Edition JU-Air

I´m thinking different - if you would have all the possibilities you talked about, then again the brand would get too arbitrary. Like a Pizza where you can choose your ingredients. From a celebrity chef you also take what he is serving ... and if you order salt he will be offended ... just IMHO.
Best,
Christian

I'm sorry for I do not get what you wish to say as I find the analogy too far: for some people (and I'm surely one of them) soft iron cage belong to the pilot and inge line as a plate belongs to any of the very best meals. If the celebrity chef wishes to serve the soup in his own hands, that is without the proper plate - no thanks, let me refuse even if he is the very best chef in the world. I hope I could make myself understood, though I stress that this is only one opinion, without offense.
Best,
Robert

Of course, Robert - I just explained my point of view and on all accounts I respect yours! The celebrity chef was just an example and nothing personally against your opinion.
Best,
Christian

I understand that people like limited edition watches, but, these aren't limited.. One of 500 isn't a limited edition run IMO for IWC.. These cast off pieces would probably only enjoy sales of 4-500 pieces anyways.

If IWC wants them to be limited, they would release them in a series of 50 and they would actually number them. Nothing unique when IWC writes "One of 500" on the case or "One of 250"..

At least put the effort in to properly # the case of the not so limited, limited edition..

If taken as "true" limited editions then I too am of the opinion that IWC is taking the limited edition practice too far by launching too many limited editions, in not very limited series (e.g. 500 or 1000), and with not enough difference vs. the standard models.

There are some that I consider "true" limited editions like the CF3 where the model is sufficiently unique, the quantity is at least somewhat limited (= 250 or less), and what it commemorates has real meaning.

The others are, IMO, minor variations in finite quantities. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the watches though. If I would prefer a Spitfire Chrono with a silver dial, I would get the JU-Air. These editions provide additional options and fill a purpose as such. The only issue IMO is that when marketed as limited editions they dilute the concept for the brand. The solution IMO would be to adapt the terminology to distinguish the two.

Thomas

Hi, Slashdot!
Yes, this is a good point I can follow. But I think for IWC it is more lucrative to make 500 instead of 50. And what you know about sales figures isn´t known by many others.
For instance I thought in the beginning that my 977 out of 1630 is something very special. 1630 pieces compared with 7 billion people in the world isn´t that much. And still I believe it is special, not because of the Limitation number but the value of my watch raised in the past ten years. So IMHO it depends on the model and not on the kind of limitation.
If the CF3 will be so popular in a few years that every collector wants to have one, the now produced 250 pieces will be far too little and the price will go up.

I hardly ever met someone wearing a watch that I own, let alone a watch that I was wearing at that moment: once I met Mark having the Spitfire Chrono on a bracelet with him, while I was wearing mine. Not quite by chance, I don't own a Big Pilot or a Portuguese Automatic, making my watches unique for me and my environment, despite the hundreds of them made.

So, if IWC thinks it is a good idea to enhance the variation of their models by adding limited editions, that is quite OK by me. If I don't like the new version, I will not buy it; if I like it, most of the time I will not buy it either. But sometimes I do, like the rose gold Saint Exupéry Chrono (I know of one other forum member who has one), or the taupe dial Vintage Collection Ingenieur. So, the system works for me and doesn't bother me at all. And if IWC sells more watches because of this, that is of course good news for us all, that like or love IWC beyond compare.

Kind regards,
Paul

series of 1000, 500 watches as limited editions??
once IWC did better....
recently offered at a nearby auction house-

this what I call a real serious LE- 1/50...
hmmm...great price by the way..
cheers,
yitzhak

As with everything, there are various levels of "limited". My Laureus Yacht Club is limited to 1000. I'm happy with that. I do think though, that IWC NEED to number watches. 1/1000. Not "One Out Of 1000", that means nothing. Individual numbering is much better.

Cheers,

Jarrod

I quite agree with you, 198/250 is unique, belonging to you, and you alone. I understand that because of supersticious notions in various regions of the world some numbers are avoided, like any 4 in the number, where other numbers are favoured heavily, like any 8 in the number. That makes the distribution of watches quite difficult. That cannot be helped, watches are emotions, so the "ONE out of" is the practical but unattractive way out.

Kind regards,
Paul

Hi, Paul!

I know about the favoured 8 but what is it about the 4? Why is it avoided? For myself I chose the 40 for my CF3 regarding to my birthday in february ...
best,
-Christian

I looked it up, in China the 4 is considered unlucky because when saying 4 in Chinese it sounds like death in Chinese. There are all kinds of lucky and unlucky numbers, see link.

Kind regards,
Paul

A few quick comments on limited editions:

1. 500 sounds like a huge number unless one travels throughout the world and sees the number of IWC boutiques. There are more than 75 now I believe (a new one just opened in Brazil this week). Given 2 or 3 LE watches to each boutique, plus a sprinkling sometimes to certain dealers (when it's not a boutique-only model) pretty much exhausts the LE run. 50 wouldn't work at all anymore, given the breadth of IWC's distribution.

2. We have many of the most ardent collectors here, so it's not uncommon that a few will have the same limited edition watch. But that's not a representative sampling, even of watch collectors. In real life, running into someone with the same LE watch and the same time, not on this forum or an IWC GTG, is extraordinarily rare.

3. Personally, I like individual numbers. In fact, I strongly lobbied for that on the CF3. But then it became a "no good deed goes unpunished" experience. I can't tell you how many people --still not most-- were obsessed about certain numbers. In some instance, I'd have 10 e-mails just trying to satisfy someone with a number. In many cases, at least 3 e-mails were required. And some sales were lost (one boutique had a customer who said "I'll buy only if I get number ---). Not only did the unavailability of that number lose the sale, but also there were at least 6 e-mails dealing with the situation (seeing if there could be a reassignment of the allocated number, etc.)

So --on assigned numbers I can understand from a buyer's perspective, but it's tough on the company. It takes time (which in business becomes a cost) and it loses sales as well as makes them.

Thank for the link, Paul!
So my CF3 would not be very attractive for the asian market … and IWC most likely will not send any CF3 with a 4 to the boutiques in asia ;-)
I ask myself, what chinese people do when they get 40 like me in february?
… maybe they do the same as I did and say: 40 is the new 30!
Best,
-Christian

To be fair, I would understand this argument in most industries, but, in horology, this is not an excuse. High end horology should see no corners cut and only utmost precision and attention to detail. Especially when we are looking a novelties into the several 10's of thousands of dollars. Dollars or time should not be spared in this industry, which, unfortunately appears to be the new path - IWC is clearly not alone in this.

If you're going to make a limited run of watches and market it as such, you need to number them. I can see the generic number on a novelty watch of a few hundred dollars, but, when a perpetual cal for example which costs in excess of $40,000USD cuts this corner, it is completely unacceptable IMO.. (I'm referring to ref IW502618 as an example).

100% agree.

I guess we have to disagree with respect.

Price is always an issue with horology, at all levels. The market is plenty price sensitive. I can tell you about several really interested CF3 purchasers who found the watch too costly for their budget. There are very few companies that don't cut some corners, and most of their watches sell for triple or more than what we're talking about here.

Now --some characteristics shouldn't be cut and aren't. A good example would be gold --no 14k now on IWC watches! And applied (rather than embossed) numerals are now standard. And key (and sometimes "hidden") movement characteristics. But numbers???

There are a lot of fine watches with limited editions with no numbering. I once bought a Reverso 1931 --special US market edition of 100-- with no numbering and not even any LE edition indication. As that company said "those who know, know". And I had a platinum Lange anniversary watch, limited edition, with no individual numbering. I sold it, and now it's quadrupled in price. The market doesn't seem to care that it's not individually numbered but it does matter that it's a limited edition (limiting supply). These are not cheap watches nor novelty watches, and I can give many more examples.

Please keep in mind that I lobbied for individual numbering for the CF3 (and I will be getting 1/250). I am scarcely not opposed to individual numbering. My point however is that it's not necessary, it has nothing to do with high horology nor the market, and it sometimes creates a hassle, and corresponding costs --even to impeding or reducing some sales. I'll stand by that.

Michael, I understand all your points. But I still say from my point of view, an individually numbered watch is preferable. The fact I am getting number 22 for the CF3 just makes it that much more special. However I wouldn't be put off buying a watch I wanted simply because it wasn't individually numbered.

Cheers,

Jarrod