Dial or Movement ?

Well, I might as well get another topic going that might raise a few hackles.

There has been, and probably always will be, a bias toward in house movements. The topic has popped up in various posts on unrelated issues. I would agree that in house movements are to be utilized if at all possible.

But, if I am being totally honest,this is really not the first thing I look at in acquiring a new timepiece. In fact, it's probably the last thing. I know, I know, I must be a heretic.
The dial and case are the first things I examine. If I like a design, and the watch is made by a company I respect and trust, then I am going to buy it no matter what mechanical movement is in it. Of course the cost, value, strap,complications and features all enter into the equation. But it is purely a matter of taste for me. That trumps everything else.

I know that Tony, Roberto and Argiris (not to mention MF)and others are going to take me to task on this. But does anyone else agree with me? Or am I spitting into the wind?

OK Alan I agree on the dial and design factors but I am not paying 10000 for an ETA or Selitas no matter if they are slightly modified or not.

For me, the first criteria is that I must find the watch visually attractive. If that criteria is met, then I consider the technology and craftsmanship. And of course, as a person with limited means, eventually I have to consider the price.

While I do prefer in-house movements, a well finished ETA 2892, or 7750, is not a deal breaker for me, if I find the watch attractive and the price reasonable.

Alan, I tend to agree with you.
The first watch I ever bought (1984) was a Patek Philippe Calatrava, I was drawn to the simplicity of the 'Clous de Paris' style white lacquered dial with just black hour and minute hands, thin black roman numerals and hand wound. Although I knew I wanted a mechanical watch I had no idea about the movement.
The second watch was a Rolex Datejust, because it had a date and famous durability, mechanical and automatic, but again I did not think to much about the movement.
Then I bought my IWC Fliegerchrono because it had the day and date as well as mechanical/automatic and to me an elegant dial/numerals. Yet again I did not at that time consider whether or not the movement was in-house. In fact when I found out a few years later that the movement is not in-house I was a little preturbed. However, since joining this Forum and looking into the background and specifications of Valjou 7750/IWC7922 with help from the kind Forum Members, I have come to appreciate it.
My next watch will be a Portofino Hand Wound Eight Days, which has a unique in-house movement. So I appreciate both in-house and Swiss quality movements.

I agree with you Alan.

For me the first impression of its visual design I try to keep in mind - because this will/may change, and I like to think about why it is changing.

The dial design is critical - I need to be wowed.

The case size and (in particularly) lug sizes, and then the polishing and case colour are next up.

Then - the metal and the movement and the complications: how it fits into the story or "ambience" of the watch. Whether it is an inhouse movement or not, doesn't really matter to me.

In the past this has meant concluding that, the chronograph in the Portuguese Grande Complication doesn't do it for me - it doesn't fit into what I perceive is the grandness and masterfulness of that "world in your hands" piece. It has also made me change my mind about Calibre 89365 (in the new Miramar & Spitfire chronographs) - the minute/hour chrono totalizer may be gone(which rather appalled me on first discovery), but the 68-hour power reserve remains. Add this with the special dial design and case colour (for the Miramar) and I think everything fits well. At the same time there are a few pieces with an inhouse movement that I can happily accept without.

And if the conclusion is "I like it", well practical reality mandates that I need to like it enough to pull the trigger on it - often times the courtship is better than the acquisition, and often times I do not like it enough to court the watch for long. The watch chooses me - and if it is not within reach, then I arm myself as much as I can with the virtue of patience :)

my opinion only.

Alan, I agree with you. Design comes first. If I don't like the looks, I'm not going to buy the watch. Imo there's nothing wrong with an ETA of the highest grade (even non-modified). Only thing is that they are relatively common.

Besides, excluding non-in-house would exclude the Grande Complication.

Alan,

I agree. This would take a long post to explain my position about the preminence of aesthetic upon technique but I'll try to be short.

I think only "beatiful" watches last through time. Being aesthetic subjective, beautiful to me, means something capable to compass the signs of a certain historical period, allowing the transition from beautiful to iconic.

But, aesthetic is not just about the dial, it's about design as a whole.

Moreover, a watch may evolve to iconic if it has some basic and inalienable qualities, technique at first. I prefer, f.i. a column wheel rather than an oscillating pinion because it's harder to produce a good column wheel. A watch with column wheel has much higher chances to go to paradise :) (just joking).

I always wonder to myself: "Will this watch pass the test of time?" If the answer is postive, given what I've mentioned above, then, I can think of purchasing it.

Beauty is in the crafstmanship of the object also, I permit myself to remind, the concept of haute horologerie is mainly given by polishings.

When, for instance, I look at a humble calibre 8541 or 89, I see (sometimes surprisingly) a much higher level of craftsmanship than in (part of the) contemporary production.

Beauty is in the architecture of the movement, f.i. Frederic Piguet 1185 is good integrated chronograph but aestethically is pretty ugly.

Just some messy notes, hoping to help discussion. Needless to say, this is just my very humble opinion, nothing more.

This thread and its development could be very interesting! Alan, you're recently in great shape! :)

I didn't know that this topic is an either/or: body or mind. It can and should be both.

There's a saying among retailers that the dial sells a watch. Nothing wrong with that, but the question still remains what's inside, and at what price. To me movements don't have to be in-house, and in-house isn't necessarily better. There's nothing wrong with a well-done Valjoux 7750 or ETA 2892. But that doesn't mean, say, that Piaget makes a reliable movement or that the movement is totally irrelevant to a watch.

By the way, I assume IWC's revised specifications on the Piaget used in the Pure Classic have resulted in a good movement.

All things being equal we would all no doubt go for the in house movement but that is not an option as the only watch i can think of is my wifes JLC which is available with a HW or quartz movement.
What grabs me is the the look of dial hands and case, then is it within my price range and finally the movement. I always wanted the 5001 in steel and the day I saw the silver dial variant with gilt hands and numbers I grabbed it as I was not interested in the black dial nor the silver dial with blue hands. I am likewise surprised by the lack of silver dial 8 day HW Portofino in RG, a variant that would be more than tempting.

I'll go right out and say I'm a superficial guy. :-)

That's why I would go for the look (dial) first.

in-house movement is nice, but I wouldn't consider it if its dial doesn't suit my taste.

Having said that, IWC always deliver when it comes to the looks of the watches!

Perhaps that explains why I have a whole heap of watches that run on ETA 289x and Valjoux 775x movements...

First, something about the design of the watch must grab me. Not quite sure exactly what or why I prefer one over another. Its like when I hear a song; some music speaks to me and some does not.
I guess the one thing that has driven me away from ETA movements over the years was the sheer numbers of movements that have been produced and sold to so many different watch companies. I understand that this has recently changed. But at the end of the day, I would like to know that the engine in my Ferrari (I don't actually drive one) isn't also sold to Toyota and Honda (not that these are bad cars). Its just that if I pay a premium for something, i would like to know that it is somewhat special.

This picture is taken from and is courtesy of SteveG's, it illustrates a calibre 89, probably within the last to be produced.

Even if unsure somewhere, there's the sign of a neat and clean anglage, bridges are decorated by Geneva stripes, it can be seen parts decorated by cerclage, the plate is decorated by perlage, the barrel is decorated by colimaconages.

Screws show more than a comely black polishing, the contrepivot stones are embellished by chatons, antishock protection on balance wheel and escapement wheel.

Most of these operations were made by semi-industrial processes, there's nothing excelling in this movement, in terms of polishings but still, being a mass produced, relatively affordable watch, the craftsmanship is simply astonishing!

This is real quality at an affordable price and the calibre is a workhorse yes, but still a masterpiece and bears the signature of one of the most brilliant watchmakers of his times.

This watch may not encounter today's taste (even if I'm ready to bet, many still like it) but surely was thought to last for a long time and to witness IWC's craftsmanship to posterity - just like an ambassador used to journey through time by a time-machine.

I think is correct to think who sells watches has to sell a dream along with them but the dreams watches are made of last for centuries, they're not like a dress, ready to be put into a cabinet and there forgotten, just because it became out of fashion.

Absolutely agree with this one. Great picture!
IWC please, bring back calibre 89.

Let me make my point another way.
I have never been attracted to the Rolex design. Yes, there are a few models I like including a certain green dialed version someone on this forum owns. But for the most part, you could put all the exotic in house movements in those watches and I still won't buy one.
There is something about the IWC design scheme which calls to me. And if that means I have to pay more for an ETA movement, so be it.
On the other hand,in a few years, at least with respect to new novelties, it is not going to matter since I believe all movements will be in house.

Alan, I like this thread. This is analogous to 'how do you choose a watch' and it's totally relevant to all forum members.

I got to know IWC in 2002 when I was working for an asset management and back then the MD of the company was a very stylish guy and I could remember he had a big pilot on his wrist and that was instantly identifiable by its sheer size.

When I was hunting for an IWC, the first watch that appealed to me was a 3714. For some reasons, I have never tried it on my wrist and my attention was turned quickly to an in-house calibre and I ended up with a 5004. Today when I looked back at why I bought the 5004, I realized I was attracted both by the dial and the versatility of the watch having a 7-day power reserve. Since then, I questioned myself about the practicality of non 7-day power reserve movement(plenty in other IWC calibres) or a chrono with 7750 valjoux movement.

It's hard to say if the mind rules over the heart(mind says movement but heart says dial). Sometimes, the mind plays tricks on you and you like a watch so much that you justify it with reasons you know that will not make any sense to anyone else except yourself.

I will continue to purse the path of logical thinking although I know it's easier said than done - if the dial attracts me I will look further into the movement and if the movement attracts me a great deal, it will be in contention for a place in my collection. Otherwise it's a very simple decision. I don't want to end up with pieces I need to sell in future because the theory of abundance(except $$) does not seem to exist in my life - I get rid of things I deem not fit in my collection, be it shoes, shirts, ties, watches etc.

Alan, I am in agreement with you basic premise. What attracts me to a particular IWC is the design (dial and case) and fine finishing touches so often done to perfection by IWC. Of course, the watch should deliver on the IWC specifications for accuracy and consistency. Whether it's an in-house or ETA / Valjoux movement is not a major concern. In fact, the 7750 is a solid movement that is enhanced by IWC and works as well or better than some of the in-house movements from IWC. As Alan points out, in a few years all movements are likely to be in-house anyway. I trust IWC to always fulfill their promise of Probus Scafusia in design, manufacture, and performance.

IMHO first, and foremost, comes function. The question "what is the watch for" must be answered.
Once it is, choose or design the best movement for the task, design the case, dial/hands, strap/bracelet, accordingly.
It is especially important not to include gimmickry, unless the desired final product is a gimmick.

For what it's worth, I agree with Alan (except there are several Rolex models I really do like the style of). A watch must, of course, fulfill its primary function of accurately reporting the time. But many watches will do that well, some with in-house movements and some with outsourced movements.

So the "first cut" for me when it comes to choose from among watches is style or design -- a watch that I find attractive. It so happens that I particularly like the style of IWC watches (and a few other makes).

Of course, I'll have no interest in a watch which is truly mechanically unsound. Such a watch would serve no purpose, except decoration -- and that is, to me, insufficient.

But there is nothing unsound about the ETA/Valjoux movements as used by IWC. And while I find a certain satisfaction and pride of ownership associated with a good in-house movement, that's certainly not determinative.