• Apprentice
    25 Aug 2023, 6:02 p.m.

    Hello IWC experts,

    I bought this watch very recently for more than 3000€ from a reputable source with box and all papers (full set). The history of this watch reveals that it was sold by an AD to a watch collector and then resold to a dealer who sold it to me.

    Here the movement:

    The watch was sold on 1.06.2009 to the first purchaser.

    The watch looked genuine to me at the time of purchase. But there are a few things that make me sceptical and I would be honored if you could help.

    First: there seems to be only AR coating on the inside of the crystal. At least the anti-reflective coating is quite weak. Research of all the Mark XVI Spitfire models from 2009-2016 revealed that they should be AR coated on the inside and outside. Is this true? Or had very early models only coating on the inside?

    Second: the lug bezels are not polished. From all the pictures and videos on YouTube about the Mark XVI Spitfire I have concluded that the lug bezels should be polished. Only the Mark XV Spitfire (the earlier model) has unpolished lug bezels. What is your opinion on that?

    Third: the SWISS MADE writing is not perfectly centered, the gap between the last S in SWISS and the 6 o'clock marker is slightly larger than the gap between the same marker and the M in MADE. Is this normal? Also the 15 minute marker "hangs" a tiny fraction lower than the 3 o'clock marker, again they are not perfectly aligned. I have seen such imperfections on other completely new IWC watches sold by ADs so I assumed that it's normal but would be happy to see your opinion on it as well.

    Is the watch authentic? Or did somebody tinker with it? Hopefully it is not fake?

    Greatful for your comments.


  • Master
    25 Aug 2023, 7:16 p.m.

    Hello Maciej - I don't often post but have been a member here for a long time. However, I feel compelled to comment.

    This is your first post on the Forum asking for authenticity of a watch you already purchased. It would have been wiser to ask the questions BEFORE you bought the watch.

    You asking very specific questions about the watch.

    In my experience from participating on many watch sites, a post like this is from someone looking for information on how to improve a fake watch and what changes should be make. Therefore, I am not inclined to provide any information.

    Should this be a legitimate request, I am sorry for my straightforward reply.

  • Apprentice
    25 Aug 2023, 8:28 p.m.

    Hello Nad,

    Disappointing but somehow understandable. However, this was my first post in this forum as it is the first request for help I have about a recently purchased IWC watch. I purchased another IWC (a much older model with Cal. 89 at the Munich Watchfair many years ago) when I was still living in Munich and I love this watch a lot. I was introduced to IWC watches by a Swiss friend whom I worked with at an IT project in Munich (I'm an IT specialst and watch collecting is only my hobby). The Swiss coleague told me about the funny advertsiment IWC used to post and he even kept clipnotes from certain newspapers with the most iconic and funny advertisement which centered around IWC making only watches for men (Der Uhr oder Fast so kompliziert wie eine Frau, ist aber punktlich etc haha ;-) ) so I immediately identified with IWC.

    Yes, I know it would have been wiser to ask BEFORE the purchase. But I fell in love with this watch instantly. I was travelling (stayed in the city where I bought it only for a day) and I had to make a quick decision whether to buy or not. I didn't have time to go on forums and ask questions like I can do now from my home. On the other hand: would your reply be any different if I asked before buying it? Probably not.

    So what can I do to prove that I'm a legitimate buyer of this watch and look for genuine help? Should I post the serial number of the watch? Should I post a photo of my invoice? I'm worried a little bit about my privacy but could black out all the sensitive data. Any suggestions? Or is this better discussed via a PM?