst collectors.


----------



## iim7v7im7

mark1958 said:


> Look where Chopard ended up.. Category 3.. that is because they sell luxury watches with lots of precious stones etc. That brand does not deserve to be in the same category as its neighbors.


More likely influenced by their LUC models, which are exquisite made made watches.


----------



## iim7v7im7

shnjb said:


> Yes thank you very much for providing that info for us.
> It's refreshing to see some numbers in the debates.
> 
> I'm just curious about the RM. I would imagine it would have the highest median MSRP.


It certainly would. It would also make category 4 difficult to plot for the sake of a niche player.


----------



## heuerolexomega

What about Vacheron Constantin ? It doesn't even show up in any of the Categories. I would think it's an important brand:think: or maybe I miss something :-s


----------



## iim7v7im7

heuerolexomega said:


> What about Vacheron Constantin ? It doesn't even show up in any of the Categories. I would think it's an important brand:think: or maybe I miss something :-s


Jorge, its there in the box plots.


----------



## Watermark

iim7v7im7 said:


> You would use a volume adjusted mean to reflected a weighted average for that calculation which would reflect Rolex's wholesale price and not ORJ retail prices. I suspect that number is more on the order of $5,000.


I didn't think about wholesale numbers. This makes more sense.

Thanks for pointing that out. 5K is where I was going with my post which puts most about 8k or so. 


mark1958 said:


> Look where Chopard ended up.. Category 3.. that is because they sell luxury watches with lots of precious stones etc. That brand does not deserve to be in the same category as its neighbors.


I agree. They get massive deep discounts from the start and hold very little value.


----------



## yshia

to be fair, these threads are equally as useless as all the reports.

I mean, these threads ultimately translate to "which brand do you like more" rather than an objective poll. I speculate that if it was Rolex vs IWC vs Zenith, Rolex would trounce the two latter brands despite usually being recognized as slightly lower end.


----------



## systemcrasher

yshia said:


> to be fair, these threads are equally as useless as all the reports.
> 
> I mean, these threads ultimately translate to "which brand do you like more" rather than an objective poll. I speculate that if it was Rolex vs IWC vs Zenith, Rolex would trounce the two latter brands despite usually being recognized as slightly lower end.


As useless as these may seem, it's interesting to look at different graphs which categorises/ranks brands using real numbers and stats.


----------



## cedargrove

Watermark said:


> For example they show the average Rolex price at $25k. This would mean they do 25 billion plus a year in business. They don't get close to that. $5 billion or so in 2010. So something's funny there.





iim7v7im7 said:


> You would use a volume adjusted mean to reflected a weighted average for that calculation which would reflect Rolex's wholesale price and not ORJ retail prices. I suspect that number is more on the order of $5,000.


If you use a more realistic annual production number of 750,000, and also factor in Rolex's portion of the revenue (they sell to the AD for 62.5% of MSRP - this may have changed slightly) then you get an average MSRP of around $11k. This assumes Watermark's $5B revenue number s correct.


----------



## Watermark

cedargrove said:


> If you use a more realistic annual production number of 750,000, and also factor in Rolex's portion of the revenue (they sell to the AD for 62.5% of MSRP - this may have changed slightly) then you get an average MSRP of around $11k. This assumes Watermark's $5B revenue number s correct.


750k is what omega claims. Rolex is over 1 mil.


----------



## Watermark

yshia said:


> to be fair, these threads are equally as useless as all the reports.
> 
> I mean, these threads ultimately translate to "which brand do you like more" rather than an objective poll. I speculate that if it was Rolex vs IWC vs Zenith, Rolex would trounce the two latter brands despite usually being recognized as slightly lower end.


Why are you reading this or any other thread if useless.

It's a conversation. Not life solving stuff.


----------



## cedargrove

Watermark said:


> 750k is what omega claims. Rolex is over 1 mil.


Nope. The 1 million is a convenient number that people just use as a quick estimate - it has no basis.

A number in the 700,000 to 800,000 range has been supported over the past few years in two ways 1) serial numbers (until their recent change to random numbers) and 2) COSC testing numbers. I believe the most recent COSC number disclosed was 2011 with 751,000 units tested. Although Rolex produces some non-COSC movements (some Cellini) this number is very small as shown by the prior comparison of COSC numbers and serial numbers.

You are correct that Omega makes a similar number of watches as Rolex.


----------



## DeanAsh

Let's not turn every single thread on this forum into a Rolex/Omega thread.


----------



## shnjb

yshia said:


> to be fair, these threads are equally as useless as all the reports.
> 
> I mean, these threads ultimately translate to "which brand do you like more" rather than an objective poll. I speculate that if it was Rolex vs IWC vs Zenith, Rolex would trounce the two latter brands despite usually being recognized as slightly lower end.


?

That's exactly what didn't happen with this thread so I don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## shnjb

DeanAsh said:


> Let's not turn every single thread on this forum into a Rolex/Omega thread.


Yes.


----------



## Watermark

DeanAsh said:


> Let's not turn every single thread on this forum into a Rolex/Omega thread.


I wasn't. I just used it as an example. Both are low on my totem pole for sure.


----------



## yshia

Watermark said:


> Why are you reading this or any other thread if useless.
> 
> It's a conversation. Not life solving stuff.


The same reason anybody is reading this thread, to kill time because it interested me. But just because im participating doesn't mean my dismissal of its purpose is any less valid.



shnjb said:


> ?
> 
> That's exactly what didn't happen with this thread so I don't know what you are talking about.


Well, which conclusion drawn by this thread is reasonable and according to facts? There's two flawed reports and a lot of opinions.

On one hand, IWC clearly retails for more, has a larger high-end and thus should be considered "higher-end". On the otherhand, Zenith clearly wins the opinion poll with 42-25.

Thus, do you take numbers or popular opinions? Either way, the other party won't be convinced (IWC party will just argue there's more Zenith admirers due to the fact its watches are more accessible // Zenith party will just argue that the popular opinion clearly favours Zenith and that most of IWC's lower end watches are ETA)

So ultimately, isn't this just a circle jerk that'll amount to nothing?


----------



## shnjb

yshia said:


> The same reason anybody is reading this thread, to kill time because it interested me. But just because im participating doesn't mean my dismissal of its purpose is any less valid.
> 
> Well, which conclusion drawn by this thread is reasonable and according to facts? There's two flawed reports and a lot of opinions.
> 
> On one hand, IWC clearly retails for more, has a larger high-end and thus should be considered "higher-end". On the otherhand, Zenith clearly wins the opinion poll with 42-25.
> 
> Thus, do you take numbers or popular opinions? Either way, the other party won't be convinced (IWC party will just argue there's more Zenith admirers due to the fact its watches are more accessible // Zenith party will just argue that the popular opinion clearly favours Zenith and that most of IWC's lower end watches are ETA)
> 
> So ultimately, isn't this just a circle jerk that'll amount to nothing?


Welcome to online discussion forums.
None of this is meant to amount to "something."
If you want your labor to amount to physical results, I suggest you go dig a hole.

As far as the topic is concerned, whether it is by price or by reputation, I think most would agree that neither brand is high end.
Flawed or not, I'm sure most found the report using price as a way to categorize brands interesting.


----------



## yshia

shnjb said:


> Welcome to online discussion forums.
> None of this is meant to amount to "something."
> If you want your labor to amount to physical results, I suggest you go dig a hole.
> 
> As far as the topic is concerned, whether it is by price or by reputation, I think most would agree that neither brand is high end.
> Flawed or not, I'm sure most found the report using price as a way to categorize brands interesting.


well, since we both accept that this amounts to nothing but frivolity, I don't see why you're taking my frivolous comment so seriously.

With regards to whether IWC and Zenith is high-end, I wouldn't agree with you there (I honestly don't see how any of Patek's movements are any more impressive than Zenith or IWC's relative to cost), but I'm pretty sure there's a much longer thread on this forum that discusses that.


----------



## DeanAsh

shnjb said:


> , I think most would agree that neither brand is high end.
> .


I think actually most would agree that both brands are definitely high end, but not top end. Anyway, when comparing brands like this we should not focus on average prices, but more on design, innovation, level of finish. 
That said, I think JLC, IWC, Zenith, GO, GP are of similar quality and cater to similar customers. This is most probably the Tier 2 segment, with PP, AL&S, FPJ, AP, VC and some of the small indies in Tier 1. I'll not comment on the relative newbies like RM, Hublot, RD as I think these are innovators in a separate category.


----------



## shnjb

yshia said:


> well, since we both accept that this amounts to nothing but frivolity, I don't see why you're taking my frivolous comment so seriously.
> 
> With regards to whether IWC and Zenith is high-end, I wouldn't agree with you there (I honestly don't see how any of Patek's movements are any more impressive than Zenith or IWC's), but I'm pretty sure there's a much longer thread on this forum that discusses that.


I'm sorry if my comment seemed rude or serious.

As far as patek not being more impressive as zenith or iwc, I don't think anyone from high end forum will agree with you.

Zenith is clearly in a different tier of brands from PP, AP, VC, ALS, etc whether it is by price, exclusivity, history, quality of finishing, etc.
Maybe you call that tier high end but I wouldn't.


----------



## shnjb

DeanAsh said:


> I think actually most would agree that both brands are definitely high end, but not top end. Anyway, when comparing brands like this we should not focus on average prices, but more on design, innovation, level of finish.
> That said, I think JLC, IWC, Zenith, GO, GP are of similar quality and cater to similar customers. This is most probably the Tier 2 segment, with PP, AL&S, FPJ, AP, VC and some of the small indies in Tier 1. I'll not comment on the relative newbies like RM, Hublot, RD as I think these are innovators in a separate category.


Sure.
I agree with you.
I just think it's in a tier 2 not 1.
But I think JLC deserves to be bumped up because of its movement innovations (spherotourbillons for instance are amazing)

What's RD? Roger dubuis?


----------



## iim7v7im7

It seems these threads never seem to end well...o|

Some thoughts:


Both IWC and Zenith are both historic mechanical watch companies that have now become luxury brands for giant conglomerates that sell a diverse array of luxury brands
I personally view them quite similarly and consider them to be competitors of each other
Zenith's movements are more decoratively finished than IWC's which tends towards a more functional finish. I do however think IWC has developed more calibers in recent years and Zenith has relied on strong efforts from its past. I would rate Zenith's caliber finish to be somewhere between IWC and GO and JLC; both of which have a higher degree of finish in my view.
The fact that IWC uses ETA or Sellita calibers in some of their lesser expensive models doesn't impact my view of the brand (it seems to, for many). Those ETA movements are among the best ever developed.
IWC is a more diverse watch brand offering a wider array of styles
Both brands have wandered away from their roots and have created some hideous, fashion driven pieces as a general trend.
Each company does make some beautifully finished high-end pieces on a par with some of the high end players, but most of their watches are not in that category.
Depending on what is important to you, one might say one is more or less higher end. There is no quantitative way to answer the OP's question, just qualitative. If deciding between them, get the watch that makes you smile.

My $.02


----------



## sheon

iim7v7im7 said:


> For those who are interested, here is another analysis of brands purely based on price (which frankly, has limited utility)
> 
> Watchview - Luxury Brand Pricing in 2013 (Part 2) | Watch News and Views


Bob,

Thank you for that dispassionate analysis of watch prices. I especially like how you and your co-author stick to cold hard numbers. Refreshing, to say the least.

In Part 1 of your analysis, there seems to be a typo error in your table of 2011 vs 2013 minimum and maximum prices. I think the columns for both minimum and maximum were flipped erroneously?

I'm curious - that Franck Muller that cost $2m? Was it his rapide thunderbolt tourbillon?

How does Wristwatch Annual choose the models to include? You seem to suggest it's the brands that dictate the selection.

Again, thank you for the numbers.


----------



## iim7v7im7

You're welcome...

In all honesty, the article was conceived and written by Jordan for his blog. He saw a posting that I had posted some time back and its inspired him the write the article. He asked if i could assist him in preparing some figures. I merely ran the statistics using some specialized statistical analysis software that I use. The numbers, while cold and hard are admittedly subject to sample bias. The Wristwatch Annual presents a small sample of a manufacture's offering. Typically, they are the newer models that a manufacturer wants to promote. I have no idea about the publishing process nor business model behind the production of the book.

The tables were prepared by Jordan, so ask him. I prepared the plots.



shoen said:


> Bob,
> 
> Thank you for that dispassionate analysis of watch prices. I especially like how you and your co-author stick to cold hard numbers. Refreshing, to say the least.
> 
> In Part 1 of your analysis, there seems to be a typo error in your table of 2011 vs 2013 minimum and maximum prices. I think the columns for both minimum and maximum were flipped erroneously?
> 
> I'm curious - that Franck Muller that cost $2m? Was it his rapide thunderbolt tourbillon?
> 
> How does Wristwatch Annual choose the models to include? You seem to suggest it's the brands that dictate the selection.
> 
> Again, thank you for the numbers.


----------



## omeglycine

shnjb said:


> I'm sorry if my comment seemed rude or serious.
> 
> As far as patek not being more impressive as zenith or iwc, I don't think anyone from high end forum will agree with you.
> 
> Zenith is clearly in a different tier of brands from PP, AP, VC, ALS, etc whether it is by price, exclusivity, history, quality of finishing, etc.
> Maybe you call that tier high end but I wouldn't.


Don't forget that Zenith is clearly in a different tier when it comes to proven accuracy as well


----------



## Grahamsjz

1. I prefer IWC and want to get that out up front, I don't know if that discounts my post.

2. Which brand is higher end?? Really don't know, actually not even sure what it means or what I could do with the answer.

3. I like watches and do sort of understand the question even if in my opinion there is no answer

Have a look at this thread

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=875633

Cheers,

Graham


----------



## heuerolexomega

yshia said:


> to be fair, these threads are equally as useless as all the reports.
> 
> I mean, these threads ultimately translate to "which brand do you like more" rather than an objective poll.


+1


----------



## mark1958

Graham. i agree with your comment. I prefer IWC based on their designs--- but I have no real opinion of which is more high end. Even if there was a right/wrong answer it would not affect my own preference.



Grahamsjz said:


> 1. I prefer IWC and want to get that out up front, I don't know if that discounts my post.
> 
> 2. Which brand is higher end?? Really don't know, actually not even sure what it means or what I could do with the answer.
> 
> 3. I like watches and do sort of understand the question even if in my opinion there is no answer
> 
> Have a look at this thread
> 
> all uncommon, some odd, some intriguing, a few absolutely scintillating .....
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Graham


----------



## mleok

IWC has a number of distinctive lines, like the Ingenieur (with the classic Genta DNA), the Portugese (one of the classiest chronographs), and their Pilot watches. Having said that, I'm not quite as keen about their recent lineup, as their in-house movements appear to be based on pocket watch movements, and tend to be cased in watches far larger than my comfort zone.

The one IWC I would very much like to get, the 42.5mm Ingenieur has sadly been discontinued, and I can't wrap my mind around the $6.6K asking price for the new 40mm version based on a Sellita SW300 movement (and IWC doesn't even do their usual modifications to improve the standard 42hr power reserve).

Generally speaking, I like many of IWC's iconic designs, and wished their current lineup was more in the 40-42mm range as opposed to 44mm and up. But I don't find the value proposition for IWC to be particularly compelling, be it their watches based on modified ETA movements, or the newer in-house movements. In particular, their watches with in-house movement seem a bit excessively priced compared to offerings from JLC.

As for Zenith, there is perhaps some truth to the comment that their El Primero movement is by far their strongest claim to fame. Unfortunately, this iconic watch is not paired with a particularly iconic watch design, and I suspect this hurts the company somewhat. They do offer some truly exceptional values, particularly on the grey market, and their Captain Winsor Annual Calendar is truly a bargain at under $10K for a high-beat mechanical chronograph with an annual calendar.


----------



## yshia

Not taking a side in the argument, but just dispelling a misinformation about IWC's accuracy.

IWC watches don't have an accuracy problem, their 7-day watches uses a different regulation modules thats accurate over 7-days rather than 24hours... unless you want to reregulate it to be over 24hours (which IWC will do for free).

Outside of their 7-day movements, I believe all their watches keep chronometer time.

Though I'd imagine versus Zenith's hi-beat, it's still a tad less accurate. But when you're dealing with milliseconds a day, I don't think its fair to call it "different tier"


----------



## omeglycine

yshia said:


> Not taking a side in the argument, but just dispelling a misinformation about IWC's accuracy.
> 
> IWC watches don't have an accuracy problem, their 7-day watches uses a different regulation modules thats accurate over 7-days rather than 24hours... unless you want to reregulate it to be over 24hours (which IWC will do for free).
> 
> Outside of their 7-day movements, I believe all their watches keep chronometer time.
> 
> Though I'd imagine versus Zenith's hi-beat, it's still a tad less accurate. But when you're dealing with milliseconds a day, I don't think its fair to call it "different tier"


If this was in response to my comment, not only did I make it in jest but also wasn't even addressing IWC. I quoted someone talking about the big 4 or 5 brands and how they are ahead of zenith in all things... apart from you know, that one true function of a watch (historically anyway): keeping time. And though I made the comment in jest, on the international stage Zenith's history is peerless in accuracy competitions.


----------



## Drksaint

In keeping with bringing 8 year old threads back to life...this one seemed interesting. The poll is favoring Zenith as of 2013...what about today?
IMO Zenith is “more high end” than IWC.


----------



## michael8238

Historically neither was very high end.
In the modern era, both are capable of high end pieces---the Academy line of Zenith with fusee & chain and the gyroscopic movement; whereas IWC has minute repeater and tourbillon pieces.
While I do feel like Zenith is more innovative, IWC has a much stronger marketing presence (and hence stronger brand recognition).
I'll say to most people, esp non watch people, IWC will be seen as higher end.


----------



## mlcor

michael8238 said:


> Historically neither was very high end.
> In the modern era, both are capable of high end pieces---the Academy line of Zenith with fusee & chain and the gyroscopic movement; whereas IWC has minute repeater and tourbillon pieces.
> While I do feel like Zenith is more innovative, IWC has a much stronger marketing presence (and hence stronger brand recognition).
> I'll say to most people, esp non watch people, IWC will be seen as higher end.


I'm not sure non-watch people would even recognize Zenith as a watch brand, as opposed to an old TV.


----------



## UofRSpider

Yes Zenith over IWC. Zenith currently uses all in-house movements (I am pretty sure I am correct), where IWC still uses ETA. IWC is certainly capable of using their in-house movements in their full product lines however. Zenith's 36,000 bph rate is insanely accurate. 

Sent from my SM-T860 using Tapatalk


----------



## J__D

mlcor said:


> I'm not sure non-watch people would even recognize Zenith as a watch brand, as opposed to an old TV.


In the US, I think everywhere else the watch would be known above the TVs


----------



## WTSP

I'd have to agree that overall as a brand Zenith releases more high end pieces and on average their watches are more complicated that IWC's. More Zeniths are chronographs. All are in house. However, in the end it's a pretty close race between two manufacturers with similar levels of brand capital.

Looking specifically at an example, when Zenith made a minute repeater they created it as a module on top of their El Primero. When IWC did so, it was a module on top of their F.A. Jones pocket watch caliber. It may be worth noting that while IWC still sells its minute repeater, Zenith does not, which leads me to think that there may be more demand for a repeater from IWC than from Zenith. So I think that Zenith has the lead from a technical perspective but IWC may have the advantage from a branding standpoint.

Incidentally, I was just trying on the new Portuguese chronograph with the in-house caliber 69000 and can only say that the old El Primero is still light years ahead in terms of the feel of the pushers, appearance, finishing and overall quality compared to the newer IWC movement. The 69000 is different from a Valjoux, but I don't see the point. IWC doesn't _get_ chronographs the same way that Zenith, Rolex, Omega, or even Tag Heuer do.


----------



## mlcor

J__D said:


> In the US, I think everywhere else the watch would be known above the TVs


Fair point!


----------

