unlikely, because two different worlds.
One is talking about tools.
One is talking about luxury art.
But at that time, those watches were just tools and nobody has cared about different interpretation of "original".
Main thing was just an accurate working tool !!!!
I don't mean to be argumentative, but I know of no collector market that defines originality differently than the simple way that I have above.
If a part of a vintage automobile has been replaced, then it is not fully original. If an old painting has been re-touched, then it is not fully original. Etc. I have never encountered any remotely compelling, contrary view, though the nuances that I touched on above are worth considering (e.g. the fact that motor oil and air filters have been changed many times does not speak to originality).
To Hebe's point, no one is arguing that a lack of originality degrades the usefulness of a tool. In fact, modern tires on a vintage automobile can significantly enhance performance.
But the issues are separate, and it should be obvious why originality is of importance to many collectors, and why fully original cars, watches, etc., command higher prices than those with significant alterations and/or replaced parts.
Cheers,
Tony C.
Just an example what I mean.
IWC ordered many parts at different manufacturers, e.g. dials, hands, cases, crowns, etc.
Those parts were ordered in different tranches at different times.
Could be that a new manufacturer came in during that era.
All items were produced by IWC specs. and are original.
Watches for service were equipped with spare parts, but the older spareparts have run out and only new spareparts from another munufacturer were in stock and were used for repair.
For me, the repaired watch is still original although it has got spareparts which were produced later as the watch itself.
Hebe –
I don't know if you follow the vintage Omega market at all closely, but there is a company called "Watchco" which amassed a huge stock of NOS parts years ago. They have been selling the parts not only individually, but as complete watches, notably the desirable and valuable Seamster 300 model.
Now, based on your very liberal definition, those watches should apparently be considered "original", as they are correctly constructed from genuine Omega parts. Yet no Omega collectors that I know of would use that term.
Within the context of IWC, I wouldn't consider even a watch with a correct replacement dial (or hands, etc.), to be original. Should it be considered correct? Yes. Genuine? Sure. Original? No.
Taking it a step further, when a part is used that would not have been used when the watch left the factory, say a white date wheel on a black dialed watch, or a non fish crown on a model that was originally fitted with such a crown, I completely fail to understand how it might reasonably be considered original. Yes, the replacements may be genuine IWC, and they may even be the only remaining, logical option. But if such a watch were to be considered original, then the word has arguably lost all of its – wait for it – original meaning.
Cheers,
Tony C.
Taking it three steps back, I step out of this thread now.
Sorry for the confusion and good luck.
Regards
HEBE
Sorry. I didn't mean to be off-putting.
Regards,
Tony C.
No problem at all, but if a thread turns a circle, I always jump out :-)
We will meet eachother in other threads again.
Dear Tony C and Hebe,
Knowing Heiko(hebe) for many years, I consider his "stepping out" from this thread not as a kind of disapproval but as a moment of having postulated his view, a view that I share regarding IWC vintage watches. I do realise that this view is not uniform among collectors and as Clepsydra is putting foreward ; there will be no concensus on this topic.
However, there is nothing wrong in stating opinions and to read those of others.
For several decades it was and still is usual that a vintage watch restored by IWC leaves the factory as if it is a brand new one. Many of us call this a "Spa treatment" and IWC was praised to be able to transform a miserable looking 50 years old watch, full of dings and scratches with a ruined dial by time and moisture into a brand new looking timepiece. To achieve that the crystal had to be replaced, the case had to be polished , often to such degree that loss of material of the case could be noted. In the movement every single part that had suffered from wear and tear was replaced and the likelihood that all of those parts were as old as the watch itself was zero percent. Only the fact that all manufacturers of mechanical watches advice to service the watch at regular intervals means that only at the first 2-3 service intervals parts can be used which originate from the same period as the watch itself.
Tony C refers to vintage cars. The oldest and nearly destroyed, hardly recognisable Bugatti's, Jaguar's etc fetch the highes price when they are considered "barn found's".
But there is nobody in the world who has a complete and working Bugatti engine in stock from 1910. A compromise is the only way to built up the jewel again.
Tony refers also to Omega assembled from NOS parts and he considers the watch not as originial. I would, but would have the difficulty that this watch was probably not documented in the sales record of Omega.
To end my contribution on this topic I can not hide my supprise when I read of collecting vintage Rolex watches, a brand that is among the most expensive second hand watches ( Comex, Dayatona Paul Newman etc.)
Here the discussion about original , authentic and genuine has caused a strange effect, resulting in exorbitant prices.
If the original dial of a vintage Submariner is cracked, it is called a "spider dial", much sought after by some collectors. If the same dial is destoyed by moisture and has turned into chocolate brown, the dial is called "tropical" and it is more expensive than an average dial from the same age. If the bezel of a "Pepsi" GMT is completely faded, it may be worth 1000 $. If a NOS pristine bezel with fresh blue and red color from the same age can be found, nobody wants it because it is considered to be an after market dial. If a vintage Rolex would be restored as a vintage IWC : "Spa treatment", most of the Rolex collectors would be extremely disappointed, to say the least.
All of this means to me that there are no objective criteria to call a restored watch original, authentic or genuine. Restored to what? We are talking about subjective fashion influenced considerations.
Kind regards,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).
Dear Tony C, Adrian, Hebe and Antonio, and others ... Thank you for this interactive and lively discussion.
Adrian, with your post above (re Rolex original pieces) you certainly nailed it.
I for one would 'venture" a different view for sake of discussion. It was said, that by law in order for a manufactory to be able to sign their watches on the dial with SWISS MADE, that 85% of the physical contents/parts of the watch needed to be made in Switzerland. So to me, if 85% or more of the parts in the watch are "original" - then the watch is original.
My 2 cents worth.
The only 666 type i am aware of that contains numbering akin to the original posters sample in this thread are a small % of the applied dial types more commonly found with matched 18xx 853 numbering. Why a smaller % of a niche type would contain 852's i have never discovered but they're out there (and correct)..i'm led to believe applied dial 666's (18xx/853) were actually showcased alongside 866's at one point in time and that customers with recent 666 purchases pre the applied dial change could have the dial swapped out for an applied type at service point..something that was not uncommon amongst other manafacturers at exactly the time frame in question. This does not readilly explain from where a 852 may have morphed housed in a 17xx case (though there was a little hiatus with the 8541 showing itself to market), perhaps the line bred 18xx/853 666 samples sold quicker than expected and an opportunity to shift further stock presented itself (especcially if that was Schaffhausens intentions anyway), hence the smaller margin of 852/17xx...just a thought.I don't believe the watch in question started life with a black dial.
Ah, Catherine, it has been too long...
Thus my summary is this: no one owns an original vintage watch unless that watch has been in one's possession since its bless-ed birth and said owner can sanctify the whenceabouts of each & every component.
Secondly, there are but few true facts in life but many whose existence has have morphed from opinion - supporting the very foundation of watch collecting, as well as everything else.
Thirdly, I don't where all of my vintage IWC parts have been, but they are original, having always entered and exited the same quaint workshop in Schaffhausen - for a man's children might grow far from their youth, but they remain the original off-spring of their origin - purple hair, knee replacements, and nose rings notwithstanding.
Please, don't get up, I was just on my way out. :-)
T
I once owned an applied dial 666 that housed an 852 movement....Schaffhausen said it was delivered to Kopenhagen in '74...'bum bum'
Whilst the above is a stretch..it's only akin to the gold 19xx sharkfin-cased manual wind c.89's that contain mvmnt numbering from the '50's, or was it earlier?...matters not, the samples are very correct...what is a company to do when the worlds gone automatic mad and they're holding manual wind mvmts.
Well, here's my terse summary:
"genuine" = a genuine part produced by (or for) the manufacturer
"correct" = a part that was typically used on (or in) the model or movement in question
"original" = a part that was present when the watch left the factory
a part can be "genuine", yet not "correct", depending on the model
a part can be both "genuine" and "correct", but only "original" if it initially left the factory with the watch
In my experience, and for whatever it's worth, a high percentage of collectors are in basic agreement about the above definitions.
Regards,
Tony C.
Totally agree with those definitions!
Hi everyone,
Thank you for all your comments and for creating a lively debate in this thread. I will defer from commenting on the semantic discussion that is going on, and focus on my watch. I have now been given direct information from the heritage department regarding my questions. Here it is:
The gap between numbers between the case and movement is NOT an issue. The statement is very clear on this: "The movement is original and correct for this type of watch.". "The "gap" is not an issue". This only further underlines that serial charts should always be regarded as guidelines, nothing more. There will always be anomalies.
The dial currently mounted on the watch has been refinished. The logo is not original and the surface color is not up to IWC standards. The hands are original. The statement from IWC does not say if this could be the original dial or not, mainly that it has been refinsihed.
The watch, and this I believe is quite important, "came originally with a black dial and a black date wheel". The conclusion must be twofold: IWC must have records of what type of dials and dial colors were originally mounted on each watch that left the factory, and secondly, black dials originally came with black date wheels. The white date wheel that is currently on the watch, I take to be a correct IWC date wheel for a 8531 movement, since IWC is prepared to leave it on the watch and still grant me a certificate of autheticity. I asked if the current black dial could be replaced with a white dial, to match the white date wheel, but IWC are very clear about this point as well: "Since the watch comes origignally with a black dial, the replacement will also be done with a black dial." Naturally, I have asked IWC also to replace the date wheel with a black one, since the original design of the 666 demands it.
I hope this clears out most issues with this watch, as well as providing us with more general information that may be useful for the collectors´community and for our shared knowledge.
I wish everyone a great weekend!
Jan
Hi Jan,
Thanks for reporting on the latest developments. It is quite interesting to follow the "magical mystery tour" along with you.
Your use of this quote leaves me a bit confused:
"The movement is original and correct for this type of watch."
Presumably they also stated that it matched the case, as if they did not, then doubt remains about the two having left the factory together.
Secondly, while a pedantic point, it seems a bit odd that they were willing to leave the (incorrect) white date wheel in place, yet insisted on replacing the refinished dial with a black one. Inconsistent, at the very least.
Cheers,
Tony C.
Hi Tony,
Thanks for your response. I completely agree, on both accounts. But I think this is as far as we can come regarding the "mismatch" between the two serial numbers. IWC claims there is "no issue". I find it strange though, that they are willing to leave a white date wheel on the watch, even though they claim the watch originally had a black date wheel. Writing a certificate of authenticiy to a watch with a black dial and a white date wheel seems inconsistent with the claim that the watch originally had a black dial and a black date wheel. One implication of this could, and I´m sorry for making things complicated again, be that black dials with white date wheels could acutally also be considered authentic, but that THIS particular watch originally had a black dial and a black date wheel. I still have to assume that IWC keep records of original dials and dial colours in their archives (or else nothing of this works).
Regards,
Jan
Hmmm...
Thanks Jan.
I'm going to don my tinfoil hat for a moment. I can only think of two explanations for why they responded to your questions with this quote:
"The movement is original and correct for this type of watch."
The first would be that whoever authored the quote hasn't mastered English, and in fact meant to say (or at least imply) that the case and movement numbers are a "match", and have been confirmed to be original.
The second would be that they don't match, and the sentence was carefully worded to avoid confirmation. Why would they do that? It's almost impossible for me to believe that it could happen, but my understanding is that they have never been willing to service watches that weren't deemed to be "correct" in terms of matching serial numbers. So...
Again, the second explanation shouldn't be possible, but I do have a bit of a hard time with "this type of watch", rather than "this watch".
Interesting how semantics have played such an important role on this thread!
TC
Tony, I agree that semantics have been (are) important; could it be that the use of English "original" could, in the writer's mother tongue, mean both 'original' (as in the original movement) and/or 'genuine' (as in a genuine IWC movement of the correct calibre)?
Is it not possible that the original movement was replaced, by IWC, during a service, perhaps because of irreparable damage (and hence, perhaps, the refinished dial)?
I have to take issue with the statement that the dial finish is not up to IWC standard as I have personal experience of sub-standard IWC refinishing in the past (since corrected by IWC).
At the end of the day, the watch will be what it was, although not with all the original parts.
Hi Tony,
Thanks for your efforts. I can´t see why IWC, on purpose, would choose a carefully selected wording to avoid confirmation of the match between the case and movement, when they are prepared to issue a certificate o authenticity after the refinished dial has been replaced? It doesn´t make any sense, or does it? To chime in with Stanford, we know that movements were sometimes upgraded or replaced when the watches came in to Schaffhausen for service. There could still be other explanations, all of which will remain pure speculations as long as IWC only says that the mismatch "is not an issue".