# 3706 vs. 3717



## Fantasio (Apr 5, 2009)

*Hello all you IWC experts out there!*

I've been hanging out at at German/Sinn/Dive watch forums for a couple of years, but lately been lurking around here too. My collection has been through several phases of evolution, and now I'm in the process of building my dream trio. At the moment my beater/diver/tool watch is Sinn U2 and smart/dress watch is Nomos Orion. For the third member I was looking for a casual/sporty chrono.

For a long time on the top of my list were Glashutte Original Sport Evolution Chronograph and Sinn 103 St Diapal. Then a couple of months ago IWC 3717 started to compete with the other rivals. Yeah I know they all play in different leagues, but nobody is going to stop me from comparing apples with oranges :-d. To make things even more complicated, I recently discovered also 3706. I know it is discontinued, but pre-loved mint examples are available out there.

So now I would like to hear your comment between these to IWC models. What do you think about their:
- design and looks (Mark 15 type chrono vs. B-Uhr type chrono)
- size and wearability (39 vs. 42 mm)
- movements (7922 vs. 79320)

Also side by side comparison pictures would be highly appreciated!


----------



## chefcook (Feb 27, 2009)

3717 looks much more balanced IMO. The larger diameter is definitely a must with the thickness of a 7750-based chronograph.


----------



## anonymousmoose (Sep 17, 2007)

chefcook said:


> 3717 looks much more balanced IMO. The larger diameter is definitely a must with the thickness of a 7750-based chronograph.


I agree. I went for the 3717 as it was more pleasing to the eye.

I hear the older one has a JLC movement, which is a strong selling point (or am I confusing it with another watch?).


----------



## chefcook (Feb 27, 2009)

I think you are confusing it with something else. The 3706 houses a 7750 as well. 
The Mark XII non-chrono with IWC caliber 884 is based on the JLC 889/2.


----------



## Fantasio (Apr 5, 2009)

So no fans of 3706 around here, eh? :-d


----------



## g_saz (Apr 28, 2010)

I've been in the same situation as you a couple of years ago. IMHO, I'd go for the 3717, the 3706 is a tad too small with a 39mm diameter. Depending on the wristsize, it can look small for a chronograph in these days (42mm is the perfect size for me). However, the design of the 3706 looks more elegant to my eyes and that of the 3717 more sporty. But you could also look out for the Doppelchronograph 3711/3713, which comes in 42mm.


----------



## Fantasio (Apr 5, 2009)

I was considering 3706 just because of its' size, probably would suit my wrists better. My dress watch is a classic 35 mm and diver is 44 mm, couldn't handle any larger. So casual everyday chrono at 39 mm might be quite comfortable for me. My late EZM3 felt just right at 40 mm diameter, but anyway I flipped it for a bigger diver for other reasons.

I really like the "flight instrument look" of 3717, but 3706 looks a bit more elegant as you say. My diver is my "instrument watch", and everyday chrono could be in a bit different category. I guess I just should check them "live" before making any decision.

Does anyone have info about height (from tip of lug to lug) of 3717 and 3706? This measurement is rarely quoted in specs, even though with larger watches it is quite essential information for a person with narrow wrists.


----------



## anonymousmoose (Sep 17, 2007)

Fantasio said:


> Does anyone have info about height (from tip of lug to lug) of 3717 and 3706? This measurement is rarely quoted in specs, even though with larger watches it is quite essential information for a person with narrow wrists.


Here are some specs:
IW3706-28 IWC Spitfire Automatic Chronograph Mens Watch

I'm pretty sure they are correct. Also check your PM


----------



## Fantasio (Apr 5, 2009)

Many thanks, but the measurement I'm looking for is not quoted. Diameter and thickness are listed, but not the lug to lug measurement. I'm not worried about the diameter of 3717, but I'm wondering if the lugs might be so long that they "hang over" my quite narrow wrist.

Have you ever checked this measurement from your 3717, I'd be happy to know it?



anonymousmoose said:


> Here are some specs:
> IW3706-28 IWC Spitfire Automatic Chronograph Mens Watch


----------



## Robertus (Mar 22, 2006)

I have a 3706 on MkI. bracelet since 1998 and I'd never change it for a 3717. 39 mm is just fine and will never be out of fashion. Dial is way more elegant. The Mk.I. bracelet is a well sought-after design now.
Other thing is that the 3706 still had movements assembled at IWC while the same (? as no-one knows the recent mods exactly) movement is assembled by ETA/Swatch Group now.
Simply try one on!
Best,
Robert


----------



## anonymousmoose (Sep 17, 2007)

Following pics may help;


----------



## Dimer (Jun 24, 2008)

There are a lot of 3706 fans. I like the 3717 more. The size is better for me and the dial looks more balanced. I'm also a fan of the red seconds hand.


























vs


----------



## vbomega (Jan 31, 2010)

All 3 hands look much better on 3717.


----------



## neil1970 (Sep 8, 2009)

that brown strap in the bottom two pics looks lovely Dimerb-)b-)b-), any info on that if you don't mind? I'd like to try that on mine|>


----------



## Fantasio (Apr 5, 2009)

*Aaarghh*, all these wonderful pics make me want to run to nearest AD immediately and make a purcahase. o|

But no info on the lug to lug measurement for 3717 and 3706 so far...


----------



## g_saz (Apr 28, 2010)

Lug to lug measurements:

3706: 47mm
3717: 51mm

Thus, the 3717 wears considerably larger than the 3706.


----------



## Fantasio (Apr 5, 2009)

Exactly the info I was looking for. A thousand thanks. |>



g_saz said:


> Lug to lug measurements:
> 
> 3706: 47mm
> 3717: 51mm
> ...


----------



## Broleo (May 24, 2010)

I like the 3717 as many have mentioned here are balanced hand and dial, red tip (its a signature for 3717) and I loved the bracelet very much...


----------

