Ingenieur Mission Earth case diameter

Is the Ingenieur Mission Earth 323601 actually any bigger than the earlier 3227-01? I appreciate that the case diameter of the former is 46mm compared with 42.5mm for the earlier model but is IWC including the protective shoulders for the screw-in crown in the measurement?

Here ya go...

[](s316.photobucket.com/albums/mm322/smogell/IWC%203236/?action=view&current=IWCMissionEarthIngRef3236016.jpg)

One I made a little earlier! :-)

Here ya go...

Many thanks for the info. It’s a pity the new model is so huge though. The Ingenieur 322701 was borderline in acceptability in terms of size for many and I fear the 323601 Mission Earth has just pushed things too far.

The appeal of the Ingenieur was very high performance in a discrete package. I don’t think anyone bought an Ingenieur to impress others as it wasn’t flash and most people wouldn’t know what it was anyway. So it seems a strange decision by IWC to try and chase the bling market with this model. I suspect the decision must have been lead by the marketing department rather than the engineering division as technically the watch does not have to be this big (“Our research shows our competitors are selling bigger watches so we must jump on the bandwagon to keep abreast of the trend!” – a self fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one.)

But do most people really want to wander around with something the size of a box of cornflakes on their wrists? If the marketing department are reading this then they will be aware there is also a substantial market in the Far East for expensive watches, but having smaller wrists on average than us westerners, how many potential Asian customers will want, or physically even be able to wear these huge monstrosities?

Actually I suspect this gigantic size watch fad will collapse shortly in any case and then perhaps we’ll be offered watches we can actually wear. I do hope a revised, fully specified Ingenieur in a sensible size will be one of them.

Ingenieur Mission Earth case diameter

Many thanks for the info. It’s a pity the new model is so huge though. The Ingenieur 322701 was borderline in acceptability in terms of size for many and I fear the 323601 Mission Earth has just pushed things too far.
The appeal of the Ingenieur was very high performance in a discrete package. I don’t think anyone bought an Ingenieur to impress others as it wasn’t flash and most people wouldn’t know what it was anyway. So it seems a strange decision by IWC to try and chase the bling market with this model. I suspect the decision must have been lead by the marketing department rather than the engineering division as technically the watch does not have to be this big (“Our research shows our competitors are selling bigger watches so we must jump on the bandwagon to keep abreast of the trend!” – a self fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one.)

But do most people really want to wander around with something the size of a box of cornflakes on their wrists? If the marketing department are reading this then they will be aware there is also a substantial market in the Far East for expensive watches, but having smaller wrists on average than us westerners, how many potential Asian customers will want, or physically even be able to wear these huge monstrosities?

Actually I suspect this gigantic size watch fad will collapse shortly in any case and then perhaps we’ll be offered watches we can actually wear. I do hope a revised, fully specified Ingenieur in a sensible size will be one of them.

Sorry, but I disagree with each every one of...

your points. I have a relatively small wrist (about 6.5 inches) and yet the new model fits just right. The watch is a large size but the way the dial is framed by the case makes it appear smaller than it looks.
I think IWC designed this model cleanly and with the customer in mind.
Why not try one on before you make a final judgment?

Alan makes a pertinent point...

about the size of the new Ingenieurs. I have a small wrist and was concerned about how they would fit...until I tried on both the ME and the Plastiki (pictured in Alan's photo) at a recent event. I found they both fit my wrist and did not look oversized in the least. Likewise, I not sure what you mean by characterizing them as "bling" The ME has red highlights, but is otherwise similar in design to past Ingys. The Plastiki is blue and orange and the color scheme looks quite good on one's wrist. I know taste is individual, but I think you might change your mind if saw them in the metal.

Best regards,
Jim

You want bling? This is bling.....

The Mission Earth is not bling.

1 nt

Hmm, if you do it, do it right

IWC is not bling in my book, no way. Although I would not buy the Hublot shown for various reasons, I admire the utter consequence with which this watch is made bling square. And then a rubber strap.

Kind regards,
Paul, wearing blingless steel VC Pilot's watch

Here ya go...

Hey, that watch looks familiar. I saw one just like it in Phila. last Saturday. Hi Stu.

Ingenieur Mission Earth - too big for me (nt)

Not bling (IWC is not bling), but too big...

... for me. An Ingenieur should be - besides its technical features and its ruggedness - very comfortable to wear. The 3227-01 is already huge and heavy, the 3227 in Ti would be the watch that meets the criterion "comfort" for me. or the 3228 on a soft strap, under 100 g. Everything between 150 - 200 g is borderline for me, everything above 200 way too heavy - but that's just my perception of course.

Paul

Sorry, but I disagree with you either...

I think a 46mm case with a 30 mm movement is way too large. There is the Big Inge at 45 mm, so do we have to call ME "Bigger Inge"?

I have small wrist too (±6 in.) and this is the look with an Ing Ti :

I think any bigger will not look good. Sorry.

Gigantism has been a sure path to extinction...

in Nature and in many industries. Remember what happened to the Ford Mustang? It grew from a nimble beautiful design into ugly obesity. This trend has gone beyond reasonable and I can only hope it will be over soon. It should have ended with the Ref 3227. Just my $02.

all fashion has been cyclical...

...and that has been true for hundreds of years. I could make the same argument about miniaturization being on the sure path of extinction --where, after all, are all those minute square watches from the 1940s?

That said, I will say that smaller watches at some point certainly will come back, but then larger watches then will come back again, etc.

I am saying this without any personal preference to size being expressed. But I will add that recently I bought several vintage watches on the smaller side --even though the 35mm one looks tiny to me! But all of them are really comfortable --almost transparent. But maybe that's their "vice".

Regards,
Michael

Big, thin, light

Thin and light work together, big (diameter) and light not. But I must say that the watches I like wearing most these days are my manually wound VC watches. They are fairly big (44 mm), quite thin (10-12 mm), and quite light (about 100 g). They combine the present looks of quite a big watch with utmost comfort, they are ideal for me right now. Once a week I wear the Portuguese Perpetual Calendar, and it is thick and heavy, and wonderful.

Kind regards,
Paul, wearing my lightest, the steel VC Portuguese, and doesn't it look great

Ah! fashion! That slave master...

I still refuse to accept responsibility for my hairstyle and for the clothes I wore in the 60s. I just did not know any better then. I can't wait to see a revival of bell bottoms. ,-)
Seriously now - nothing beats perfect proportions, e.g. the Parthenon.

Gigantism has been a sure path to extinction...

I would agree with Indbir that IWC have not been too 'bling', in perhaps the generally accepted sense of the word, that is by adding diamonds and other irrelevences. However IWC seem to be attempting to get their recent watches noticed in the market by another form of ostentation - by supersizing them. I think this unnecessary increase in size is a mistake, especially for a manufacturer of the heritage of IWC. I would suggest that wearing a watch that looks like a dinner plate strapped to a cocktail stick is not a particularly good look. Regrettably, therefore, the new Ingenieurs are not for me.

Not bling (IWC is not bling), but too big...

I would agree with Indbir that IWC have not been too 'bling', in perhaps the generally accepted sense of the word, that is by adding diamonds and other irrelevences. However IWC seem to be attempting to get their recent watches noticed in the market by another form of ostentation - by supersizing them. I think this unnecessary increase in size is a mistake, especially for a manufacturer of the heritage of IWC. I would suggest that wearing a watch that looks like a dinner plate strapped to a cocktail stick is not a particularly good look. Regrettably, therefore, the new Ingenieurs are not for me.

Sorry, but I disagree with each every one of...

The Plastiki is a fine watch.
What's the big deal about the size?
The Ingenieur comes in a variety of sizes anyway, so people can choose what they like. Choice is a good thing.
But does anyone know what materials are used on the dial, markers and hands? Is it supposed to be luminous? or just Dayglo?

Superluminova

As far as I know, the material of choice here is Superluminova, the only material used now by IWC, and many other companies. As some pictures here show, the colour of the material by daylight is different from the luminescent colour, which gives quite some surprising and nice colour combinations.

Kind regards,
Paul, wearing steel VC Pilot's watch, with green lume, by day and by night

PS: I like your name(s)