An 866 Ingenieur sliced in two

Hi Bill,

I am very interested in your 666A dial. Can you tell me a bit about it? Was it on a cal 852 watch? Approximate age?

Most curious about the lettering style (assuming it's genuine) which seems very different than that in most of the 666's I've seen.

thanks,

Todd

p.s. Am I correct in assuming that this dial is made of brass and has feet that are a tad longer than a 666AD dial to accommodate the mu-metal plate which sat between dial and movement?

I find it hard to imagine any "educational purpose" that is better served by disfiguring a watch as opposed to disassembling it. After all, it's not like an engine bloc with a multitude of interior intricacies. Yes, camera (and lens) companies do build half-examples, but those are not actual cameras sawn in half, but rather purpose-built mock-ups. I don't see any self-respecting watch company doing such a horrendous thing on purpose. But some of our moderators here do have excellent lines of communication with the company, so why not ask them directly instead of engaging in fruitless guesswork?

I find the consternation over the "disfiguring" of the watch to be borderline ridiculous.

First of all, IWC was able to manufacture as many ref. 866 as they wished. This demonstration watch did not in any sense deprive the world of a fine watch.

Secondly, the essence of the Ingenieur line, as it was originally conceived, was its highly ant-magnetic properties. The Faraday cage found in the ref. 666 and 866 Ingenieurs were crucially important, and showing a "cut-away" view of them would indeed have been educational.

This isn't "fruitless guesswork", but a blazingly obvious inference.

There were also very similar "cutaway" models used at the time to provide insights into cars, airplanes, and engines, etc. For example:

Tony,

First, I don't think that offending a fellow forum member for his/her opinion is conducive to constructive or informative dialogue (which is, I believe, the reason why most of us keep coming back here). Second, a "blazingly obvious inference" (the Sun revolves around the Earth) does not constitute proof of anything.

Best regards,

Dénes,

I am sorry that you took offense, so please accept my apology.

I do, however, find it dissonant that you would take offense to my reaction to your post, yet at the same time have no qualms about using hyperbolic words such as "horrendous" and "disfiguring"?

As to the question of whether it was originally produced by IWC, you are free to believe that it was a third-party individual who was responsible, but I prefer to rely on Occam's razor, and the ample evidence that few, if any individuals would have had the tools or incentive to do the work.

Regards,

Tony C.

Tony,

You are right: I should have been more moderate in my wording. As for the actual topic of the thread: until such time that actual evidence regarding the issue comes to light, let's just agree to disagree.

Regards,

Dénes

Has IWC cut a current watch into two pieces, just for educational reasons? Who should be educated that way? Until further evidence is shown, I am sure IWC nowadays refrains from these horrible acts of watch mutilation, for good reasons.

Kind regards,
Paul

Fair enough, Dénes.

Thank you.

Regards,

Tony

Thanks Tonny and the person at Schaffhouse that responded to Tonny's request.

Now we have a rather solid source confirming there were such watches made by IWC. Always great to learn!

Of course it does not validate the one I showed as having been part of the original batch.
I can't figure out though why one individual would have decided to cut this very 866, given also its value drops close to zero.
Interesting would be sourcing an original archive extract and sending it to Schaffhouse for assessing all parts remaining are factory original. This only could validate it is not an automatic converted to an ingenieur. Of course, value wouldn't rise after that.

Thanks Tonny,

One of the greatest values of this forum is exactly this kind of information. Kudos to IWC as well for clarifying an issue instead of letting rumours fly around.

Dénes,

I generally admire your ability with languages that are not native to you, especially as I do not have similar versatility.

Having said that, what I offered on this thread was not a "rumor", but rather a very confident opinion based on an abundance of facts, and simple, logical deduction. That opinion has now proven to have been entirely CORRECT.

I therefore find it remarkable that you would apparently feel vindicated in your initial, over-the-top, and ultimately incorrect views.

There are also an increasing percentage of cases in which manufacturers are unable to answer questions relating to vintage models, and in such cases, educated speculation by serious collectors becomes extremely valuable in identifying the most probable answers. This point further underscores the folly of your reaction.

Regards,

Tony C.

i wish i had a pic of the very authentic looking Schaffhausen box made to hold two sliced gents-size watches..with no provision for bracelet or strap but alas that was 4 computers ago.