IWC

chintu
505

• Show profile
• Show other posts

IWC Deserves better ....

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