Calibre 30110 - Mark XVI

Dear friends,

I know this topic has been discussed many times before.
but this time I am asking a new question. I was looking
at Mark 16 for a while. I really like the design. I believe
this watch can be a good timekeeper for life. but as soon as I think about
the ETA 2892 inside. I feel painful. I have just one question today hopefully experts here can help me with.

1, I believe since late 2010 Swatch no longer supply ETA movements to
IWC in parts but only as complete movements. That's fine. For example.
If you send your Mark 16 in for a service after 5 years. It was found that Calibre 30110 in your watch needs part replacement. In that case how is IWC going to get the new part from ETA? OR Will IWC actually replace that ETA part with a new IWC manufactured part?

I believe as long as ETA is making movements according to IWC's specification. That's good. but I will find it hard to accept that IWC simply put the high grade ETA movement into their watches with no IWC specification or input. Mark 16 feels like to me an iconic model for IWC. but calibre 30110 is not doing any good for the model. Thanks

Hi Alan,

Well we have established in the past that it is not the case that IWC is simply using the top-grade ETA movement without any mods. I respectfully disagree with your view that the 30110 is not doing any good for the Mark XVI. I would argue it is exactly the right choice of movement. This watch needs a strong and reliable engine, and the ETA 2892A2, developed and improved over many decades, is exactly that. It's a huge bonus that it can be serviced by almost any competent watchmaker anywhere. For a utilitarian watch at this price point whose movement is not on display, there's simply no need for anything more elaborate or exotic.

Best, J.

I'm sure IWC could build their own in-house movement for the XVI, but, it would double the price with no real benefit.. Just because it's a 2892, it doesn't make it less reliable or "not as good"... Quite the opposite IMO.. The 2892 used in the XVI is an absolute workhorse used in many fine watches.

My issue is that IWC calls it a Calibre 30110 when in fact, it's really just a 2892A2 with their name stamped on it.

I too agree that the 30110 is not only the right movement, it is a top class movement: super reliable and accurate. I actually would consider that a bonus over an in-house movement: whatever forum you visit, you (almost?) never read about issues with it. So the Mark XVI combines eternally beautiful looks with a great movement for quite a reasonable price. It is that I already have other watches, so the Mark XVI doesn't fill a gap in my collection, otherwise I would not hesitate at all to buy one.

Kind regards,
Paul

I have little to add to this discussion, given that it's been covered before. However I will add that

a) it is extraordinarily rare for IWC to ever replace a whole movement --they have parts for service.

b) the "A2" designation on the 2892 is actually a further iteration of the basic movement, based on an improvement to the winding system developed by IWC (and specifically Richard Habring, a watchmaker who worked in the 1990s for IWC) --this is buried somewhere in the archives.

c) to my knowledge the 2892A2 as used by IWC is a version of the movement made to their specifications, essentially identical to what IWC had before ETA supplied them, and not just a generic 2892A2 (if one has specific documentation to the contrary, I would be interested in that).

Hi

I sold my Mark 16 one year ago When the movement was still being made by
IWC. I was also looking at a Omega Hour vision. But I prefer the Mark 16 design and Omega calibre 8500. It is a tough call. I just need to add a bit more money
to get this Omega with a far more superior movement. but at the same time
I can't get the Mark 16. I don't see the need to get them both. When I have more
options. I am confused. Thanks for advices.

With respect, I guess I'm confused why you're soliciting 'advice' if you consider the Omega's movement superior...even though there is ample responses attesting to the Mark XVI's excellent reliability. I have a Mark XVI and is is still keeping almost perfect time after four years of heavy use. I'm not sure what constitutes "superior" to that kind of performace IMHO!

Mr. Liu,

As an owner of a Mark XVI, allow me to add some thoughts.

Given the 2892-A2 history of reliability, accuracy, and robustness, one could say that IWC made an excellant choice in selecting this movement for the XVI as well as (I believe) the AT 2000. Both models require a "dependable" workhorse and the 30110 fills that specification perfectly.

As mentioned...when can anyone remember a negative issue/concern with this calibre? In fact , I would argue that the 30110 sets the bar for all in-house movements to achieve. That's my opinion, but I think it's solid.

I have nothing but praise for my XVI and consider it one of the best values in the IWC collection.

Andy