Caliber 83 vs 88 difference?

Hi All!

I'd like to know what the differences are between caliber 83 and caliber 88.
Which is more rare?
Any other things to say about them?

/Thanks,
Fredrik (Stockholm, Sweden)

An attempt to answer:

the caliber 83 was build in relatively small series (about 10000pcs max)
The caliber 88 has the same origin as the Caliber 89 (Mark XI!):
cal.89 central second, cal.83: small second.
The Cal.83 is older and was not so often build as the 83/88-family.
I hope this will answer your question.

Also, early Cal. 83 hasn't shock.>

protection. Some cases are small by today's standard, only 30,5 mm. But, I love this design!

Some technical information

I think it's fair to say that neither movement is rare, although of course vintage IWCs aren't found on every street-corner. There were somewhat more Cal. 88s than Cal. 83s, but I personally see more 83s. I think 83s are more in demand because of (a) the look of the dials on some examples and (b) 6000 were used in the very collectible Mark X model.

The 83s were made from about 1935 (or possibly a few years' earlier) to 1947, and the 88s were made from 1946 to 1964. Both were 26.5mm in diameter (11 3/4 lignes) but the 88s were slightly thinner at 3.85 mm (in contrast to 4.10 mm for the 83s). There are 15 or 16 jewel 83s but all 88s are 16 jewels. 83s come with either bimettalic or monometallic balances, but all 88s are monometallic. Only some 83s are shock-resistant. Both use Breguet overcoils and both beat at 18,000 halfbeats/hour.

Regards,
Michael

Some more exact information.....

Dear friends.

Most of the above information is quit OK. I'd like to give some more exact information.

The c.83 was built. between 1935 and 1847 in total 67'800 times.
As Michael said: They are not not very rare. 11'400 of this movements was built with INCA schock protection. The c.83 exists with compensating and monometallic balance. My not yet 100% proofed aproach is that the MARK X c.83 are all with compensating balance and no shock protection. I'd like to see pictures of MARK X movements with INCA or monometallic balance.
And to confirm, the c.83 exists with 15 and 16 jewels.

The c.88, as small second version of teh c.89) was built between 1946 and 1964, totally 38'400 times. All of them have INCA shock protection and monometallic balance.
But this movement was built with 15, 16 and 17 jewels!

Regards

Ralph

I'll stand corrected...thanks...

The information I quickly grabbed from some IWC-furnished materials, but that doesn't make it right. I didn't have the Juergen King articles from Watch International with me as I wrote.

Regards,
Michael

To support my brain, I use....

my own archive database (some of you now it under the name IWCCI). But I think your remark is quite good, it makes me to double check my data against Jürgen Kings article.....

For movement fans I enclosed some shots of different c.83 and c.88 movements.

Best regards

Ralph Ehrismann

Great Research! A question...

Hi Ralph.

I know extremely little about movements. But I can identify
a Calibre 83 for the most part.

In your picture of the two calibre 83s it is easy to tell the one
on the right has the word -INCA- on it so it has shock protection.

But, exculding this obvious hint, how can a movement novice,
like me, tell if a calibre 83 has incabloc or not?

(Perhaps it is not easy.)

Regards,

-mh

A close look at

Ralph's Cal 83 Incabloc image on the top right reveals the shock absorber spring on the cap jewel above the balance. This cannot be seen on the non Incabloc image.

The following link to Incabloc indicated how it works and what the spring looks like.

Cheers from the cellar

Incabloc

Tkanks all

.

Thanks a bunch ...

My thanks to Ralph, cellar and Torsten (who emailed me pictures)
for enlightening me on this.

It is now my understanding that either most or all IWC Mark Xs
did not have incabloc.

Regards,

mh

It is also my opinion,

that all mark X has no INCA shock protection.

My second base to handle authentity of MARK X movement is, that they have compensating balance (the balance ring is cut clos to the arm of the balance). This is correct for original balances.
It seems that IWC installs now on revisions new monometalic balances, when the original one is in bad condition. Compensating balances are not available today.

Best regards

Ralph Ehrismann