View Full Version : IWC Mk XVI Glasgow
Paracentesis
05-11-2010, 07:21 PM
Hi, new here, hello all.
I've been wearing a SS Sub date for the past 10 years, and am very happy with it. However, during a recent holiday in Italy, I noticed an IWC Mk XVI in a shop window, and got a bit interested. Can any knowledgeable people give me the low-down on this watch? I'm not really a watch "collector", I only have the Rolex (so far!).
I live in Glasgow, any recommended IWC dealers? Are discounts out of the question?
Thanks in advance, James.
http://adriantee.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/iwc-mark.jpg
It looks a nice watch. I am sure there are many people on this forum, who can tell you much more than I can.
It has a soft metal case , to resist magnetic fields.
It has reduced sensitivity to sudden pressure drop.
Self winding movement with (I think ) 42 hrs RDM
Don't know about discounts. I very rarely buy new watches.
And....... A very warm welcome .
Hi James, and welcome to TURF from another Glasgow-based member! :)
The IWC Mark XVI is the latest iteration of the famous pilot's watch from this company and is an iconic watch.
Unlike the "Big Pilot" that is based on a model used by the Luftwaffe during WW2, this model's history starts in 1948 and started with with Mark 11 (XI) which was issued to the RAF in 1949, only being decommission in 1981.
The requirements for the Mark XI were:
A highly accurate movement with hack-device,
A inner soft iron cage (Faraday cage) forming a shield to screen the movement against magnetic interference, the dial being an integral part of this soft iron cage,
A stainless steel waterproof case,
A crystal secured by a screwed ring to prevent it detaching from the case during sudden depressurization, and;
A black dial with luminous markers and hands.
The Mark XVI continues this history with an enlarged case (39mm) compared to its predecessor and slight dial variation - though all the different generations would be immediately identifiable as being from the same line in the same way that a Rolex Sub looks essentially the same throughout its history.
It's a very striking watch from a well-respected manufacturer. Click here (https://www.iwc.com/collection/collection_detail.asp?l=en&mid=408#)to see the IWC website for more details.
As for dealers in Glasgow, I use Laings in the Argyll Arcade - they've always been very helpful to me and I'm sure you should be able to work something out on the price. If not then shop around, as discounts shouold be easily available on IWC (no matter what a salesperson may say...)
Hope this helps and, once again, welcome to TURF.
With all the new Scottish members, it looks like the next TURF Scotland Dinner may be a much busier affair :)
regards,
harb
ps - Interesting Username. Is that something you do to people or something you've had done to you (considering Glasgweigans' predilection for the odd pint or ten...?! ;))
Paracentesis
05-12-2010, 05:19 PM
Thanks, both, very useful, and thanks for the warm welcome. The watch kind-of jumped out at me, if you know what I mean. I really like its simple and clear dial, and I think it would attract less attention from randoms than a Rolex does.
I believe it retails at £2500 (or £3300 w SS bracelet!!) which is a lot more than I paid for my sub, but watch prices seem to have gone a bit mad since I last looked. I'll perhaps have a look in Laing's this weekend if I get the chance.
Paracentesis is what I (or my team) do to unfortunate people. [Do you have a minor intraventricular conduction defect in your avatar?]
Best regards,
James
You're welcome!
Personally, I prefer this watch on the strap - from an aesthetic and fiscal standpoint!
Happy hunting! Browsing for and trying on watches makes going into town bearable!
And as for my avatar...well, I'd say that certain watches make my heart skip a beat but I couldn't find an animation of SVEs...;)
...I only have the Rolex (so far!).
Ahhh....the "so far" bit is what we like to hear around here! :)
Joining TURF can be a slippery slope...!
Paracentesis
05-13-2010, 02:30 PM
Yes, I've read some of the threads here! I can't really see myself getting another Rolex for myself, as the one I already have is my personal favourite (but the Milgauss looks pretty cool as well - I love the seconds hand). I'm really not fond of any gold at all on a watch, and the super-bling diamond-encrusted ones they produce just make me cringe.
However, my girlfriend really, really, really wants a Rolex, so if the IWC is a goer I might lend her my Sub whilst she saves up for whatever it is she wants (I think a steel Lady Datejust). She's tried the Sub on, and I must admit it looks better on her tiny wrist than it does on mine. If we ever get married, I guess I'd cave in and buy her the DJ. Maybe I'll take her into town at the weekend. ;) But I have to ask myself: do I really need two expensive watches?
Anyway, more research on the IWC reveals it uses a modified ETA movement (2892 A2). This appears to be a quite well-regarded movement, AFAICT. Is this right?
I agree the watch with the leather strap looks much nicer than with the steel bracelet, which is just as well, really. How on earth can IWC justify £800 for a faintly naff steel bracelet?
stoneyloon
05-13-2010, 02:39 PM
...... I have to ask myself: do I really need two expensive watches?
Need - no, want - most definitely. ;)
I'm sure if you looked at it harder you don't even need one expensive watch but we've got to have some nice things in life, otherwise why bother sticking needles in folks bellies all day? :D
stoneyloon
05-13-2010, 02:51 PM
Further to my reply, not all good watches are necessarily expensive. There are some good wee independent companies out there using good quality Swiss movements.
Eddie Platts has some interesting models - LINK (http://www.timefactors.com)
But I have to ask myself: do I really need two expensive watches?
Need - no, want - most definitely. ;)
It is a little-known fact that in his first writing of the "Hierachy Of Needs", Maslow put watches right up there with the basic physiological needs of living. His editor wasn't a WIS, though, and so that bit was canned...;)
Yes, I've read some of the threads here! I can't really see myself getting another Rolex for myself, as the one I already have is my personal favourite (but the Milgauss looks pretty cool as well - I love the seconds hand)
The Milgauss is really cool - I love my GV version. Old-school without being self-consciously retro, yet still utterly contemporary.
However, my girlfriend really, really, really wants a Rolex, so if the IWC is a goer I might lend her my Sub whilst she saves up for whatever it is she wants (I think a steel Lady Datejust). She's tried the Sub on, and I must admit it looks better on her tiny wrist than it does on mine. If we ever get married, I guess I'd cave in and buy her the DJ. Maybe I'll take her into town at the weekend. ;)
I'd certainly get your gf to try something bigger than the standard lady's-sized Rolex. Everyone is wearing slightly bigger watches, ladies included. In fact, a couple of years ago, Rolex started actively promoting 36mm as a size for women - and their newer floral dial 36mm DJ are testament to that.
My wife is petite yet has recently hijacked my LV Sub and latterly my Daytona whilst her Explorer is getting serviced. Her own Lady-DJ hasn't been worn for years...
Anyway, more research on the IWC reveals it uses a modified ETA movement (2892 A2). This appears to be a quite well-regarded movement, AFAICT. Is this right?
I agree the watch with the leather strap looks much nicer than with the steel bracelet, which is just as well, really. How on earth can IWC justify £800 for a faintly naff steel bracelet?
The bracelet often forms a significant cost of a watch and it's not just IWC who do this.
As for the movement, many respected manufacturers use a base ébauche from outside and modify it to their own specifications. Even Patek Philippe used to to do this with some of their chronos until very recently. So, whilst not an in-house movement, I would have no concerns about that in the IWC.
Paracentesis
05-14-2010, 02:29 PM
As for the movement, many respected manufacturers use a base ébauche from outside and modify it to their own specifications. Even Patek Philippe used to to do this with some of their chronos until very recently. So, whilst not an in-house movement, I would have no concerns about that in the IWC.
I found a very favourable write-up, here:
http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2892/eta2892.html
I don't know an awful lot about watch movements, but whoever wrote the review seems to like the ETA.
So how does it [the ETA 2892] compare to the competition? There are some movements that match it in terms of accuracy and reliability, but in my humble opinion, none exceed it. The Rolex 3035 and 3135 match it toe to toe. But they are a lot thicker and considerably more expensive too. The PPs, while being very pretty to look at, do not match it for accuracy and are more delicate as far as reliability is concerned. Of course they’re also slightly thinner, so that does put them at a disadvantage. The JLC 889/2 does match it for accuracy, but is also too delicate to give it any competition in the reliability department. The main reason for the latter is its very weak mainspring.
Paracentesis
06-04-2010, 08:20 AM
OK, so I went for the IWC, and am quite chuffed with it. Very understated. I think in some ways it is better than the Rolex.
For a start, it's more accurate, gaining less than a second per day. I gather IWC don't submit their watches to COSC, as their own accuracy requirements are tighter, and submission to COSC would obviously cost IWC money for no good purpose.
Secondly, the date function is more satisfactory, being white on black, matching the dial, and changing before 00.01 - the Rolex changes at about 00.03 - and no awkward-looking cyclops.
Thirdly, it is slightly easier to tell the time from it - not much in it, though. The crystal is domed, which means it can be read at any angle, whilst with the flat Rolex, you sometimes get a reflection. The dial is marginally clearer, and slightly larger.
Fourthly, I think the quality of the finish on the case is higher.
Fifthly, IWC is a more exclusive brand with far fewer around.
The Rolex wins out in terms of probable resale value, and the timing bezel is useful.
I don't think I'll buy another new Rolex - the current line-up doesn't really appeal to me at all, and they've even managed to spoil some classics with new dials and hands. If I ever buy another watch, it'll be a vintage Rolex (Milgauss or red Sub, or similar), or a JLC like Harb's, or a Patek. But these are all Lottery dreams if I'm honest.
Heresy, I hear you cry!
...IWC is a more exclusive brand with far fewer around.
Heresy?
Nahhh....each to their own and that's the only reason different watches appeal to different people.
However...If by "exclusive" you mean a company who uses a generic movement and then charges over the odds for the end-product then, yes - you're right. There are only a select bunch of brands who can pull that off and an even more select bunch of buyers to whom they appeal... ;);)
Reading your post reminded me of this famous article by James Dowling:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progression of a Rolex Owner
© MMII Write Time Partners
Hi Folks
I was talking to a friend the other day and I noticed he was wearing a new Datejust; I found this interesting as the last time we had met he was "flaunting" (and I do not use the word lightly) his new Jaeger le Coultre Master Geographique. I asked him about his new watch & he told me that it was now his everyday watch.
This got me to thinking about other folks I know and the watch owning progression they seem to go through and it seems to run like this:
1. Their "pre-watch" life
2. They become aware of watches and buy their first mechanical watch, probably something like a Longines, Bell & Ross or Tissot.
3. They enjoy the watch & buy their first watch magazine.
4. After reading a few issues they become dissatisfied with their watch & they trade it in & then buy something like an Omega.
5. After a while they keep the Omega and buy a Rolex
6. They find themselves wearing the Rolex most of the time
7. They discover TURF or some similar forum and spend a couple of hours a week on it
8. They discover that Rolex is NOT the best watch in the world
9. They buy their first vintage watch
10. They are spending an hour a day on TURF
11. They begin to develop an urge to buy a mechanical chronograph & buy a Speedmaster Moon watch
12. They drive out of their way to look in the window of their nearest IWC or JLC dealer
13. Their computer now opens TURF when switched on
14. They start to ask questions on TURF about prices of IWCs and JLCs & import duties & times from the far east
15. They buy their first "expensive" watch on line
16. They start to look at TURF Archives to try and understand the differences between Blancpain & Breguet
17. They are spending more time on TURF than with the family
18. They can not remember where the Rolex and the Omega are
19. They can not decide which of the Blancpain "Trilogy" is the best for them.
20. So they buy a Royal Oak
21. As the price of the watches increases, they are satisfied for a shorter time
22. They believe that their life will not be complete without either a Lange or a Patek
23. They buy one
24. They become obsessive about the watch, walking into other people so that they will be able to avoid walking close to any solid objects in order to protect their watch
25. They start to look for their Rolex
26. They find the Rolex and start to wear it almost all the time
27. They buy a season ticket to the opera, (it's a chance to dress up & wear one of their "expensive" watches).
28. They now spend only an hour a week on TURF.
Is this anyone you know??
-----------------------------------------------------------
Give or take a few details, it seems like you're around about point #14 just now, James! :)
Joking aside, though, the IWC is a great watch from a well-respected brand.
Enjoy your new watch and wear it in great health! :)
But just try and forget that you've ever heard the phrase "style over substance"...;)
Paracentesis
06-06-2010, 06:30 AM
Well, if the generic movement is not only better than the Rolex movement, but cheaper as well, then I'm OK with that! Quite a number of high-end makers recognise the ETA as a quality movement, and modify it in their watches.
Well, if the generic movement is not only better than the Rolex movement, but cheaper as well, then I'm OK with that! Quite a number of high-end makers recognise the ETA as a quality movement, and modify it in their watches.
Being an old cynic I would suggest that quite a number of High end (probably mid , would be more accurate)makers actually recognise the ETA as a worth the money and adequate for purpose movement, and one of the very few Swiss movements available to them.
I am yet to see anyone get really excited to find their lovely watch has not got a beautifully engineered , in house movement. The Daytona gained credibility (certainly with me) when they ditched the slowed up el primero and started to use the in-house movement, even though the Zenith movement was one of the greats. At the time they were using that movement, I would have prefered to have one of the Zenith watches that used it (not least, because it ran at the right speed) mostly because it would be a watch of greater integrity. I don't think there is anything wrong with using an ebuche from another maker, but for me, it makes an infinitely less desirable watch.
Paracentesis
06-06-2010, 11:17 AM
Ah well, I suppose a reaction of this type was inevitable. If you would like to characterise IWC as a mid-range manufacturer, check out some of their higher-end models, they make Rolexes look very reasonable, even the bling gold numbers.
The fact remains that the IWC-modified ETA movement is superior to the in-house Rolex equivalent.
Ah well, I suppose a reaction of this type was inevitable. If you would like to characterise IWC as a mid-range manufacturer, check out some of their higher-end models, they make Rolexes look very reasonable, even the bling gold numbers.
The fact remains that the IWC-modified ETA movement is superior to the in-house Rolex equivalent.
I hope my comment didn't offend in anyway, nor give the impression that I don't have the utmost respect for IWC . They have made and do make some very fine watches and at times have been at the forefront of innovation, as they were with some of the better Da Vinci's
I agree that many movements are arguably better than Rolex, who are at best a mid range manufacturer, albeit one of great charm and one who produce very fine watches.
My comment was more about the principal of using ETA ebauche and my belief that the decision to do so, would be more likely about economics and maintaining price point, than about ultimate quality.
I hope my comment didn't offend in anyway...
I'm sure they didn't as, I hope, mine didn't either - but some well-natured ribbing was certainly due :)
Whilst IWC's more complicated models may, indeed, make Rolexes look very reasonable, I would contend that that's like comparing apples and oranges, ie not comparable at all, and, in these respects, it most certainly is not about the money.
And although they may not be aesthetically pleasing, when compared with other similar in-house calibres, Rolex movements are generally recognised as being some of the best in terms of accuracy, robustness and longevity. But there is no doubt that the 2892 is also considered one of the greats.
However, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people begin the journey away from their "Rolex phase" and brand x, y or z is suddenly the one have.That's why I cannot help be wryly amused by such a definitive statement as: The fact remains that the IWC-modified ETA movement is superior to the in-house Rolex equivalent. ...and that's why I was reminded of James Dowling's well-observed piece that I posted above!
It's part of the realisation that the horological world is much bigger than Rolex...and indeed all the commonly-known brands...and that's well-before we get into the brands who make such few pieces of exceptional brilliance that they make Patek look like a production-line manufacturer!
It comes down to a personal choice on how you want your horology. And fortunately there's enough out there for everyone at many different levels.
ChrisEdu
06-06-2010, 06:08 PM
So, what of a Timex with Goofy on it?! :)
Seriously, though, I quite fancy an IWC Spitfire. :)
Paracentesis
06-06-2010, 07:39 PM
And although they may not be aesthetically pleasing, when compared with other similar in-house calibres, Rolex movements are generally recognised as being some of the best in terms of accuracy, robustness and longevity. But there is no doubt that the 2892 is also considered one of the greats.
However, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people begin the journey away from their "Rolex phase" and brand x, y or z is suddenly the one have.That's why I cannot help be wryly amused by such a definitive statement as: ...and that's why I was reminded of James Dowling's well-observed piece that I posted above!
Well, I doubt I'll follow JD's projected path as I am not really that obsessive about watches, and have a lot of other things on which I spend money, although I'm interested enough to own a Rolex, and now an IWC.
I think that mechanical watches are more desirable to own than quartz, and am willing to sacrifice a little accuracy in the process of ownership. However, accuracy is still important to me (and the good folk at Rolex - after all they write "Superlative Chronometer" on their dials) and I find that the IWC-modified ETA 2892 gives every indication of being a more accurate movement than the Rolex 3135. At the same time, it's cheaper. Win-win in my opinion. I think the ETA is also well-regarded in terms of robustness and longevity.
Anyway, I still like the Rolex, in case you were in doubt.
Well, I doubt I'll follow JD's projected path as I am not really that obsessive about watches, and have a lot of other things on which I spend money, although I'm interested enough to own a Rolex, and now an IWC.
Famous last words...:)
Anyway, I still like the Rolex, in case you were in doubt.
Actually, I was just thinking about that and whether your girlfriend had managed to get it on extended loan from you...
Paracentesis
06-07-2010, 07:31 AM
Er, no. It attracts far too much attention. She's tall, but very small-boned and slight (Indian/Chinese genes) and it hangs off her wrist, looking enormous and very Rolexy. She tried wearing it to work a couple of times, only to get an embarrassing grilling about it from one of her WIS colleagues (a GMT/Omega owner). I'm very worried that someone might try to mug her because of it.
...my girlfriend really, really, really wants a Rolex
If, as you say, your girlfriend is tall then she would probably be able to carry off a 36mm watch. The 36mm DJ is available in myriad different versions - even some with a very femine floral dial pattern. There's also the current Explorer, before it is up-sized to 39mm as shown at Basel this year.
Er, no. It attracts far too much attention. She's tall, but very small-boned and slight (Indian/Chinese genes) and it hangs off her wrist, looking enormous and very Rolexy. She tried wearing it to work a couple of times, only to get an embarrassing grilling about it from one of her WIS colleagues (a GMT/Omega owner). I'm very worried that someone might try to mug her because of it.
Don't be mean. Give her the Rolex and pay for a bodyguard.
Paracentesis
06-07-2010, 12:33 PM
I've been edging her towards an Explorer, but I think she wants a watch with date. Anyway, the poor girl is going to have to save up for it!
Paracentesis
06-10-2010, 12:54 PM
Still loving the IWC... still more accurate than the Rolex.
Still loving the IWC... still more accurate than the Rolex.
Even if perhaps, both are less acurate than a Casio;)
Paracentesis
06-10-2010, 01:35 PM
True, but that's comparing apples & oranges.
Sort of, but accuracy either matter or it doesn't and if it doesn't . We don't need to promote the difference, if any. If that's not what it's about, let's cellebrate , what it is about.
Paracentesis
06-10-2010, 02:28 PM
Sort of, but accuracy either matter or it doesn't and if it doesn't . We don't need to promote the difference, if any. If that's not what it's about, let's cellebrate , what it is about.
That's interesting, and I agree that it's not just about accuracy. But accuracy is still very important, to me at least. I think it's very satisfying to own two mechanical watches, both of which are accurate to within 0 to +2 seconds per day.
That's interesting, and I agree that it's not just about accuracy. But accuracy is still very important, to me at least. I think it's very satisfying to own two mechanical watches, both of which are accurate to within 0 to +2 seconds per day.
I see , but for me accuracy, beyond keeping reasonable time (+or- a few minutes per day), is not even part f it.
Paracentesis
06-10-2010, 06:02 PM
Oh well, I guess we are all different! Accuracy is pretty much at the top of my list of requirements for a mechanical watch. I think the COSC specs are way too lax.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.