# IWC Pilot Mark XVII movement?



## ghoststar

I just bought a used IWC Mark XVII from a jeweler. It came with all boxes and cards. The serial number on the card matches the back of the watch. However, there are two issues I am having with this concerning authenticity. And since IWC, unlike Omega, does NOT give any watch info based on the serial number, I decided to mention these issues here in order to try and authenticate this watch:

1. When I received it, the rotor on the movement was super loud. I then opened up the back to take a photo of the movement. After I closed it back up, suddenly the loud scraping noise of the rotor was gone. How did I fix this? What was wrong with it before? Could simply a loose back plate have caused this noise? I still hear the scraping noise every once in a while, but rarely and a little less loudly, whereas before I opened and closed the back the sound was consistent and a little louder. My Omega watches never made a rotor noise. Ever.

2. Here is the photo of the movement. The watch itself looks perfect on the outside, and it is impossible to authenticate it that way, so I am only attaching photos of the inside. I am concerned that underneath the rotor, there is no inscription that tells me how many jewels are in the movement. I know that some other IWC watches DO have this jewel count inscribed on there, but for some reason this one doesn't (I turned the rotor around all the way to check the entire movement for the inscription, but nothing). Please take a look and let me know what you think. I know that the Mark XVII is a relatively new watch, so there are no photos of it online. So what I am asking for is this forum's expert opinions. Thank you!

BTW, from what I've read, the movement in this watch should be a modified ETA 2892, but I'm not sure...


----------



## elconquistador

Looks good to me. 

Lots of indiactions it is not fake. Fakes have simpler 1 piece rotors, no decoration except the top surface, the printing on the plate is always uneven...

Can't explain the scrapping noise, rotor bearing may be crooked from a drop.


----------



## Albranius

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. I've read that the current replicas of movements are pretty well decorated. They are making it hard to distinguish the fakes from the gens.

What I find in my Portofino (also C. 30110) is this: 


It can be that your movement is an newer version and they changed the movements.

You should ask it at the IWC forum, people will know it for sure there. Perhaps an trip to an AD isn't a bad idea, to clarify if it's real or not. Judging by its movement, I don't know....


----------



## Keaman

I have the Mark XVI (same movement) and the rotor has always been louder than any of my other 2892 based watches (Omega 1120, TAGHeuer Cal 7). Yep it sounds exactly like a 'scraping' noise. I figure it must be a characteristic of the 30110 and I've never given it a second thought. Good on you for cracking her open and having a look at the movement - I've never been game enough to do that with _any _of my watches!


----------



## ghoststar

Thank you guys. But with the contradicting assessments, I still am not sure. Albranius, I'm new to this site. How do I find the IWC forum? Is it a forum within watchuseek or is it a separate site altogether? 

Does anyone else have any expertise to share about the looks of this movement? I still find it strange that there is no jewel count. However, this watch did come with box, booklet, and the card with the hologram sticker (and the serial number on the card matches the watch). 

I appreciate everyone's help.


----------



## ghoststar

Albranius, are you sure that that first photo you posted isn't actually a photo of the genuine movement? It looks almost identical to my photo.


----------



## ghoststar

I noticed a couple other issues. Here is the photo of the dial. The 12 o'clock index (the triangle) is ever so slightly shifted too much to the left (about a half millimeter) and the 3 o'clock index is crooked (it is angled downward as it moves toward center). With all these indications I would say that this was a replica, but again, there is the box, booklet, and card with hologram with the matching serial number to the watch.

Someone please help! And please, only offer your opinion if you are an expert with this watch. Thank you!

Here is the photo of the dial:


----------



## Albranius

I PM'ed you


----------



## dhtjr

ghoststar said:


> I noticed a couple other issues. Here is the photo of the dial. The 12 o'clock index (the triangle) is ever so slightly shifted too much to the left (about a half millimeter) and the 3 o'clock index is crooked (it is angled downward as it moves toward center). With all these indications I would say that this was a replica, but again, there is the box, booklet, and card with hologram with the matching serial number to the watch.
> 
> Someone please help! And please, only offer your opinion if you are an expert with this watch. Thank you!
> 
> Here is the photo of the dial:


I hope you have already determined if it is real or not. Looking at your photo, I agree that the 3 o'clock marker appears to be slanted downward a bit. The 12 o'clock triangle looks fine to me, although the 6 o'clock marker appears to sit slightly to the left, not perfectly centered between the two second half-batons. It also appears that the sweep second hand is more squared at the tip than the one in the IWC website photo. And the red date triangle is not pointed at the center of the "17" as it should be, in contrast to how the red triangle points at the center of the date in the IWC website picture; moreover, the date window should show only 3 full numbers, not 2 full and 2 partial. I guess if the date indicator were properly aligned, the window would only show the 16, 17 and 18, so maybe for some reason the date has not yet fully changed over at the presumed 2:50 AM time pictured; but that seems strange. Finally, though internet pictures can be deceiving due to lighting, angles, etc., when I compare your photo to the enlarged Mark XVII photo on the IWC website, the bezels look different in that the IWC bezel appears to have more facets, nuances, and angles to it, whereas the case/bezel in your photo looks flatter and less faceted, if that makes sense. But it is quite possible that the bezel differences are only perceived rather than real. As for the minor position defects in the 3 and 6 o'clock dial markers, the second hand, and the off-centered red date indicator, if those are indeed real and not just perceived due to photo angles and lighting and an incomplete date change, well all that is a bit odd and certainly worth investigating. I know I'd be concerned. I hope you get it sorted out and post your conclusion, as I'm very curious about this too.


----------



## ghoststar

dhtjr said:


> I hope you have already determined if it is real or not. Looking at your photo, I agree that the 3 o'clock marker appears to be slanted downward a bit. The 12 o'clock triangle looks fine to me, although the 6 o'clock marker appears to sit slightly to the left, not perfectly centered between the two second half-batons. It also appears that the sweep second hand is more squared at the tip than the one in the IWC website photo. And the red date triangle is not pointed at the center of the "17" as it should be, in contrast to how the red triangle points at the center of the date in the IWC website picture; moreover, the date window should show only 3 full numbers, not 2 full and 2 partial. I guess if the date indicator were properly aligned, the window would only show the 16, 17 and 18, so maybe for some reason the date has not yet fully changed over at the presumed 2:50 AM time pictured; but that seems strange. Finally, though internet pictures can be deceiving due to lighting, angles, etc., when I compare your photo to the enlarged Mark XVII photo on the IWC website, the bezels look different in that the IWC bezel appears to have more facets, nuances, and angles to it, whereas the case/bezel in your photo looks flatter and less faceted, if that makes sense. But it is quite possible that the bezel differences are only perceived rather than real. As for the minor position defects in the 3 and 6 o'clock dial markers, the second hand, and the off-centered red date indicator, if those are indeed real and not just perceived due to photo angles and lighting and an incomplete date change, well all that is a bit odd and certainly worth investigating. I know I'd be concerned. I hope you get it sorted out and post your conclusion, as I'm very curious about this too.


Hi. Thanks for the assessment. The red arrow and date window were perfectly fine when I tested it out. For some reason it was just not aligned right for the photo. And most of the other things seemed to check out OK too, which was why even while in my hand I couldn't tell if it was authentic or not. The biggest problem, however, was that the 3 o'clock index was slanted. That, unfortunately, is NOT a matter of the angle of the photo and is an actual defect.

Good news: I have returned the item (shipped it out today) and the seller has agreed to refund me. Basically, I couldn't prove the status of its authenticity, but the back plate came off the watch when I initially pulled it out of the box because the rubber gasket was loose, making it impossible for the back plate to screw in tight. The seller blamed this on the previous owner who may have opened the back and caused the gasket to flatten. In any case, I hope the seller honors his end of the bargain and refunds me once he receives it. It looks like he will as he has already relisted this item. (He has relisted this item as being 99% new, and omits the fact that the back of the watch was opened, thereby possibly compromising the movement. In fact, he downplayed the entire defect throughout our correspondence.)

The only thing I'm really upset about is the fact that I had to pay $52 to ship this back to him using Priority mail with high insurance. The seller REFUSED to refund even a small fraction of this fee stating that no matter what it is the buyer's responsibility to pay return shipping. The fact is, it's only the buyer's responsibility because eB can't force the seller to pay return shipping, but they do state that the seller should try to work with the buyer in the case the item was not as described. I'm actually considering sending the photos of the questionable movement and dial to IWC hq and reporting this seller. I just don't feel right about another buyer paying thousands for this watch that I KNOW has had the back unsealed or even open for a significant amount of time.


----------



## dhtjr

ghoststar said:


> Hi. Thanks for the assessment. The red arrow and date window were perfectly fine when I tested it out. For some reason it was just not aligned right for the photo. And most of the other things seemed to check out OK too, which was why even while in my hand I couldn't tell if it was authentic or not. The biggest problem, however, was that the 3 o'clock index was slanted. That, unfortunately, is NOT a matter of the angle of the photo and is an actual defect.
> 
> Good news: I have returned the item (shipped it out today) and the seller has agreed to refund me. Basically, I couldn't prove the status of its authenticity, but the back plate came off the watch when I initially pulled it out of the box because the rubber gasket was loose, making it impossible for the back plate to screw in tight. The seller blamed this on the previous owner who may have opened the back and caused the gasket to flatten. In any case, I hope the seller honors his end of the bargain and refunds me once he receives it. It looks like he will as he has already relisted this item. (He has relisted this item as being 99% new, and omits the fact that the back of the watch was opened, thereby possibly compromising the movement. In fact, he downplayed the entire defect throughout our correspondence.)
> 
> The only thing I'm really upset about is the fact that I had to pay $52 to ship this back to him using Priority mail with high insurance. The seller REFUSED to refund even a small fraction of this fee stating that no matter what it is the buyer's responsibility to pay return shipping. The fact is, it's only the buyer's responsibility because eB can't force the seller to pay return shipping, but they do state that the seller should try to work with the buyer in the case the item was not as described. I'm actually considering sending the photos of the questionable movement and dial to IWC hq and reporting this seller. I just don't feel right about another buyer paying thousands for this watch that I KNOW has had the back unsealed or even open for a significant amount of time.


Well, at least you will be made almost whole. And if it's any consolation, all of us with this watch obsession/sickness have had to eat shipping costs and often much more. It still hurts I know, but I'm glad you are getting a refund. The 3 o'clock defect would bug me too, especially on an IWC. You could try posting the pics and info on IWC's website--click on the "Experiences" link, and then "Forum" and you can register and get the answers you need from IWC experts. Might be worth a try--people do that all the time. Sorry you had to go through all this.


----------



## ghoststar

dhtjr said:


> Well, at least you will be made almost whole. And if it's any consolation, all of us with this watch obsession/sickness have had to eat shipping costs and often much more. It still hurts I know, but I'm glad you are getting a refund. The 3 o'clock defect would bug me too, especially on an IWC. You could try posting the pics and info on IWC's website--click on the "Experiences" link, and then "Forum" and you can register and get the answers you need from IWC experts. Might be worth a try--people do that all the time. Sorry you had to go through all this.


Thanks for the help! Always a pleasure here at WUS!


----------



## dkbs

The movement is Seagull ST1801, just look at the balance bridge, this design is very unique. Also, Mark XVII always uses 2824 movement. Not 2892.











elconquistador said:


> Looks good to me.
> 
> Lots of indiactions it is not fake. Fakes have simpler 1 piece rotors, no decoration except the top surface, the printing on the plate is always uneven...
> 
> Can't explain the scrapping noise, rotor bearing may be crooked from a drop.


----------



## Dixan

dkbs said:


> Also, Mark XVII always uses 2824 movement. Not 2892.


This is absolutely false.


----------



## wicked

dkbs said:


> Also, Mark XVII always uses 2824 movement. Not 2892.


 Calibre 30110 in Mark XVII is a modified 2892. IWC never use 2824 in any of their watches.

But I agree the movement looks very dodgy, just look at the finishing.


----------



## [email protected]

I find the seller relists this watch, is that a red flag...
IWC Schaffhausen Pilots Mark XVII IW326501 Stainless Steel W BOX Papers | eBay


----------



## ghoststar

[email protected] said:


> I find the seller relists this watch, is that a red flag...
> IWC Schaffhausen Pilots Mark XVII IW326501 Stainless Steel W BOX Papers | eBay


He relisted it because I have already sent it back to him (it is currently in transit and scheduled to arrive at his place this coming Monday). The seller seems to be reputable, but my guess is that he may have been duped on this one. He bought this from another person, and I'm beginning to suspect that, by the quality of the dial alone, that this indeed is a fake. The only thing that is keeping me from being convinced of this, however, is that the serial number on the hologram card matches the serial number on the back of the watch, and this serial number is NOT one of the commonly used ones for fakes. I have done a lot of research on this, and it seems that the Mark XVII fake watches and fake cards are always made from two different locations, and so they would never match in number unless they both used one of the commonly used fake numbers. I just don't know... I'm currently considering whether or not I should report all this (and if so, to whom; IWC?) so that no other buyer (possibly) gets duped.


----------



## [email protected]

ghoststar said:


> ...The only thing that is keeping me from being convinced of this, however, is that the serial number on the hologram card matches the serial number on the back of the watch, and this serial number is NOT one of the commonly used ones for fakes. I have done a lot of research on this, and it seems that the Mark XVII fake watches and fake cards are always made from two different locations, and so they would never match in number unless they both used one of the commonly used fake numbers. I just don't know... I'm currently considering whether or not I should report all this (and if so, to whom; IWC?) so that no other buyer (possibly) gets duped.


Oh, man, you will never imagine how good a fake watch can be done in China or maybe other place in the world. Since I am from China, I see too many fake watches that are produced by sort "good" quality. They use Sea-Gull movement, and they produce the case exactly the same as the genuine one, so it's NOT HARD for them to get a fake match number. Of cause that will cost more, but that is also easier to trick others. I will never believe hologram card or something like that, instead, I will go to an AD and ask for a simple regulation. If AD does that for you, it means, at least, the watch has been checked by a authority. That can ease my mind, and will not cost too much.

I also report the item to the ebay. Hope they will remove the item.

Best regards,

Charles


----------



## [email protected]

Trust, but verify.


----------



## John Anderson

Hi, I although I don't only this version of the watch, i own the fliger chronograph version. In my opinion, depending on what year this IWC was made, defects inside and outside the watch are extremely common. (not trying to degrade IWC or anything, for I'm a proud owner of one) IWC really has some quality issues, and i'm talking about my IWC timer stopped working after a swim, and then the next week the watch stopped working as a whole. It cost me US1200 to fix it, which was a hefty price considering i bought it for US2000 in the first place. Funny thing is, its selling for US6,000 now, I mean its a nice watch, but that price?NO Idea why, there was not water inside th watch. Another ridiculous story is when my friend bought a ingeunier, the crown fell of after a week, and they charged him US700 to fix it. They said the warranty does not cover it. My friend really exploded.
Sorry, the point is, if its made before 2004, defects are a bit common, considering you're not the chrono versions. QC has improved now, since the price for them has raised drastically, ex: the 3717s Fliegers are a bit less prone to break as mine 3706 Fliger. Also, the movement does look real, as i've opened my watch before and i doubt a copier would go to such lenght to copy an IWC. I mean, i've rebuilt watches, and trust me, its a very hefty price. Its not as easy as you think. Hope it helped.


----------



## elconquistador

$700 seems a lot to replace a $4 stem. Might be different if it was an in house movement with a unique stem. Then $40; might be OK.


----------



## acooray

I emailed the seller about this thread and the seller emailed me the following, which I copy in total:

Hi,

Thanks for bringing it up to my attention but I have already accepted a return on the watch so I don't know why the continued opening on it. The watch is original.

I explained to the buyer who unfortunately received it with the back not sealed tightly, I was probably not the 1st to see this watch when it was offered and likely another dealer had the back opened to check that the serial (inside the caseback) matches the guarantee card. I don't blame whomever did it because it is a pre-owned watch and though it is in 99% new condition, I myself have bought watches with papers/guarantees and later find out they didn't match. It's not new so it isn't a bad idea but unfortunately it was left not tightened and because of how it looked to me (like new) so I didn't test with my fingers if it was tightened or not. It's unfortunate but its not the end of the world. I doubt the iron dust cover was removed but even if it was some dust off compression on it, seal the back tightly and pressure test it to specs and its fine. A watch is not "compromised" just because all mighty IWC didn't open it and close it. 

As for the movement and dial, this is the cal. 30110 IWC movement and I can see even those pics the buyer made that under the balance its signed IWC and the cal. number is there. Movement plates are not "faked" liked this and the caliber can be compared to this movement and its all correct. The dial is original but I do agree that that the marker at 3 looks somewhat slanted I would have to see it in person because to be honest I didn't notice it. In pic 5 it lines up nicely with date it seems if you look closely. The crystal is somewhat domed and there is distortion and reflection that made it hard for me to capture this watch. Whatever it is its an IWC quality issue not a fake issue. I told the buyer to go to any official dealer, watchmaker or high end watch store to verify it but he refused so what can I do? I stand by it and returning it is fine. TY

Regards,Jim


----------



## chronostudent

Hi, I don't want to resurrect an old thread, but I wanted to add to this thread to help any future readers. I have been trying to research how to tell a fake IWC Pilot Mark XVII, as I am only interested in the real deal.

I came across a replica watch site, and if you compare the picture of the movement here with the replica on the site, you can see they look almost identical. I have been trying to get a picture of a known genuine mark xvii movement, but to no avail. Note I am no expert on movements though.


----------



## dak_la

The Mark XVII uses IWC's 30110 caliber, which is equipvalent to an ETA 2892-A2 movement and is available outside of IWC. Google IWC 30110 and you will find some images of the genuine movement, which looks a little different from the pictures you showed. Here is one:









Please disregard the one below, it was posted by mistake.


----------



## dirtvictim

dak_la said:


> The Mark XVII uses IWC's 30110 caliber, which is equipvalent to an ETA 2892-A2 movement and is available outside of IWC. Google IWC 30110 and you will find some images of the genuine movement, which looks a little different from the pictures you showed. Here is one:
> 
> View attachment 4434250
> 
> 
> Please disregard the one below, it was posted by mistake.


i can confirm the iwc c30110 uses the base ETA 2892-a2 but it is modified by iwc so the ETA version will not be the same although many parts will interchange.
it is easy to see the extra engraving that iwc does especially the adjusted 5 positions and 23 twenty three jewels on the plate. The original pics from OP are clearly not a modified iwc ETA and the shown balance bridge pins suggest it is not even ETA.


----------



## dak_la

dirtvictim said:


> i can confirm the iwc c30110 uses the base ETA 2892-a2 but it is modified by iwc so the ETA version will not be the same although many parts will interchange.
> it is easy to see the extra engraving that iwc does especially the adjusted 5 positions and 23 twenty three jewels on the plate. The original pics from OP are clearly not a modified iwc ETA and the shown balance bridge pins suggest it is not even ETA.


IWC ask ETA to produce the 2892-A2 movements to IWC's spec, the extent of "modifications" is something that many ponder upon but no one knows exactly. Other than the engraving on the rotor and adjusting its accuracy to IWC's spec, I'm not sure anything else substantively has been done.

The picture you attached is NOT the IWC 30110 movement. The 30110 movement only has one stem at the 3 o'clock position, not two.

In fact, the 30110 movement does have 21 jewels (not 23 or 25), as explained here in the official IWC forum:
http://www.iwc.com/forum/en/discussion/11814/


----------



## chronostudent

dak_la said:


> The Mark XVII uses IWC's 30110 caliber, which is equipvalent to an ETA 2892-A2 movement and is available outside of IWC. Google IWC 30110 and you will find some images of the genuine movement, which looks a little different from the pictures you showed. Here is one:
> 
> View attachment 4434250
> 
> 
> Please disregard the one below, it was posted by mistake.


Thanks for the info!


----------



## dirtvictim

dak_la said:


> IWC ask ETA to produce the 2892-A2 movements to IWC's spec, the extent of "modifications" is something that many ponder upon but no one knows exactly. Other than the engraving on the rotor and adjusting its accuracy to IWC's spec, I'm not sure anything else substantively has been done.
> 
> The picture you attached is NOT the IWC 30110 movement. The 30110 movement only has one stem at the 3 o'clock position, not two.
> 
> In fact, the 30110 movement does have 21 jewels (not 23 or 25), as explained here in the official IWC forum:
> Aquatimers -- 21, 23 or really 25 jewels? | Forum | IWC


not exactly correct as I can assure you I took that photo of my personal aquatimer 3538 dual crown with internal rotating bezel and have verified it at the iwc boutique in the palazzo casino 2 days ago when I ordered a new rubber strap. You can clearly see the iwc c30110 markings. Perhaps iwc did another 21j version more recently? this older 2005 model has had other parts updated by iwc such as some of the gears etc according to everything I have read.


----------



## dirtvictim

Posted elsewhere on the wus iwc 30110 showing twenty three jewels.
Are the SW200s in the Ingenieur Automatic modified in any way by IWC?


----------



## dak_la

dirtvictim said:


> not exactly correct as I can assure you I took that photo of my personal aquatimer 3538 dual crown with internal rotating bezel and have verified it at the iwc boutique in the palazzo casino 2 days ago when I ordered a new rubber strap. You can clearly see the iwc c30110 markings. Perhaps iwc did another 21j version more recently? this older 2005 model has had other parts updated by iwc such as some of the gears etc according to everything I have read.


The link I attached in my last post explains the discrepancy, I will post the excerpt here:

"The ETA 2892 has 21 jewels --in fact, that is a defining characteristic of the movement. If you see a central seconds, automatic movement with 21 jewels in any brand of modern watch, there's a 99.9% chance it's an ETA 2892 base.

However, as Leon K. recently mentioned, this website lists the titaniium model/ 2000m Aquatimer as having 23 jewels instead of 21. I replied that I'd check, and it turns out that there was an error here (that error also apparently exists in some other publications as well). The correct answer is that all time-only Aquatimers use the same movement, cal. 30110 and that movement does have 21 jewels.

However --and this is where it gets interesting-- all watches in the Aquatimer have 4 additional rubies in the case which are used as bearings for the inner bezel. You can see this in the exploded diagram shown here.

So the movement of the reference 3538 - Aquatimer Automatic 2000 - and the reference 3548 - Aquatimer Automatic - does have 21 jewels. But both watches actually have a total of 25 synthetic rubies, " by Michael Friedberg, moderator of the official IWC forum.

Your ref: 3538 with dual crown was specifically mentioned there, but it is a different movement from the one in the Mark XVII.


----------



## dak_la

dirtvictim said:


> Posted elsewhere on the wus iwc 30110 showing twenty three jewels.
> Are the SW200s in the Ingenieur Automatic modified in any way by IWC?


SW200 is a clone of ETA 2824, which is different from ETA 2892.


----------



## dirtvictim

dak_la said:


> The link I attached in my last post explains the discrepancy, I will post the excerpt here:
> 
> "The ETA 2892 has 21 jewels --in fact, that is a defining characteristic of the movement. If you see a central seconds, automatic movement with 21 jewels in any brand of modern watch, there's a 99.9% chance it's an ETA 2892 base.
> 
> However, as Leon K. recently mentioned, this website lists the titaniium model/ 2000m Aquatimer as having 23 jewels instead of 21. I replied that I'd check, and it turns out that there was an error here (that error also apparently exists in some other publications as well). The correct answer is that all time-only Aquatimers use the same movement, cal. 30110 and that movement does have 21 jewels.
> 
> However --and this is where it gets interesting-- all watches in the Aquatimer have 4 additional rubies in the case which are used as bearings for the inner bezel. You can see this in the exploded diagram shown here.
> 
> So the movement of the reference 3538 - Aquatimer Automatic 2000 - and the reference 3548 - Aquatimer Automatic - does have 21 jewels. But both watches actually have a total of 25 synthetic rubies, " by Michael Friedberg, moderator of the official IWC forum.
> 
> Your ref: 3538 with dual crown was specifically mentioned there, but it is a different movement from the one in the Mark XVII.


You did state the single crown thing which I cleared up so??? i get the feeling this M Friedburg guy doesn't really know the iwc product. Is there a reason they marked these as twenty three jewels? Mistake? Don't think so, more research may be needed cause I'm not convinced the 23 j marking was a mistake.


----------



## dak_la

dirtvictim said:


> You did state the single crown thing which I cleared up so??? i get the feeling this M Friedburg guy doesn't really know the iwc product. Is there a reason they marked these as twenty three jewels? Mistake? Don't think so, more research may be needed cause I'm not convinced the 23 j marking was a mistake.


I'm not sure what you have cleared up regarding the number of stems, my point was simply that your movement is NOT the same as the 30110 movement in the Marks (it is simply not possible that a movement with one stem is identical to another movement with two stems). My statement is also supported by the thread I posted, which says the 30110 movement used in the Marks only have 21 jewels.

I never said that the engraving on your 3538 movement is done by mistake. I agree with you that more research is needed to explain why YOUR 3538 movement stated that it has 23 jewels. Let me restate my position: regardless of what IWC calls it (c30110 or whatever), it is NOT the same movement as the 30110 used in the Marks.

I do believe that IWC does more to the movement in your 3538, and it is not an out of the box 2892-A2. Heck it has two stems instead of one! I don't have an answer for you why the movement on your 3538 says it has 23 jewels, and not 25. Maybe you can write to IWC, and I would be interested in hearing the answer.

You can choose not to trust Mr. Friedberg, but I highly doubt IWC would put a moderator who does not know what he is talking about and who provides wrong information on the official IWC website.


----------



## dirtvictim

dak_la said:


> I'm not sure what you have cleared up regarding the number of stems, my point was simply that your movement is NOT the same as the 30110 movement in the Marks (it is simply not possible that a movement with one stem is identical to another movement with two stems). My statement is also supported by the thread I posted, which says the 30110 movement used in the Marks only have 21 jewels.
> 
> I never said that the engraving on your 3538 movement is done by mistake. I agree with you that more research is needed to explain why YOUR 3538 movement stated that it has 23 jewels. Let me restate my position: regardless of what IWC calls it (c30110 or whatever), it is NOT the same movement as the 30110 used in the Marks.
> 
> I do believe that IWC does more to the movement in your 3538, and it is not an out of the box 2892-A2. Heck it has two stems instead of one! I don't have an answer for you why the movement on your 3538 says it has 23 jewels, and not 25. Maybe you can write to IWC, and I would be interested in hearing the answer.
> 
> You can choose not to trust Mr. Friedberg, but I highly doubt IWC would put a moderator who does not know what he is talking about and who provides wrong information on the official IWC website.


I don't mean to go on about this but the 3538 does not have 2 stems. It has 2 crowns, one is for changing the internal rotating bezel it has nothing to do with the movement nor does it interface with the movement in any way. All of the c30110 are ETA 2892-a2 based whether it be in a mk series or aquatimer, earlier aquatimer had only one crown with external bezel so that may be where you are confused about the 2 crowns. Perhaps M Friedburg needs to recheck his facts because there are many examples of the c30110 showing 23j and some showing 21j.
here is more info that may help clear up some of this. https://watchotaku.atlassian.net/wiki/plugins/servlet/mobile#content/view/1638613


----------



## dak_la

.


----------



## dak_la

dirtvictim said:


> I don't mean to go on about this but the 3538 does not have 2 stems. It has 2 crowns, one is for changing the internal rotating bezel it has nothing to do with the movement nor does it interface with the movement in any way. All of the c30110 are ETA 2892-a2 based whether it be in a mk series or aquatimer, earlier aquatimer had only one crown with external bezel so that may be where you are confused about the 2 crowns. Perhaps M Friedburg needs to recheck his facts because there are many examples of the c30110 showing 23j and some showing 21j.
> here is more info that may help clear up some of this. https://watchotaku.atlassian.net/wiki/plugins/servlet/mobile#content/view/1638613


You are right! The movement on yours only has one stem. I completely missed it. Since this is straying away from the original thread, and I think this is a topic worthwhile to dig into more, can we start a new thread for further discussion? I don't have time at the moment but will read your link and do some more research later today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

