# New bracelet for my Mark XVI



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

Had my Mark XVI for more than 7 years now and it was on strap when I got it. I like straps and had gotten a fair share of straps on that watch all these years, including a Maratac NATO:









The Watch Boys alligator with white stitching:









Distressed leather with rivets:









Chocolate alligator pilot style strap with rivets (from Peter.watchacc) (one of my favorites on this watch):









and the rubber strap from The Watch Boys (also a favorite of mine, but no photo, sorry...)

Several reasons why I did not consider getting the bracelet for this watch. The obvious one is of course, its cost. Also, I believed that, on my small wrist, leather strap would be more comfortable and fitting for me. I have a Speedy Pro on bracelet and to be honest, it wasn't very comfortable. One reason is that the number of removable links is quite limited on that bracelet and even with all the removable links removed and the micro-adjustment on the clasp is on the tightest setting, it is still too loose on me (I like to wear my watches snug, as I don't like the watch to droop). Lastly, the romantic side of me keeps telling me that a pilot watch should be worn with straps. Well, my taste and opinion changed over time. I decided to give the bracelet a try and took the plunge.

















































As almost all of the links are removable and each link is quite small, the sizing is much more flexible and precise than my Speedy Pro (the only other one I can compare with). The polishing is of high quality (I expected as much from IWC), and the weight is just right. It balances the watch well and my watch pretty much stays in place all the time. I have been wearing for a few days and most of the time I don't even feel its existence. The surprising part is that I find it more comfortable than any of the straps I had! It has this modern look which puts a big contrast to all of the straps I had on that watch. I have enjoyed this change of look so far. I would say really the only downside is the cost. But if you can swallow it, I would definitely recommend it.


----------



## martin_blank (May 19, 2010)

Looks great on leather but really looks solid as a rock on the bracelet. Enjoy it 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## karmatp (Jul 8, 2007)

IWC bracelets are the best on the market. They are so comfortable and I always get the perfect fit. Congrats, she looks perfect on your wrist.


----------



## lhanddds (Jun 30, 2007)

They seem to be more classic on a strap, but IWC makes great bracelets. Always good to have options. That looks great.


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

martin_blank said:


> Looks great on leather but really looks solid as a rock on the bracelet. Enjoy it
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks Martin!



karmatp said:


> IWC bracelets are the best on the market. They are so comfortable and I always get the perfect fit. Congrats, she looks perfect on your wrist.


Thanks Karmatp! Yes, I kinda wish that I realized how well it would fit on my wrist much sooner and I probably would have gotten it long time ago!



lhanddds said:


> They seem to be more classic on a strap, but IWC makes great bracelets. Always good to have options. That looks great.


Thanks lhanddds! I agree that it looks more classic on straps, and as I mentioned, the bracelet offers this modern look which I like as well. Great to have option as you said!


----------



## bonnysteen (Jan 19, 2019)

Awesome, Nice shots


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

bonnysteen said:


> Awesome, Nice shots


Thanks bonnysteen!


----------



## Tournemine (Oct 26, 2017)

Where did you buy the bracelet, was it direct from IWC? And do you mind sharing how much you paid?


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

Tournemine said:


> Where did you buy the bracelet, was it direct from IWC? And do you mind sharing how much you paid?


I got it through an IWC boutique, and paid the full retail of $1,400.


----------



## Tournemine (Oct 26, 2017)

dak_la said:


> Tournemine said:
> 
> 
> > Where did you buy the bracelet, was it direct from IWC? And do you mind sharing how much you paid?
> ...


Thanks. But damn, that's a whole lot of money right there, half way towards my next watch.


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

Tournemine said:


> dak_la said:
> 
> 
> > Tournemine said:
> ...


Yup agreed. Not cheap at all, and I understand why people would rather get another watch instead of the bracelet, heck, the cost was one of the reasons holding me back from getting the bracelet myself for many years. Also, I haven't found any watches at that price range of the bracelet ,or double of that price, that I really want to get at this point. I even looked at Reverso many times and really like to add that style to my collection but just dont think it fits me very well. Also looked at Cartier for that similar rectangular style and that didn't excite me either. The only watch I have been thinking about is the new 39mm Explorer I (definitely quite a bit more than the bracelet ? ) And I'm not sure I would enjoy that one that much more than the Mark on the bracelet. Now with two bracelets I give mine and my wife's watches a completely new look, so to me it's worth it ?.

What's the next watch you want to get btw?


----------



## michael8238 (Sep 13, 2015)

I do like those older bracelets more---the links are just a lot more 3D


----------



## liangliangyu (Nov 22, 2013)

The NATO definitely refreshes the look.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tournemine (Oct 26, 2017)

I’ve been eying a couple of used Tudor BBs, but may wait till Basel to see what happens with the 58 line. Of course, there’s a whole list of alternatives to eventually acquire!


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

michael8238 said:


> I do like those older bracelets more---the links are just a lot more 3D


Yes, I also appreciate that aspect of this bracelet, especially now that I have a chance to compare this to the latest Mark XVIII type bracelet. Since the entire bracelet is brushed, the raised middle sections provides a more 3D look which I like.


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

liangliangyu said:


> The NATO definitely refreshes the look.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks liangliangyu! The NATO does provide a very different look on the watch. I used it a long time ago when I wore it in a trip to Asia during the humid summer season, and it worked great. Unfortunately, it fell out of favor as I didn't like the bulgy-look that much, and prefer a slimmer look. For a while, I would wear the rubber strap offered by the Watch Boys if I knew that I would be sweating a lot.


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

Tournemine said:


> I've been eying a couple of used Tudor BBs, but may wait till Basel to see what happens with the 58 line. Of course, there's a whole list of alternatives to eventually acquire!


The Tudor BB and their 58 line are very attractive indeed! I especially like the size of the 58 line.


----------



## Keaman (Jul 13, 2010)

I've had mine for 7 years now, the most enduring watch in my collection. It's never been off it's bracelet. I never felt the need to, it's just perfect.
I also had an Explorer 39 mk2, but didn't keep it for very long, it couldn't compete with my Mark XVI. Really gorgeous watch, but I found it basically just too big and heavy, and the bezel's too wide.


----------



## happyscrappyheropup (Feb 6, 2013)

I think the bracelets really make these watches. I didn't know that the older versions don't have the micro adjust using the IWC logo/button on the clasp. Do the newer bracelets fit the older references? Specifically, a Mark 17 or 18 bracelet on a 16.


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

Keaman said:


> I've had mine for 7 years now, the most enduring watch in my collection. It's never been off it's bracelet. I never felt the need to, it's just perfect.
> I also had an Explorer 39 mk2, but didn't keep it for very long, it couldn't compete with my Mark XVI. Really gorgeous watch, but I found it basically just too big and heavy, and the bezel's too wide.


Thanks for sharing your experience! I also appreciate the slim profile of the case and the bracelet, making it extremely versatile (easy to slip under the cuffs during work days and not obstructing at all). While I enjoy the look of the watch with a nice leather strap, I still feel that it can be a little bulgy (depending on the strap), and most surprisingly to me, I found that the bracelet actually has a better fit than any leather straps I had (I had several custom made straps for this watch and others).

Coincidentally, I have also been eyeing on the new version (with the longer hands  ) 39mm Exp I, so I also appreciate your thoughts on the comparison!


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

happyscrappyheropup said:


> I think the bracelets really make these watches. I didn't know that the older versions don't have the micro adjust using the IWC logo/button on the clasp. Do the newer bracelets fit the older references? Specifically, a Mark 17 or 18 bracelet on a 16.


Correct, the bracelet for the 16 does not have the micro adjustment feature, and neither does the bracelet for the Pilot 36 (same gen as the 18) I got for my wife. Unfortunately, the bracelet for the 17 or 18 will NOT fit the 16 as the watch case sizes are different (so the end link will not fit the curvature of the watch case) even though they have the same lug width.

I'm sure I will enjoy the micro adjustment feature if it has it, but for now I find the fitting of the bracelet good enough that it is not a big deal to me.


----------



## boulekos (Dec 15, 2011)

Wow that was a lot for the bracelet but it is a stunner !!!


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

boulekos said:


> Wow that was a lot for the bracelet but it is a stunner !!!


Yes, the cost was definitely a deterring factor for me, but I am very glad that I got it. If you look at the MSRPs of IWC watches on bracelet and on leather, the difference is about $1,000. Considering that an IWC leather strap can easily cost $300-$400, I am guessing that IWC isn't trying to overcharge me when I buy the bracelet separately.

Also, the quality of the bracelet is really good, as mentioned by many others already. I have heard many high praises of Rolex bracelets also, and I don't know how much Rolex charges for them (probably pretty high too), as most of their watches come with bracelets only so the cost is already built into the MSRP.


----------



## Chris Stark (Sep 21, 2015)

Your 16 has really "hit the bricks," and I look it! I've heard nothing but good things about this bracelet and it's always listed as one of the most comfortable. Congrats!


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

Chris Stark said:


> Your 16 has really "hit the bricks," and I look it! I've heard nothing but good things about this bracelet and it's always listed as one of the most comfortable. Congrats!


Thanks Chris!


----------



## jodanjo (Jan 4, 2019)

big fan of their steel bracelet !!


----------



## Jo1s (Oct 13, 2018)

Nice pics, and nice watch!


----------



## Tournemine (Oct 26, 2017)

I've been lusting after the official IWC bracelet, but can't justify the price right now. I took a punt on the WatchGecko Superengineer II as it's currently only £28!

I'm sure it's nowhere near the quality of the IWC , but I'm very impressed considering what I paid. I think I'll favor my Santoni straps in the long run, but this will be a nice option for the poolside this summer.


----------



## wkw (Feb 12, 2006)

Another fan of IWC bracelet says hi



















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nicholasnick (Dec 23, 2017)

Bracelet is stunning! I love when an OEM bracelet is that well crafted/suited to a particular piece. congrats!


----------



## thebighaze (Sep 26, 2018)

Bracelet Brigade! I do wish it had the micro adjustments as I am in between links, but c'est la vie...


----------



## dawalsh13 (Mar 29, 2017)

I recently moved and somehow lost original straps. Decided to get an IWC bracelet(and some more fun straps) because of this thread. Have a bracelet coming this Saturday, can’t wait.


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

Keaman said:


> I've had mine for 7 years now, the most enduring watch in my collection. It's never been off it's bracelet. I never felt the need to, it's just perfect.
> I also had an Explorer 39 mk2, but didn't keep it for very long, it couldn't compete with my Mark XVI. Really gorgeous watch, but I found it basically just too big and heavy, and the bezel's too wide.
> 
> View attachment 13839541
> ...


I'm surprised by your comparison of the Mark to the Exp. I had a Mark XVIII on bracelet. Researched it to death. Waited 5 months after launch to pick it up. Despite the micro adjust, I couldn't get the bracelet to fit comfortably. One big difference between the two us that the Rolex has a tapered bracelet, whereas the IWC is not. I think tapered is generally more comfortable. I also found the IWC to be much heavier than the Rolex. Finally, I found the IWC to be colder, more stoic/Teutonic than the Rolex - which has some polished surfaces and and just a little flash. Ultimately traded the IWC for the Rolex.

The Rolex is not perfect. I find the dial to be very reflective and difficult to read. And, while less so than the Mark - it is a little vanilla.

Still thinking about trying a Mark again. I think the spitfires on bracelet would be interesting. Anybody try it?

Kerman - interested in your thoughts.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

One other thing I wanted to say. I felt the Mark XVIII at 40 mm wears larger than the Exp. both in terms of lug to lug and dial diameter. Interested in thoughts from others on this. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Keaman (Jul 13, 2010)

dberg said:


> I'm surprised by your comparison of the Mark to the Exp. I had a Mark XVIII on bracelet. Researched it to death. Waited 5 months after launch to pick it up. Despite the micro adjust, I couldn't get the bracelet to fit comfortably. One big difference between the two us that the Rolex has a tapered bracelet, whereas the IWC is not. I think tapered is generally more comfortable. I also found the IWC to be much heavier than the Rolex. Finally, I found the IWC to be colder, more stoic/Teutonic than the Rolex - which has some polished surfaces and and just a little flash. Ultimately traded the IWC for the Rolex.
> 
> The Rolex is not perfect. I find the dial to be very reflective and difficult to read. And, while less so than the Mark - it is a little vanilla.
> 
> ...


Damn, my reply's a bit late, sorry.
Yes, I owned a Mark XVIII (little prince) also, and the difference between the 16 and 18 is rather huge. The 16 is very svelte, whereas the 18 is a bit of a bruiser (however I still found it very comfortable).
Using my calibrated balance at work, my Mark XVI on bracelet weighs 116g (I also have the XVI Spitfire, and it's 117g, I guess the extra gram is the applied markers), my Mark XVIII was 144g, and my Explorer 214270 mk2 was 129g.
The story of me selling my XVIII LPP is a bit funny. I had it for sale on the 'bay, and on the same day I'd worn it out and said to myself "man this watch is too nice, I'm gonna de-list it when I get home". I got home, logged on and found it had sold. Suppose I could have tried to cancel the sale, but that's not me, and I followed through. I really did love that watch, but I think I just preferred my 16's more.
Anyway, I'd buy an 18 LPP on bracelet again in a heartbeat if the chance came up (pre-owned, as I never buy new). I never once regretted selling the Explorer though (I also owned the 114270 36mm), even though I sold it for a couple thousand dollars less than they're worth now!

My Mark XVI's...









My previously owned XVIII LPP...









Possible family reunion...


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

dberg said:


> I'm surprised by your comparison of the Mark to the Exp. I had a Mark XVIII on bracelet. Researched it to death. Waited 5 months after launch to pick it up. Despite the micro adjust, I couldn't get the bracelet to fit comfortably. One big difference between the two us that the Rolex has a tapered bracelet, whereas the IWC is not. I think tapered is generally more comfortable. I also found the IWC to be much heavier than the Rolex. Finally, I found the IWC to be colder, more stoic/Teutonic than the Rolex - which has some polished surfaces and and just a little flash. Ultimately traded the IWC for the Rolex.
> 
> The Rolex is not perfect. I find the dial to be very reflective and difficult to read. And, while less so than the Mark - it is a little vanilla.
> 
> ...


Sorry to hear that you couldn't get the Mark 18 bracelet to fit perfectly, and I didn't realize there is such a difference in weight between the 16 and the 18 until Keaman posted his measurements.

I actually got the Exp 1 Mk2 last year as well, and between the two I actually found the Mark 16 bracelet to be more comfortable, despite having no micro adjustments. One thing I would have asked you to try if you haven't sold the Mark 18 is to add/remove beads on different sides of the watch. By playing around with different lengths on each side, I was able to get the clasp (when in close position) to be parallel with the watch face, so it balances really well on the wrist. It's harder to do the same on the Explorer. I like and agree with your comparison between the two. The IWC being more teutonic and stoic, while the Exp 1 being more flashy (also wears larger than the Mark even though they supposed to have the same dimension). I like them both, for their different attributes.

I also think that you might like the Spitfire better (as it's more interesting than the regular Mark). They look really nice in person.


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

Keaman said:


> Damn, my reply's a bit late, sorry.
> Yes, I owned a Mark XVIII (little prince) also, and the difference between the 16 and 18 is rather huge. The 16 is very svelte, whereas the 18 is a bit of a bruiser (however I still found it very comfortable).
> Using my calibrated balance at work, my Mark XVI on bracelet weighs 116g (I also have the XVI Spitfire, and it's 117g, I guess the extra gram is the applied markers), my Mark XVIII was 144g, and my Explorer 214270 mk2 was 129g.
> The story of me selling my XVIII LPP is a bit funny. I had it for sale on the 'bay, and on the same day I'd worn it out and said to myself "man this watch is too nice, I'm gonna de-list it when I get home". I got home, logged on and found it had sold. Suppose I could have tried to cancel the sale, but that's not me, and I followed through. I really did love that watch, but I think I just preferred my 16's more.
> ...


Interesting information there! I hope you will have your family reunion soon, the LPP dial is pretty mesmerizing.


----------



## R3Dprius (Jul 27, 2018)

Do the earlier models that don't have micro adjustments have a slightly longer bit? This gave me the perfect fit on my 36mm Pilot.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

R3Dprius said:


> Do the earlier models that don't have micro adjustments have a slightly longer bit? This gave me the perfect fit on my 36mm Pilot.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think, from the photo posted by Keaman above and the two Marks that me and my wife own, the newer ones have longer and thicker beads but there are less space between the beads on the bracelet. In th photo below, the right one is the XVI and the left one is the 36mm mark.


----------



## R3Dprius (Jul 27, 2018)

Your wife should have one that is longer than the rest. You can see it above the logo’d clasp in mine. That’s what I needed to install to give a proper fit. But it may not be the same for older models though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MHe225 (Jan 24, 2010)

dak_la said:


> .... the two Marks that me and my wife own ...


Phew .... we're not the only ones. But we have 2 identical pieces (20th Anniversary presents)









Thanks, *keaman*, for putting your Marks on a scale - wasn't aware of the significant difference in weight. One more point for the XVI


----------



## Keaman (Jul 13, 2010)

dak_la said:


> I think, from the photo posted by Keaman above and the two Marks that me and my wife own, the newer ones have longer and thicker beads...


I've never seen any longer links on any of my Mark's, I think that must just be the P36. But yes the 18 bracelet is way chunkier. It did grow on me pretty quickly, but I still preferred the 16 bracelet, even without the micro-adjust.



MHe225 said:


> ...Thanks, *keaman*, for putting your Marks on a scale - wasn't aware of the significant difference in weight. One more point for the XVI


No worries, and not only that, but the link push system in the 18 is much fiddlier. It has 2 pushers per link and outer parts of each link come off completely, so each link has multiple separate parts. I didn't understand why IWC did that. The 16's are beautifully solid with one bar sliding through each one piece link. It feels much more industrial, yet the bracelet is just as articulated and incredibly well finished as the 18's.


----------



## Keaman (Jul 13, 2010)

dak_la said:


> ...the LPP dial is pretty mesmerizing.


Absolutely! I was one of the nicest blue dials I've ever had, right up there with the z-blue I also owned.


----------



## soufiane (Jul 23, 2012)

dak_la said:


> I got it through an IWC boutique, and paid the full retail of $1,400.


Ouch a little steep

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Keaman (Jul 13, 2010)

soufiane said:


> Ouch a little steep
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I suppose you've never handled this bracelet..


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

R3Dprius said:


> Your wife should have one that is longer than the rest. You can see it above the logo'd clasp in mine. That's what I needed to install to give a proper fit. But it may not be the same for older models though.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ah I see what you were referring to now. Hers don't come with longer beads. I believe yours is the black dial Mark 36 (pretty much like the regular Mark but smaller), but hers is the older version (gray sunburst dial with shinier case).


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

soufiane said:


> Ouch a little steep
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not cheap  but you aren't getting much of a discount either if you get it with the watch. So unfortunately that is the going price for it. I read lots of review prior to purchase as well, especially as I mentioned in the OP I used to be a strap guy so I was a little skeptical. What happened was that every time I see the bracelet online, the more I like it, to the point where I pulled the trigger. And I haven't had one bit of regret.


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

Keaman said:


> I've never seen any longer links on any of my Mark's, I think that must just be the P36. But yes the 18 bracelet is way chunkier. It did grow on me pretty quickly, but I still preferred the 16 bracelet, even without the micro-adjust.
> 
> No worries, and not only that, but the link push system in the 18 is much fiddlier. It has 2 pushers per link and outer parts of each link come off completely, so each link has multiple separate parts. I didn't understand why IWC did that. The 16's are beautifully solid with one bar sliding through each one piece link. It feels much more industrial, yet the bracelet is just as articulated and incredibly well finished as the 18's.


I also prefer the look and feel of the 16 bracelet over the newer ones. Like you said, the industrial look and feel is more suited for this watch.


----------



## R3Dprius (Jul 27, 2018)

dak_la said:


> Ah I see what you were referring to now. Hers don't come with longer beads. I believe yours is the black dial Mark 36 (pretty much like the regular Mark but smaller), but hers is the older version (gray sunburst dial with shinier case).


Interesting, I know the black dialed version came out a few years after the initial release of these 36mm variants. It really is a 36mm version of the Mark. 









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

R3Dprius said:


> dak_la said:
> 
> 
> > Ah I see what you were referring to now. Hers don't come with longer beads. I believe yours is the black dial Mark 36 (pretty much like the regular Mark but smaller), but hers is the older version (gray sunburst dial with shinier case).
> ...


Yup, even though they share the same case size, yours looks like a completely diff watch than my wife's. If the one you have was released at the time, we might actually have gotten yours instead.


----------



## R3Dprius (Jul 27, 2018)

dak_la said:


> Yup, even though they share the same case size, yours looks like a completely diff watch than my wife's. If the one you have was released at the time, we might actually have gotten yours instead.


The marketing for the 36mm watches is definitely interesting. If you read the descriptions for the 36mm pilots watches you're lead to believe these are only for women. But on the matte black dialed version is talks about the Mark line.

Poor branding/marketing aside, I'm glad they introduced these sizes because I wouldn't be able to wear any modern IWC Pilot's watches.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Keaman (Jul 13, 2010)

dak_la said:


> Yup, even though they share the same case size, yours looks like a completely diff watch than my wife's. If the one you have was released at the time, we might actually have gotten yours instead.


Such awesome looking watches guys! You can't really lose with any Mark or Pilot's 36 and I regret selling my XV as much as my LPP. It was in NOS condition with original buffalo strap and deployant. If it had have been on the bracelet, I doubt I would have sold! I've even many times contemplated buying the oddball Mark XVII, merely because it's such an oddball with its case size and probably never to be seen again altimeter style date.

My previous XV (because pics are just fun lol) (and not the buffalo here)...

View attachment 15123655


----------



## R3Dprius (Jul 27, 2018)

Keaman said:


> Such awesome looking watches guys! You can't really lose with any Mark or Pilot's 36 and I regret selling my XV as much as my LPP. It was in NOS condition with original buffalo strap and deployant. If it had have been on the bracelet, I doubt I would have sold! I've even many times contemplated buying the oddball Mark XVII, merely because it's such an oddball with its case size and probably never to be seen again altimeter style date.
> 
> My previous XV (because pics are just fun lol) (and not the buffalo here)...
> 
> View attachment 15123655


I'm getting an attachment link error. Would love to see the XV though.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

R3Dprius said:


> I'm getting an attachment link error. Would love to see the XV though.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, would love to see your XV too. After all these years and seeing the different iterations of modern Marks, I would have to say that the XV is still the best looking one.


----------



## MHe225 (Jan 24, 2010)

dak_la said:


> Yes, would love to see your XV too. After all these years and seeing the different iterations of modern Marks, I would have to say that the XV is still the best looking one.


Yes & Yes (would love to see the pics and agree on that view regarding the XV - I find myself on and of looking for one, maybe trade my XVI


----------



## Keaman (Jul 13, 2010)

Sorry guys, I'm late again!
This was my 15, I only have a few pics of it.
I've sold a LOT of watches that I don't regret letting go of.
This is not one of them :-(
However, even now, I still prefer my 16. They are very different, and the XVI still has the edge for me.


----------



## dak_la (Sep 13, 2012)

Keaman said:


> Sorry guys, I'm late again!
> This was my 15, I only have a few pics of it.
> I've sold a LOT of watches that I don't regret letting go of.
> This is not one of them :-(
> However, even now, I still prefer my 16. They are very different, and the XVI still has the edge for me.


Thanks Keaman for showing us your XV. I'm curious what you like about the XVI more than the XV. For me, I like the vintage vibe of the XV. But the XVI is more versatile to wear for me as it looks more elegant.


----------



## R3Dprius (Jul 27, 2018)

dak_la said:


> Thanks Keaman for showing us your XV. I'm curious what you like about the XVI more than the XV. For me, I like the vintage vibe of the XV. But the XVI is more versatile to wear for me as it looks more elegant.


I don't own the XVI, but for me the rounded numerals on the modern IWCs are super unique to me. That + plus their overall design language hooked me. The older models with their more stiff numerals have grown on me, but I love their modern designs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Keaman (Jul 13, 2010)

dak_la said:


> Thanks Keaman for showing us your XV. I'm curious what you like about the XVI more than the XV. For me, I like the vintage vibe of the XV. But the XVI is more versatile to wear for me as it looks more elegant.


You're welcome!
For me, at the end of the day, I think it was the cross-hair style of the XVI's dial that really wins it for me (the propeller style hands are very cool too). I can't deny the beauty and heritage of the 6-9 dials, but the XVI was quite unique and, especially with the triangle pushed up into the chapter ring, has a beautiful symmetry (there's that word we love so much lol). The XVII with its triple date window (although kinda cool) didn't have the cleanliness of the XVI's dial (and neither do any or the 6-9 dials IMHO).


----------



## BespokeDia (7 mo ago)

Bump. I recently purchased a new pre owned Mark xvi and it has quickly become my favorite watch. Great legibility and weight, not like some of my other watches. It came on a strap which I've since changed for a nato but I've been considering a bracelet. Does anyone know the product code for the bracelet as I can't seem to find it? Thanks in advance, Alex


----------



## terryng281 (6 mo ago)

BespokeDia said:


> Bump. I recently purchased a new pre owned Mark xvi and it has quickly become my favorite watch. Great legibility and weight, not like some of my other watches. It came on a strap which I've since changed for a nato but I've been considering a bracelet. Does anyone know the product code for the bracelet as I can't seem to find it? Thanks in advance, Alex


I'm on the verge of buying the same watch as you on leather strap. I have a deal for 2700 euro full set and I will definitely buy a original ss bracelet as well. Have you found the code of the bracelet as I'm not sure IWC still have new stock for this reference? Thank you in advance and have a nice day Alex


----------



## BespokeDia (7 mo ago)

terryng281 said:


> I'm on the verge of buying the same watch as you on leather strap. I have a deal for 2700 euro full set and I will definitely buy a original ss bracelet as well. Have you found the code of the bracelet as I'm not sure IWC still have new stock for this reference? Thank you in advance and have a nice day Alex


Apologies for the deley... Yes I did, the code is IWA19416. I'm still looking as they're hard to find on there own. The bracelet also comes on the IW3706 and IW3255 05 so may have to purchase another watch! Cheers


----------

