Is IWC still modyfying ETA movements: what's inside Mark XVI ?

Hi,

As often quoted on this forum, IWC heavily modifies ETA-2892-A2 movements (several posts
detailing in-house IWC changes based on, e.g., WatchTime magazine from December 2002).

However, after reading the following post

www.iwc.com/forum-en/message/208561.html

-- response from IWC product manager -- it looks like since mid-2007 IWC
simply puts ETA movements into some watches (maybe a better ones
then other companies get from ETA).

Thus I wonder:
(1) do currently sold Mark XVI's have any in-house modifications
in their movements ?

(2) what is going to happen in 2011 when no kits will be supplied from ETA ?
Is Mark XVI going to have a new movement ?

I know that we all love IWC, but I must admit that if IWC does not introduce
any in-house improvements to the movement a name caliber 30110 shall
be changed into ETA 2892-A2 not to mislead the buyers. What do you think of that ?

best regards,
Bogdan

Hi Bogdan,

What is important is the specifications of IWC. It does not matter if ETA, Sellita or IWC build the movement provided they are made to the same IWC specifications. They are then tested by IWC to ensure that they meet IWC rigourous timing standards. IWC's technical changes provide superior performance and deserve an IWC calibre number. To call the movement a 2892 would be misleading buyers

Please see the following:

www.iwc.com/forum-en/message/208561.html

IWC will comtinue to get movements from ETA, possibly in reduced numbers:

www.iwc.com/forum-en/topic/187540.html?page=1

These movements are built to IWC's specifications and are not your garden variety 2892.

Cheers from the cellar

Hi Cellar,

I am not sure if this is good enough for me, but, of course, it depends on what do you expect from
an expensive watch costing $3k+. If the role of IWC is to simply assemble the parts and write down specifications for suppliers for the key elements of the watch, then a lot of charm of the watch goes away (at least for me).

In some sense, it reminds me of what Apple writes on its products: designed in California made in China. Here you would have designed by IWC made by somebody else. I do not think that such a characterization is what you expect from an IWC product :-)

Concerning the name, I would still argue that the movement should be called ETA 2892-XX, where the
ending can encode the particular variation IWC is getting.

best regards,
Bogdan

Would you feel the same about the name if you learned that the A2 part of the name was in fact based on movement enhancements designed and made by IWC (specifically with Richard Habring then of IWC as part of the team) some 20 years ago?

Do you feel the same about the naming of watches when 95% or so have cases not made in-house' especially for other companies? Should those be renamed? IWC here is a rarity it's in-house case making.

Do you feel that virtually all other movements' for 98% of all companies-- should be renamed because the critical parts -balances and hairsprings - are made by swatch subsidiaries ? Should those movements be renamed?

To my thinking, a name is just a name. What matters is what the quality is.

Michael, this is a fair comment. I found it is very interesting that similar thing happened in my industry. I am working in the biggest external data storage vendor in the world. But, we manufacture zero Hard Drive..... We focus on the Software functions, intelligence and the integration with other IT solutions.

Regards, Felix

Dear MF,

Well, I guess it is all about expectations. I do not like outsourcing of any kind when it
comes to the luxury item like the IWC watch. In fact, IWC could really stand out of the
crowd if the whole watch would be made in-house (especially in the light of your email).

When it comes to names, like the caliber 30110, this forum is the best example that this name
is confusing. Indeed, otherwise the question about 30110 vs. ETA movements would not be a FAQ.
It would be even more interesting to find out how many buyers of relatively inexpensive IWC watches
do know that the movement is not in-house made.

Anyway, I am gonna get Mark XVI, but what matters to me is to get to know what was actually
made by IWC and what wasn't: I guess this is a reasonable question given the price of the watch,
its luxury status and common in the industry outsourcing that can be irritating depending on
buyer's attitude.

Quality matters. Every time you outsource you take a risk on quality, as you are not in control anymore. The heart and soul is exchanged for a Service Level Agreement, a contract. Headache. If the item that is outsourced is a very special product, needing a lot of expertise, this is quite an understandable and good strategy. If the outsourcing is done because of capacity and price, then it is fair to put some question marks to it. A complete movement for IWC is about as core as it can get, I find it understandable that customers of high-end products keep on asking questions about it. Luckily, the "ETA 30110" is a very good, reliable movement for a fair price, making the Mark XVI possible for its price segment: it is a great watch. As IWC has some history connected to this movement, I feel everything is quite OK. But the mishap with the Piaget movement for the Portuguese Pure Classic shows the other side of the medal, I cannot believe anybody is happy with what happened there.

"A name is just a name." Michael, you were not seriously meaning this, I hope? Watches are about emotions, expectations. Someone should feel proud wearing a watch by IWC, I am sure we all are. IWC as just an assembly line would not do that for us, where would the heroïsm of it be? To me there is a huge difference between an external storage device and a luxury watch. Tedious as it may be after so many years: the ETA question is by far the most asked question by new forum members, that in itself is a signal. IWC took this challenge up for the higher end watches, but I would like to see a Grande Complication based on an IWC movement, and not based on an ETA movement.

Kind regards,
Paul

"A name is just a name." Michael, you were not seriously meaning this, I hope

Sorry, I was dead serious. I think names/labels are simply linguistics. Quality --the actual physical presence-- matters.

I recall a Museum critic who dismissed an art critic as having "an amateur's preoccupation with technique", although I would substitute "technique" with "place of manufacture", and I wouldn't confuse that place with quality control either.

So Micheal, do you mean to say that the movements now coming from ETA are in every shape or form identical to the movements that used to be modified by IWC?

And that if the two movements were side by side on the bench you couldn't tell them apart?

Is the ETA standard of finishing exactly the same as what IWC used to achieve?

This are custom ETA movements right? With different configurations and a higher standard of finish and polish then the standard ETA movements?

I am interested because for the same amount of money I could get an IWC Port Chrono or a Rolex Submariner, and at the moment I am leaning towards the Rolex cause it's got a Rolex movement, while the Port Chrono has a variation of the ETA7750.

"....To my thinking, a name is just a name. What matters is what the quality is....." MF

Indeed - what does it matter whether the dial reads IWC, Swatch, Casio, Seiko or anything else - only the quality counts. Accordingly, we should all wear Japanese watches whose reliability, quality control and after sales service blows away anything out of CH ... but we don't.

WHY ? Because IWC customers are snobs and labels and names mean everything to us. It's all about image.

Debasing an IWC with a Sfr100 quality movement from Seiko would be unthinkable ( "Swiss Made" would read "Swiss Assembled" - oh, the horror!) but debasing an IWC with a SFr100 generic ETA/VALJOUX/LEMANIA movement is fine - after all, it's just a name !

Michael, get real and stop defending the "prostitution" of a brand. IWC is in a battle for survival and can't afford to make its own movements for garden variety watches, so it does what the rest of the Swiss Watch industry does: it goes cap in hand to Hayek's operation and takes whatever they'll sell, rendering the exclusivity of the brand a fantasy.

It is what it is but it's not what it was - it's not an IWC.

Hi Lisalpha,

You put it in a harsh way, I feel there is no need for it. In-house movements are expensive. The 30110 is one of the best movements around, and it has IWC history. Furthermore the Mark XVI has unique looks, making it about the best, and best looking proposition for its price segment. When I look at the Japanese competition I am impressed by their technical prowess, if at all I can. When I look at their watches, I think there is no soul in them. But that is ME, making that connection or not. However, there are a lot of people being very happy with their Grand S. I think there is place for both types of watches. And if you like in-house and like to pay the price, try the Ingenieur Mission Earth, if you like its shape, or the Portuguese Automatic, or the Big Pilot.

Kind regards,
Paul

An interesting first post by a new member here. It's especially interesting when I'm told to "get real" (that's close to Valleyspeak, if our non-US friends know what I mean), when IWCers are called "snobs", and when the brand is accused of "prostitution".

I will add that IWC's Grand Complication for more than 20 years has had an ETA-Valjoux base, as have many other significant models.

I won't further comment directly except to say that name calling, etc., aren't appropriate ways of expression here.

Lisalpha,
I take umbrage to your characterizations of what motivates me (and other members of this forum) to buy IWC watches ("snobs"), your description of the brand and its business practices ("prostitutes") and the impolite way you address our moderator ("Get real"). There is always room for debate and discussion here...but with a propriety that calls for some mutual respect. To get real Texas blunt about it, that dog don't hunt!

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa
No personal offense was intended, just a wake up call to us all including me.
Marketing 101 dictates that a brand’s image suffers irreparable damage when it’s diluted. The analogy with the automobile industry is both interesting and valid. Mercedes, Rolls Royce, Aston Martin to name a few, rely on outside suppliers for componentry; none of them make alternators, for example, they source them from OE manufacturers such as Bosch but not from Lucas (“the Prince of Darkness”).
In today’s world it would be completely unrealistic to expect a company to manufacture in house all the component parts of the product they manufacture and market – there is, however, a difference between sourcing components and an entire engine (read movement). No reasonable person would object to IWC sourcing Nivarox hairsprings from Swatch (Patek does too). Several years ago GM was successfully sued in a class action suit by unhappy upscale (Buick / Oldsmobile) customers who discovered Chevy engines under the hood.
It’s really quite simple, if IWC needed the volume to offset overhead that only entry level product could provide and which didn’t merit the cost of a proprietary movement, then IWC should have created a different label to protect the real McCoy, just as Rolex did with Tudor. Seiko has the reverse problem. The Grand Seiko will never garner the following it deserves; Seiko should have rebranded the line – instead the Grand Seiko will forever be associated with SFr25 supermarket checkout watches – may be unfair but reality. Honda, Toyota and Nisan got it right with Acura, Lexus and Infiniti.
In the final analysis, all the players are losers, whether the buyer of the Calibre 5000 or the entry level Pilot Chronograph – the former because the IWC image has been eroded and the latter for paying too much to say nothing of IWC who have, forever, compromised their own brand.
In valleyspeak – get your head around it.

Jim, you are correct. I cannot understand the need to question the luxury watch making market. Of course we all recognize what we are purchasing. If I just wanted an accurate watch I'd buy a quartz Timex or Casio for thirty bucks.

Lisalpha,

although the Mark XVI does not feature an in-house movement (but a very reliable ETA movement), it still is a watch filled with history since IWC makes pilot watches for over 5 decades, and I am willing to pay for that (as wel as for the design and the excellent finish of the watch).

Charles,

proud new owner of a Mark XVI

Lisa -I respect your opinions but for several reasons I smell a troll here. I could be wrong, so kindly e-mail me and explain a little more about who you are. In the interim, I'm going to lock thus thread. If I've made an error, I would ask that you and others excuse me.

Thank you.

mfriedberg@iwcforum.com