# IWC Galapagos Aquatimer poorly constructed



## TGehrke

I purchased the IWC Galapagos Aquatimer in March 2010 and was happy with until approximately 9 months later when the rubber edge of the crown began to become frayed at the edges. The fraying of the rubber has happened all the way around the crown and I therefore decided to have the crown repaired assuming the warranty would cover this. To my astonishment IWC refused to repair the crown under warranty claiming that the rubber was damaged due to the watch having suffered some sort of severe impact. I work in an office environment and have not had the chance to take the watch diving yet. The fraying is taking place all around the crown and the watch has not had any severe impact -- it has only been subject to normal wear and tear.

It is very disappointing that a reputable watch company like IWC will not honor their warranty. As an amateur collector of high end watches it has been an expensive learning experience but I will clearly not buy another IWC watch.


----------



## Brisman

Can you put some pics up so we can have a look.


----------



## Progger

I am sorry for you bad luck and bad experience. Make sure that IWC receives a complaining letter from you every now and then. Did you buy the watch at an AD (not that it really matters, IMO)?


----------



## TGehrke

I bought it from one of the main approved dealers in Zurich and I have complained twice. The second time IWC didn't bother to respond! Really poor customer service.


----------



## TGehrke

Yes I will get some photos online asap


----------



## ReXTless

TGehrke said:


> I purchased the IWC Galapagos Aquatimer in March 2010 and was happy with until approximately 9 months later when the rubber edge of the crown began to become frayed at the edges. The fraying of the rubber has happened all the way around the crown and I therefore decided to have the crown repaired assuming the warranty would cover this. To my astonishment IWC refused to repair the crown under warranty claiming that the rubber was damaged due to the watch having suffered some sort of severe impact. I work in an office environment and have not had the chance to take the watch diving yet. The fraying is taking place all around the crown and the watch has not had any severe impact -- it has only been subject to normal wear and tear.
> 
> It is very disappointing that a reputable watch company like IWC will not honor their warranty. As an amateur collector of high end watches it has been an expensive learning experience but I will clearly not buy another IWC watch.


I looked at the Galapagos watch at my AD some time ago. Very cool watch. However, I didn't seriously consider buying it because it looked destined to have the exact problem you are describing. My thought was that it probably wouldn't age well.

Did you send the watch to IWC or just make a call? I would think they could tell the difference between a scuff and a coating defect.

In any event, sorry to hear about your trouble. Let us know how things turn out.


----------



## TGehrke

I sent the watch to IWC and it took them 2 months to decide not to cover the repair under warranty. I suspect they know this is a general problem with the watch and they don't want to have to repair all the watches they produce. They offered to repair it at cost for CHF350 but I declined as I suspect it will have to be repaired again in 9 months time. 

The rubber looks very cool but clearly can't handle general use -- ironic for a watch marketed as a diving watch/adventure watch....


----------



## TGehrke

Just posted my comments on the IWC web site (IWC Schaffhausen | Branch of Richemont International SA | Fine Timepieces From Switzerland | IWC Collectors' Forum) and I have emailed several watch magazines about this problem. Will be interesting to see if IWC react.


----------



## TGehrke

IWC have removed my post without comment from the forum -- I think that says everything you need to know about the company. I didn't violate the terms of the forum and merely posted my experience with the IWC Aquatimer Galapagos and the company decided to remove the post. I have for the fun of it re-posted my comments -- let's see how long they stay up this time.


----------



## TGehrke

IWC only likes positive comments on its web site forum....


COLLECTORS' FORUM > NEWS
NEWS
— What's happening

SHARE: TWITTER FACEBOOK EMAIL
NEW DISCUSSION
previous
1
2
3
...
7
next
DISCUSSIONS
REPLIES	VIEWS	LATEST POST
IWC Aquatimer Galapagos - problems with rubber coating	0	4 Today - 5:44 p.m.
IWC Catalogue 2011/12 - Confused between IW502121, IW502303 and IW503203	5	67 Today - 5:44 p.m.
Boutique Boulevard event in Hong Kong IWC Prince's Building Boutique, Central, 13th May, Friday, 630-930 pm	1	266 May 10, 2011 - noon
IWC will be at Time Crafters in NYC next weekend	3	184 May 9, 2011 - 8:03 p.m.
Forum modifications	13	385 May 5, 2011 - 10:11 a.m.
A few more Portofino event photos from LA	4	257 May 2, 2011 - 8:55 p.m.
LA Portofino event	4	177 May 1, 2011 - 6:45 p.m.
George Kern report on FB about Tortour bike race on Majorca with pics	1	209 May 12, 2011 - 5:48 a.m.


----------



## MGtheGreat

correct me if im wrong but the watch is coated with vulcanised rubber right?i feel bad for ya..id feel disappointed too if i were in your shoes..id repair it if possible and sell if off to avoid any further heartache ..just my 2 cents


----------



## TGehrke

MGtheGreat said:


> correct me if im wrong but the watch is coated with vulcanised rubber right?i feel bad for ya..id feel disappointed too if i were in your shoes..id repair it if possible and sell if off to avoid any further heartache ..just my 2 cents


Thank you for the suggestion -- I have sought about doing this but would feel bad about selling it to someone else knowing about this problem. Clearly IWC doesn't worry about this.


----------



## JoeChristmas

TGehrke said:


> Yes I will get some photos online asap


Would be great to see the pics.

Thanks!


----------



## diosrl

From this pricetag any watch company should stay behind their products. The cars can get a recall, why whatches cannot?

I hear more and more about IWC warranty issues and poor customer support. 

Also about Omega. They make millions by selling those overpriced pieces. They Take advantage from our passion and our money. 

I would buy only small series from independent watchmakers. There are plenty and customer support and Quality are great. 

And you pay much more of the watch value itself, not the marketing budget and huge CEO paycheck and private plane flights. 

But unfortunately people does not know where to find them and buy any shiny (or in this case matte) piece from the mall 

IWC should repair that free of charge instantly. And recall every Galapagos and find a solution for it. That would do a correct multimillion company with only high end jewellerry products. This is simply outrageous and I wander how long this price bubble will last. 

But please provide pics!


----------



## TGehrke

diosrl said:


> From this pricetag any watch company should stay behind their products. The cars can get a recall, why whatches cannot?
> 
> I hear more and more about IWC warranty issues and poor customer support.
> 
> Also about Omega. They make millions by selling those overpriced pieces. They Take advantage from our passion and our money.
> 
> I would buy only small series from independent watchmakers. There are plenty and customer support and Quality are great.
> 
> And you pay much more of the watch value itself, not the marketing budget and huge CEO paycheck and private plane flights.
> 
> But unfortunately people does not know where to find them and buy any shiny (or in this case matte) piece from the mall
> 
> IWC should repair that free of charge instantly. And recall every Galapagos and find a solution for it. That would do a correct multimillion company with only high end jewellerry products. This is simply outrageous and I wander how long this price bubble will last.
> 
> But please provide pics!


You are spot on -- a recall would be the correct thing for IWC to do. Instead they have just removed my post from their web site forum for the 2nd time today. What kind of company runs a customer forum where you are supposed to discuss their products and then they remove critical feedback. Unbelievable.


----------



## TGehrke

IWC have removed my 2nd posting on their customer forum about the issue relating to the rubber coating of the Aquatimer Galapagos. What kind of company removes critical customer feedback rather than responding with a credible explanation for the problem?

If you find this to be a strange way for a company that produces luxury watches to act then please post your comment on their web site forum:

IWC Schaffhausen | Branch of Richemont International SA | Fine Timepieces From Switzerland | IWC Collectors' Forum


----------



## Cybotron

Strange. This doesn't sound right. Please post some photos.


----------



## Bidle

Too bad for you...

Also curious to see the photo's. A friend of mine has the same watch over a year and wears it often... still looking good. Maybe something went wrong with your watch in the production process.


----------



## slashd0t

I'm so amused that companies reject such silly things as this. IWC is in the business of selling watches from 5k - 200kish and for the sake of refusing a warranty repair on something that may cost the $20, they are losing customers from purchasing watches that are full of margin in the 10's of thousands of dollars. 

Simple repairs such as this go a long way in building life long customer loyalty that could lead to 40-50k worth of profits from a single purchaser over a lifetime.


----------



## Cinq

I feel sorry for your problem, but IWC has strict rules on their own Forum. The moderator posted a message, asking to contact him by mail about your problem.

Personally, I wouldn't have bought the Galapagos, just because of the vulcanized rubber coating. It's obvious that this would wear, even under normal use.

Kind regards,

Cinq


----------



## Progger

I am impressed with how many people were able to foresee the problems with the rubber coating! That makes the designers and engineers at IWC feel stupid, as well as those of us who ended up buying the watch. But I think it is too much saying that the chalking and fraying under normal use was obvious.


----------



## ReXTless

Progger said:


> I am impressed with how many people were able to foresee the problems with the rubber coating! That makes the designers and engineers at IWC feel stupid, as well as those of us who ended up buying the watch. But I think it is too much saying that the chalking and fraying under normal use was obvious.


My impression was that I would end up damaging the coating through normal wear, not that there was any sort of defect, as experienced by the OP. I thought normal bumps and scrapes that naturally happen when wearing a watch would turn out as scuffs and cuts on the Galapagos coating. That's all...


----------



## Broleo

Sorry to hear about the galapagos. Looked at it in AD and the vulcanised rubber do not look like to last a lifetime despite being a tool-like watch

any pics of the damage to the vulcanised rubber appreciated and keep us updated

cheers


----------



## JoeChristmas

Just a few comments (please don't take offense, nothing personal):

1. In general, if you want good customer support, you should *NOT* announce in your initial post that you never plan on buying an IWC again! You've basically just taken away your primary leverage: future revenue stream linked to resolution of the problem. You're basically telling them: spend money to fix my watch now, and don't ever expect another cent from me. Not very effective.

2. If you've violated their forum rules, don't be surprised if your post is deleted. It's important to follow the process and associated rules if you want resolution. You are giving them more reasons to ignore you. It's not a conspiracy, it's a process. Follow it.

3. Your attitude seems to be that they need to fix this issue asap, but you don't seem willing to help them help you.

4. We've been asking for a pic for some time, but none seems forthcoming. OK, your right. But if you're not willing to take the time to calmly, rationally, make your case, and follow up with documentation..... well, I suppose you shouldn't be surprised if you don't get the response you'd like. To much emotion, too few facts.

Companies will generally do what they believe is right, _so long as it's easy, or not doing so will cause pain_. You need to make it easy for them in the beginning. You seemed to have jumped right to the "pain" phase. I would submit that this was a tactical mistake.

--JC


----------



## Tony A.H

TGehrke said:


> To my astonishment IWC refused to repair the crown under warranty claiming that the rubber was damaged due to the watch having suffered some sort of severe impact


.

that can be easily Checked out by the Service Dept !!.
IF there was a Severe Impact "as they Claim" there should be a Major Ding on the Crown. otherwise there's a DEFECT in the Product !!, and the Crown should be replaced at NO Cost.

it's funny how they give you a Big run around trying to avoid Fixing the Problem and blame it on someone else.. but looks like they'd rather LOSE a Customer than replacing the Silly Crown (which probably Cost 10 $).!!!

i totally agree with :


ReXTless said:


> I looked at the Galapagos watch at my AD some time ago. Very cool watch. However, I didn't seriously consider buying it because it looked destined to have the exact problem you are describing. My thought was that it probably wouldn't age well


but i believe that IWC makes some Great Models. i'm not so Big on these Fancy Materials and Coatings. maybe i'm an old Fashion. that's why i LOVE Steel or Gold Cases.

best of Luck with the Service. and Hope you'll get this Resolved Peacefully.

Cheers
Tony


----------



## TGehrke

JC,

Thank you for your comments -- no offense taken.

Here are my comments:
1. I am not at this point expecting good customer support as I am not expecting IWC to do anything about the issue.
2. I didn't violate their forum rules -- they simply didn't like that I was critical about the quality of the galapagos. I can appreciate their point of view given it is their web site. The only point I am making is that the IWC forum is not an open forum to exchange views and experiences about IWC products
3. I have spent more than 3 months trying to get the issue resolved. I have concluded it will not be resolved and therefore have decided to share the experience.
4. My first post was on Saturday and I couldn't get my canon 7D to focus for the close up photos. I am looking into this issue and will post the photos asap but it has only been 2 days not 3 months....

Thank you for your comments -- I appreciate your advice.

T Gehrke


----------



## TGehrke

Tony,

Thank you for your comments. 

The problem is all the way around the bezel to varying degree -- mostly small fraying in the rubber. I have given up on getting IWC to fix the issue given their lack of communication.

I have several steel watches and have learned that is best to stick with tried and tested materials...stell, titanium, and gold.

I do like the look of the IWC galapagos -- it just isn't made to last.

T Gehrke


----------



## Dimer

I'm sorry to hear about your issue with the Galapagos! I really can't judge until I've seen the picture, but sometimes you can scratch or damage something without knowing how, where or when it happened. I have some deep scratches/dents on my Ingenieur and I've never done anything extreme, I also work at an office, but still I've managed to damage it.. Same as bruises, sometimes I have a bruise on my leg or arm, but have no idea how it have happened... I'm not saying you damaged it, but it is possible you did without knowing it happened. 

I also must admit that when a customer wants a Galapagos I always tell them it is rubber coated and that we cannot guarantee it will last forever. The watch has been around for about three or two years and only very little watches have been produced, so we can't really say it past the test of time..


----------



## Robertus

TGehrke said:


> Tony,
> 
> Thank you for your comments.
> 
> The problem is all the way around the bezel to varying degree -- mostly small fraying in the rubber. I have given up on getting IWC to fix the issue given their lack of communication.
> 
> I have several steel watches and have learned that is best to stick with tried and tested materials...stell, titanium, and gold.
> 
> I do like the look of the IWC galapagos -- it just isn't made to last.
> 
> T Gehrke


Don't forget ceramics: my IWC black ceramic Fliegerchrono from the 1990's is just as new. Time has tested this material as a watch case since 1985, which is 26 years already. If you wish a black case with style, go for the ceramic Fliegerchrono, either todays oversized ones, or the ref. 3705 as a pre-loved watch.
Best, Robert


----------



## TGehrke

Thank you for the suggestion -- good looking watch.


----------



## TGehrke

I agree that all watches get scratches /dents with normal wear and tear (without any severe impact or one necessarily noticing the damage being done). However, with the rubber on my galapagos the issue is worse than what I have experienced with my other watches. I am coming to the conclusion that a thin layer of rubber on steel is probably not a good way to go in terms of durability....


----------



## HR F1

Any chance you could post some pictures so we can get an idea of what this damage looks like? I'm very interested to see what damaged/deteriotated vulcanized rubber coating looks like.


----------



## GovtFunded

I'm curious, as I own an IWC with the rubberized crown, to see the crown as you describe it. Many have asked that you post pictures of the stated damage, are you capable of doing this? I think it would go a long way to helping people understand what you're dealing with.


----------



## motek41

I join GovtFunded....I actually felt that it was not quite ok that your posts were deleted from the IWC forum...but, you were told also by the moderator of this site that w/o photos it is difficult to understand what is the damage you are talking about...could you please then post some photos here??


----------



## Willemh

The first time I saw the Galapagos AT I was in love. It is one of the best looking watches of the new AT range. However, there were certain reasons for me not to buy the Galapagos.
One of the most important was that I could not believe the coating would not wear excessively. I own and owned many coated objects and I know all of them will wear, some faster than others. (possibly all except DLC) 
Furthermore, I already owned four IWC watches (and a lot of other brands). All of them have had some issues, mostly timing issues after a break in period. I have treated all issues with my respect to IWC and made them feel they created the joy of my life, which had some minor issues which they would no doubt solve in minutes and make me happy.
All my watches were returned before the scheduled four weeks in pristine condition.
And yes, I sold two of those because of problems they couldn't solve (I just made the wrong choice of watch) But I know if you make it easy for them, make them happy and feel sorry for you, they will be easy on you and make you happy. Therefore i also bought two new IWC watches.
Well now, show us some pictures and let me know if my anticipations were correct.


----------



## desidon

Your cannon focussing yet?


----------



## gettocard

It's no surprise,it's a rubber watch after all. I wanted one for 2 years and finally managed to get it this past January only to sell it back about a month later. Amazingly looking watch but sorry IWC,it's a rubber watch and rubber will eventually FAIL because of salt water,sun or because of the occasional bumps into stuff.
For the short time I've owned it I've also purchased a bottle of Lexol Vinylex,amazing product,makes the rubber soft and moist,perfect for the Galapagos. But even in that case I didn't want to take the risk and took my money back. I want to use all of my watches for all of my daily activities,something that the cool looking and "rubber-enviro-snobbish" Galapagos would have not been able to handle. One afternoon spent in the garage working on my bicycles while wearing it caused a ugly cut on the bezel,I can only imagine how this watch would stand a diver's routine.
My dad loves IWC,he has a gold Portuguese and a Pilot Vintage while I've owned a Top Gun and the Galapagos. 4 IWC's in the family, I can honestly say that the lower end line of IWC watches are built with very low quality standards,it's all show but nothing more than that,any Sinn can beat any IWC aviator or diver by a mile in terms of perceived quality and value for money.

About the forum on the official IWC website I've stopped posting there long time ago. Any form of even light criticism towards the brand or even a question posted in a way that may somehow sound offensive for them is not tolerated in there. If they were afraid of people comments to backfire on their product's sales just don't come out with a damn "official" forum.
Get a life IWC people,fascism is over already,even Rolexforums folks are a lot more tolerant than you,and we all know what kind of tolerant and flexible person can be the average Rolex wearer.


----------



## surfguy

o|


----------



## motek41

I agree, so if no photos in 2-3 days, the moderator could consider removing it...my opinion


surfguy said:


> o|


----------



## derrywalsh

Maybe Mr. Gehrke has had to send his D7 back to Canon for some defect. Perhaps it is unable to focus or something.....


----------



## clarencek

How hard is it to post a photo - use an iPhone, BB, anything. You don't need a macro lens to take a picture of a crown.


----------



## anonymousmoose

*double post*


----------



## anonymousmoose

TGehrke said:


> IWC have removed my post without comment from the forum -- I think that says everything you need to know about the company. I didn't violate the terms of the forum and merely posted my experience with the IWC Aquatimer Galapagos and the company decided to remove the post. I have for the fun of it re-posted my comments -- let's see how long they stay up this time.


Its a collectors forum. Not a complaint forum. I can fully understand why complaints are taken down. There are a vast majority of people who sign up on forums just to post problems, probably more then participating members.

If what you are saying *is *true, I'm inclined to agree that the service you are getting is not right. But without photos, its hard for us to see your side of the story.


----------



## anonymousmoose

clarencek said:


> How hard is it to post a photo - use an iPhone, BB, anything. You don't need a macro lens to take a picture of a crown.


Agree. The iPhone 4 takes ok photos.


----------



## anonymousmoose

gettocard said:


> 4 IWC's in the family, I can honestly say that the lower end line of IWC watches are built with very low quality standards,it's all show but nothing more than that,any Sinn can beat any IWC aviator or diver by a mile in terms of perceived quality and value for money.


What exactly is low quality about the 'lower end lines'? I'm not saying this out of spite, just genuinely interested to hear why you say this. My 3717 is fine. I can't see any poor craftsmanship with it.


----------



## gettocard

anonymousmoose said:


> What exactly is low quality about the 'lower end lines'? I'm not saying this out of spite, just genuinely interested to hear why you say this. My 3717 is fine. I can't see any poor craftsmanship with it.


My Top Gun chrono's hand looked like it was painted by a 4 years old kid. On my Galapagos you could see the glue underneath the white part of the bezel from 12 'o clock till 3 'o clock. I mean...it's a 6K and plus price tag of watches we're talking about here. My dad's Vintage Pilot watch has been barely used in 2 months of ownership and the crown had stopped winding,it just keep on going and after a couple of full spins it catches on the hands and drags them. Sent now to IWC and the thing they said in first place was " ok,we will cover the warranty only if will be a manufacturing defect,if you caused it you will have to pay for it". Wich of course sounds right,the thing is tho they could care less about me telling them the watch has been used for about 2 weeks out of 2 months.8K Euro worth of watch,good going IWC,point proven.
And not to mention the useless 7750,but that's another story,if one buys a watch just for it's look then IWC may be ok,even with a lousy 7750. It's amazing how IWC have to think watch design and cases around that useless caliber..
So long IWC.


----------



## tpetra87

i still dont see any photo posted? why is it so hard?


----------



## Jez4

gettocard said:


> My Top Gun chrono's hand looked like it was painted by a 4 years old kid. On my Galapagos you could see the glue underneath the white part of the bezel from 12 'o clock till 3 'o clock. I mean...it's a 6K and plus price tag of watches we're talking about here. My dad's Vintage Pilot watch has been barely used in 2 months of ownership and the crown had stopped winding,it just keep on going and after a couple of full spins it catches on the hands and drags them. Sent now to IWC and the thing they said in first place was " ok,we will cover the warranty only if will be a manufacturing defect,if you caused it you will have to pay for it". Wich of course sounds right,the thing is tho they could care less about me telling them the watch has been used for about 2 weeks out of 2 months.8K Euro worth of watch,good going IWC,point proven.
> And not to mention the useless 7750,but that's another story,if one buys a watch just for it's look then IWC may be ok,even with a lousy 7750. It's amazing how IWC have to think watch design and cases around that useless caliber..
> So long IWC.


I wonder why you bought these IWC if the quality is so bad? The issues you describe are visual problems for the Top Gun and the Galapagos - did you not see them before you bought the watches? And if the first was obviously of poor quality, why buy another? Generally IWC have a very good reputation for fit and finish with all their watches. It seems you were very unlucky to have problems with all 3 watches.


----------



## surgfish

hmm.. I was holding a Galapagos earlier this afternoon. Fell in love with it but after I read this forum, I dont think its worth future heartaches....


----------



## anonymousmoose

gettocard said:


> My Top Gun chrono's hand looked like it was painted by a 4 years old kid. On my Galapagos you could see the glue underneath the white part of the bezel from 12 'o clock till 3 'o clock. I mean...it's a 6K and plus price tag of watches we're talking about here. My dad's Vintage Pilot watch has been barely used in 2 months of ownership and the crown had stopped winding,it just keep on going and after a couple of full spins it catches on the hands and drags them. Sent now to IWC and the thing they said in first place was " ok,we will cover the warranty only if will be a manufacturing defect,if you caused it you will have to pay for it". Wich of course sounds right,the thing is tho they could care less about me telling them the watch has been used for about 2 weeks out of 2 months.8K Euro worth of watch,good going IWC,point proven.
> And not to mention the useless 7750,but that's another story,if one buys a watch just for it's look then IWC may be ok,even with a lousy 7750. It's amazing how IWC have to think watch design and cases around that useless caliber..
> So long IWC.


Each to their own I guess. I've been collecting Omega for a while and compared to my Omega's I find the IWC better quality. I can imagine a $30,000 IWC will be better then a $5000 one, but comparing with other brands similar price, I still believe IWC are good quality. I can't see any defects on my 3717, even when I look hard with a loop. I can see more [very minor] defects on my Omega Planet Ocean which retails for around the same price.

As for the 7750 movement, once again, everyone has their own opinion and I really like the movement. It is accurate and runs very well. Good power reserve. Mine keep going beyond the quoted specifications.

I guess I am bias, as I own one, but I did do my research before buying so I knew full well about the 7750 movement. The other watch on the cards was the older style Pilot with the JLC movement but the 3717 won out in the end.

And yes, I realise we are paying a premium for the brand name. But isn't everyone? Lets say you bought the best quality IWC for around $70,000. Your still paying for the brand name.


----------



## Robertus

anonymousmoose said:


> Each to their own I guess. I've been collecting Omega for a while and compared to my Omega's I find the IWC better quality. I can imagine a $30,000 IWC will be better then a $5000 one, but comparing with other brands similar price, I still believe IWC are good quality. I can't see any defects on my 3717, even when I look hard with a loop. I can see more [very minor] defects on my Omega Planet Ocean which retails for around the same price.
> 
> As for the 7750 movement, once again, everyone has their own opinion and I really like the movement. It is accurate and runs very well. Good power reserve. Mine keep going beyond the quoted specifications.
> 
> I guess I am bias, as I own one, but I did do my research before buying so I knew full well about the 7750 movement. The other watch on the cards was the older style Pilot with the JLC movement but the 3717 won out in the end.
> 
> And yes, I realise we are paying a premium for the brand name. But isn't everyone? Lets say you bought the best quality IWC for around $70,000. Your still paying for the brand name.


Regarding the reliability and sturdiness the 7750 ranks very high: according to first class watchmakers I know of the swiss luxury brands they ALL say that the in-house chronograph calibers of even the highest grade all have fall-out rates (I mean reliability and not deviation, but deviation can also be set to a very high grade) higher than the 7750, for the relatively small price. Brands I'm talking about are JLC, Breitling, PP, Rolex, and yes, IWC. I understand that others have opinions highly differing from the above mentioned but what I've written about is based on relatively long-time service experience. So I'm very happy with my cca. 10 watches driven by the 7750-s, and I do not miss the column wheel, the Breguet hairspring and all the other "high-end" features. In turn I get a caliber with almost 40 years of past and development which does not depend on the manufacturer and in emergency can be overhauled by the watchmaker down the corner, payable spare parts that will be widely available till the day I die and has all the features I need in everyday life - chronograph and day-date. That said, of course I appreciate different opinions too.
Now my cheapest TOP grade 7750 is a Sinn 103 St Sa, now cca. 1.400 Euro, while the most expensive one is my IWC Aquatimer Chrono Cousteau 2010 ref. 376706 with an added steel bracelet, together well above 6.000 Euro retail - my daily wearer now. Where else can you get this feeling for this amount of money? The Chronomat B01 does not have the weekday and the strap change system, a few others have 60 minutes chrono counter which is completely invisible for my 50 year old eyes, Rolex has no date, no day and no turning bezel - should I go on? 
Best: Robert


----------



## tpetra87

anonymousmoose said:


> Each to their own I guess. I've been collecting Omega for a while and compared to my Omega's I find the IWC better quality. I can imagine a $30,000 IWC will be better then a $5000 one, but comparing with other brands similar price, I still believe IWC are good quality. I can't see any defects on my 3717, even when I look hard with a loop. I can see more [very minor] defects on my Omega Planet Ocean which retails for around the same price.
> 
> As for the 7750 movement, once again, everyone has their own opinion and I really like the movement. It is accurate and runs very well. Good power reserve. Mine keep going beyond the quoted specifications.
> 
> I guess I am bias, as I own one, but I did do my research before buying so I knew full well about the 7750 movement. The other watch on the cards was the older style Pilot with the JLC movement but the 3717 won out in the end.
> 
> And yes, I realise we are paying a premium for the brand name. But isn't everyone? Lets say you bought the best quality IWC for around $70,000. Your still paying for the brand name.


2 Thumbs up! I am totally agreed. |>


----------



## tpetra87

However im still waiting for the actual photo.


----------



## toph

have you decided to draw a picture instead?


----------



## diosrl

gettocard said:


> My Top Gun chrono's hand looked like it was painted by a 4 years old kid. On my Galapagos you could see the glue underneath the white part of the bezel from 12 'o clock till 3 'o clock. I mean...it's a 6K and plus price tag of watches we're talking about here. My dad's Vintage Pilot watch has been barely used in 2 months of ownership and the crown had stopped winding,it just keep on going and after a couple of full spins it catches on the hands and drags them. Sent now to IWC and the thing they said in first place was " ok,we will cover the warranty only if will be a manufacturing defect,if you caused it you will have to pay for it". Wich of course sounds right,the thing is tho they could care less about me telling them the watch has been used for about 2 weeks out of 2 months.8K Euro worth of watch,good going IWC,point proven.
> And not to mention the useless 7750,but that's another story,if one buys a watch just for it's look then IWC may be ok,even with a lousy 7750. It's amazing how IWC have to think watch design and cases around that useless caliber..
> So long IWC.


 Pics or it didn't happen. We *need* to see all that details, PLEASE! It's not about trust, but we need to see, it's an important matter, and you're helping the entire community with those pictures! So, please, upload some as soon as you can!


----------



## Broleo

agree with all the guys here. Can we have some pics? It take 1 minute to upload only.

cheers


----------



## martin_blank

something seems fishy about this thread...

most people start threads with pics..


----------



## gettocard

diosrl said:


> Pics or it didn't happen. We *need* to see all that details, PLEASE! It's not about trust, but we need to see, it's an important matter, and you're helping the entire community with those pictures! So, please, upload some as soon as you can!


You obviously did not read the whole story of mine...
Both my Top Gun and Galapagos are now gone and forgotten. The Top Gun turned cash for a Sub LV,the Galapagos just turned in cold cash and some presents for wife.

I agree tho,the OP should post some pics. But even without them it's just a rubber watch we're talking here,it will fall apart,period.


----------



## diosrl

You are right, but the first thing I do (beside getting rid of the item) is taking a pic of the problem 

So you did right, it would be foolish to start such a thread and still have the watch  Sell it first then complain.. But you should took some pics, for your records, for our information&help, etc...

That's all about this story I think.. I am curious what the warranty card is saying (if anything) about the rubber coating.



dimer said:


> I really can't judge until I've seen the picture, but sometimes you can scratch or damage something without knowing how, where or when it happened.


I am 100% agree with this, to draw my own conclusion I need at least some visuals to sustain the story..


----------



## gettocard

diosrl said:


> That's all about this story I think.. I am curious what the warranty card is saying (if anything) about the rubber coating.


That's another good point. IWC does not provide any reliable informations on the papers about coating mainteinance or care. I've heard rumors that IWC is able to completely overhaul the damn rubber when times will call for that,but it's just a rumor,nothing officially on paper about this matter.
It's obvious that IWC is taking an unbelivable shot of luck with this watch. The Galapagos has been out since 2009,it's really way too soon now but give it a couple of more years and I bet a lot of disgruntled owners will pop out on the forums with their half melted/half ripped apart Galapagos's cases..

AFAIC,I precisely remember how I've managed to rip my Galapagos bezel :
I was in the garage working on my bikes,I had to pick up a tool from the tool box but I had to keep my eyes on what I was doing on the bike and using the right hand to keep a wire under tension,so I used my left hand to open the tool box and kept the lid open with one finger while grabbing the needed tool with the other fingers. At some point I was no able to keep the box's lid open and I've let that go. It landed on the bezel. Did not pay any attention to it,it was a very light and flimsy piece of plastic,why should I be bothered ?? Here we go..bezel ripped...<|

From that day on I treated the Galapagos with a lot of care and attention,and that's when I became fed up about it :rodekaart


----------



## Bidle

Too bad it looks like TS isn't replying anymore..... <|


----------



## derrywalsh

An Old hockey adage comes to mind about now:

"No blood, no foul" 

Can we now delete this unsubstantiated besmirchment on the good IWC name?

Mods?


----------



## anonymousmoose

derrywalsh said:


> Can we now delete this unsubstantiated besmirchment on the good IWC name?


Don't let this worry you. I wouldnt delete it. Maybe lock the thread. Its ok if people like gettocard want to voice their opinion. Personally I don't share it about ALL the IWC entry level line being of questionable quality. I cant speak for the Galapagos and I wouldnt buy a rubber watch personally. But my 'entry' level 3717 is constructed to a high standard IMO, taking price, brand and competitors into consideration.

I guess it IS possible to find lesser know brands at better prices with a higher quality. But in their cases, they need to SELL their watch where as IWC can rely heavily on their brand name. Like Lexus, they need to feature pack their cars to a high standard to sell. Where as Mercedes/BMW will sell you a bare-bone car and charge of all the features that are standard on the Lexus. Why? Because the name 'Mercedes' sells better then 'Lexus'. If both were optioned the same, there wouldn't be as may Lexus on the road. Same with watches. A good $500 Seiko quartz can be as robust as an Omega quartz. But we all like the brand name don't we?

Thats why I don't agree with this Sinn 7750 brand being compared to the IWC 7750 as better because its cheaper. Yes it is, but IWC has the brand behind it. So yes, it is justified the IWC costs more. You gotta pay for brand history too. If we are all about the 'quality' vs. value; the IWC/Omega/Rolex etc forums would be empty and all the traffic would be around Seiko/Casio/ETC.


----------



## gettocard

derrywalsh said:


> Can we now delete this unsubstantiated besmirchment on the good IWC name?
> 
> Mods?


Why you want to have it deleted ?? Are you an IWC fascist from the official IWC forum ?

I would actually consider this post a very informative one for those who want to buy a Galapagos since IWC has been always hush hush about the rubber coating.
I tell you what,If I had money sticking out of my ears I would buy another Galapagos and probably use it a couple of times before relegating it to the safe while I continue to beat the crap out of my Sea Dweller . I still consider the Galapagos a very pleasant and cool looking watch despite the generic caliber/dial and the eventual rubber coating issues.

I'm actually surprised about how come the OP has not chimed in with some pics yet....4 pages for a troll ????


----------



## anonymousmoose

gettocard said:


> I'm actually surprised about how come the OP has not chimed in with some pics yet....4 pages for a troll ????


----------



## derrywalsh

gettocard said:


> Why you want to have it deleted ?? Are you an IWC fascist from the official IWC forum ?
> 
> Fascist? Uh, is that back in fashion again?
> 
> No, and for the reord, I am not an IWC fascist. I am however an altruist (go ahead, look it up... I'll wait....)
> 
> Okay, so the OP denigrates the watch, is riddled with requests for a picture to both educate others and illustrate the issue (1000 words thing...), then, sites, rather feigns, some technical issue with his camera... well, it just does not seem right. Does it to you?
> 
> Delete the thread, yeah, why not?


----------



## gettocard

'tell you what yeah,let's delete this thread, it's just a matter of time before the mighty Galapagos rubber will fail after all.
We'll see more and more threads like this one pop up within the next 2-3 years. I mean,I've sold mine and recovered all the money,why should we all bother about this stupid troll anyway ?? I just thought it was an occasion to talk about a risky IWC venture,that's it.

best regards :-!


----------



## JoeChristmas

Why delete the thread? That's just silly. Why don't we just go quiet now and wait for the OP to post some pics. If he doesn't, no harm. We can all just ignore this thread. I see no need for personal attacks on the man.

Btw, it happens often that I go many days without checking this site. Perhaps the OP has more important things to do. I wouldn't jump to conclusions that he is a troll, etc. My guess is he's very sincere about this problem, and he has a valid complaint. But this will def be my last post in this thread without pics.

--JC


----------



## tekno

The rubber coating was a risky move on IWC's part. Don't car companies put their new models under brutal testing. You would think IWC would have tested this coating. 

If they wanted a black watch they should have gone with a DLC coating, I am guessing they were trying to do something a bit more "new". 

When I think of rubberized coatings, I think of a phone I owned once. It looked great for about a year, after that it was chipped, scratched and torn. I also think of my ex's Nissan 350Z, it had a rubberized coating on the buttons around the interior. They ended up scratched, scuffed and torn also.


----------



## anonymousmoose

JoeChristmas said:


> Why delete the thread? That's just silly. Why don't we just go quiet now and wait for the OP to post some pics. If he doesn't, no harm. We can all just ignore this thread. I see no need for personal attacks on the man.


No ones really been personally attacking him... just sort of pushing him to post those photos which seam to be so difficult.


----------



## cscharti

I've had this watch for about 5 months now and truth be told, I find it has held up BETTER than all of my others. I also have a Ball Night with the DLC coating that nicks at the slightest touch. I have hit my Galapagos against my desk and door frame on occasion by accident fulling expecting it to have been scarred or scuffed. These type of impacts have rendered my night train a tool watch and beater, but not a mark has been made on the Galapagos. I think the rubber coating is a good thing! If it does get damaged it can be repaired. I look at this like a good pair of leather soled dress shoes. I wear the shoes until they need re-soled and I can wear them for many many years. This watch with proper care and rubber repair should last just as long as any other watch that you may have...


----------



## gettocard

cscharti said:


> I've had this watch for about 5 months now and truth be told, I find it has held up BETTER than all of my others. I also have a Ball Night with the DLC coating that nicks at the slightest touch. I have hit my Galapagos against my desk and door frame on occasion by accident fulling expecting it to have been scarred or scuffed. These type of impacts have rendered my night train a tool watch and beater, but not a mark has been made on the Galapagos. I think the rubber coating is a good thing! If it does get damaged it can be repaired. I look at this like a good pair of leather soled dress shoes. I wear the shoes until they need re-soled and I can wear them for many many years. This watch with proper care and rubber repair should last just as long as any other watch that you may have...


Good points,the thing is tho that nobody knows for sure if the rubber can be replaced or repaired,it's just a simple AD's rumor but nothing has been officially told by IWC.
Let's face it guys,the Galapagos is just one cool looking conversation starter environazi of a watch suitable for occasional uses. If one is brave or careless enough to use it as a true Aquatimer is meant to be used the watch will fall apart shortly. I loved those old Aquatimers, those were the beaters !!!


----------



## Ckitcummings

cscharti said:


> I've had this watch for about 5 months now and truth be told, I find it has held up BETTER than all of my others. I also have a Ball Night with the DLC coating that nicks at the slightest touch. I have hit my Galapagos against my desk and door frame on occasion by accident fulling expecting it to have been scarred or scuffed. These type of impacts have rendered my night train a tool watch and beater, but not a mark has been made on the Galapagos. I think the rubber coating is a good thing! If it does get damaged it can be repaired. I look at this like a good pair of leather soled dress shoes. I wear the shoes until they need re-soled and I can wear them for many many years. This watch with proper care and rubber repair should last just as long as any other watch that you may have...


I have to echo the above. I have had a few watches over the years...steel, titanium, PVD and now the Galapagos. I've banged them all on something and each have there own drawbacks. My polished steel Chopard scratches if i so much as breath on it and i have dinged my previous TAG from the infamous desk hit. Steel, rubber or PVD....a severe dent is pretty hard to remove!

My PVD ball was fantastic for resisting scratches however i was worried about a hard bang taking the coating off and leaving the steel showing underneath, a similar concern i guess for the Galapagos. Given that the PVD is very hard i never encountered such a problem.

From a bang resistance point of view the Galapagos seems pretty secure. I think i would worry about something sharp scratching the rubber...naturally with steel a scratch could be polished out whereas this would most likely be difficult with the Galapagos.

I guess each material has it's pros and cons. I do appreciate it is a specialized process for the coating however i'm sure a manufacturer like IWC would be able to offer a repair solution.


----------



## anonymousmoose

gettocard said:


> Let's face it guys,the Galapagos is just one cool looking conversation starter environazi of a watch suitable for occasional uses.


I think we need to wait a while and check back if there are more reports to come to that conclusion. It's clear your not a fan of the Galapogos and you also believe the 'entry level' IWC's are not up there in quality (which I dispute, reasons posted in #63).

If I see more complains in time to come, then I'd share your view. For the moment, I'm sitting on the fence on this one, but leaning towards the watch will last...


----------



## cscharti

gettocard said:


> Good points,*the thing is tho that nobody knows for sure if the rubber can be replaced or repaired,it's just a simple AD's rumor but nothing has been officially told by IWC.*
> Let's face it guys,the Galapagos is just one cool looking conversation starter environazi of a watch suitable for occasional uses. If one is brave or careless enough to use it as a true Aquatimer is meant to be used the watch will fall apart shortly. I loved those old Aquatimers, those were the beaters !!!


Yes the coating can be reapplied, but the watch must be sent back to Switz to have it completed. I spoke to IWC Technical services before I purchased my watch to be sure. There was no cost quoted and I'm sure it is not cheap, but it can be done.

I plan to, when I send mine back for service in about 10 years, have the rubber coating re-applied and for that cost I will essentially get a brand new watch.

To all the doubters here of the Galapagos, I say take the plunge it has held up very well in the engineering environment in which I work...


----------



## anonymousmoose

TGehrke said:


> IWC have removed my post without comment from the forum -- I think that says everything you need to know about the company. I didn't violate the terms of the forum and merely posted my experience with the IWC Aquatimer Galapagos and the company decided to remove the post. I have for the fun of it re-posted my comments -- let's see how long they stay up this time.


I never saw your original post, as you said, it was removed. However, I started a discussion on the subject and so far my thread has not been removed after a couple of days. So perhaps its all in the way you word your post.

I've got two replies already on the forum who stand behind their Galapagos.


----------



## FlyPenFly

SO it appears either this is a made up problem or there was actual damage that the photos would show.


----------



## novedl

if there were photos and they were removed on another forum, they could simply be posted here for us to view(jinky camera not withstanding)


----------



## penerai 1950

maybe the OP is having problem with his cannon and now posting negative thread against Cannon on the camera forum.


----------



## Rusty427

Oh my goodness, I have just read 79 posts while anticipating photos at the very next scroll of my mouse................o|


----------



## subkrawler

derrywalsh said:


> An Old hockey adage comes to mind about now:
> 
> "No blood, no foul"
> 
> Can we now delete this unsubstantiated besmirchment on the good IWC name?
> 
> Mods?


No rules have been violated, so the thread stays open. Everyone is free to discuss whatever they want about IWC here (that's the beauty of a non-official forum), as long as the forum rules are followed.


----------



## mt1tdi

:-s. I hope IWC didn't put out a hit on the OP.


----------



## Samba

I fully agree. If you commit a murder the first question the police will ask you is " where is the body"?. We still haven't seen any pics. 
I've had my Galapagos for 1 year now and the casing looks exactly the same as the day I bought it. Furthermore if IWC encountered problems with the Galapagos they would probably withdraw it. I think they are quite aware of the importance of having a good rep out there. 
Galapagos is not the first rubber coated watch. Jeanrichard watches use this tech as well. Some of the AP offshore's have rubber bezels.
I honestly think it is a bit far out to judge IWC based on 1 story that is not supported at all since no pics are available.


----------



## BoneDoc

There has been some question of the validity of the fraying and damage to the case of the Galapagos. I heave had a similar experience with IWC and my Galapagos. After the first month or so I noticed some damage to the casing but i read similar threads about the lack of accountability of the IWC company. I chose not to send the watch back for repair. The damage progressed and over just the first few months of ownership the damage progressed to affect the functions of the watch. This became unacceptable to me. This is one watch in a 3-4 watch rotation, and my nicest watch so mostly worn to nicer events etc... I work a desk job and don't wear any of my watches for sports. I wear my dive watch exclusively for any diving or fishing. The rubber around the crown became compromised and I became concerned about the water resistance being compromised and the chronograph pusher buttons also began to wear and become stuck for extended periods of time. I thought surely that the IWC company would want to make this right for a potential future customer. After a few conversations with the representative two formal letters from myself, one from my jeweler and a final letter from a lawyer they returned the watch after six months without any repair or explanation. The proposed plan for restoration exceeded the replacement cost.



please see pics below:


----------



## BoneDoc




----------



## BoneDoc




----------



## BoneDoc




----------



## BoneDoc




----------



## BoneDoc




----------



## rooneb

firstly i feel for you your watch does look very shabby. To be honest when i bought my galapagos one of the first things i thought about was the durability of the rubber . When i wear it ( which is not to much) i try to take care of it which really is not what i guess the watch was made for it is meant to be a sports watch after all.


----------



## Denizen

*the photos say it all...*

watches with rubber-coating on steel are little more than fashion pieces. clearly IWC did not do enough durability testing and to blame Galapagos owners as causing this damage is obviously wrong on so many levels.

the IWC of today is not the same IWC of years before. the designs are primarily fad-conscious and customer service is now more interestied in covering up failures on IWC's part or protecting their bottom line than responding to customer's issues.

i pity the Galapagos owners out there, even the ones whose watches are not yet showing any issues. it's an expensive dud if you have to treat a diver with kid gloves and baby it with reapplying a coating every X years.

thanks for posting those pics.


----------



## anonymousmoose

*Re: the photos say it all...*

How durable can one make rubber? Metal watches get tiny scratches when 'desk diving', which is normal and common. So if your rubbing a rubber watch against a desk all day I can see it wearing pretty quick too.

Has anyone experienced this problem with the Galapoagos who doesn't 'desk dive'?


----------



## Jez4

*Re: the photos say it all...*



Denizen said:


> watches with rubber-coating on steel are little more than fashion pieces. clearly IWC did not do enough durability testing and to blame Galapagos owners as causing this damage is obviously wrong on so many levels.
> 
> the IWC of today is not the same IWC of years before. the designs are primarily fad-conscious and customer service is now more interestied in covering up failures on IWC's part or protecting their bottom line than responding to customer's issues.
> 
> i pity the Galapagos owners out there, even the ones whose watches are not yet showing any issues. it's an expensive dud if you have to treat a diver with kid gloves and baby it with reapplying a coating every X years.
> 
> thanks for posting those pics.


Something of a generalisation! Which IWC models do you own? You must have had some bad experiences with them to be able to make such harsh judgements.


----------



## Denizen

*Re: the photos say it all...*



Jez4 said:


> Something of a generalisation! Which IWC models do you own? You must have had some bad experiences with them to be able to make such harsh judgements.


actually, of all the IWCs that i own, none of them have ever developed a problem during the warranty period so my experience to date has been positive. but then again, the last IWC i purchased was a 3227 in 2008 which was one of the last well-engineered models right before Richemont started mucking up the company, sending it into a downslide.

lately, there have been more than a few complaints on various fora about IWC owners submitting their watches for repair (relatively early into the warranty period) to be turned away by IWC because IWC 'claimed' that the owners damaged their watch via rough use. that sort of behavior is unconscionable and not indicative of a top-class company that they're trying to paint themselves as.


----------



## TGehrke

*Re: the photos say it all...*

It has a little more than 1 year since my original quote and i have had no luck with IWC customer service. _*The only new development is that the rubber watch band on my galapagos has now broken apart -- I assume this is also my fault according to IWC.*_

Clearly this watch was not tested properly ahead of releasing it to the public. A sports diving watch from a supposedly premier watch manufacture that can only be worn with kid gloves according to some IWC criteria.

The photos by BoneDoc's galapagos are identical to the state of my watch.


----------



## mt1tdi

I'd bead blast it and call it a day.


----------



## TGehrke

*Re: the photos say it all...*


----------



## JP Chestnut

*Re: the photos say it all...*

^^^ Those photos make the issue hard for me to see. Clearly there's some wear to the metal though.


----------



## Denizen

mtltdi said:


> I'd bead blast it and call it a day.


it's a rubber coated watch...what exactly are you going to bead-blast?! and even if you completely remove the rubber around the bezel, all you'd wind up with a funny looking watch, not to mention that the whole point of the design [and its novelty] is the rubber coating itself.


----------



## Denizen

*Re: the photos say it all...*



JP Chestnut said:


> ^^^ Those photos make the issue hard for me to see. Clearly there's some wear to the metal though.


look at the poster's first photo more closely again...the pic is blurry but you should be able to spot that it's missing a chunk out of the rubber edge around the bezel between the 55 and the detente mark. that's the most obvious one but there are other visible issues with his watch.


----------



## ReXTless

Sorry. It's a rubber-coated watch. How the eff did you think it would hold up over time? I handled one at a local AD a few years ago and my first thought was, "Ummm, that ain't gonna look real good in a few months."


----------



## JP Chestnut

ReXTless said:


> Sorry. It's a rubber-coated watch. How the eff did you think it would hold up over time? I handled one at a local AD a few years ago and my first thought was, "Ummm, that ain't gonna look real good in a few months."


I saw it, shook my head, and thought "terrible gimmick". It looks like cynicism was rewarded in this case.


----------



## fasthandssam

Wow that looks awful. I'm glad that pics were provided, but then sad when I saw them. Sorry mate 

Lesson 1: Don't buy a watch with a rubber coating anywhere.

Lesson 2: IWC customer service? Well, we will wait and see how this issue is resolved. Does not look promising, and all that "wear and tear" does _NOT_ look like it happened from an impact- looks like normal usage. Eeesh.


----------



## csm

Guys, i have a galapagos (also a portuguese 7 days and some other watches) mine has only 6 months but loooks like new. I do believe that if i hit the watch will be a problem as i cant polish like an normal watch, the same happens with those black pvd watches in black i also have a seiko sbdx011 and if i scratch it theres nothing i can do about it. Returning to galapagos, i really dont think that iwc would use a poor material, i have a swatch scuba rubber coated exactaly like the galapagos for 8 years and it still look like new no details, what about those g-shock with 30 years old in rubber, that are still aorund in perfect conditions, do you really think that iwc would use a material worse than casio and swatch??

Best regards,
Cesar


----------



## Grahamsjz

cesar scarambone said:


> Guys, i have a galapagos (also a portuguese 7 days and some other watches) mine has only 6 months but loooks like new. I do believe that if i hit the watch will be a problem as i cant polish like an normal watch, the same happens with those black pvd watches in black i also have a seiko sbdx011 and if i scratch it theres nothing i can do about it. Returning to galapagos, i really dont think that iwc would use a poor material, i have a swatch scuba rubber coated exactaly like the galapagos for 8 years and it still look like new no details, what about those g-shock with 30 years old in rubber, that are still aorund in perfect conditions, do you really think that iwc would use a material worse than casio and swatch??
> 
> Best regards,
> Cesar


I have been agonising over buying one of these for quite a while. I am looking for a weekend watch to take the usual knocks and bumps of a watch at the beach, swimming, washing the car, doing the garden etc. this thread really put me off it. Saw it again in an AD and asked them to find out how much a spare bezel would cost as that is the most vulnerable piece. The watch does look and feel rugged, the only part I remain concerned about is the rubber coating over the chrono buttons.

My choice after trying almost all other Aquatimers on, has come down to either the Galapagos or the big Planet Ocean with the orange bezel (it feels Very solid). Reason I discounted the other ATs is that on my wrist, there is a large overlap between them and my Spitfire Chrono - at least in my mind. Having said that the Cousteau one with the signature is absolutely ABSOLUTELY gorgeous. Mind you so is the Spitfire Chrono under a denim shirt at the weekend.

Like Cesar I cannot believe IWC would sell a watch with poorer quality rubber than G-Shock. It is a lot of money to bet with though.

Graham


----------



## fasthandssam

cesar scarambone said:


> Guys, i have a galapagos (also a portuguese 7 days and some other watches) mine has only 6 months but loooks like new. I do believe that if i hit the watch will be a problem as i cant polish like an normal watch, the same happens with those black pvd watches in black i also have a seiko sbdx011 and if i scratch it theres nothing i can do about it. Returning to galapagos, i really dont think that iwc would use a poor material, i have a swatch scuba rubber coated exactaly like the galapagos for 8 years and it still look like new no details, what about those g-shock with 30 years old in rubber, that are still aorund in perfect conditions, do you really think that iwc would use a material worse than casio and swatch??
> 
> Best regards,
> Cesar


I would agree with you, except that the pictures clearly show a level of deterioration on the rubber that is far worse than any G-Shock (or Timex for that matter) that I've ever owned. And after a much shorter time, and what I _must_ assume was less "hard" wearing. What a shame


----------



## trplthrt

Wow.. coming close to picking one of these up and this thread is really putting me off!

I would have thought rubber is MORE durable than any metal surface short of it being cut by something sharp... most issues on watches are due to dings, bangs, etc. which rubber should function very well with. If IWC applied it well, the seams/areas that would otherwise potentially become compromised from excessive use around salt water/water/etc. should be closed and sealed and I am absolutely shocked anyone could have a wear and tear problem with this sort of finish.

I'm scratching my head about this one.... confused.


----------



## JP Chestnut

trplthrt said:


> Wow.. coming close to picking one of these up and this thread is really putting me off!
> 
> I would have thought rubber is MORE durable than any metal surface short of it being cut by something sharp... most issues on watches are due to dings, bangs, etc. which rubber should function very well with. If IWC applied it well, the seams/areas that would otherwise potentially become compromised from excessive use around salt water/water/etc. should be closed and sealed and I am absolutely shocked anyone could have a wear and tear problem with this sort of finish.
> 
> I'm scratching my head about this one.... confused.


Go buy one of those two pound rubber covered hand weights, then drop it on cement. The rubber will split where it hits the ground, due to both excess compression and abrasion. A watch may not suffer such a fall, however it will have *much* sharper edges causing an increase in pressure at the points of contact.

I'd stay away.


----------



## trplthrt

I certainly can see a drop on a rough surface (such as cement) causing scratches to the rubber, but splitting seems unlikely given the weight of the watch. But if you had to contrast that experiment with a metal watch, which is worse? Permanent abrasions in a rubber exterior or the dents/nicks/scratches in a metal finish? I'm not sure.

In any event, I think I do pass on this piece. Good thread.

Also, what's the deal -- how did they now pair the watch with a PVD buckle?!


----------



## JP Chestnut

trplthrt said:


> I certainly can see a drop on a rough surface (such as cement) causing scratches to the rubber, but splitting seems unlikely given the weight of the watch. But if you had to contrast that experiment with a metal watch, which is worse? Permanent abrasions in a rubber exterior or the dents/nicks/scratches in a metal finish? I'm not sure.
> 
> In any event, I think I do pass on this piece. Good thread.
> 
> Also, what's the deal -- how did they now pair the watch with a PVD buckle?!


A cut can definitely form without abrasion, though in reality there will *always* be friction (if you come up with a frictionless material lets go into business). In fact, you can split a piece of rubber by dropping it in water (which I've done in the lab). When you use a knife, a cut is formed due to pressure - Pressure = Force/Area. It would be easy to do the calculation to figure out the force of an equivalent knock on the bezel of a watch, which would match dropping a two pound weight onto a steel plate. However, I'm out of practice, and the bezel of a watch presents such a small surface area that I'm sure you could generate enough force simply by swinging your arm.

A hard knock on the bezel, the kind that watches suffer, could split this material assuming it's some standard industrial grade mixture. The fact that this guy has posted pictures showing exactly this should be more than enough. I, personally, would rather have a small dent on the case of my watch than a split in the rubber coating.


----------



## RogerP

That looks awful. I can understand the "you should have seen it coming" line of reasoning, because I sure did the first time I picked one up. But IWC didn't make or market this thing as a delicate safe queen dress watch. I would find this level of wear - absent outright abuse - completely unacceptable.

Roger


----------



## BoneDoc

Hey just an update... from the Bone Doc Galapagos. To all those that "could have seen it coming" obviously haven't had a Gshock. My first watch that I wore for the better part of my dumb-ass teen age years about 8-12 years of wear including 5 years nonstop wear in high school, beating it up. The G shock is not any worse for the wear. And subsequent to the Gshock I was wearing one of my dive watches (all rubber/plastic dive watch) in my watch rotation in much more rigorous wear pattern during all sporting activities for about 5 years (things that I wouldn’t dream of doing in my IWC). That watch is, also, still in much better shape than my Galapagos. Since my last post I have been wearing the Galapagos and the bezel has gotten noticeably worse. See pictures. How many days was that?

I just assumed that IWC was a reputable company and if there were any problems that they would do what is right. Well, I was wrong.


----------



## BoneDoc




----------



## JP Chestnut

^^^ Once the coating ruptures it seems inevitable that it will start to peel back (which is what looks to be happening). I've never owned, or handled a G Shock. Does the rubber on your IWC seem different to the touch? For instance, can you dig your fingernail into it more easily?

I'm really sorry about your luck.


----------



## marzen

I've owned several IWCs including this one and sold it in less than 1yr of owning it. This is exact reason why I sold mine. I knew the rubber wasn't going to hold up well. More than anything, the natural oil from your skin and hands does more damage to the rubber than anything. This is how my 2yr old Casio turned brittle hard too. Sorry about your luck. Thank God for German pilot watches. I have absolutely no desire to own another IWC.


----------



## Rjlaero1

I've often lusted after several IWC models. It's one of those "lifetime" purchases that I want to make one day after I can truly afford it.

But it is a bit disconcerting about how many people have commented about IWC customer service, or lack thereof.

Why pay top dollar for an AD service and a 2 year warranty, and then have to fight tooth and nail to fix stuff? It always seems to be the customers fault. 

All mechanical watches cab be finicky at times.

But I hear more gripes with IWC about poor customer service, and poor timekeeping for very expensive watches. 

Or maybe it's just me because I'm really interested in IWC and look at the forums more.


----------



## TGehrke

Here is a link to some more photos of the problems with the rubber coating:

IWC Galapagos poorly constructed - a set on Flickr


----------



## BoneDoc

another update: several additional threatening letters to IWC and no satisfactory response!! infuriating...
my rubber dive watch from omer that I bought at the same time and has gotten as many hours of wear in worse conditions has fared much better. My rubber SUUNTO dive watch spent many a good year getting beaten up at the same wear rate in worse conditions. My G-Shock took many a beating over the course of 15 years and still looks better than my <2 year old Galapagos. Any prospective buyer do not do what I did (trust a well established high end company with a sterling reputation) . stay away they are not a good company.
All the above made it seam reasonable that A fine watch manufacturer could make a durable watch. And to the guy citing rubber coated weights. they are used all of the time and tossed around my dive boat and I am yet to see one split as you say.


----------



## anonymousmoose

Perhaps take legal action and get a lawyer to draft a letter to IWC in your country?


----------



## Tim99

Does anyone of you have pictures of a, let's say, two year old Galapagos AT? I'd be very interested, if BoneDoc's case is an extreme one or if it's the normal case.


----------



## Derek P

I have to tell you I have been unbelievably dissappointed with the lack of professionalism and poor service of IWC. My friend and I bought the Galapogos from the Beverly Hills Boutique and both had the fraying of the rubber and we were rejected as well saying they must have been treated improperly. We called and complained many times and did not get our watches back after they were repaired for 13 months. Still not covered under warranty!! IWC has the absolute worst Customer Service and Warranty and I would never recommend their watches based on my experience. People should know that they do this to everyone!


----------



## Derek P

I do not have pics, but I can tell you the watch is VERY poorly constructed and IWC claims the rubber fraying is due to misuse and is horrible about reparing under warranty!


----------



## Nick.D

Wow, I'm sorry to hear that you had a bad experience. For what it's worth, IWC really makes some great watches; the specific model you purchased has not been a great seller historically --- this probably sheds some light on the reason for its poor performace. All that said, there is NO excuse for IWC not to honor their warranty - you should have been taken care of far better. I dont blame you for not purchasing IWC again in the future...


----------



## TGehrke

HI,

I still have no resolution more than 2 years after reporting the issue to IWC. They clearly have no intention to honor the warranty and I have unfortunately decided to write off the purchase as a really bad investment. I will clearly not buy another IWC. When I made the post back in May 2011 I received a good deal of negative feedback from this forum for providing negative feedback about IWC. It seemed there were some members who thought I bought a $6000 watch only to provide negative feedback -- not sure why anyone would do that. All I wanted was for IWC to either fix my watch under warranty or if the watch design doesn't work provide me with a credit for another watch that doesn't suffer from this design flaw.

Based on my experience I can only guess that IWC has decided it will be cheaper to have a few negative online comments rather than having to fix a larger number of galapogos watches or do a recall.


----------



## anonymousmoose

Well thats disappointing (if its all true, which it does sound like it is). If it happened to me, I probably wouldnt buy another IWC ever again, or if you still love the watches but not the service/centre, buy just pre-owned.

I had a tough experience with OMEGA through their Swatch service centers. I pretty much decided if I do ever buy another Omega, it makes more sense pre-owned; a) save up to thousands of $$$ b) lots of watchmakers can fix them for less than the 'warranty costs' on a new watch if there is an issue with one. So far out of all my watches, I have had problems with an in-warranty Omega and my IWC Pilot which is still away in the service centre.


----------



## diaby2afc

Derek P said:


> I have to tell you I have been unbelievably dissappointed with the lack of professionalism and poor service of IWC. My friend and I bought the Galapogos from the Beverly Hills Boutique and both had the fraying of the rubber and we were rejected as well saying they must have been treated improperly. We called and complained many times and did not get our watches back after they were repaired for 13 months. Still not covered under warranty!! IWC has the absolute worst Customer Service and Warranty and I would never recommend their watches based on my experience. People should know that they do this to everyone!


13 months to repair a strap??

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## G1Ninja

anonymousmoose said:


> I had a tough experience with OMEGA through their Swatch service centers. I pretty much decided if I do ever buy another Omega, it makes more sense pre-owned; a) save up to thousands of $$$ b) lots of watchmakers can fix them for less than the 'warranty costs' on a new watch if there is an issue with one. So far out of all my watches, I have had problems with an in-warranty Omega and my IWC Pilot which is still away in the service centre.


What happened with your Omega? I need to service mine soon. I want to avoid any problems. I know they send the Brequet watches back to Switzerland which makes me a little concerned about the quality of their service on other watches.



diaby2afc said:


> 13 months to repair a strap??


I assume they sent the watch for service. Probably received an estimate or price for repairs. I can't imagine IWC or any reputable company doing repairs without the customer knowing the price. They agreed for IWC to do the repairs but hoped they would be covered under the warranty after the fact. IWC is holding the watch until they get the money.


----------



## anonymousmoose

G1Ninja said:


> What happened with your Omega? I need to service mine soon. I want to avoid any problems. I know they send the Brequet watches back to Switzerland which makes me a little concerned about the quality of their service on other watches.


To be honest, its not worth getting into here. Do a search on my username and you'll soon find the saga. I personally would just find a watchmaker to service it. Post on the Omega forum for help.



G1Ninja said:


> I assume they sent the watch for service. Probably received an estimate or price for repairs. I can't imagine IWC or any reputable company doing repairs without the customer knowing the price. They agreed for IWC to do the repairs but hoped they would be covered under the warranty after the fact. IWC is holding the watch until they get the money.


It was an under warranty service so no charge to me, just had to go back twice for repair and a total of 3-4 times when they scratched it or let dust under the crystal (the whole thing started when I noticed dust under the crystal then the movement stopped).


----------



## thsiao

TGehrke said:


> HI,
> 
> I still have no resolution more than 2 years after reporting the issue to IWC. They clearly have no intention to honor the warranty and I have unfortunately decided to write off the purchase as a really bad investment. I will clearly not buy another IWC. When I made the post back in May 2011 I received a good deal of negative feedback from this forum for providing negative feedback about IWC. It seemed there were some members who thought I bought a $6000 watch only to provide negative feedback -- not sure why anyone would do that. All I wanted was for IWC to either fix my watch under warranty or if the watch design doesn't work provide me with a credit for another watch that doesn't suffer from this design flaw.
> 
> Based on my experience I can only guess that IWC has decided it will be cheaper to have a few negative online comments rather than having to fix a larger number of galapogos watches or do a recall.


That is quite unfortunately. I currently have my AT Chrono being serviced after I discovered that the metal part of the bezel was not aligned with the sapphire crystal part of the bezel. Watch was still under warranty but of course they denied it saying that the caseback looked like it was opened before so they could no longer honor the warranty. Even worse was the fact that I noticed that the lume on my minute hand was also pitted and that of course was also denied. I got the watch second hand so couldn't argue if it has been opened or not but the bezel is clearly a defect from the factory! Can't wait to get my watch back... but I am a bit worried that it will return with "another" issue (dust speck, etc.). Hopefully that is not the case.


----------



## WillC310

thsiao said:


> That is quite unfortunately. I currently have my AT Chrono being serviced after I discovered that the metal part of the bezel was not aligned with the sapphire crystal part of the bezel. Watch was still under warranty but of course they denied it saying that the caseback looked like it was opened before so they could no longer honor the warranty. Even worse was the fact that I noticed that the lume on my minute hand was also pitted and that of course was also denied. I got the watch second hand so couldn't argue if it has been opened or not but the bezel is clearly a defect from the factory! Can't wait to get my watch back... but I am a bit worried that it will return with "another" issue (dust speck, etc.). Hopefully that is not the case.


I had a similar incident when IWC denied warranty coverage because they said the case back looked like it had been opened. I argued against it because I knew it hadn't - it'd sat in the box for months after I got it back from their last service. I have no idea how it got there and I'm not saying they did it, or lied about it, but it's very odd. Now before I send any watches in I take detailed pictures of everything so they can't pull that **** again.

Also as a side note, I would recommend that right after you get it back, check that all links and watch functions work correctly. I had an instance when the chrono hand did not reset to 12 o'clock, and the pins securing the links were not secured causing the watch band to split.


----------



## Hoppyjr

If the OP purchased the watch new, then I agree - it should be covered by warranty, if for no other reason then on the basis of good customer service. IWC does, after all, advertise this piece as a "Robust Divers Watch". I personally wouldn't buy a rubber coated watch, but that's beside the point (I shy away from anything but stainless pieces anyway).

This said, I had a cosmetic flaw in the crystal of my brand new VC Aquatimer and IWC expedited the service (and crystal replacement) with a quick and trouble free turnaround. I've also have several Omega pieces serviced by Omega Los Angeles and Omega Seattle, all with excellent result.


----------



## diosrl

Photos will not help, you can take pictures, after that open the case for any reason, and send the watch to be serviced. So...


----------



## BadgerMattyB

I have a two year old Galapagos that is second in my rotation, behind an IWC pilot chrono. At this time, I have zero wear to the coating, despite the normal bumps that would easily mark a stainless case. While I am not careless with the watch, I don't pamper it either. Certainly not trying to discredit the claims of others, I've just had a different experience altogether and felt a need to share. Couldn't be happier with my Galapagos (or my pilot for that matter).


----------



## Robertus

I bought an IWC from Bucherer a decade ago (of course not a Galapagos back then) but could see the watch only after purchase (which was done via e-mails). The watch proved to be worn, most probably by Bucherer staff. Though Bucherer refused to stand behind the problem, I sent the watch to IWC in Schaffhausen and they've fixed all the issues (instead of Bucherer...), so no warranty problem with this one. Happy owner ever since.


----------



## adswuk

Having bought an Aquatimer recently and as much as I like the watch, IWC seem to be living a charmed life . The reason is simple, inside is a ETA 2892... nothing more , even if its modified it is not modified much . The case is SS and the bracelet is very nice the dial is again "nice" and obviously i like the look of the watch but...... 

A 2892 can acheave in its basic form 1-2 secs a day and I have several that do meet this rate , of the ones I have none ran more that 3 secs a day fast out the box and all do it consistently , and all cost less than an IWC one less than 1000 USD . Now my point is simple if a stock 2892 runs 1 to 5 secs a day .. How come a new IWC Aquatimer runs +15 secs a day ? Well one answer comes back .... IT WAS BADLY REGULATED IF AT ALL ..For a 5k watch that is just not on .

Now lets look at the facts, a stock 2892 of the best grade is 350 USD from the net.. a case of comparable quality is 500 USD with the bracelet, add a bit of labor and you have 1000 USD .. DON'T TELL ME QUALITY NEEDS TO SUFFER ON A 5K RETAIL PRICE ..Equally with OP in mind don't tell me you should b##tch about a repair no matter who is to blame . Goodwill should prevail after all you sold it for three times its cost, even with marketing and promotion .

In my opinion IWC is suffering from a case of "bean counters management" ( Accountants ) .. Richmont is run by bean counters for shareholders, and like all companies run this way by the bean counters the customer does not matter the shareholder does , sadly the customer will eventually walk ( Apple just learning this courtesy of Tim Cook the bean counter ) the bean counters then either cut cost or sell the company , and like Ebel a good company ends up owned by ten companies is as many years with a range of products that you cant buy as no one sells them and a name that just says "an OK brand ". IWC has a hundred plus years of history but in just ten short years bean counters will destroy its name ( For Enthusiasts at least ) and this is what bean counters do .

IWC of old is gone, bean counters are a corporate virus and we are the antibody, but we stop fighting when the Virus gets too much power, and I see that at this point with IWC and with all these comments .. The virus is winning .

Profit is required in a company, penny pinching is a virus and IWC has the virus .. Man cant cure a Virus just control it and IWC is even failing to do this


----------



## Tag Mac

I have just read through this thread and am heart broken by what has been said. The Spitfire Mark XVI was the watch I aspired to own one day ever since seeing the picture below. I love the classic design with that 3D face detailing set off perfectly with the brown alligator strap but think that the attitude shown here by IWC customer service falls significantly short of what I expect from a luxury brand. It has degraded the company significantly below the standards that their asking prices would suggest and has sadly led me to crossing IWC off my long term goal list.

:rodekaart


----------



## paulbeijing

I recognise the information on the very first thread. I bought the IWC AT Galapagos in October and a reputable dealer in HK. I noticed that the 'days' wheel would hand between two days just as if it were about to change at mid-night, but this was at anytime. I went to the Richemont service center in Beijing and was informed through a phone call that the watch had been damaged externally and it needed RMB 16,893 (approx. USD 2750) of repair work and that it was not covered by their warranty. I only ever wear the watch when going to the office. I take it off when I sport and other daily wear usage there is at no time has severe external forces been used on the watch. Very poor service and it seems that the watch is a dud on the inside and very fragile on the outside.


----------



## anonymousmoose

paulbeijing said:


> I noticed that the 'days' wheel would hand between two days just as if it were about to change at mid-night, but this was at anytime.


The issue your facing isnt what this thread is about. This thread is about the rubber constructed exterior.

I would complain to IWC head office. And post it on their facebook, they seem to respond when receiving negative press. But be nice when you complain because no one want to help someone who is not polite.


----------



## BoneDoc

I would have to say that I agree with paulbeijing, this thread is about it being poorly constructed (inside and out). In one of my posts I did talk about how multiple features do not work properly. Some of them are clearly related to the external damage (chrono buttons and crown) but in addition it does not keep time very well. If the watch is in my pocket for 18 holes of golf and then lunch it will lose 2-3 minutes. The service identified that there was something wrong internally, with a service charge of $USD980. They denied coverage (at 6months of ownership) as they indicated that it was due to external damage. The bill for the external damage was 5x that.


----------



## leicashot

Any follow ups to this? I am very concerned about buying an IWC now especially when I hear companies like Bremont are offering fast turn-around and professional and peronslaised service.


----------



## mt1tdi

I wonder if MCWW or others could bead blast off the crappy rubber on the case.


----------



## rockmastermike

There are two discussions running ITT....I am concerned, but cannot speak to, any service experiences good or bad, so there's that.

However, I can share my expereince with my new to me Galapagos. I am the second owner and by all accounts the original owner actually wore and enjoyed the Galapagos with no ill-effect for over two years. Granted, not daily, but I'd suggest 2 years is a large enough sample size. When I recieved the watch, I also did not/do not keep it stored away, I wear it as I would any other watch in day to day life. soccer practice, washing the truck, pumpkin patch, gun range and business/work environment. Dislcaimer: not mowing the lawn - that is what G's are for 

Point is, the Galapagos to this day looks as if it walked out of the AD and onto my wrist even after 2+ years of normal* wear (*non safe queen) I am not dismissing nor disputing OP initial claims - I will however testify that his issues do not reperesent the production run of the Galapagos.


----------



## Athaneco

had this last year. Interesting looking watch , but it is a sport watch that you cant wear for doing sports since It would eventual get heavily damaged. When i sold it , it was looking brand new, because i have wore it 10 times due to the fear of damaging it. It think this model is a complete failure of iwc as most of their watches nowdays, apart from the big pilot , which i still enjoy wearing. Their new pilot watches look cheap n tacky especially the shiny ceramic pilot.


----------



## Londonboy

Very enlightening thread. I was contemplating a Galapagos purchase, hence my visits to this part of the forum lately - absolutely no way will I consider one now.


----------



## Hoppyjr

We should remember that many have been sold that didn't have any problems....


----------



## leicashot

It's a rubber coated watch.


----------



## JP Chestnut

rockmastermike said:


> There are two discussions running ITT....I am concerned, but cannot speak to, any service experiences good or bad, so there's that.
> 
> However, I can share my expereince with my new to me Galapagos. I am the second owner and by all accounts the original owner actually wore and enjoyed the Galapagos with no ill-effect for over two years. Granted, not daily, but I'd suggest 2 years is a large enough sample size. When I recieved the watch, I also did not/do not keep it stored away, I wear it as I would any other watch in day to day life. soccer practice, washing the truck, pumpkin patch, gun range and business/work environment. Dislcaimer: not mowing the lawn - that is what G's are for
> 
> Point is, the Galapagos to this day looks as if it walked out of the AD and onto my wrist even after 2+ years of normal* wear (*non safe queen) I am not dismissing nor disputing OP initial claims - I will however testify that his issues do not reperesent the production run of the Galapagos.


This was Adam's old watch wasn't it? He was happy with its ability to withstand use per out PMs.

I suspect (if the wear issue is real) that it's related to hard use. Wearing a watch once a week for 10 years isn't the same as wearing a watch while changing the oil in your car, or banging around in a tool box (IIRC those were some of the activities mentioned earlier in this thread). I don't wear expensive watches while doing that sort of thing, and I would be 100% un-surprised if doing so quickly destroyed the rubber coating. On the other hand, it would also destroy the finish on a SS or Ti watch just as easily. Different tools for different jobs, and I don't think any IWC is designed for smashing around sharp objects!


----------



## georges zaslavsky

This has to be the most disheartening and flabbergasting post I have read in a while on the IWC forumbut clearly it seems like quality control at IWC has lowered down. A Sinn Tegimented watch or with a vintage Porsche Design lemania 5100 powered chrono can withstand the abuse quite well, I am not also mentioning the horrible IWC service which is a serious flaw when buying a 10000$ watch


----------



## Ozzy1981

Posted this thread on the IWC Facebook page... hope someone takes notice.


----------



## Grahamsjz

Ozzy1981 said:


> Posted this thread on the IWC Facebook page... hope someone takes notice.


Takes notice of what? The many people posting their pleasure with the watch or the one (or are we up to two??) that looks like it has been abused.

If IWC really had a problem with rubber coating watches they would not have launched a rubber covered version of the new Aquatimer.

IWC


----------



## murokello

Any updates? I love the look but I'm worried.


----------



## daveswordfish

murokello said:


> Any updates? I love the look but I'm worried.


Hi Murokello. Given that this thread is so old, if you'd like feedback on the Galapagos I'd suggest starting a new thread and asking for owner feedback. Might want to do it here in the brand forum as well as the main forum...you'll get more responses.

I don't have the Galapagos, but am super happy with the four IWCs I have and am equally happy with their customer service.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LCheapo

I was hoping for a few more recent posts in this thread; should probably have read it backwards...

Still, it's a worrisome story about IWC warranty handling; all in the past, I sincerely hope, having just bought a new Portugieser chrono. If it were regular practice to deny warranty by claiming abuse, then what good would an 8 year warranty be?

What IWC should have done is replace the two watches with badly damaged rubber coating, and have their case manufacturer inspect them for signs of manufacturing process problems in either the adhesion of the rubber (surface prep) or the curing of the rubber, and for evidence of environmental damage (exposure to ozone or solvents). From all the other owners posts it really seems the two watches in question reacted much worse to the little impacts and scuffs of everyday use than is normal for this watch, so something happened to the coating. My bet would be on failed adhesion due to contamination (skin oils, missed cleaning step) or other process issues (rubber batch preparation, temperature) during production that were not evident during normal QC. (See also this post on another site.)

What is also baffling is that there seems not to be a single in-focus picture in this thread. I admit it can be difficult to coax a cell phone into focusing on the right detail, but usually one can succeed after a few tries. Short of failing eye sight or being in an incredible hurry, why upload an image where the important object or detail is not what the camera focused on, when with exactly the same amount of effort one could upload an ok picture? It's also not fair to the other forum members.


----------



## juzam182

Man this is such a bummer, I really wanted one of these. 

I had planed on wearing it as a daily, I have other rubber coated objects that I use daily and have never had a problem with. I figured it would be the same or better quality. I can't spend that kind of money if it's not going to last.


----------

