Explorer I vs IWC Mark XVI

[Mockingbird]

What are everybody's opinions on a comparison between these two watches? I personally think that the IWC wins in craftsmanship, movement, and design. The Exp I might win in pedigree. What are your opinions of these watches?

[CKLinLA]

I like the look of the Mark XV and XVIs (and the Spitfire Chronoss), and looked into
IWC a bit.

On another forum (watchtalkforums), they had a specific IWC Forum - what surprised
me a little were the number of IWC owners that made posts about problems (quality
issues/defects) that they had with their new IWC purchases. Obviously, not a
statistically valid sample, but it did make me wonder ...

[Mockingbird]

Originally Posted by CKLinLA

I like the look of the Mark XV and XVIs (and the Spitfire Chronoss), and looked into
IWC a bit.

On another forum (watchtalkforums), they had a specific IWC Forum - what surprised
me a little were the number of IWC owners that made posts about problems (quality
issues/defects) that they had with their new IWC purchases. Obviously, not a
statistically valid sample, but it did make me wonder ...

Large number? I know people who own IWC and swear by the QC.

[cody p]

i think i like it a little better than the exp. the dial and hands on the iwc are very legible, plus it has the date. it's a real time teller. of course, the exp is a classic with wonderful aesthetics.

[karmatp]

Originally Posted by Mockingbird

What are everybody's opinions on a comparison between these two watches? I personally think that the IWC wins in craftsmanship, movement, and design. The Exp I might win in pedigree. What are your opinions of these watches?

I agree Charlie, IWC makes amazing timepieces. Another thing that wins out for me is the ability to buy the Mark XVI on the bracelet then purchase straps for a nice variety. This is seriously where Rolex has missed the boat with it's sport watches IMHO. So many brands sell divers on bracelets than have cleaver and fast ways to change over to a rubber strap, a idea that should have popped into someone on the Rolex design team years ago. Seriously, could you imagine in the sub or sd came with a rubber strap and a tool to swap them out, it would be a huge hit.

[cdnwatchguy]

Really love the feel and look of it. I am a fan of the Mark XVI but have never owned one. I did own an Explorer, liked it a lot but it had to go to make room for the arrival of my Daytona.

[carlhaluss]

I really had a good look at the IWC on their website, and was quite impressed. I am biased, because I own an Explorer I and it has been the best watch I have ever owned - bar none.
Have to say, that I am very impressed with the design of the dial on the IWC. I am a big fan of watches with no date, but IWC has done this one very smartly. With the markers, and not arabics at 3, 6 and 7, this date window has minimum intrusion on the aesthetics of the dial. It's background is black to match the dial, and it is still very legible.
I only talk about the aesthetics, as I have to admit that I know nothing about the movement. Are IWC movements inhouse?
Also, since the case size is 39mm, just like the upcoming Explorer, I might be tempted to wait until the new model comes out. Or maybe that is your intention? I have to say that I do like the looks of the Explorer better, and I have never had a more accurate watch.
Cheers,
Carl

[kyle L]

I'm biased too, but I like the IWCs as well.

[lolo96706]

I've been thinking about that same IWC watch also. It is on my wish list.

[isolator]

IWC makes a nice watch. I owned 2 of the older Fliegers. I also owned an Exp I which I sold (should have kept). I wish IWC would settle down on their designs and make minor changes. They (IWC) are....just not iconic to me. The Explorer I is classic because it's aesthetic is singular yet timeless. Then again, just my opinion. What matters is yours.

[warrior]

I like the looks of the IWC a bit better and Ialso like the IWC bracelet better. Its movement is the eta based 2892, not in house.

The Explorer is certainly a classic but, overall, I prefer the IWC.

[veidtadrian]

To be honest, I like the IWC mark xvi design better (and also would like to have a leather strap watch for work).
However, the Explorer I design is absolutely timeless..it will look good 50 years from now and looked good 50 years ago.

[derekloimer]

The IWC Mark XVI is also on my long term shopping list. The bracelet model is a lot more expensive than the leather strap option though.

When I was buying my Explorer 1 I considered the IWC as an alternative but I thought the Rolex was a better buy for the money

[Jolu]

No comment on the movement or the craftsmanship since I've never seen the IWC in real life, but when it comes to design? You can not be serious!

The IWC Mark XV is IMO more of a competitor when it comes to looks, but I don't think any of them can compare with the Explorer:

IWC mark XV


IWC mark XVI


The 1 and only:

[watchaddict3]

I love mine. Keeps perfect time! The bracelet is incredibly easy to size and is very comfortable. The Mark XVI joins my Mark XV white dial and 3706.

[ral]

The IWC is actually a more classic model than the Explorer IMHO. In the early 1940's the British Ministry of Defense put out a specification set for rugged military watches that it wanted to supply its troops. The watches that met these specification were engraved with the letter WWW meaning: "Watches Wristlet Waterproof" and called the "Mark X" watches. Many manufacturers including Longines, Jaegre Le-Coutlre (JLC), Omega, Lemania, Eterna and the International Watch Company (IWC) supplied WWW Mark X watches which became available in 1944. These Mark X watches were supplied to the RAF, but again found wanting.

The IWC Mark XVI is actually a descendant of the Mark XI. The RAF had specific improvements in wanted in its pilots watches. To meet these new requirements new specification were issued for a Mark XI watch.

* A highly accurate movement with hack-device,
* A inner soft iron 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.

In 1949 Mark XI watches produced by JLC and IWC were issued to the RAF meeting these specifications. Mark XI watches were also purchased by the Royal Australian Air Force, Royal New Zealand Air Force, South African Air Force and the British Overseas Airways Corporation (now British Airways).

The Mark XVI (39mm) is an up-sized Mark XI (36mm) with a refreshed dial.

The Rolex Explorer I actually has little relation to the Rolex "Explorer" which made it up to Everest in 1953.

Both a nice watches.

[CKLinLA]

Originally Posted by Mockingbird

Large number? I know people who own IWC and swear by the QC.

Best you judge for yourself - you can read/access the IWC forum there without joining the forum.

This was a couple of months back. My memory/impression is that I maybe encountered about 4 or 5 threads posted about accuracy or some kind of problem, from scanning through about 5 pages of posts (so maybe 100-120 posts). That seemed relatively high compared to posts here on TRF where the problems that do appear tend to be on 'authenticity'.

[DerekS]

thats a VERY tough choice. Ive always liked the Exp 1. But the IWC is a real looker too.

As for quality, Ive owned 2 IWCs and never had a problem out of either of em. Great watches and I miss em everyday!

[Mockingbird]

Seems like the IWC is winning on a Rolex biased forum. In my opinion the IWC is a true tool watch, while what the Explorer I has evolved into is almost far from it.

They use a heavily modified ETA movement, that while the seconds hand looks more "scratchy" but is disputably more accurate. I find the IWC more pleasing as a rugged watch personally.

[ral]

The 39mm Explorer will have more supporters.

[Mockingbird]

Originally Posted by ral

The 39mm Explorer will have more supporters.

Do you really think so? The 39mm is a nice size, but the hands looks too small, and losing the lume on the arabics is a mistake. It looks like they just stuck the dial/hands of the explorer into an old Milgauss case.

[ral]

Agreed on the lume and on the hands... but I do want to see it in person.

The 39mm size is a big thing, for me at least. The Explorer is a "sports" watch, so to my mind should be bigger than my dress watch. It actually looks smaller than a 36mm Datejust for some reason or other. I love the Explorer though, or at least what is represents. Between a divers watch, a drivers watch, a pilots watch, or scientist watch, what the Explorer represents appeals to me more...

My turn to ask for advice. What do you think, am I being to OC about the size thing... the biggest watch I can carry is 40mm, and 36-38mm look best on me I think. Maybe a sports watch need not be bigger than my dress watch?

[Mockingbird]

Originally Posted by ral

Agreed on the lume and on the hands... but I do want to see it in person.

The 39mm size is a big thing, for me at least. The Explorer is a "sports" watch, so to my mind should be bigger than my dress watch. It actually looks smaller than a 36mm Datejust for some reason or other. I love the Explorer though, or at least what is represents. Between a divers watch, a drivers watch, a pilots watch, or scientist watch, what the Explorer represents appeals to me more...

My turn to ask for advice. What do you think, am I being to OC about the size thing... the biggest watch I can carry is 40mm, and 36-38mm look best on me I think. Maybe a sports watch need not be bigger than my dress watch?

I'd say that the requirement for a sports watch be that it's rugged and can take a beating. Nothing in the about size.

Just wear whatever looks good on YOUR wrist.

[ral]

... one last and going a bit OT, the lugs on a 40mm Rolex, end to end, are not wider than my wrist, but there is a gap between the lugs and my wrist (2mm or so on each side). When I wear the Datejust, no gap. This tells me "too big" or am I wrong (is it just because of the thicker case back).

Was hoping the 39mm Explorer would have no gap.

[Mockingbird]

I think we can close off this debate by saying Mark XVI>Explorer I in design, style, quality, and possibly movement based on the evidence shown by members. If you have an objection or a new detail to bring to our eyes, by all means speak up!

(Pedigree is still under debate)

[ingmar]

To me the Explorer & the XVI aren't really comparable other than "classic looks" & "black dial". They make an XVI in silver dial, I know. That one's pretty sharp. The flight style & strap make the two different in my book.

To me the IWC Ingenieur is a little more comparable. Both because you can get a similar size (34 to 36) & the Arabic numerals (or lack thereof), though the Ingenieur has a date. For some, great. For others, not so much (nice to have a watch w/o a date- one less thing to watch out for every other month).

As for the lume: My Explorer's the best lit watch I own. Not having the numbers lumed isn't a big deal at all. Still very legible at night.

[ral]

I guess I have to agree with ingmar. The Mark XVI is a classic military pilots watch. In some ways, more similar to the Sub and Panerai's in that they all have a military heritage. The Explorer is an adventurers watch...

[htc8p]

i really like the spitfire chrono silver dial for casual and the portuguese for formal.

iwc is a good brand too, well built valijoux movements but i will buy other brand first.

[TheDude]

Why not a Quad 10? It's an homage to the early military designs.

Make: MKII
Model: QUAD 10 Type 48
Movement: ETA2824-2
WR: 100m
Width: 40mm
Lug: 20mm

[bluemartinifan]

Charlie - I have been close to buying IWC a few times - I always come back to Rolex - 1 significant factor for me is resale. I believe there is a far more limited market if you need to resell the IWC - and I have yet to lose money on a Rolex sale.