IWC watches

[shan]

Would you say the movements are on par with rolex movements?

Are they on the decline in terms of popularity?

[kilyung]

Belongs in the non-Rolex section.

I would say that their movements are on par. The ETA movements have been proven time and again to be as reliable. The in-house movements... too early to tell and some of their complications aren't offered by Rolex so can't be directly compared. IWC knows their target market and is catering to them effectively. Their recent model changes may cause them to loose some clients but they'll pick up others.

[gpfps]

To me they are over priced for eta movement .

[Ravager135]

Originally Posted by kilyung

Belongs in the non-Rolex section.

I would say that their movements are on par. The ETA movements have been proven time and again to be as reliable. The in-house movements... too early to tell and some of their complications aren't offered by Rolex so can't be directly compared. IWC knows their target market and is catering to them effectively. Their recent model changes may cause them to loose some clients but they'll pick up others.

Love that middle IWC. Not too familiar with the brand, is that the Pilot something or other?

[77T]

The question might be better put - and more proper for the Rolex section here - as:

"Are Rolex movements superior to ETA's used in watches like IWC, Omega and other brands?"

My answer: Yes on the whole.

[mjclark32]

I love/d my IWC Aquatimer, it's durable, keep great time and looks great. With that said, I've left it at my parents house and my Dad's been using it for about 2 years now... since I got my sub...

[Mystro]

I don't think the answer to movement superiority is so black and white. These debates are too subjective and tend to go no where.

Originally Posted by 77T

The question would be better put - and more proper for the Rolex section here - as:

"Are Rolex movements superior to ETA's used in watches like IWC, Omega and other brands?"

My answer: Yes on the whole.

[mlotus95]

i love that iwc pilot.

[geekyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ravager135

Love that middle IWC. Not too familiar with the brand, is that the Pilot something or other?

Yep, that's a 3717 Pilot's Chrono. Uses the solid 7750 movement that you see in other fliegers. It was replaced by the 3777 last year, which many (including myself) find much busier. The 3717 struck the perfect balance.

[balboa73]

Originally Posted by 77T

The question might be better put - and more proper for the Rolex section here - as:

"Are Rolex movements superior to ETA's used in watches like IWC, Omega and other brands?"

My answer: Yes on the whole.

Interesting. Is this your opinion only or based on fact?. The ETA 2892 is considered on par with the Rolex 3135 according to many horologists.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Mystro

I don't think the answer to movement superiority is so black and white. These debates are too subjective and tend to go no where.

Originally Posted by balboa73

Interesting. Is this your opinion only or based on fact?. The ETA 2892 is considered on par with the Rolex 3135 according to many horologists.

Yes these discussions can devolve. I should have explained better that to me "on the whole" goes beyond technical matters. It means stability in the marketplace, robustness and consistent support.

For example, many watchmakers modify an ETA movement. Then they refuse to sell the proprietary parts to independent watchmakers so owners are locked into one channel for service. Rolex movements are standardized and they make parts available to authorized, certified watchmakers.

ETA movements can be adjusted to be as accurate as any in the world. However, they must be specially adapted to be robust against shock and EMI. Rolex offers that standard in their models designed for robustness.

[77T]

By the way, I should add that I have 3 watches with ETA movements and they perform very well. And I just acquired another Omega...

[jay1988]

Before I actually tried watches on I loved the look of the big pilot. However many posters on watchuseek reported issues with them (mainly losing/gaining much more than was acceptable. I never even tried it on but can guess it would be too big for me anyway.

They've updated their collection now but they used to have a platinum and rose gold Ingenieur on straps. I only saw them online but they looked gorgeous.

The portugese family is the best and I would take the minute repeater, siderale scafusia, tourbillon retrograde or grande complication over anything offered from Rolex. The perpetual calendar would be hard to turn down too.

Agree that some of the ETA stuff is over-priced. I'd go in-house but do a lot of research on the watch from online forums/reviews (as I would before buying any watch).

[balboa73]

Originally Posted by jay1988

Before I actually tried watches on I loved the look of the big pilot. However many posters on watchuseek reported issues with them (mainly losing/gaining much more than was acceptable. I never even tried it on but can guess it would be too big for me anyway.

They've updated their collection now but they used to have a platinum and rose gold Ingenieur on straps. I only saw them online but they looked gorgeous.

The portugese family is the best and I would take the minute repeater, siderale scafusia, tourbillon retrograde or grande complication over anything offered from Rolex. The perpetual calendar would be hard to turn down too.

Agree that some of the ETA stuff is over-priced. I'd go in-house but do a lot of research on the watch from online forums/reviews (as I would before buying any watch).

Can you explain your reasoning on how exactly ETA is overpriced? Theres a $2500-$3000 price difference between the inhouse 3135 Rolex Sub and the IWC ETA 2892 based Aquatimer

[jay1988]

Originally Posted by balboa73

Can you explain your reasoning on how exactly ETA is overpriced? Theres a $2500-$3000 price difference between the inhouse 3135 Rolex Sub and the IWC ETA 2892 based Aquatimer

The price difference to Rolex isn't very relevant because I feel Rolex are very good value for what they are.

I've never liked the idea of outsourcing movement and feel a watchmaker should make their own.

Just to be clear I never said there was a "reasoning" on ETA being overpriced. It's a feeling. I wasn't comfortable paying that much money for an ETA based watch. I would pay double for a watch with an in-house movement. It's just something I look for in a watch. I didn't say it was logical.

I do not feel being $2,500 dollars cheaper is justified when an outsourced movement is involved. Nomos Glashutte make their own movements and make whole watches for less than $2.5k. My personal feeling (put in bold so you don't ask me to reason it) is that outsourcing movements is lazy, just shows a lack of commitment if you ask me.

When I hear stuff like "this is our own movement and we had a team of 10 watchmakers working for 3 years to create it", it's much easier to justify buying it opposed to an ETA movement you used to be able to buy online for $500.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by 77T

Yes these discussions can devolve. I should have explained better that to me "on the whole" goes beyond technical matters. It means stability in the marketplace, robustness and consistent support.

For example, many watchmakers modify an ETA movement. Then they refuse to sell the proprietary parts to independent watchmakers so owners are locked into one channel for service. Rolex movements are standardized and they make parts available to authorized, certified watchmakers.

ETA movements can be adjusted to be as accurate as any in the world. However, they must be specially adapted to be robust against shock and EMI. Rolex offers that standard in their models designed for robustness.

There are differing grades of ETA ebauches. So you may be right about the quality of lesser grades but Rolex felt comfortable enough about the 2824 to drop it unchanged into their Pelagos. In fact, Rolex's use of ETA movements in Tudor says a lot about their confidence in the manufacture.

There are more ETA movements (new and old) in circulation than Rolex. Getting parts for ETA movements is very easy - I've been doing so in my watchmaking studies for years. Getting Rolex parts... Well we all know about that. So I'd posit that ETA is more stable and better supported than Rolex (which has a very controlled vertical supply/support chain). Most certified watchmakers all studied on ETA movements. Rolex certification requires additional Rolex specific training. I'd hazard a guess that virtually all watchmakers can work on ETA movements but only a subset of them are knowledgeable on Rolex movements.

ETA's new policy is that ebauches remain unchanged. They are now built and finished exclusively by ETA per the manufacture's specifications.

[shan]

Wow, this is great information. Thanks for your input.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by shan

Would you say the movements are on par with rolex movements?

Are they on the decline in terms of popularity?

All signs point to a big big big "N" "O". IWC is more popular than ever, and their current (IMO not very good) design direction is 100% responsible for that.

[JP Chestnut]

Originally Posted by 77T

For example, many watchmakers modify an ETA movement. Then they refuse to sell the proprietary parts to independent watchmakers so owners are locked into one channel for service. Rolex movements are standardized and they make parts available to authorized, certified watchmakers.

Rolex is one of the worst manufactures for independents to work with. If other companies are bad in this respect, they're not worse. I find this argument to be rather odd, to be frank.

[Survivor]

Originally Posted by jay1988

When I hear stuff like "this is our own movement and we had a team of 10 watchmakers working for 3 years to create it", it's much easier to justify buying it opposed to an ETA movement you used to be able to buy online for $500.

You are a sales marketing team's dream...........just tell the consumer its made "in-house" and he'll pay more because for some reason, "in-house" is automatically better. Telling the consumer that an R & D team spent 3 years on a new movement and presto, the consumer will fork out more money on that alone. Amazing.......

[balboa73]

Originally Posted by Survivor

You are a sales marketing team's dream...........just tell the consumer its made "in-house" and he'll pay more because for some reason, "in-house" is automatically better. Telling the consumer that an R & D team spent 3 years on a new movement and presto, the consumer will fork out more money on that alone. Amazing.......

x 2

Maybe ETA should start building there own cases and bracelets. I'm pretty sure than ETA's watch with the ETA inhouse 2892 could command Rolex prices!!!

[oymd]

I thought that "movements" was not one of the stronger departments of Rolex?

Very reliable, but not one of their strong points...especially when comparing to IWC?

Might be totally wrong here..

[craniotes]

Originally Posted by oymd

I thought that "movements" was not one of the stronger departments of Rolex?

Very reliable, but not one of their strong points...especially when comparing to IWC?

Might be totally wrong here..

For all the "workhorse"-type adjectives thrown at Rolex movements, in many respects they're surprisingly sophisticated, with several high-end touches. Sure, they may churn them out by the millions and pay little more than lip service to finishing, but for all that they do employ Breguet overcoils, free-sprung balance wheels and Glycudur geartrains.

The above notwithstanding, Rolex falls short of IWC in terms of truly complicated movements, with the controversial Sky-Dweller being their only nod to anything more difficult to construct than a chronograph or GMT (okay, the Yacht-Master II is kind of cool -- pity about the looks, though). On the other hand, IWC has 7-day automatics, rattrapantes, minute repeaters, perpetual calendars, constant-force tourbillons, grande complications, et al. IWC has also been far more inclined to use materials, such as ceramic, titanium and now carbon fiber in their case construction.

The folks who sneer at IWC's use of ETA movements seem to be missing the forest for the trees, methinks.

Regards,
Adam

[woodsworth]

Originally Posted by jay1988

The price difference to Rolex isn't very relevant because I feel Rolex are very good value for what they are.

I've never liked the idea of outsourcing movement and feel a watchmaker should make their own.

Just to be clear I never said there was a "reasoning" on ETA being overpriced. It's a feeling. I wasn't comfortable paying that much money for an ETA based watch. I would pay double for a watch with an in-house movement. It's just something I look for in a watch. I didn't say it was logical.

I do not feel being $2,500 dollars cheaper is justified when an outsourced movement is involved. Nomos Glashutte make their own movements and make whole watches for less than $2.5k. My personal feeling (put in bold so you don't ask me to reason it) is that outsourcing movements is lazy, just shows a lack of commitment if you ask me.

When I hear stuff like "this is our own movement and we had a team of 10 watchmakers working for 3 years to create it", it's much easier to justify buying it opposed to an ETA movement you used to be able to buy online for $500.

If I recall correctly, Nomos movements are based off of the Peseux 7001- they just don't have a movement ebauche sent to their factory. So, while many consider them to be in-house, they, technically, are not.

[tigerpac]

For me, I don't care that IWC uses ETA movements in their entry-level watches, its the prices they charge for ETA based watches that gets me. They are overpriced compared to the other ETA based watches and the fit and finish of the cases was disappointing, regardless of what movement was inside!

Their higher-end stuff is beautifully done but they get away with make some questionable pieces (for said price) at their lower levels.

[balboa73]

Originally Posted by tigerpac

For me, I don't care that IWC uses ETA movements in their entry-level watches, its the prices they charge for ETA based watches that gets me. They are overpriced compared to the other ETA based watches and the fit and finish of the cases was disappointing, regardless of what movement was inside!

Their higher-end stuff is beautifully done but they get away with make some questionable pieces (for said price) at their lower levels.

IWC's prices for their ETA based watches not at all overpriced. The ETA 2892 in the IWC Aquatimer is equal to or better than Rolexes 3135. The ETA in IWC is not the ETA in a Tissot or Hamilton. If any watch is overpriced it is a SS Rolex Submariner. There always will be people who dismiss ETA but like I said, If they built a case and bracelet they could charge $10000 for their SS models with their 'in house' ETA 2892

[tigerpac]

You're missing my point. I'm not saying the SS Rolex Sub is or not overpriced vs ETA - you make a lot of fine points on that front. Nor am I saying that ETA movements aren't great. I'm saying the IWCs are overpriced vs other ETA (yes top grade ETA) based watches (some breitling, some Longines, some Sinn even) and that IWC shouldn't be proud of their finishing on the watches.

[balboa73]

Originally Posted by tigerpac

You're missing my point. I'm not saying the SS Rolex Sub is or not overpriced vs ETA - you make a lot of fine points on that front. Nor am I saying that ETA movements aren't great. I'm saying the IWCs are overpriced vs other ETA (yes top grade ETA) based watches (some breitling, some Longines, some Sinn even) and that IWC shouldn't be proud of their finishing on the watches.

IWC modifys the 2892 much more than Sinn Breitling who use the 2824. .Well documented. ** (ETA now carrys out these mods for IWC). These modifications are exclusive to IWC. A Breitling based ETA 2824 compared to an IWC ETA 2892 is apples to oranges. For the most part i agree with your grouping of brands that use ETA but IWCs ETA based watches are on a different level. IWCs Aquatimer 2000 is very much on par with Rolex's sub case bracelet movement wise. To group IWC in with SINN is harsh. I would group SINN in with UTS watches. IWC's ETA 2892 based models IMO very much belong in the conversation with Rolex's 3135 models. Without ETA we would all be stuck with Selita based ORIS or $8000.00 us SS model staring point prices(Rolex). The ETA based Omega 2500 series and IWCs ETA models fill that gap with models that are on par with Rolex quality/movement wise but dont command the 'in house' premium.

[woodsworth]

Originally Posted by balboa73

IWC modifys the 2892 much more than Sinn Breitling who use the 2824. .Well documented. ** (ETA now carrys out these mods for IWC). These modifications are exclusive to IWC. A Breitling based ETA 2824 compared to an IWC ETA 2892 is apples to oranges. For the most part i agree with your grouping of brands that use ETA but IWCs ETA based watches are on a different level. IWCs Aquatimer 2000 is very much on par with Rolex's sub case bracelet movement wise. To group IWC in with SINN is harsh. I would group SINN in with UTS watches. IWC's ETA 2892 based models IMO very much belong in the conversation with Rolex's 3135 models. Without ETA we would all be stuck with Selita based ORIS or $8000.00 us SS model staring point prices(Rolex). The ETA based Omega 2500 series and IWCs ETA models fill that gap with models that are on par with Rolex quality/movement wise but dont command the 'in house' premium.

What modifications does IWC (ETA, now..) do to the 2892, exactly?

[improviz]

Originally Posted by woodsworth

What modifications does IWC (ETA, now..) do to the 2892, exactly?

Found this on WUS, didn't have time to read it in its entirety though....have a look:
http://forums.watchuseek.com/f350/iw...ed-256887.html