# New Pilot Mark XVIII



## Sextant

IWC is refreshing this year their Pilot line with, amongst other model upgrades, new Mark XVIII. Thoughts?


----------



## nesal

I may be wrong but I don't believe that is the new mark XVIII, I believe that is the 36mm pilot

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk


----------



## Tony A.H

beautiful Grey Dial layout.


----------



## cuts33

That is the 36mm pilot. 

The Mark will be black, white and allegedly a blue dial is coming as well.


----------



## RickS72

Here's a photo of the new Mark 18, borrowed from a similar thead in the public forum










Most comments appear to be about the positioning and colour of the date window. I don't mind the colour (the white balances the 9 and is more visible than black) but the positioning is too inboard for me. It should be on the same arc as the numbers. Better still, they could have dispensed with the date feature and simply put a 3 instead. Would have been truer to the original flieger watch.


----------



## wagenx

Wow, make that 36mm pilot into a 40/41 and I'm sold. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## cuts33

Anyone know when IWC tends to have their new watches from SIHH available at AD's?

Is it the same 4-7 month delay as most Basel watches?


----------



## dak_la

RickS72 said:


> I don't mind the colour (the white balances the 9 and is more visible than black) but the positioning is too inboard for me. It should be on the same arc as the numbers. Better still, they could have dispensed with the date feature and simply put a 3 instead. Would have been truer to the original flieger watch.


+1

As a side note, my wife is eyeing the 36mm Mark, which we think should match pretty well with my XVI.


----------



## nesal

dak_la said:


> +1
> 
> As a side note, my wife is eyeing the 36mm Mark, which we think should match pretty well with my XVI.


And my wife is eyeing it also as she says it matches my Spitfire!!

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk


----------



## truep287

+1 on your comment about the date window


----------



## franksf

I love the gray dial and can only complement IWC for to listening to the majority of his fan base who seemed to dislike the three day window on the XVII. That said....I am glad to have the XVII because I love the 3 day window and now it is even more precious to me knowing that the date design is officially discontinued on the Mark. Collector!


----------



## HorologicalFraz

Now that's lovely and looks like a real easy wear!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NewToAllThis

nesal said:


> And my wife is eyeing it also as she says it matches my Spitfire!!
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk


And I'm eyeing too as it'll team with my husband's XV11........
I also love the three-date feature of the XV11.


----------



## logan2z

I may be in the minority, but I'm disappointed that they downsized the Mk. to 40mm rather than bumping it up slightly to 42mm. But I am glad they went back to a more traditional date window and think the watch looks great overall.


----------



## Hl247b

Not liking that 2 level dial. Like the finish on hands. Very dressy.


----------



## a4b5

A little bit disappointed with the design of mk.18. I better stick with my mk.16.
Why IWC not use the older design like mk.11 or 12 but with larger diameter ?


----------



## Zarium

I own a Mark XVI. I'm liking the XVIII -- I like that they eschewed the triple date that's on the XVII and went for a smaller size; though this may only be because I have pretty tiny wrists.


----------



## Gunnar_917

franksf said:


> I love the gray dial and can only complement IWC for to listening to the majority of his fan base who seemed to dislike the three day window on the XVII. That said....I am glad to have the XVII because I love the 3 day window and now it is even more precious to me knowing that the date design is officially discontinued on the Mark. Collector!


Same here, I'm a fan of the triple date. I would however like the 40mm size better

Now IWC please re release the ref 5002 BP


----------



## Buramu

Nice, if not unremarkable.


----------



## TallWatch

If you google `iwc timezoner` you can see this new model as well, plus the pilot chrono and st exupery perpetual.


----------



## Tourbillonare

I would have preferred no dates on both the 36mm pilot and the Mark XVIII !


----------



## nuovorecord

I would have liked to see them bring back the actual Mark XI spec hands on the 36mm, instead of the flieger hands. I guess IWC wants continuity among their pilot watch line offerings.


----------



## flame2000

Are they still using ETA2892-2 (30110) movement or fitted with the new in-house 42110 caliber?


----------



## cuthbert

It appears the Mark XVII had a very shot lifespan, however the 36mm looks nicer (even if a little "generic") than the official XVIIII.

Still saving for a XII.


----------



## Quartersawn

I wish...


----------



## Cabaiguan

Date placement is awful in XVIII. It bothers me so much I don't think I could stomach buying it. Looks really off.


----------



## mpalmer

Saxon007 said:


> I wish...


Despite the movement and the cost, I'd be tempted by this on a bracelet...if it existed...


----------



## icn_ord

will keep the XVI, thanks.


----------



## jamwires

You guys don't even have the right photo. The date window is black. 

Where's the passion? The IWC forum seems to severely lack it. New releases like this - especially more or less IWC actually listening to their customer base - should be generating lively discussion, no?


----------



## jamwires

btw


----------



## DannyV

jamwires said:


> btw


I don't mind it, except that the date window is not close enough to the 3 hour marker. The watch seems to be a bit too big for the movement however I find it to be an improvement on the XVII. I'd still probably choose a XV or XVI over it though.

I am however excited to see the ceramic type B flieger dial version (ala Miramar) that they do. I saw some pictures of it before they were taken down and I believe it was a wearable size.


----------



## flynnyfalcon

Much prefer the XVII.


----------



## COZ

Prefer the XVII over the new XVIII, the date window placement is just awful.


----------



## FrozenCommunist

franksf said:


> I love the gray dial and can only complement IWC for to listening to the majority of his fan base who seemed to dislike the three day window on the XVII. That said....I am glad to have the XVII because I love the 3 day window and now it is even more precious to me knowing that the date design is officially discontinued on the Mark. Collector!


100% agree with you. I've got the Mark XVII as well, and with 3-date window discontinued, it's become a keeper among those who value it.


----------



## FrozenCommunist

flame2000 said:


> Are they still using ETA2892-2 (30110) movement or fitted with the new in-house 42110 caliber?


It's now a Sellita movement.


----------



## usfpaul82

FrozenCommunist said:


> It's now a Sellita movement.


I am not sure about this. The IWC site itself says the movement is their 30110. So unless they switched to Sellita but kept the same IWC Movement name then it should still be ETA.


----------



## FrozenCommunist

usfpaul82 said:


> I am not sure about this. The IWC site itself says the movement is their 30110. So unless they switched to Sellita but kept the same IWC Movement name then it should still be ETA.


I read this off of Hodinkee: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-iwc-mark-xviii-pilots-watch

and somebody posted this in another WUS post.


----------



## m1ekster

here's the IWC MK XVIII product page >iwc.com/en/collection/pilots/IW3270/

It really does seem like IWC has listened to the community, though i am surprised by the the comments of how the XVII is preferred. I actually own a XVI because the XVII was too big and the 3-date window was not preferred.

I think 40mm is perfect for this watch but once the date window position was mentioned, it does bother me too. I'm curious to see the white face in person, on the website it is "silver-plated" so i'm not sure if it will be matte or have a shine to it.

Kind of a bummer since it will probably decrease the value of the XVI.


----------



## FrozenCommunist

I also think that IWC, like other watchmakers, are facing pressures to cut costs. The Sellita movement as well as getting rid of the alligator strap in place of a calf strap are two areas of cost cutting.

I like the 40mm size of the XVIII vs the 41mm size of the XVII, but IMO, everything else is a downgrade compared to the last model.


----------



## Iowa_Watchman

FrozenCommunist said:


> I read this off of Hodinkee: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-iwc-mark-xviii-pilots-watch
> 
> and somebody posted this in another WUS post.
> 
> View attachment 6715826


Oh, definitely don't use me as a source of confirmation (I created the image above). I was pulling my information on the specifics of the movement from various sources, including WUS. More of them seemed to think it was a Sellita movement and the decrease in price also seems to point in that direction, so that's what I went with, but it could very well be an ETA. Either way, the SW 300 is essentially a clone of the ETA 2892. Outside of the margins, I wouldn't say one is better or worse in any way.


----------



## Orange_GT3

Iowa_Watchman said:


> Either way, the SW 300 is essentially a clone of the ETA 2892. Outside of the margins, I wouldn't say one is better or worse in any way.


Quite, and what's more, IWC, like other non-Swatch group brands, will need to switch to a supplier other than ETA for their out-sourced movements.


----------



## FrozenCommunist

Orange_GT3 said:


> Quite, and what's more, IWC, like other non-Swatch group brands, will need to switch to a supplier other than ETA for their out-sourced movements.


Should be interesting to see what happens. Switch to an in-house movement and jack up the MSRP by 50%!!!


----------



## Orange_GT3

FrozenCommunist said:


> Should be interesting to see what happens. Switch to an in-house movement and jack up the MSRP by 50%!!!


If they do that, they might as well kill off the Mark, as they wouldn't sell any. Nothing wrong with a Sellita movement anyway.


----------



## jlipeles

Nobody seems to have mentioned it so, for what it's worth, the MSRP on the XVIII has dropped $1k from the XVII. So that's nice.

But I agree with a lot of the previous posters, that date window is really awkwardly placed. I never had a problem with the triple date of the XVII and still look forward to getting one.


----------



## DannyV

FrozenCommunist said:


> I read this off of Hodinkee: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-iwc-mark-xviii-pilots-watch
> 
> and somebody posted this in another WUS post.
> 
> View attachment 6715826


Pretty hard to argue with that comparison. From what I've been told Stowa's finish is good. I can understand a brand premium for IWC but not thaaat much.


----------



## Gunnar_917

I quite like the white one, seems to work much better than in black.


----------



## flame2000

jlipeles said:


> Nobody seems to have mentioned it so, for what it's worth, the MSRP on the XVIII has dropped $1k from the XVII. So that's nice.
> 
> But I agree with a lot of the previous posters, that date window is really awkwardly placed. I never had a problem with the triple date of the XVII and still look forward to getting one.


Probably because it's using a Sellita SW300 now. Hence the price drop.


----------



## Stranger09

Am i the only one feel disappointed for the new mark xviii? Added 9 and 6 on mark xvi, downgrade croco leather to calfskin and call it mark xviii?


----------



## Iowa_Watchman

DannyV said:


> Pretty hard to argue with that comparison. From what I've been told Stowa's finish is good. I can understand a brand premium for IWC but not thaaat much.


Having worn both a Stowa Flieger and an IWC Mark XVII (never owned the IWC) I can attest that there is a noticeable difference in finish, but I'm not sure anyone outside of this forum would be able to notice. If the difference in price is a trivial amount to a given individual, then the IWC is the way to go. If a given individual is looking for a great watch and wants to save a little money, the Stowa is a very strong alternative.


----------



## willzy

flame2000 said:


> Probably because it's using a Sellita SW300 now. Hence the price drop.


You may want to recheck your source. As far as I know, Mark XVIII's movement is not Selitta based. You can confirm easily based on the jewels. 21 jewels = ETA 2892 base.


----------



## roseskunk

I prefer the 16 to the 17 or 18. I never could understand the reasoning for the triple date, and the new 18, though it harkens back to the 16, just doesn't look as good imo. I own both the 16 (two of them actually) and the Stowa Flieger, and though they're both really nice watches, they're really also different animals. The Stowa feels much bigger, while the IWC feels more robust in a way. I do love the blue hands on the Stowa and its display back, but I wear my 16's much more often.


----------



## RickS72

usfpaul82 said:


> I am not sure about this. The IWC site itself says the movement is their 30110. So unless they switched to Sellita but kept the same IWC Movement name then it should still be ETA.


Release from IWC states calibre 30110, which is their reference for the ETA 2892A2, is fitted to the Mark 18. IWC's reference for the Sellita 300 movement is 35110.


----------



## Orange_GT3

RickS72 said:


> Release from IWC states calibre 30110, which is their reference for the ETA 2892A2, is fitted to the Mark 18. IWC's reference for the Sellita 300 movement is 35110.


I'm surprised that IWC have a different reference for what is essentially an identical movement. I'm sure as IWC move from ETA to Sellita they will work with Sellita to have their movements customised the way they want them just as ETA currently do for them.

I know that Sellita do this for TAG Heuer.


----------



## valmak

Wish this had an in-house movement. It's a nice watch at a good price point but without an in-house movement it's no home-run.


----------



## truep287

Agree with others that the date window is out of alignment. Overall, I think the Mark XVI has a cleaner dial due to not having the 6 and 9. Having all the numbers on the dial makes it look cluttered IMHO.


----------



## pampermypam

Have always loved this one. So clean.


----------



## Hl247b

I'll keep my stowa. IWC releases at SIHH 2016 were singularly underwhelming. Given a choice, Mark xvi would be the one I'd still keep


----------



## watchfanatic100

Not a huge fan of that bracelet but the dial and case is a homerun for me


----------



## GNP1979

IMO IWC have surely made progress over the Mark XVII, which I always thought of as a trend-soon-to-be-forgotten-model, with its triple date window and 41cm case. They made a step towards the classic look that made Marks a classic family. Still, Mark XVIII cannot be regarded as a true rival for a used XVI , never mind XV, or worse XII. It just offers a good alternative for those that don't feel confident enough to buy second-hand but were - understandingly- appaled by XVII. Oh , well I might be a little biased, here's mine... 









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## truep287

It must be hard for IWC to update such a classic like the Mark series. It's like tweaking the Porsche 911. Here's my Mark XVI. I like the 39mm case, black date window and bar markers at 3, 6, and 9.

Oops, sorry for the multiple images.


----------



## heb

Hello,
Pretty nice, but I think I'm going to wait a few years until their design geniuses come up with something like this. 

heb


----------



## jaredkanallakan

GNP1979 said:


> IMO IWC have surely made progress over the Mark XVII, which I always thought of as a trend-soon-to-be-forgotten-model, with its triple date window and 41cm case. They made a step towards the classic look that made Marks a classic family. Still, Mark XVIII cannot be regarded as a true rival for a used XVI , never mind XV, or worse XII. It just offers a good alternative for those that don't feel confident enough to buy second-hand but were - understandingly- appaled by XVII. Oh , well I might be a little biased, here's mine...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That looks great.


----------



## GNP1979

jaredkanallakan said:


> That looks great.


Thank you!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JohnM

I have the Mark XVI and a Stowa Flieger (no date) -- and love both. Both are finished to a very high standard. The Stowa is a more casual watch that looks great with a brown strap, while the Mark XVI, with its black dial, pairs beautifully with the perfectly finished black strap.

To my eye, the Mark XVIII date window is off (too close in). I would guess this is driven by the Sellita movement rather than by a design choice on IWC's part. My one experience with Sellita has not been good. I bought a Sinn 104 with a Sellita day-date movement and the day was tilted/misaligned. It turns this issue was not unique to my watch.

Given that IWC seems to have switched to Sellita and the date placement is now farther in than would be ideal, I prefer the 39mm Mark XVI and the Stowa Flieger. I do look forward to seeing the new 36mm IWC Pilot watch. Looks a little plain in pictures but may be really nice in person.


----------



## usfpaul82

JohnM said:


> I have the Mark XVI and a Stowa Flieger (no date) -- and love both. Both are finished to a very high standard. The Stowa is a more casual watch that looks great with a brown strap, while the Mark XVI, with its black dial, pairs beautifully with the perfectly finished black strap.
> 
> To my eye, the Mark XVIII date window is off (too close in). I would guess this is driven by the Sellita movement rather than by a design choice on IWC's part. My one experience with Sellita has not been good. I bought a Sinn 104 with a Sellita day-date movement and the day was tilted/misaligned. It turns this issue was not unique to my watch.
> 
> Given that IWC seems to have switched to Sellita and the date placement is now farther in than would be ideal, I prefer the 39mm Mark XVI and the Stowa Flieger. I do look forward to seeing the new 36mm IWC Pilot watch. Looks a little plain in pictures but may be really nice in person.


The Mark XVIII does not use a Sellia movement, it kept the ETA. The date placement is farther in to your eye because the index at 3 oclock is shorter than it was on the March XVII. The date window on the XVII and the XVIII are in the same location.


----------



## ccm123

Classy!


----------



## JohnM

usfpaul82 said:


> The Mark XVIII does not use a Sellia movement, it kept the ETA. The date placement is farther in to your eye because the index at 3 oclock is shorter than it was on the March XVII. The date window on the XVII and the XVIII are in the same location.


Sorry, I thought it was Sellita based, per this:

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


----------



## Orange_GT3

JohnM said:


> Sorry, I thought it was Sellita based, per this:
> 
> https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/the-iwc-mark-xviii-pilots-watch


There has been some confusion on the interwebs.....


----------



## flame2000

heb said:


> Hello,
> Pretty nice, but I think I'm going to wait a few years until their design geniuses come up with something like this.
> 
> heb


Or maybe something different like this......


----------



## ryanmanyes

flame2000 said:


> Or maybe something different like this......
> View attachment 6873466


Very nice

Would love to see a sub 40mm pilot with sub second dial, no date......and manaul wind.....my dream! 

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk


----------



## ShawnGriffin

Has anybody else noticed the newly designed bracelet? The way it meets the case is different and the links are all the same width. 





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JohnM

Though I prefer the Mark XVI to the XVIII due to date placement, it's great that IWC added back the 6 and 9 numerals. Also really nice that there's been a size reduction from the 41mm Mark XVII to 40mm on the XVIII, though 38-39mm would have been ideal for my wimpy, 6.75" wrist.

So if you could only have one -- Mark XII, XV, XVI, XVII, or XVIII, which would it be? Tough call for me. Probably the XVI due to the black date or the XV due to the added numerals and smaller size.


----------



## powerfade

JohnM said:


> Though I prefer the Mark XVI to the XVIII due to date placement, it's great that IWC added back the 6 and 9 numerals. Also really nice that there's been a size reduction from the 41mm Mark XVII to 40mm on the XVIII, though 38-39mm would have been ideal for my wimpy, 6.75" wrist.
> 
> So if you could only have one -- Mark XII, XV, XVI, XVII, or XVIII, which would it be? Tough call for me. Probably the XVI due to the black date or the XV due to the added numerals and smaller size.


I'd pick either Mark XVIII Top Gun Miramar or Le Petit Prince.

Powerfade


----------



## exarkun12

simple and classy! nice!


----------



## c.hanninen

Does anyone know how much more the bracelet will cost compared to the strap?


----------



## Orange_GT3

c.hanninen said:


> Does anyone know how much more the bracelet will cost compared to the strap?


Typically, it has been $1000 unless my memory is going fuzzy.....


----------



## c.hanninen

Wow. $1000 more would bring it close to Rolex Explorer territory.


----------



## chochocho

I like it! IMHO it looks great without that 3 day window


----------



## c.hanninen

I agree. If it was $4k with bracelet it would be a strong contender for me. Great daily wearer.


----------



## c.hanninen

Anybody know when these will hit ADs?


----------



## ilitig8

roseskunk said:


> I prefer the 16 to the 17 or 18. I never could understand the reasoning for the triple date,


The detail comes from aviation instrumentation, but it has a practical function as well, you can still determine the date during the 24 times a day the hour hand obscures the date window. Some dislike it but I don't mind it especially on a pilots watch.


----------



## ilitig8

The one I am interested in is the Top Gun Miramar. I have loved the anthracite dialed ceramic versions already put out but they are just too large for me. The Top Gun will be a ceramic case and 41mm. The only question is price which I haven't seen addressed for this variation but it will obviously be more expensive. The inner red ring seems to "ground" the date window so to my eyes it looks more congruous than on the other MK XVIIIs.


----------



## DieSkim

ilitig8 said:


> The one I am interested in is the Top Gun Miramar. I have loved the anthracite dialed ceramic versions already put out but they are just too large for me. The Top Gun will be a ceramic case and 41mm. The only question is price which I haven't seen addressed for this variation but it will obviously be more expensive. The inner red ring seems to "ground" the date window so to my eyes it looks more congruous than on the other MK XVIIIs.
> 
> [iurl="https://www.watchuseek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6935458&d=1454572326"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/iurl]


I like this one as well, just not sure whether this will feel a bit of a gimmick seeing the 'roots' which this model came from


----------



## Fiery

ilitig8 said:


> The one I am interested in is the Top Gun Miramar. I have loved the anthracite dialed ceramic versions already put out but they are just too large for me. The Top Gun will be a ceramic case and 41mm. The only question is price which I haven't seen addressed for this variation but it will obviously be more expensive. The inner red ring seems to "ground" the date window so to my eyes it looks more congruous than on the other MK XVIIIs.


This article mentions $5400:

PROFESSIONAL WATCHES: IWC Mark XVIII Top Gun Miramar launched at SIHH


----------



## Fiery

(double post)


----------



## James Russle

its a selitta movment now though isnt it?


----------



## Orange_GT3

James Russle said:


> its a selitta movment now though isnt it?


No, the Mark kept the ETA movement. There have been mixed stories on the internet though, so you are forgiven for being confused.


----------



## p_mcgee

I was excited at first, then found a nice Mark XV on a bracelet up for sale & got that one instead. I think the XVIII looks great, but German flieger-style hands on a watch originally designed for the British RAF bugs me a little.


----------



## truep287

ilitig8 said:


> The one I am interested in is the Top Gun Miramar. I have loved the anthracite dialed ceramic versions already put out but they are just too large for me. The Top Gun will be a ceramic case and 41mm. The only question is price which I haven't seen addressed for this variation but it will obviously be more expensive. The inner red ring seems to "ground" the date window so to my eyes it looks more congruous than on the other MK XVIIIs.
> 
> View attachment 6935458


I agree that the red ring does balance the date window, as opposed to the other Mark XVIII watches. I'm not sure I like the polished ceramic case vs. the matte finish though. I'm really glad that they're making these in reasonable sizes though!


----------



## dhtjr

I like the dial and ceramic case of the Mark XVIII Top Gun Miramar (though I too would prefer matte ceramic). If I could persuade IWC to replace the Top Gun case back with the generic one from the Mark XVII (both 41mm cases, so should fit), I'd be sorely tempted. Unless I had actually graduated from the Top Gun flight school (or had a child who did), I just couldn't wear it with a straight face. Silly pet peeve perhaps. But a moot point, as I'm quite certain IWC would not entertain such a modification, minor though it may be.


----------



## ilitig8

dhtjr said:


> I like the dial and ceramic case of the Mark XVIII Top Gun Miramar (though I too would prefer matte ceramic). If I could persuade IWC to replace the Top Gun case back with the generic one from the Mark XVII (both 41mm cases, so should fit), I'd be sorely tempted. Unless I had actually graduated from the Top Gun flight school (or had a child who did), I just couldn't wear it with a straight face. Silly pet peeve perhaps. But a moot point, as I'm quite certain IWC would not entertain such a modification, minor though it may be.


I wouldn't wear it if it was branded with Top Gun anywhere but on the case back. As for the matte vs polished case, that is a detail I will have to see in person. The good thing is if I like the polished case at least in ceramic I know that it will pretty much stay that way.


----------



## exador

roseskunk said:


> I prefer the 16 to the 17 or 18. I never could understand the reasoning for the triple date, and the new 18, though it harkens back to the 16, just doesn't look as good imo.


Couldn't agree more (16 owner).


----------



## hebhsteve

Not feeling for the new XVIII. Loved the new BP though.


----------



## visualplane

Any updates? Love it or flipped it?


----------



## LikeClockWork

i personally LOVE the mark 18


----------



## timeguy123

Well designed watch. I think IWC will sell a lot of mark 18's.


----------



## timeguy123

Mark 18 is a good alternative for guys who are unable to wear the big pilot .


----------



## ivanos

Absolutely love it. It's now my every day watch.


----------



## ike773

I was so close to getting this. Im glad they got rid of the red accents. IWC nailed what they intended to do here. So understated yet very tastefully designed. Amazing watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## upupa epops

Can anyone tell me what's the lug to lug lenght on the XVIII?


----------



## visualplane

Is this watch safe to take in the shower everyday? I think I read it's water ressistant but i'm still a bit cautious.


----------



## Horrible Gelatinous Blob

I shower with my LPP everyday! IWC states you can do water sports and snorkeling with it. Basically, anything but scuba diving!


----------



## visualplane

Horrible Gelatinous Blob said:


> I shower with my LPP everyday! IWC states you can do water sports and snorkeling with it. Basically, anything but scuba diving!


Great,thanks!I'llhavetogetarubberstrap


----------



## up1911fan

upupa epops said:


> Can anyone tell me what's the lug to lug lenght on the XVIII?


If I recall correctly, 51mm.


----------



## ivanos

up1911fan said:


> If I recall correctly, 51mm.


50mm.

https://www.watchuseek.com/f350/lug-lug-length-iwc-mark-xviii-3401194.html


----------



## onwatch1969

Love the blue face and brown strap combination. Absolutely lovely.


----------



## gerasimos33

Here is mine. It's lovely!


----------



## visualplane

Looks great.

If anyone has an oyster bracelet or rubber b, can they see if it would fit on the xviii?


----------



## gerasimos33

I don't but I am not so sure if the oyster bracelet will suit the style of the Mark XVIII. If anyone has one though, I am curious to see how it looks as well.


----------



## upupa epops

gerasimos33 said:


> Here is mine. It's lovely!


Good stuff!

I don't take mine off, lovely piece.


----------



## upupa epops

Works equally good on a casual Sunday as well, here with the Smartwool man


----------



## visualplane




----------

