IWC

....was talking to my watch dealer (AD of IWC) regarding getting in a vintage aquatimer. I added that I heard the availability of these was very limited and asked what his thoughts about their rarity were (good guy, non-pushy sales man, qualified watch-maker, worked for PP- so not a typical sales guy question or response). It turns out that his information is that the AT has been pulled and some returned as the inner bezel was "rubbing" and paint flecks came off. So although some have been delivered, new orders are on hold and most have been returned.

 

Not sure how accurate this info is but it came from a reliable AD source.

 

Interesting- I guess stuff like this happens. I work in R&D and I know it certainly does!

I asked the question on the official IWC forum, and received the following answer from moderator:

"The case design, and particulalry the bezel, is identical to the rest of the Aquatimer line. There is no logic to one model with the same characteristics being recalled, and identical others not. Moreover, in some other places --Switzerland, France, etc.-- I've seen VC ATs in store windows. It would be contrary to logic that the model is available in some markets and not others due to a recall.

I think the better hypothesis is (a) this model is in particular demand, (b) distribution is uneven --some countries and dealers may not have ordered sufficiently and some coutnries received their allocations late, and (c) one sales clerk, in attempt to switch to a different model, came up with an anecdotal explanation which suddently became Internet rumor because of one person's posting on one website.

I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised on this one."

Hi long term reader,

I believe there is some truth to it, I ordered a AT in s/s, when it arrived there was something lodged between the bezel, to me it looked metallic, but could have been paintwork.

Anyway I cancelled the order (thats another story), and reordered in Ti (to date no problems and very happy).

My own thoughts on some IWC issues, (and from people in the industry) there seems to be a price to be paid in ramping up production and introducing many models in a short time.

cheers mikey

 

 

 

to too quickly dismiss data points as "unfounded rumour and hearsay"

I have the utmost respect for the company and most of its management, but too many times have I been faced with communicating serious, legitimate and FACTUAL field situations (increased quality control problems; come backs that are far beyond what is expected and defined as acceptable, etc) and then had those facts and communiques dismissed as "unsubstantiated rumours."

Sorry, but when I personally experience a new watch with hands that fall off; a warranty service return that comes back in damaged case condition and with the same problems as it went it for, still extant; then discussing it with various authorized dealers and hearing that "yeah, we've been seeing more and more of those in the past year, and we've been dealers for 5/10/15 years..." I cannot, in good conscience, simply dismiss it as "unsubstantiated rumours."

Of course, the more responsible managers and executives in the company took my comments seriously, and instead of dismissing it out of hand, took the feedback seriously and went back and looked into real world reports and stats, and if a problem was found, dealt with it systemically and head on, as we would hope a responsible manufacturer would.

NOTE: I agree that one (or even a few) reports, even if first person and first hand, do not a statistically significant trend or pattern make.

I also agree that the internet has spawned all too many "'net myths" for myriad reasons, not all of them on the up and up...

TM

but in this case, MF actually provided a very reasonable and measured response. A response which did not, incidentally, include your quote.

While he did leave the door slightly ajar, I doubt that he would be feigning ignorance if there had, in fact, been a recall.

Finally, bear in mind that even if there has not been a recall, that does not mean that there haven't been problems.

MF with my comments. I've known MF for a very long time, and I have the utmost respect for his professional and personal "smarts."

But thanks for the clarification, which allowed me to make mine.

Cheers,

TM

....the case is NOT the same. It doesn't take much inspection to observe that!

 

And yes I fully expect even with the slightest change that errors will occur between the two different cases- even if the primary element i.e. dial and bezel remain somewhat constant. The most often repeated rationale when things go wrong in engineering is "oh, but we copied the last design". Design does also not account for manufacturing issues, perfect designs can be incorrectly made / assembled.

 

I have done some looking and rang an AD in England (Leeds) who had an AT in stock about 2 months ago (saw while there on business). I enquired as to the availability of this watch and was told that it was back at IWC- no further information. I again rang my local AD and enquired about the AT- again this gentleman is NOT trying to flip me another watch, he knows he has my business and knows that I will wait 12months if I have to for this model- his response again was that IWC told him that there had been rubbing between bezel and crystal causing flaking of paint and his order was delayed- not something he would offer up when he knows that I only collect IWC and knows I want this watch.

 

Note this may not be on all models or on all production runs but it is delaying delivery of ATs.

 

I am not trying to knock IWC, I am not saying this is a "bad" thing, I am just wondering when the ATs will be freely available!

 

P.S. I collect IWC and only IWC.