• Connoisseur
    31 Jul 2011, 10:28 p.m.

    I think the same applies to the Calibre 79320 of my 3717 which is actually an ETA/Valjoux 7750? Before I decided to buy it, I was slightly concerned too, but on second thought, I also agree that there's nothing wrong to use this highly tested and reliable calibre that is also used in other well-known brands. At least it's configured to IWC's specifications and it makes the watch much more affordable. I like my IWC no matter what the calibre is (and won't love a watch of another brand using the same calibre)!

    AL

  • Connoisseur
    1 Aug 2011, 6:43 p.m.

    IMO, the Val 7750 is one of the best movements ever made in a watch (minus some crazy complication watches by PP, VC, IWC etc).

  • Master
    3 Aug 2011, 3:26 a.m.

    Alan,

    Why are you so hung up on whether the Mark 16 uses an in-house movement or an ETA?

    and what leads to you into believing that the Omega 8500 calibre is a "much better" movement than the ETA? Most of Omega so-called in-house movements are in fact based on the ETA movements (and replaced their escapement with their famous "co-axial escapement"). The benefits of Omega's co-axial escapement, I believe, is reducing some friction amongst the gears, thereby not requiring as frequent "regular services" as their ETA counterpart. However, you must realize that even a regular ETA doesn't necessarily require servicing in a few years (maybe 5). Furthermore, a lot of "regular services" do more than lubrication, but other fixes too... which... the co-axial escapement doesn't help alleviate.

    Also, the ETA 289x movement is simply one of the best in its category. You will find that in most brand of watches, their COSC grade watches are all using this ETA 289x series of movements. Why? because it was a well-designed movement to begin with... that's why Swatch group adopted it as a defacto standard for many of their watches, and used it to save Swiss watch-making industry and fought a good battle against the uprising of quartz watches from Asia.

    I am in the IT industry myself... so pardon me for a poor analogy. It is very poor, so please beware. Intel is not known for making the most elegant micro-processors. Yet, its 80x86 architecture (despite having some idiosyncrasies which are not preferred by many) is robust, well-suppported, and widely-adopted. Yes, at one point every computer company manufactures its own advanced CPUs... but ultimately, if you want lots of raw-power that is affordable, and allow you to run mainstream applications, which would you choose? SPARC/PA-RISC/Itanium/POWER? Intel 80x86, of course! (and there is always an AMD/Sellita.. but let's forget them for now).

    Apple was once very proud of its (Motorola/Apple/IBM's) PowerPC. Looks what it puts in its Mac nowadays? Intel CPUs! are these Intel CPUs soul-less, cheaply available from Dell/Gateway? sure. However, when they power-up the Macs, they manage to keep Mac running elegantly. Do people nowadays care that their Macs don't run on PowerPC but Intel 80x86? probably not.

    By the same token... yes, surely we appreciate IWC producing their own movements. However, when economy-of-scale is of concerned, IWC using ETA movements could keep their "lowerend" watches affordable. Would you consider the Mark 16 if it costs 50% more than it does now? at least IWC gives us a choice. If you want nice yet functional (and relatively affordable) "lowerend" IWCs, you could get the ones with ETA movements; if you want in-house movements, you could get the "higher-end" ones. Will the "higher-end" ones necessarily be more accurate than the ETA ones? hrmm... up to you to decide.

    In summary, pardon me for my poor analogy--but allow me to say this (in my opinion): an ETA movement doesn't make IWC an inferior product, it makes it more affordable to mortals like me. Apple Macs are more expensive than a similarly configured Dell... but there are those would be very eager to shell out more for an Apple than a Dell for whatever reasons. The question is... does it suit you needs and wants?

  • Master
    3 Aug 2011, 3:38 a.m.

    and... while I was on my poor analogy... (sorry... please guys, you shouldn't have let me started...)

    Apple decides to go with Intel 80x86 CPUs for a few reasons:

    • Intel can produce enough CPUs to meet Apple's demand;
    • Intel can produce CPUs that are much smaller and with much less-power consumption, which again, suit Apple's needs (especially for MacBooks/Air)

    My guess is... if IWC relies on its in-house movements alone, it will face the following issues:

    • not being able to produce as many watches as it wanted (consequently, watches are harder to get, and more expensive... look at Paneri).
    • simple, elegant watches would have to be much thicker/bigger (IWC in-house movements, even as basic as the Calibre 80110, is a lot thicker than its ETA counterparts).

    I say... IWC, please keep using ETA/Sellita movements. If I have the money for the more fancy in-house movements, I would buy the watches that use them.

    Also... with Mark 16 not having a display back... why would you really care anyways?

  • Master
    3 Aug 2011, 3:50 a.m.

    and... for those who are not fond of computer-analogies...

    would anyone really care if their Lotus Elise has a toyota engine inside? hey, as long as it is easy to maintain (and reliable!), plus still gives you that driving experience which Lotus is famous for...

    why would you care? Lotus makes cars... not just engines. The same goes with IWC... (ok, for the record, IWC doesn't make cars...)

  • Connoisseur
    3 Aug 2011, 3:59 a.m.

    One thing to add on Omegas co-axial escapement. While it reduces friction and may extend the period between servicing, Omega still recommends a 5 year service interval with their co-axial watches.

    The entire in-house vs ETA movement argument is a bit silly actually. Unless you want the day/date complications located at a different position on the dial, or, prefer additional complications or reserve, to the owner, it really doesn't matter.

    In most cases I would prefer the more stable and accurate movement which in most cases will be the robust eta movement.

  • Insider
    3 Aug 2011, 4:50 a.m.

    The problem with this analogy is that for Apple, the essence and soul of the Mac is its operating system software which is pure Apple. The processor has never been unique or special to Apple which has used Motorola, IBM and Intel CPUs.

    A better Apple example is that Apple has leveraged two licensed software technologies to build its most important products. The BSD Unix operating system is the engine that powers OS X and has been substantially enhanced for unique Apple's requirements. Second, Apple leveraged an open source Web browser project (from Linux) to create Safari and the WebKit technology in the iPhone and iPad. In each case, Apple took these projects and invested heavily in them to make truly special and unique products.

  • Master
    3 Aug 2011, 7:53 a.m.

    haha... I know. However, let's keep the already poor analogy sweet and simple,and not drill any further on this.

    Essentially, the feeling is the same--back then Apple got some of their die-hard fans upset and worried when they announced the switch to Intel CPU. Anyways... let's shift our focus back onto IWC and ETA. :-)