# IWC Mark XVII



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

Ok -- considering the IWC Mark XVII, BR 123 Sport Heritage and the Tudor Grantour Date. I know, they are all different. First question is that I was surprised to see that the IWC is only rated to WR 6 Bars or 60 meters. Is that correct? Seems remarkably conservative, given that it has a screw down crown, doesn't it? Beyond that issue, is the piece really worth the money as compared with the other pieces? I mean, it is a classic, but very vanilla, and even assuming I coudl get it at a discount, it woudl still be approximatley 20% more than the BR, and maybe 30% more than the Tudor. Thoughts re: styling and value?


----------



## Grahamsjz (Jun 21, 2012)

I can't comment about the value, the real value is how much people will pay for it.

What I can say in my eyes is the IWC is a beautiful watch, a really classy looking pilots watch. I find IWC's range of pilot watches fantastic and unmatched. Just my opinion and I know other people have a different view. The curves of the case and the clarity of the face sell it to me.

The BR and Tudor are really good watches but don't have the edge, the something special, that the IWC has for me.


----------



## Albertur (Aug 27, 2010)

Hi,

In my eyes, the cartoonishly large numerals disqualify the B&R from this contest. Is the Mk XVII plain, or as you say, vanilla? Probably, but that is not a bad thing. As for the WR, IWC says this on their website: "With water-resistance of 3 bar, the watch can be worn when swimming or skiing, and at 6 bar it will have no problem with water sports or snorkelling." The Tudor looks quite nice, but for an automotive themed watch I prefer the Porsche Design Flat Six.


----------



## Archer7 (Nov 21, 2013)

I think IWC is much more conservative with its WR rating than other brands.

I have taken mine in the pool with no issues.


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

Ok -- so here's the question. What about the Muehle/Muhle Glashutte Terrasport II -- which is a deadringer for the Mark XVII. It uses a Selitta movement and has a screw down crown and is WR to 100 meters. Only major difference is that it does not have the same anti-magnetic protections that the Mark XVII does, and the bracelet (which I wold not get) is reputed to be better. I hear that the fit and finish on the Terrasport are as good as the IWC. Is that to be believed? Is the dial really as well done? Is there anybody who has seen the Terrasport in the flesh and can comment on this? Point is, while the IWC can be had with a bit of a discount, its MSRP is more than three times the price of the Terrasport. Is it worth it -- when you are getting an ETA movement (which is enhanced to an unknown degree)?

Separately, what about the Muehle/Muhle Glashutte Terranaut Trail II vs / compared to the Bell and Ross 123 Sport Heritage? Thoughts on that?

Pics. of each below.


----------



## dhtjr (Feb 7, 2013)

I recently sold a Muhle Terrasport II, which I really liked, but it was the older version with larger hands and white dial. I love Muhle watches, but for some reason when I saw the current Terrasport II, I found the hands to be a bit too small for this style of watch. I suggest you also check the Alpina Startimer 40mm model. I haven't seen it in the metal, but it looks quite nice--a basic pilot with legible dial, nice hands, screw crown.


----------



## p_mcgee (Oct 2, 2010)

I've owned an IWC Mark XVI for a few years. For awhile I was bored with it, considered flipping it (with the bracelet), and even got some good offers, but by now we've been on several adventures together & it has joined the permanent collection.

Frankly, knowing what I know now, I wouldn't buy a Mark XVII. Fliegers are a dime a dozen & you can get a very nice German one with dual sapphire crystals & ETA movement for under $1000. Name your manufacturer: Damasko, Stowa, Archimede, etc. Or, you can go a step up from these, like the Muhle Glashutte above, and still save a few thousand compared to the Mark. Were I to do it again I might buy the Damasko and apply the $2000+ savings to something with a little more unique style. 

Just my (qualified) opinion...sorry to offend anyone.


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

Thanks for the response p_mcgee. And, this is precisely why I was looking at the Bell and Ross BR 123 Sport Heritage. A bit more style and hated by lot more people too. Or, on a completedly different score, one of the new Tudors, ie. the Grantour Date, like the attached.


----------



## Trel (Nov 21, 2009)

The Tudor is a very good buy and as a brand they have been firing on all cylinders for a while now. That said, will Tudor ever shake that "Couldn't afford a Rolex, eh?" vibe with a lot of its models.

I would never buy a B&R. That fake tritium patinated lume is terribly played-out and speaks to a military heritage that it...does...not...have.

If you're going to get a Flieger, it should have some heritage behind it. Lange, Stowa, Wempe, Laco, IWC. Those were the companies that made the B-Uhren. I know that Stowa and Laco make some particularly slick versions. Muehle is making one because I think they feel that German watch companies should.

IWC, on the other hand, went in a different direction with their Fliegers. In addition to moving considerably further upmarket than the rest of them (except Lange) they're not the same as the others. They are intended to be luxury tool watches, not just tool watches. 

I don't want to sound like a brand-snob, but other than the heritage, they're not really the same piece.


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

Not at all . . . I get it -- particularly if it is going to be my daily wearer. I think that Tudor has taken the absolute right first step in shaking the littler brother of Rolex syndrome by launching unique styles and creating their own "brand." Funny thing is that all the rage has been over the Black Bay and Pelagos, and I'm looking at the Grantour. Just would like some feedback on that particular model. Have not seen it with any after market straps, but would be interested to see it on a cordura strap. Hey, it iw WR to 150m. Thanks.


----------



## slashd0t (Nov 14, 2009)

Trel said:


> The Tudor is a very good buy and as a brand they have been firing on all cylinders for a while now. That said, will Tudor ever shake that "Couldn't afford a Rolex, eh?" vibe with a lot of its models.
> 
> I would never buy a B&R. That fake tritium patinated lume is terribly played-out and speaks to a military heritage that it...does...not...have.
> 
> ...


^^^ This ..


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

Archer7 said:


> I think IWC is much more conservative with its WR rating than other brands.
> 
> I have taken mine in the pool with no issues.


I have heard rumors that IWC is conservative with it's WR ratings. Seems odd that a modern-day watch with a solid screwdown caseback would be good to "only" 60M. Good to hear from someone who has actually experienced it in the water. (I know Tissot tends to be wildly optimistic with their WR ratings. And that's putting it a bit mildly.)


----------



## bjjkk (Oct 20, 2011)

Putting aside military heritage, cartoonish numbers etc. I would pick the B&R. To my eyes its the most appealing of the bunch.


----------



## karmatp (Jul 8, 2007)

I have owned a Mark XVII and the Terrasport 1, both were cool watches. If I were to purchase the IWC again, I would get the bracelet for sure. The bracelet is what makes the IWC stand out. I also swam with my Mark XVII all the time, it had no issues at all.

The Terrasport needs a little bit thicker hands. I loved mine, super comfy and the display back was really sharp, especially with all the work Muhle does on the movement.

If I were to buy one again, it would be the Muhle. Bang for the buck, it won by a mile.


----------



## heb (Feb 24, 2006)

Hello,
Of the three you are considering, the IWC is the best choice. They all have ETA movements, but from the grapevine over many years of listening, IWC does the most fussing and tweeking of the already higher grade ETA 2892. IWC also houses the movement in an iron cage to counter the effects of magnetism. There is also the cachet of the "IWC" name, albeit an expensive one. It is only WR to 60 meters because its a Pilot's watch and they do most of their work over the water. The Tudor will use an ETA 2824. I thing BR uses the 2892 also.

Overall, the IWC is the "real" watch (whatever that may mean to you), the other two are just decent wristwatches.

Good luck with your choice.
heb


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

karmatp said:


> I have owned a Mark XVII and the Terrasport 1, both were cool watches. If I were to purchase the IWC again, I would get the bracelet for sure. The bracelet is what makes the IWC stand out. I also swam with my Mark XVII all the time, it had no issues at all.
> 
> The Terrasport needs a little bit thicker hands. I loved mine, super comfy and the display back was really sharp, especially with all the work Muhle does on the movement.
> 
> If I were to buy one again, it would be the Muhle. Bang for the buck, it won by a mile.


Those are some nice pics. |>


----------



## box handler (Mar 3, 2011)

Having owned a Mark XVI, possibly soon buying a Mark XV, and borrowed a B&R BR-123 for about a month, I can say that the watches aren't as similar as it may appear. The Mark series is a much more austere and refined design that gives you the benefit of simultaneous inconspicuousness (from a distance) and utter beauty (upon closer examination). This was exactly what I was looking for in a watch, since I am an academic working in a field where conspicuous consumption is (rightfully) looked down upon. I can say that I'm not a fan of the Mark XVII's outsized proportions or elongated date window; though I appreciate the latter's homage to vintage fuel gauges, I think Bremont pulls this kind of thing off much better.

When the B&R arrived, I was pleasantly surprised, having been a bit of a "hater" for some time. The best way I can describe it is "fun." It was really a lot of fun to wear. Lots of visual interest despite the seemingly plain design (mostly because of the thick crystal, unique case, and dial typeface). It also wears bigger than the IWC, despite their comparable sizes. This might be due to the same attributes that makes it "interest" as I said above.

I suppose it comes down to what kind of personality you want this next watch to have. Between the IWC, B&R, and Tudor, I'd say you're looking at nice/serious, fun/youthful, trendy/bandwagon, respectively (not a fan of Tudor). I'd urge you to also consider one of the non-chrono Bremont models, as I think it bridges all of those terms quite elegantly.

Hope that helps!


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

Bremont's closest watch to the Mark XVII is the Solo. Though the black Solo looks more refined than the IWC and is quite a bit less expensive, it's not anti-magnetic and not even shock-resistant. Plus, some folks do care about history. Bremont is still in the early stages of theirs.'


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

box handler and moncrom -- good suggestions on Bremont. Really like all of their designs. I found the Solo to be utterly plain and uninspiring. It wears larger than their other 43 mm watches. And, while the MBII did not look huge, it just did not feel comfortable on my wrist. As for the F1 (which is 39 mm) and the S1 (which is not on the website, but can still be purchased), they looked strangely small at 39 (maybe it is because the case design is chunky). If they had a 41 mm watch, I think it would work for me. Meanwhile, notwithstanding the Bell and Ross bashing, the BR 123 Sport Heritage is still my preference now in terms of pilots. I thought the IWC was a bit boring.


----------



## sergio65 (Feb 16, 2011)

dberg said:


> box handler and moncrom -- good suggestions on Bremont. Really like all of their designs. I found the Solo to be utterly plain and uninspiring. It wears larger than their other 43 mm watches. And, while the MBII did not look huge, it just did not feel comfortable on my wrist. As for the F1 (which is 39 mm) and the S1 (which is not on the website, but can still be purchased), they looked strangely small at 39 (maybe it is because the case design is chunky). If they had a 41 mm watch, I think it would work for me. Meanwhile, notwithstanding the Bell and Ross bashing, the BR 123 Sport Heritage is still my preference now in terms of pilots. I thought the IWC was a bit boring.


I have a Mark XVI and love it. It has one of the best cases in terms of finishing and design it is well above the other watches mentioned in this thread, definitely also a step above the Muhle and is historically much more legit.
For a flieger my second choice would be Stowa, then Laco. The best of the best is the GO Navigator automatic but that one will cost you an arm and a leg even though it's probably more worth what it costs than the IWC.

All the other brands don't have the history behind for a flieger purchase imo.


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

sergio65 thanks for the input. The IWC does, indeed, have a beautiful case, but does not have much life to it. Have not made the decision yet, but I'm leaning more toward the Bell and Ross BR 123 Sport Heritage.


----------



## sergio65 (Feb 16, 2011)

you're welcome, I do not fully disagree ... so went for the silver dial, with applied numbers and also have a Stowa and Laco for the historical dials.


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

Sergio65 . . . I had the chance to check out the IWC in the flesh, and let me say that internet photos do not do the dial justice. The dial comes alive in the flesh . . . it is not a simple flat black dial. The watch is great. I'm tempted.


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

Sergio65 Just curious if you have noticed a pattern on the pricing of the preowned Mark XVI Spitfires. Seems like they are priced below the standard Mark XVI. Would have thought otherwise. Any idea why?


----------



## sergio65 (Feb 16, 2011)

Black dial is the more popular dial, but I prefer the silver dial for that specific model, the black dial by Stowa with blued hands had my preference. Case and movement are better on the IWC. I don't like the date on the Mark XVII.

The rhodium plated Spitfire dial is a very nice fit with the metal bracelet, which I own. It does not work as well with the black dial, I think. You can't judge it unless you see it in the flesh ... I also find this bracelet to be one of the best bracelets ever made, and it's no wonder that it costs alone nearly 2000 bucks.

In the long run the Silver dial will be more difficult to find than the black one so things may eventually change ....


----------



## jamwires (Dec 16, 2012)

sergio65 said:


> Black dial is the more popular dial, but I prefer the silver dial for that specific model, the black dial by Stowa with blued hands had my preference. Case and movement are better on the IWC. I don't like the date on the Mark XVII.
> 
> The rhodium plated Spitfire dial is a very nice fit with the metal bracelet, which I own. It does not work as well with the black dial, I think. You can't judge it unless you see it in the flesh ... I also find this bracelet to be one of the best bracelets ever made, and it's no wonder that is costs alone nearly 2000 bucks.
> 
> in the long run the Silver dial will be more difficult to find than the black one so things may eventually change ....


Agree with this, also own the XVI Spitfire on a bracelet, which is the perfect combination, IMO.


----------



## Hatman14 (Dec 6, 2012)

I own the mark xvii and it's a beautiful watch! The dial is unreal, the finish is unreal, the whole watch is amazing! But... It's bloody expensive! For a fraction of the cost you can get a stowa, which although it's not quite the same quality of finishing is still an awesome watch, you don't hear a bad word said about them and the customer service grok what I've seen is second to none! 

I bought mine because I wanted an iwc, If that doesn't bother you then get a stowa and something else for about the same price maybe even less!


----------



## pacchi (Feb 12, 2006)

Trel said:


> The Tudor is a very good buy and as a brand they have been firing on all cylinders for a while now. That said, will Tudor ever shake that "Couldn't afford a Rolex, eh?" vibe with a lot of its models.
> 
> I would never buy a B&R. That fake tritium patinated lume is terribly played-out and speaks to a military heritage that it...does...not...have.
> 
> ...


exactly my line of thoughts. Either you want to spend x amount to have the heritage, brand, history on your wrist or not!! You would not jump from Porsche to Nissan, only they tend to have the same performance specifications....Either you want a Porsche or you want a machine that goes like a Porsche without the $$$ associated to it....


----------



## sergio65 (Feb 16, 2011)

another option is the IWC 3777 chrono, IMO it delivers much better value than a Mark XVII.

here's mine on a honey croc strap:


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

The 3777 chrono is a beauty. Is that 43 mm?


----------



## sergio65 (Feb 16, 2011)

dberg said:


> The 3777 chrono is a beauty. Is that 43 mm?


yes, and my wrist 6.5


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

Wow -- I've been fretting over the size of the Mark XVII at 41 mm and my wrist is an even 7 inches.


----------



## sergio65 (Feb 16, 2011)

best is to visit an AD that does IWC and other brands, try out a few models and find out which is the right size for you ...


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

sergio65 said:


> best is to visit an AD that does IWC and other brands, try out a few models and find out which is the right size for you ...


+1

That's a nice advantage with IWC and other well-established watch brands.


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

I actually saw and tried on the "Son" version of the Father/Son Pilots. It is a Mark XVI case at 39 mm. Liked the size on my 7 inch wrist, but not sure if I liked the silver dial and creamy/minty colored luminous markings.


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

dberg said:


> I actually saw and tried on the "Son" version of the Father/Son Pilots. It is a Mark XVI case at 39 mm. Liked the size on my 7 inch wrist, but not sure if I liked the silver dial and creamy/minty colored luminous markings.


Bumping this topic to see if you made your decision. Who was the lucky contender that won?


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

No decision yet. Still eyeing the IWC Mark XVII, but I'm beginning to think it is overpriced and not particularly special. Eyes on the: Speedmaster Racing (not sure which dial I like best)and Speedmaster Date (Date is being phased out); Longines Hydroconquest; Tudor Heritage Chrono; Ball Fireman Stormchaser Pro (new); and Hamilton Pan Europe H-30 (new -- non-chorono). Other than the Hamilton, they can all be had with a nice SS bracelet for a reasonable price, and worn on leather or rubber. Not particularly interested in a chrono, but want a sporty look on a not overy huge watch. Want to see what Basel 2014 brings. Would like to see a Tudor Black Bay with a black or blue bezel.


----------



## LodeRunner (Feb 17, 2013)

dberg said:


> No decision yet. Still eyeing the IWC Mark XVII, but I'm beginning to think it is overpriced and not particularly special. Eyes on the: Speedmaster Racing (not sure which dial I like best)and Speedmaster Date (Date is being phased out); Longines Hydroconquest; Tudor Heritage Chrono; Ball Fireman Stormchaser Pro (new); and Hamilton Pan Europe H-30 (new -- non-chorono). Other than the Hamilton, they can all be had with a nice SS bracelet for a reasonable price, and worn on leather or rubber. Not particularly interested in a chrono, but want a sporty look on a not overy huge watch. Want to see what Basel 2014 brings. Would like to see a Tudor Black Bay with a black or blue bezel.


The IWC is "overpriced" if you look at it on paper, especially the bracelet version (which MSRPs at $6,100 but can be obtained for about $900 less); the movement is nothing special and it looks like a lot of other pilot watches you can get for much, much, less. But have you actually HELD the Mark XVII? I own that watch in the bracelet version, along with a bunch of Omegas, a Rolex, a Hamilton, etc., and you can feel the difference in quality. The IWC is my favorite of all of those watches. The thickness, proportions, quality of the bracelet (and the Mark XVII has a micro-adjustment clasp), workmanship, are all near-perfect. The IWC was thousands less than the Rolex that I own, but I think the workmanship of the IWC case and bracelet is actually better. My advice, my friend, would be to not write off the IWC until after you've actually held it and tried it on.


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

Held the Mark XVII. No question it is beautiful. But, it is a bit vanilla. Does not have as much personality as some of the others I mentioned, and I'm just not sure I want to spend as much as the Mark XVII will cost on the bracelet.


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

dberg said:


> No decision yet. Still eyeing the IWC Mark XVII, but I'm beginning to think it is overpriced and not particularly special. Eyes on the: Speedmaster Racing (not sure which dial I like best)and Speedmaster Date (Date is being phased out); Longines Hydroconquest; Tudor Heritage Chrono; Ball Fireman Stormchaser Pro (new); and Hamilton Pan Europe H-30 (new -- non-chorono). Other than the Hamilton, they can all be had with a nice SS bracelet for a reasonable price, and worn on leather or rubber. Not particularly interested in a chrono, but want a sporty look on a not overy huge watch. Want to see what Basel 2014 brings. Would like to see a Tudor Black Bay with a black or blue bezel.


I doubt we'll ever see a Tudor Black Bay with a black bezel and dial. Why siphon off sales from the Tudor Pelagos?


----------



## LodeRunner (Feb 17, 2013)

dberg said:


> No decision yet. Still eyeing the IWC Mark XVII, but I'm beginning to think it is overpriced and not particularly special. Eyes on the: Speedmaster Racing (not sure which dial I like best)and Speedmaster Date (Date is being phased out); Longines Hydroconquest; Tudor Heritage Chrono; Ball Fireman Stormchaser Pro (new); and Hamilton Pan Europe H-30 (new -- non-chorono). Other than the Hamilton, they can all be had with a nice SS bracelet for a reasonable price, and worn on leather or rubber. Not particularly interested in a chrono, but want a sporty look on a not overy huge watch. Want to see what Basel 2014 brings. Would like to see a Tudor Black Bay with a black or blue bezel.


FYI, if you like that Hamilton model, have you considered the previous model IWC Mark XVI Spitfire with the silver face, on a bracelet? I have seen these in essentially new or unworn condition going for under $5K. You can find several of them on Chrono24, also, and a few on eBay from reputable sellers.


----------



## Clarvonn (May 3, 2013)

I have the Tudor Grantour and the B&R Vintage 123, and would like to have an IWC, may considering trading one of these to help defray the IWC upgrade cost


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 11, 2010)

Clarvonn said:


> I have the Tudor Grantour and the B&R Vintage 123, and would like to have an IWC, may considering trading one of these to help defray the IWC upgrade cost


Just curious.... While I'm a fan of the IWC Mark XVII, I love the look of the Tudor Grantour as well. Did you find anything wrong with the Tudor?


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

Now, my eye has locked onto the Omega Speedmaster Racing, Mark XVII and the new Ball EM II Magneto S. Looks like the new Ball may not be out for a while. Not sure. The Racing seems to be a lot of watch for the $. I like the Tudors, but they do seem a bit trendy, and while the Pelagos has a date function, the THC and BB do not.


----------



## unknown77 (Jun 18, 2014)

Go for the IWC it's just a fantastic watch!
Just wonderful and timeless.
I even prefer it to the Rolex Explorer!(I know many people who own that)
what do you think of the Rolex?


----------



## sergio65 (Feb 16, 2011)

unknown77 said:


> Go for the IWC it's just a fantastic watch!
> Just wonderful and timeless.
> I even prefer it to the Rolex Explorer!(I know many people who own that)
> what do you think of the Rolex?


I prefer the looks of the IWC but the Rolex is by far the better watch, in-house movement makes a huge difference imo.


----------



## unknown77 (Jun 18, 2014)

Well I know that an in-house movement is better but everything else (Aesthetics, finishing, quality) is better on the IWC


----------



## unknown77 (Jun 18, 2014)

sergio65 said:


> I prefer the looks of the IWC but the Rolex is by far the better watch, in-house movement makes a huge difference imo.


Sorry I forgot to quote


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

Thanks for the input. The BR 123 Sport Heritage has fallen off my list, as has the Tudor Grantour. However Bell & Ross is introducing a BR 123 GMT which looks pretty amazing. Similar to the 123 Sport Heritage, but with a matte brushed steel bezel, and white, not patina markers. I like the IWC, but I guess I'm just having a hard time, because I'm looking for a one watch solution, when I really need more than that. I like both the IWC and the Explorer, but don't want a Rolex. Got rid of an old date just. Nice, but not anything different. In addition to the Bell & Ross 123 GMT, the Tudor Ranger also looks interesting. It has a drilled lug holes, which is a nice feature. Going in a completely different direction, I am also interested in the Hublot Classic Fusion. The titanium, black dial on rubber strap seems both sporty and business-like. The IWC Ingeniur 3239 is also interesting. I'm coming to the conclusion that I may be best going with one of these and then getting a larger bolder chronograph (like the Tudor Heritage Chrono, or the Fastrider Blackshield) as a sporty solution.


----------



## Grahamsjz (Jun 21, 2012)

Have you tried on the 3777 Chrono? It is a fabulous watch and as mentioned above (several times) if you have not held one then you probably should before you make your mind up.

If you want a large bold Chrono you could go for the 3778 which I have and really enjoy (even if it does not fit under many cuffs).


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

Grahamsjz -- love the chrono. Tried it on -- the 3777 as well as the 3777-06 (the Le Petit Prince version). Both are beautiful. Just having a hard time wrapping my head around the size of the dial, and the thickness of the case. At 7 inches, my wrists are not huge. I think I can pull the chrono off, but I'm not sure about it as a daily/only watch type of deal. Just seems like a lot to be carrying around. Like I said, if this was my "sport" watch, then no problem. Still thinking about it. Really wishing I would have jumped at the Mark XVII Le Petit. Damn that was nice.


----------



## ShawnG (Sep 24, 2012)

I felt the same way as you. Got a Bell & Ross BR123 on bracelet first. Wasn't as happy as I thought I'd be with it. It was nice but the bracelet never was comfortable. I sold it and purchased an Omega Speedmaster. I liked it but the crystal scratched every other day and the watch didn't feel as solid as I'd hoped. Sold it for an Omega SMPc. Beautiful watch but something about the shape just didn't sit well with me when I looked down at it. Sold it and got the IWC Mark XVII on bracelet. 
The IWC is in another league. The shape is perfect. It doesn't have to be shiny or blingy to be nice. To me it's perfect but it fits my style. You may be different. It's not thick or heavy. The bracelet has a push button micro adjustment built into the clasp!
It has ended my watch quest. I don't even think about it anymore. I'm proud to wear it 
OK. I'm done. Just my opinion though. Lol



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jamwires (Dec 16, 2012)

ShawnG said:


> I felt the same way as you. Got a Bell & Ross BR123 on bracelet first. Wasn't as happy as I thought I'd be with it. It was nice but the bracelet never was comfortable. I sold it and purchased an Omega Speedmaster. I liked it but the crystal scratched every other day and the watch didn't feel as solid as I'd hoped. Sold it for an Omega SMPc. Beautiful watch but something about the shape just didn't sit well with me when I looked down at it. Sold it and got the IWC Mark XVII on bracelet.
> The IWC is in another league. The shape is perfect. It doesn't have to be shiny or blingy to be nice. To me it's perfect but it fits my style. You may be different. It's not thick or heavy. The bracelet has a push button micro adjustment built into the clasp!
> It has ended my watch quest. I don't even think about it anymore. I'm proud to wear it
> OK. I'm done. Just my opinion though. Lol
> ...


Feel the same about my Mark 16. Everytime I go try on similarly priced watches, ie Omega, I'm always let down by their level of finishing etc. Not to mention, in comparison to IWC's bracelets, everything in that price range falls very flat.


----------



## JMAK (Apr 29, 2008)

Looks like this thread needs a new bump. Has the OP decided on a winner yet?


----------



## dberg (Jan 7, 2014)

Believe it or not but I'm very close to pulling the trigger on a Grand Seiko.


----------



## DrAgod (Jan 20, 2012)

I am the proud owner of Mark XVI and I have had opportunity to try Mark XVII and Mark XVII PP version. All three are wonderful but I prefer Mark XVI due to size - 39mm is just perfect as most of the watch is a dial. Case finish is superb in comparison to other similarly priced watches (Omega for example) as well as more durable. On my Omega SMP a lot of wear marks appeared just after few moths of wearing and my IWC looks like new after 5 years. I wear the both watches with same attention. Worth the money if you ask me!


----------

