Auqatimer Automatic 2000 vs Rolex Submariner

I have just bought an IWC Aquatimer and am firmly of the opinion that it is and will be if discontinued more iconic than the Submariner (now worn by anyone who wants to have a nice watch). I know this might be a slightly biased forum to raise this but does any one else have an opinion??

Auqatimer Automatic 2000 vs Rolex Submariner

I had a submariner and traded it for a GST aquatimer which I don't regret one single bit! The IWC is better looking, feels better, has greater presence and is a bit larger. I truly believe it'll be one of the great classics!

New IWC owner, and over the moon about it

I am in firm agreement, having grown out of the Rolex sports range (GMT, Sub and Yachtmaster) and also trying to own Panerai's but losing interest very quickly I bought an Audemars Piguet Royal Oak in January. After wearing on holiday and getting it scratched I thought I could do with a second watch and went for the Aquatimer, I now wear that more than the AP, and am already looking for the next watch in my collection to be an IWC. I want a rose gold piece, any suggestions

Portuguese Perpetual Calendar

I love my rose gold Portuguese Perpetual. I think the black dial with the brown leather strap makes it the best looking rose gold IWC. Otherwise, the F.A. Jones 544201 would be another great choice.

IWC does change its models more than Rolex

..and I'm not sure this is undesirable to anyone.

When I first learned that the pilot's watches were being redesigned --which was much earlier than the announcement in 2006-- I questioned Georges Kern, IWC's CEO, about that. I asked if it wasn't smarter to have some iconic (there's that word again) watches. He replied that virtually no one in the watch industry did that, except Rolex.

I mentioned Patek, and he replied that the basic perpetual (the 3940) and the Calatrava were being redesigned. I thought of the Audemars Royal Oak, but then again realized that the models had changed in size, dials, etc. (now the Alinghi models, etc.). He said that the life cycle for any watch product today is much shorter than it used to be, with the one exception of Rolex.

I think that means we will see new dials, new housings, etc. over time. Yes, the "essence" of the model may be there but there will be changes.

For the collectror, it means that the old (or current) models might be the ones to get and preserve. But it also means many new opportunities for the current collector. Properly done, I think it's a win-win, even if icons may have shorter production lives than Submariners.

Regards,
Michael
P.S. I have no inside information, and there's no hints here, about any changes planned in the Aquatimer models.

Auqatimer Automatic 2000 vs Rolex Submariner

Rolex is like General Motors: Everyone has owned one at one point or another. They're mass produced and of reasonable quality and mostly in demand by American markets. Unfortunately, the vast majority of my fellow citizens don't know enough to distinguish the differences in quality between IWC and Rolex. Most Americans think Rolex is the epitome of Swiss watch manufacture but I think this forum members all know that's not true. I have occasionally had folks ask me what kind of watch I'm wearing and ask why I'm not wearing a Rolex. Rolex doesn't even use an antireflective coating much less a ferrous iron cage.

Over the years, I've owned two Sea Dwellers, two Daytonas including a rare SS model, a steel/gold GMT, and a steel/gold Submariner. The only Rolex I like anymore is the Daytona Cosmograph with the Rolex-manufactured 72 hour movement and the sold-link bracelet. In terms of quality, beauty and reliability, I'll take my IWCs every time. I absolutely love my new Ingenieur.

FJB

Auqatimer Automatic 2000 vs Rolex Submariner

Thanks for the responses on this topic, they have certainly been of great assistance in re-assuring me that my decision was the right one.

As a new member to the IWC brand and also this forum I am looking forward to being part of this understated club for years to come !!

Auqatimer Automatic 2000 vs Rolex Submariner

My Aquatimer 2000 was bought for the sole purpose of replacing my sub. The sub has been put away and will never be worn by me at least. Maybe a gift to a future son for graduation or something.

New IWC owner, and over the moon about it

talking of recent model without any doubt the portugieser rose gold ref. 5000

Aquatimers rule...

...and if you search this forum you will also see older Aquatimer models which IMHO are also pretty nice and highly collectible.
Welcome to the bright side of the force ;-) Cheers - Paga

more photos of one of my Aquatimers

Hi Trevor! Congrats on your new IWC...>

I agree with MF, that slowly allowing a design to take on new design elements, whilst preserving the original concept behind a design is a win-win. I love what IWC has done with the Aquatimer and Pilot's line over the past few years. With the WX in the Northern Hemisphere turning warmer, I've rotated watches to my Ref. 3548 on a rubber strap-Perfection IWC!

I must tell you, I find "r" watches to be garish, reeking of nouveau riche and utterly distasteful in everyway. Against time, their distasteful design will pass. While I can see our great-great-grandchildren enjoying Ref. 5251, 5001, 5002, 3717 and 3548 to name a few in A.D. 2150. So, take care of your IWC and enjoy!

Cheers from Isobars.

Not just the USA ...

Rolex is everywhere in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. The company's roots are there, so that is no surprise. Rolex is also extremely widely known and sought after in both Latin America and Asia. They have been remarkably successful in establishing a worldwide brand presence, more so than any other Swiss watchmaker. It has taken many decades but there it is.

IWC will undoubtedly increase the frequency of model redesign and changes. Hang onto any that you find special, like the 3536 Aquatimer, to my mind one of the best dive watches ever designed and built.

Regards,

OCD

The Dr. has said it perfectly.....

I owned an old-style AT and a UTC before I purchased a Rolex Sea-Dweller. Boy, was I disappointed! The build quality was nowhere near either of the IWC's ! I sold my SD within a month and have never looked back. Plus, I went ahead and bought and AT 2000!

I always say this: compare a Rolex and an IWC side-by-side, and the difference is immediately apparent. I also always mention the philosophies and ethos of the companies: IWC makes perpetual calendars, minute repeaters, 7-day movements, etc., PLUS outstanding(the best, to me) sports watches with the pilot's line, the AT's and the ridiculously awesome Ingenieur.

Here's another tip: order catalogs from each brand. The right choice will become immediately apparent , trust me.

Of course there is the exclusivity factor as well. In the US, one can buy a Rolex at virtually any shopping mall. I know of only a handful of IWC AD's in my home state. When you go IWC you are really getting something special.

Good luck and post some pics!!

The Dr. has said it perfectly.....

Chris is right. Look at the catalogs and just there is a huge difference just in the quality of the Rolex and IWC catalogs. If IWC can make a superior catalog, imagine how much greater effort they put into their beloved watches.

Jaeger-LeCoultre and Girard-Perregaux also make really terrific, informative, and detailed catalogs as well. Breitling may be a distant second.

Cheers

FJB

Rolex produces over 700.000 chronometers in 2005

One reason I shy away from any Rolexes and opted for an Ingeneur Auto SS several months ago was the fact that I read from a well known watch magazine sometime ago, that in the year 2005 alone Rolex produces over 700,000 chronometers !! enough said !

Rolex produces over 700.000 chronometers in 2005

I'm just hope no one is paying $8k for a stainless Rolex. Not even a new Daytona.

FJB

Portuguese Perpetual Calendar

Congratulation for the very nice Portugese Perpetual Calendar... also my favorit one. Greetings

But, they are...

Most SS Daytona's go for $9k-$11k in the US.