# Why doesn't the IWC Portofino Automatic (IW356504) has a in house movement :(??



## Pietermann (Nov 19, 2009)

Why oh whyyyyy doesn't the IWC Portofino Automatic (IW356504) has a nice hand wound in house movement?

It think, if it has a hand wound in house movement, it would be the perfect dress, don't you think ?

























so PLEASEEEE IWC, make the IW356504 with a hand wound in house movement AND display back!


----------



## Vahalis (May 15, 2011)

Well, they did: IWC Schaffhausen | Fine Timepieces From Switzerland | Collection | Portofino Family | Portofino Hand-Wound Eight Days


----------



## Pietermann (Nov 19, 2009)

The 8 day hand wound Portofino isn't that classy like the automatic Portofino. Also, it's mutch to big 45mm instead of 40mm...


----------



## Vahalis (May 15, 2011)

Pietermann said:


> The 8 day hand wound Portofino isn't that classy like the automatic Portofino. Also, it's mutch to big 45mm instead of 40mm...


I agree it's to big.

But The real point is that an inhouse movement would make the 3565 a lot more expensive.


----------



## calcheng (Feb 11, 2012)

yeah my only qualms about the portofino automatic is that the backing is really subpar for a watch of this price.. i mean so what if the stainless steel version is supposedly the cheapest of all iwc watches? by slapping it with a plain silver backing just makes the watch look extremely cheap.. it would have been nicer if they chose to go with the sapphire backing


----------



## Bondtoys (Jul 21, 2008)

The concept of the Portofino Automatic is to offer an entry level price into the world of IWC - both SS bodies and 18kt. version.

If you'd put their inhouse movement inside, you'll not only ruin that usp but also shuffle the entire product hierarchy in IWC's range and have it cannibalizing other product lines. Additionally the retail price will be probably 100% higher.

As for the saphire crystal, I guess, that IWC did that for

a. cost reason
b. The current base movement is not really visually thrilling
c. it will then compete more with more expensive families in IWC range.


----------



## tigerpac (Feb 3, 2011)

Is it a stock eta or modified?


----------



## slashd0t (Nov 14, 2009)

Instead of swapping it for an in-house movement and driving the cost up, I think they should drop the IWC branding and go back to International Watch Co... Looks so much better/more classy on a dress watch IMO.


----------



## Rjlaero1 (May 31, 2012)

I'm not too worried about an in house movement for that portofino. It's the entry level for the brand.

They're priced that way for a reason. 

Large old school watch companies with the name & pedigree like IWC have to make decisions for their market.

Im more concerned about accurate timekeeping. 

That Portofino probably keeps just as good if not better time than a 7 day Portuguese


----------



## slashd0t (Nov 14, 2009)

Rjlaero1 said:


> Im more concerned about accurate timekeeping.
> 
> That Portofino probably keeps just as good if not better time than a 7 day Portuguese


If you're were more concerned about accurate timekeeping, you would buy a quartz 

Almost anything keeps time better than the 7-Day LOL .. I still love the 7 Day movement though.. I love that I can go away for a week and my BP is still ticking ..


----------



## socrates35 (Apr 21, 2014)

I guess by this line of reasoning all Rolexes look 'extremely cheap' as well....


----------



## mschachter7 (Sep 7, 2014)

The only reason why brands like IWC dont use in-house movements is simply because they're being lazy and lost their way in innovation. Im tired of people using the "in-house would drive up the price" argument ad nauseaum.

Has anybody heard of Christopher Ward, Frederique Constant or Nomos? They have in-house movements at a fraction of the price charged by a dead boring off the shelf IWC!

In-house does not have to be expensive, but IWC charge those ridiculous prices even for a "modified" ETA (i.e. slap their name on the rotor and call it their own), what does this say about them? It says they are lazy, do not want to put any effort in innovation and researching to build their own movements, but just charge loads of money for a generic movement that maybe cost £100 to make, just because they can. When you buy an IWC, you pay purely for the name, you no longer pay for its craftmanship in watchmaking. Why? Because there is no craftmanship anymore involved - just buy a ready-made cheap movement, sitck it into the watch and charge several grand. Pitiful


----------



## korneevy (May 17, 2012)

mschachter7 said:


> The only reason why brands like IWC dont use in-house movements is simply because they're being lazy and lost their way in innovation. Im tired of people using the "in-house would drive up the price" argument ad nauseaum.
> 
> Has anybody heard of Christopher Ward, Frederique Constant or Nomos? They have in-house movements at a fraction of the price charged by a dead boring off the shelf IWC!
> 
> In-house does not have to be expensive, but IWC charge those ridiculous prices even for a "modified" ETA (i.e. slap their name on the rotor and call it their own), what does this say about them? It says they are lazy, do not want to put any effort in innovation and researching to build their own movements, but just charge loads of money for a generic movement that maybe cost £100 to make, just because they can. When you buy an IWC, you pay purely for the name, you no longer pay for its craftmanship in watchmaking. Why? Because there is no craftmanship anymore involved - just buy a ready-made cheap movement, sitck it into the watch and charge several grand. Pitiful


I think it all comes down to where you are as a brand. All of the ones you've mentioned - Nomos, FC etc. - are relatively new, lack the verifiable history/heritage and have to offer something unique or rather uniquely priced, to get attention of potential customer in a marketplace already filled with other "watch assemblers" of various degrees of pedigree (or lack of thereof). Thats the only way for them to stand out from the crowd, build some following and brand recognition, and I have nothing but respect for their efforts. It shows that you can make a family of decent in-house movements in a timeframe of 3-5 years and sell end product to the masses for under $5K, which is of course unheard of in the big boys league of Richemond brands. IWC is in a very, very different spot - they already have paid for/built brand prestige and recognition, enjoy serious fan following, and I am pretty sure their manufacturing costs will be on par, if not cheaper than, say, FC - due to the scale and shared R&D across the Group. But the point of IWC as a business is not to make "world's cheapest manufacture movement in a premium segment", it is rather to sell whatever they've got to sell with a highest "brand" premium that the market can swallow, so they can double their returns and pay a nice fat dividend to their shareholders. They have been consistently rising their prices while plunging more and more cash into serious PR with expensive Hollywood characters - what does it tell you exactly? It tells you that they are reaching out to new market and new buyers and positioning the brand as a " premium luxury", "sought-after", slightly unattainable, product. They have an extensive range for buyers to chose from - and their ETA offerings, while being at entry level, are carrying over the prestige of the marque, and of course translate into (some say crazy and I agree) MRRPs that come packed with a very impressive profit margin.

Whether it is lazy or whatever is irrelevant - if FC had the same brand recognition, market demand and following, they'd be charging $10K for their manufacture movements overnight, gladly - but they dont, hence their only way to innovate and offer to a slightly more demanding but poorer customer something that is of a true value. Two different brands, very different company valuations, if you know what I mean. Its not unique to watchmaking, of course- every business on the planet is dreaming of a day when they are able charging MORE for the SAME product and the only leverage here is to increase the PRESTIGE that is associated with owning that brand, while maintaining the same or lower cost of manufacture. It works for same - looks at Armani, Zegna etc - and has been a complete disaster for others (Pierre Carden, anyone?) but we all victims of this...hell, i am writing this while wearing a pair of Tramarossa Jeans for which I GLADLY paid over $300 and waited for two weeks to arrive...are they worth it and really, how much "quality increase" there over your run-of-the-mill GAP offering? I dont know and dont care, I know i like them, know they are top quality, excellent fit, quite expensive and only select few will wear them around my parts, so I am happy with the purchase and will buy again, if only they had a retailer around here who carries their stock..Well, not all that different from the watches after all, right?:


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

I think it is also important to state that not all in-house movements are created equally. Certainly quite a few on the market aren't exactly reinventing the wheel. In that regard, their existence is as much about marketing as IWC paying for one of their models to be featured in a movie.


----------



## WineMan (Jul 23, 2007)

I have the rose gold version. I think it is a GREAT and classy solid gold dress watch for much less money than most others. The case is divine, the finishing is top notch, the dial is beautiful and the hands are so nicely shaped. The back engraving of Portofino is nice also, and unique. I have a ton of other display back watches. They are fine, but this is different and unique. Overall I think for the money this watch is perfect as is. I really could care less about in house for this. So in summary, it was my way to get into a very nice solid gold dress watch for well under $10K (got mine for around $7K) that looks wise rivals any out there, and performs great. Someday maybe ill buy a Lange or something in gold to get that and have solid gold with in-house.


----------



## Watchbreath (Feb 12, 2006)

Low cost reliability.


----------

