Comparing IWC c.62 vs. Vacheron c.1001

Over the past few weeks, I’ve made two posts showing IWC pocket watch movements and discussing their attributes. This time, I’d like to show an IWC vintage wristwatch movement, and compare it briefly to a more “famous” movement used by Vacheron Constantin.

First, the IWC. It’s a calibre 62, which is somewhat less common but nothing special. It was a manual wind movement with subsidiary seconds, and this one is from 1946:

[](www.iwcforum.com/)

The calibre 62 was more or less a smaller IWC calibre 83, which along with the later cal. 88 were IWC's primary small seconds wristwatch movements. The 62 was made from 1938 through 1949, but only in 13,800 examples. It was 10 ¼ ligne (23.25 mm) in diameter, and 3.65mm high. You will note from the above image:

--it really looks a lot like a miniaturized IWC pocket watch movement
--it’s a “full bridge” movement
--the bridges are nicely finished with striping, plus anglage on the edges
--three of the jewels are set in pressed chatons (without screws)
--the index regulator is nothing fancy –no Swan’s neck, etc.
--the balance has screws

Now, let’s look at one of Vacheron Constantin’s manual wind, subsidiary seconds movements from the same era:
[](www.iwcforum.com/)

This is a famous movement, the Vacheron Constantin calibre 1001. It was actually made by Jaeger LeCoultre, and supplied exclusively to Vacheron by JLC (although a similar movement was supplied also to Audemars). Here’s what what writer said about the c.1001:
[i]
“An elegant calibre in five bridges, the sub-seconds 1001 and the center-seconds 1002 had formed the basis of Vacheron & Constantin's reputation in the 1950s and 60s. They were matched only by the peak 10 and 12 ligne handwinds of Patek Philippe…”

It's a nice movement, with elegant curves to the bridges. It's adjusted for 5 positions rather than the cal 62's 3. But there's no chatons and no fancy regulator.

Now, my question to you is a simple but rhetorical one: are there any material differences between this movement and the IWC? I submit not.

Regards,
Michael
[](www.iwcforum.com/)

I believe during the 50s and 60s

most watches looked similar to each other.
Far from being an expert my opinion is that both aesthetically and functionally there were similarities. The real thing for success could be based on the Company's good name and sales records meaning that if Vacheron made this a huge seller and IWC didn't as I suspect, this was not due to quality factors but more due to Brand Aknowledgment and Awareness.
The dial would be an interesting factor to see too Michael.

Argiris

Agree and a question

Polishing apart, wich seems to be better for the vc, even if I don't see geneva seal, I totally agree with you Michael.

My question is, this caliber derives from JLC 449 and 470?

I guess the text you quoted refers to cal cal. 12-400 and 27-am400 because I see similarities although it mainly depends by the fact they all have a typical 50's sub seconds architecture.

Thank you for another great post, love it!

Regards,

Roberto

Very interesting Michael! I agree any differences

are very minor. I am not surprise only 13.800 examples of the C. 62 were made, as this is basically the 10 years consumed by World War II.

It would be extremely interesting to read more about IWC's production during the war. With all of IWC's major markets distrupted, selling watches must have been a huge challenge? I often see vintage pieces and wonder about their early history or how they were not distroyed.
--
Best from Isobars.

They look almost identical...

to me. The finishing does not even look appreciatively more "polished" on the VC to bear comment. I am curiuous about the price point difference and which was considered the more "luxurious" for this time period?

Best regards,
Jim

a technical observation

There's one structural difference worth noting between the two movements. Though not critical, the IWC calibre may have an advantage using an independent bridge for the crown wheel underneath.

In the event of excessive wear around the stem hole, which can be caused from manual winding of a dry or rusty stem, the small crown wheel bridge of the IWC calibre C62 can be replaced at a lesser expense than the one larger barrel bridge in the V&C calibre 1001 covering all winding parts.

Regards,
Jack Freedman

To my eye the differences seem ....

negligible. All of the writing on the Vacheron seems more boldly presented but this is purely aesthetic in nature. Thanks for showing the comparison.

Vacheron Constantin seems more valuable to me

IWC has 17 jewels, VC 18.
IWC is adjusted to 3 positions, VC to 5.

Kind regards,
Paul, wearing steel VC Portuguese, movement has 18 jewels and is, as far as I know, adjusted to 5 positions

Agree fully with your analysis. (nt)

more jewels are not necessarily better....

Your 18 jewel movement is very nice, and I daresay actually much nicer than a 21-jewel ETA 2892. The synthetic industrial jewels used in watches since the beginning of the 20th century cost perhaps 1 cent each. That is why the IWC catalogs now contain a fine-print disclaimer.

The issue on the number of jewels involves the design of the movement. I once was talking the technical director of IWC who told me that metal bearings can sometimes be sturdier, and produce less breakage, than jeweled bearings depending on the design of the movement. One easy example is jeweled rotor bearings on some automatic movements --those can frequently be a problem. For a while IWC had 22 jewel ETA 2892s because of rotor jewels, and reverted to 21 jewel ones (there's more in the archives about those);.

There are movements that use modules --the base and a separate complication-- and those often have far more jewels than movements designed with integrated complications. While there is nothing "wrong" with that, the increased number of jewels is not considered "more valuable" --on the contrary, integrated design is considered better. Less can be more.

For a while, in the 1950s, some dubious movements (not by IWC) had additional jewels added with no apparent purpose, except to allow the watches be marketed as 55 jewel movements (or whatever the number was). The idea was to suck less knowledgeable amateurs into thinking these were more valuable watches.

Regards,
Michael
P.S. Here, there may be some very marginal worth to the 18th jewel (interestingly, the cal. 1001 was variously made with 17 or 18 jewels). Also conceptually there is something "better" about 3 rather than 5 adjustments. However, both contributions are extraordinarily small, and wouldn't translate into noticeably lesser service or much more "accuracy". The adjustments might be a few seconds a day depending on position, at least for a first few years. All that is nice but not generally considered more "valuable". I believe that the premium to the Vacheron was much more attributed to dial and casework, as well as historical role.

Thank you very much

I can imagine that in the search for excellence several, sometimes contradicting, criteria have to be met. When to use a jewel or not is one of them I guess. I remember those days when the amount of jewels used was a marketing item: it was mentioned on the dial, like 17 jewels Incablok, to indicate the robustness too.

Do you know which of the jewels was not used in the IWC-movement here, what the function of it was?

Kind regards,
Paul, wearing steel VC Portuguese

not sure here

Hi Paul,

I'm not that familiar with Vacheron movements to know the jewel placement.

In general, a fine mechanical hand-wound movement usually has at least 17 jewels (there were some IWC's in the early years with 15 or 16, all of which still work fine today). Traditionally, those 17 are:

two cap jewels,
two pivot jewels,
an impulse jewel for the balance wheel,
two pivot jewels,
two pallet jewels for the pallet fork, and
two pivot jewels each for the escape, fourth, third and center wheels

As you'll note, most jeweling is in pairs (both sides). Normally, the count therefore jumps up from 17 jewels to 19 or 21. 19 jewels involve adding cap jewels to the escape wheel, and 21 adds two jewels at cap wheels to the pallet fork.

18 is an unusual number, which is why I'm not sure. I suspect it adds one jewel to only one side, and that is done to keep the movement height as thin. But it's just a guess --and you really are reaching the absolute limits of my technical knowledge.

Regards,
Michael
P.S. I thought you'd be interested to learn that in the 1950s Waltham introduced a 100 jewel movement, which it promoted as such. 17 jewels were functional.

And a C83 for comparison...

Sorry I don't have a more objective photo on hand but this one presents the C83 in a very romantic setting. As Michael has already said the C83 was IWC's bread and butter movement for wristwatches for over a decade starting in the mid-1930's and in many ways could be considered IWC's first 'true' wristwatch movement (i.e. not a pocket watch movement moonlighting!). And of course the design and layout is still a direct descendent of IWC's proud pocket watch tradition... Interestingly the movement was used in watches from 30mm to 35mm (and maybe a little larger) as well as IWC's first aviator's watch (the so-called Mk IX) and the W.W.W. for the British military. Enjoy!
Michael

technically, cal.75 & 76 were the first...

...."true" wristwatch movements developed by IWC, and not borrowed from pocket watches. EarlyIWC made the following post in 2006, and there may be more in the archives:

https://www.iwc.com/member/forum/search_all.asp?table=archives&sMessage=c.75&archived=yes&id=89310

That said, the calibre 83 really was the major player and a great movement.

Regards,
Michael

Interesting comparison

I strongly suspect the IWC Cal 62 was out of production before the VC Cal 1001 was first produced (the earliest date I have is 1953). The VC at 20.8mm is also smaller than the IWC at 23.25mm.

I'd guess the JLC made VC 1001 (and AP2001) was a thinner version of the JLC 428, also 20.8mm in diameter and similar winding parts. JLC used the base of the VC 1001 for their own JLC Cal 818 which first appears in 1959, some six years after the VC 1001 according to the data I have.

Thanks for showing the two movements.

Cheers from the cellar