IWC

Hi

I read the entire thread relating to the vintage watches being launched by IWC for the 140th anniversary and was troubled by the fact the many members were critical of the use of ETA movements by IWC and expressed that they would rather prefer a watchmaker with inhouse movement.

So to the defence of IWC - I leap: Here is my  eligibility for the defense.

I am an avid watchfan and my collection includes;

AP- Shaeffer - caliber 2085/2832 manual wind

AP-RO Annual Calendar - Caliber 2224

Dubey & Schaldenbrand -Classic GMT - Caliber 2892 - Modified by Dubey for independent two time-zones

GO Navigator Panorama Date - Caliber 39

IWC Portofino Perpetual - ETA 2892-A2 based IWC caliber 37582

Lange 1815 - Caliber 941.1 Manual Wind

Mido Baroncelli Manual Wind with aquadura seal - Caliber Peseux 7001

Zenith Class El Primero Chronograph - Caliber 400Z

I have been closely observing the performance of the watches and IWC Portofino Perpetual has proven itself beyond doubt;

Why do I say that about IWC's perpetual?

a. The watch keeps impeccable time with near quartz-like accuracy.

b. The date indicator changes at just after 1145PM and day indicator changes at 12:01 ( 00.01 hrs) EXACTLY night after night.

c. Zenith turns in brilliant performance with the date change at 12:03 in a flash and excellent time keeping too.

c. The GO comes a good close third with the performance

d. AP comes last...much to my surprise in terms of timekeeping accuracy. Both Watchs tend to always run faster and gain constantly.

Do you know that IWC's perpetual calendar module is the one that sits on the Jaeger 889 ( used in all of their Perpetual calendars) and that the JLC 889 is known to be very delicate and unsuitable for sport activity lifestyle?

That IWC is still the only watchmaker to have created a perpetual movement capable of being set through a single crown when  AP,BLANCPAIN,CHOPARD, GO,LANGE,PATEK,DANIELROTH,FRANCKMULLER,VACHERON, ZENITH still use atleast 3 independent correctors. This is not to say that the above watchmakers are inferior. GO's pano dates. Lange's craftsmanship, Mullers novel complications ( Master Banker, Aeternitas....etc), Zenith's el primero etc have their own place in the horological sun. But IWC does not deserve to be downgraded simply because they use some proven base movements.

That IWC significantly modifies and improves upon the ETA movements before adding their complications on top of the base module is not to be forgotten.

An inhouse movement is not an automatic guarantee to horological excellence. It can come with its own flaws , and may not actually perform any better than a ETA. All you need to do is to wade through various forums to see the issues that crop up with many of the inhouse movements which house some standard complications such as moonphases, chronos or perpetuals. The problems reported by FPJourne owners will fill a book.This however doesnot take away the beauty, horological purity and the fact that inhouse movements have their own charm/novelty and therefore much more loved than the poor workhorses from ETA.

Most members of the AHCI or other specialists (DeBethune,  Kari Voutilainen,Benzinger,Van der Klaaw,McGonigle Bros etc) actually use base movements of other manufacturers and then either modify or decorate them profusely , getting superlative prices and with none complaining about it. In fact some of  the AHCI members produce absolutely simple watches over which everyone goes starry eyed and beserk. Examples are Kari's Observatoire ( base being Peseux 260), Debethune ( A.Schild 2072) ... and I can go on. Does this make the AHCI members any less excellent. Not at all. So why pick on IWC which actually revolutionalised perpetual calendars and made it simple, robust and economical and therefore accessible to all watch lovers like us.

I however must agree that simply casing an unmodified ETA doesnot entitle any watchmaker to pretend to have their own movement and therefore attach a "branded-movement number" to that.

I felt that a company with a history from 1868 and which revolutionalized the concept of perpetual calendars should not be treated any less than the top brands and hence my ramble.

As ever, I would be happy to see points in support of and any counterpoints to the above.

 

Regards

narsi

Very interesting post...
Thanks for sharing and for having taken the tilme to write it...
I totally agree with you, IWC deserves better than these critics.
Best.
nicolas

Hi Narsi,

I am a big fan of IWC too.After reading your defence,i couldnt agree more.

Here,i would like to raise my hand and voice......i am totally with you in support of what IWC deserve better treatment.

Those critics made in my opinion are either without close observation or not giving much thought.

"Its a brand that lives with the craftmanship of German and soul of swiss"

Thanks.

BHK9

That IWC makes the only perpetual where the year indicator is a "FULL 4 digit indicator " and it also throws in a century slide containing the centuries 22, 23 and 24. Hopefully our decendants will be able to still use the watch after their watchmaker sets the century slide after year 2199. AP, PP or VC donot have the year indicator on their perpetuals. The reduction ratio for the century digit to move one mm in the IWC perpetual is 6,000,000 :1 ( versus the largest gearwheel in the watch). In the year 2099 Dec 31st the only forum members that will have an event or slide show to show the century transition will be those that have an IWC perpetual... Exciting isn't it. 

The only watch that is more userfriendly is the UN GMT Perpetual because of the feature of "backward settable hands beyond the date line". UN still has only a two digit year indicator as does the JLC perpetual. But then UN's day, date and the  two-digits on year indicator dials are mostly out of alignment because of the way the discs behave in the watch. See the scans of UN perpetual and you will observe this mis-alignment.

Regards

narsi

 

 

Hi,Supporting your latest statement.........picture speak louder than words.

Enjoy...

BHK9

And I would agree to your points as many of my IWC's have been performing far beyond many of the pieces w/ 'offocial ' performance/accuracy attestation. 

Not to forget the P2000 movement based variants of the perpetual

 

Eternal regrets to not having picked it when I was able to do it...
Thanks, Jester!
Nicolas

And I have never understood why people care so much about vertical integration in the manufacture of their watches. 

Now, if only IWC would make something that doesn't look like a hockey puck on my wrist . . . .

I know I becoming boring but WE NEED IWC fora and maybe narsi is candidate for admin

well said for IWC this is brand which is undervalued for no aparent reason whatsoever

especially if we compare their history and achievements to some other brands that have greater

value in mind of many

Best

Damian

A terrific post! And WOW, what a way to validate your point! Obviously very educated on watches. It's the people like you that we all learn from. Thank you!! Very Much.

Thank you for a well-thought out and compelling defense of IWC.  I especially liked your comparison to the independents, many who use an ETA or other third party manufactured ebauche to start with, and somehow avoid the flogging that IWC consistently gets for doing the same.  In-house built doesn't necessarily mean any better in performance, as you've exampled by your own bench tests with various models that do boast (and I use this word quite deliberately) their own manufacture from start to finish. 

You've also pointed out that a pricier brand with similar complications doesn't necessarily buy you any more quality, but certainly helps decrease the size of your wallet.  I really enjoyed reading your post -- it was substantive and thought provoking.

Cheers,

m

In quality between available Ebauches.  The complaint about IWC using a large number of ETA/VJ movements need not be in comparison to using in-house movements, but using better movements, like the JLC that they used in the past.  Or the other fine available movements, GP, F. Piguet etc.  These are getting harder to find, but
they weren't used when they were avaiable.

This isn't a bad thing by definition, there need to be watches in all price ranges, and you can't build a $5k split second chrono without an economical movement.  I really like some of IWC's work, especially the Portugese Perpetual II, I just wish it came in a size that was reasonable for me to wear.

Aaron

While there are issues with IWC hiding the origins of their movement in the past, it doesn't detract from the fact they are learning and creating better and innovative movements (eg. 89360). Even though they have started to use in-house movements in their line-up more, their work and improvements on base calibers is second to none (IMVHO!). Thanks for sharing  your insights!

Cheers!
Lionel

Thanks for your excellent write up.

Cheers

being too over the top about movements - okay maybe one poster in that thread.  ;-)

But really I think some have a preference for in-house or maybe even "non-ETA" movements, and that is certainly their prerogative.  I admit I tend to see watches with movements made by the watch company as having a higher value - I think that comes from making my own watches using ETA movements that I see in relatively expensive watches, and I know what they really cost!

But anyway, I am not a big follower of IWC (just haven't found one that strikes me although the 5000 shown in a previous thread with the plexiglass crystal is very nice) I do see this statement you made often with regards to people "defending" them and also with other brands:

"That IWC significantly modifies and improves upon the ETA movements before adding their complications on top of the base module is not to be forgotten."

As noted I see this statement often, but what I haven'y seen is some detail regarding what "significantly modifies and improves upon the ETA" really means.  If anyone has solid technical details on what this means, I would certainly like to see it!

Thanks, Al

Hi

IWC doesnot suppress the fact that it uses ETA/Valjox ebauches. From whatever I could understand, IWC is pretty transparent about even the add on modules. Please visit  www. IWC.ch ( the forum inside) to have a complete diagram of the iWC 37582 perpetual calendar module that rides on the ETA 2892.

Coming to your specific question;

The extent of modification that IWC makes to an ETA movement can be understood from the below extract. This has appeared in a message thread in another forum and I am not posting any links.

I have only chosen the part which highlights the modifications. This appears to be a message from IWC itself to a question posed in that forum.

QUOTE

 

" IWC buys at ETA no complete movements. The movements are only bought in its components, never assembled. In addition, only the best possible version is purchased - the so-called Chronometer version. Some components of the original ETA calibre's are immediately eliminated and are never used
by IWC. They are replaced by usually more expensive and better ones.

The main parts IWC replaces are:
A. the mainspring
B. the barrel
C. the escape wheel
D. the pallet fork
E. the complete balance including the balance spring
The entire escapement is a good example. It is ordered separately with different, more exact technical IWC specifications and is only fitted into the calibre at the end of the assembly."

 

UNQUOTE

 

Another paragraph posted by the member of a different forum is equally enlightening; 

 

QUOTE:

 

[On the] "2892-A2, the watchmakers in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, have gone to the trouble of so luxuriously rebuilding the base calibre that you could almost describe it as a total revision. The most immediately notable feature of the modified calibre is the gold plating. After subjecting the calibre to comprehensive upgrading, it operates with significantly less friction and its balance swings through a larger arc. IWC insists on closer tolerances for endshake, meshing and truing in the flat than ETA permits. A lever is individually made for each movement. Nearly all critical components along the path from the escapement to the mainspring are removed from the movement and replaced with corresponding components from IWC's own manufacture. The escapement and balance are optimally fine-tuned and painstakingly adjusted."
UNQUOTE

 

My apologies if I have violated any forum rules. It is just that I found the above so informative that I thought that the discussion will benefit from the same.

Regards

Narsi

 

 

 

 

Hi Guys,

It doesn't make much sense to purchase a chronometer grade ETA caliber and then replace the escapement and balance - those are the components that make it chronometer grade.  Likewise, I find it impossible to imagine that, "A lever is individually made for each movement", or at least I don't know what that could possibly mean.

IF those comments come directly from IWC, then let's take them with two grains of salt.

_john

I have never stated that IWC somehow hides that they use ETA movements or add on modules, so I'm not quite sure why you chose to tell me that.  But thanks anyway.  ;-)

In any case,  as John has pointed out (I was hoping he would jump in on this discussion) some of the quotes don't make a lot of sense.  The first set seems to provide a lot of detail, but then it reverts back to being somewhat vague, at least to me.  For example this statement:

"The entire escapement is a good example. It is ordered separately with different, more exact technical IWC specifications and is only fitted into the calibre at the end of the assembly."

Underline mine above.  So they replace it with another escapement, but that is apparently also an "ordered in" component, so who is it ordered from?  ETA?

Now the second quote you gave contradicts the first:

"Nearly all critical components along the path from the escapement to the mainspring are removed from the movement and replaced with corresponding components from IWC's own manufacture. "

So again to me it isn't clear what is really done.  And BTW I have a friend that is a jeweler than can "upgrade" your ETA with gold plating for about $10.  ;-)

Thanks for the discussion.

Cheers, Al

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi

The first paragraph was from IWC ( as reported by the forum member that received it).

The second paragraph in quotes was the comment by that forum member.

Hope that clarifies.

On your comment that a jeweller could gold plate a 2892 for US$ 10 is perfectly accepted. But then if you would look at the parts that IWC replaces ( per IWCs own statement ) one would need to acknowledge that the modifications are extensive and not cosmetic. Of course it may be ideal to get IWC to once again reiterate the list of their modifications to the ETA 2892 to put this to rest.

Did IWC do well to choose the ETA 2892 in their perpetual. The answer is an absolute  YES.

I did refer to the perpetual calendar module. Let me clarify a little more. The century slide in the iWC perpetual has a wheel train reduction ratio of ( hold your breath) 1:6,315,840,000. ( In fact I made a simple mistake of earlier stating this to be 1 : 6 million whereas it is MUUCH more; a tiny error after all...) . What does this mean. After completing 25,228,800,000 vibrations of the balance, the century slide moves ( take another deeeeep breath) 1.2mm!!!. If you are doubting these numbers you may kindly refer to Page 47 of IWCs 2007 catalog ( Watches from IWC 2007).

I would like to draw your kind attention to Page 47 of Patek Philippe Catalog - Collection 2006/2007E. I quote from the paragraph " Forever and a Day" in that page which proclaims Patek's acknowledgement of the complication associated with the perpetual calendar mechansim when detailing their models 5140, 3940 etc. This is what it says "The Gregorian calendar - with its months of variable duration and the extra day every four years to conform with Earth's orbit around the Sun- has since been adopted nearly all over the world. This set of rules presents a formidable challenge to the watchmaker working on a calendar mechanism because a mechanical memory spanning 1461 days ( or four years) is necessary to keep track of the months with 31, 30 and 28 as well as the 29th of February which occurs once every four years" . The Patek 240Q which powers the perpetuals have 275 individual components

None of Patek watches have any "year indicators" except the pointer based leap year indication.

Now that the grande dame of horology Patek has acknowledged that the perpetual calendar poses a formidable challenge , let me turn to IWC.

 IWC handles not just 1461 days but 14,610 to handle the decade slide and then 146,100 days to keep track of the century slide and move it by that 1.2mm. To top it all the perpetual calendar module is all of 83 components ( excluding the ETA 2892 base components).  In the context of the fact that a simple "power reserve module" takes close to 50 components to build, this is astounding. Simplicity is IWC's essence. And IWC chose the ETA 2892 ( or the 7750 as in Davinci perpetual) to be the base . Should that not endorse  the confidence the IWC has in the ETA workhorse?If the base module stops working , the perpetual module anyway is useless. I am inclined to believe that IWC takes that risk is because of the fact that the ETA is suitable, robust  and on top of it IWC has modified it to last the next 500 years. I rest my argument. Thanks for bringing up the issues as I enjoyed doing some more research to find the anwers.

Oh.. by the way the moonphase in the IWC perpetual ( davinci/ portofino perpetual) is accurate to 0.002% ( 1 day deviation) after 122years of use....and all of these riding on that thankless uncomplaining ETA/ Valjoux. 

Regards

Narsi