Dear All,
in 1991 I got a Mk11 as birthday gift from my grandparents.
The watch was serviced at least two times by IWC Schaffhausen. Till today I was a very proud owner of this watch. Today I googled for the engraving of the back side of the watch. 10AF/807 NI 489 and I learned that the watch could be a marriage! So the Wirth of the watch is only a Short percentage of a regular RAF one.
I am very interested in the opponion of the real experts. So every comment is welcome.
Daniel
Hi and welcome to the forum. This sounds like a Mk 11 camera watch but there are experts around. Pictures would be of help.
I'd like to upload pictures but I don't know how?
Here you go. Look forward to your pictures.
s447.photobucket.com/user/Fusi75/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpswimblncm.jpg.html?filters[user]=143752918&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=0
s447.photobucket.com/user/Fusi75/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps7lpf4po8.jpg.html?filters[user]=143752918&filters[recent]=1&filters[publicOnly]=1&sort=1&o=1
I cannot see you photos on my iMac. Please use the green check mark at the top of the message center to see if your posted pictures are visible before sending. I think you have pasted the wrong code into the test area: the coding should start with (IMG)http and end with (.png[/img]
Hi Daniel,
Welcome to the forum.
As you suspected, your watch is indeed a marriage, with many, if not all, genuine parts, but a Mark 11 it is not.
The case and dial may be from a Mark 11, although I suspect the case is of recent manufacture. The caseback is definitely not from a Mark 11. It belongs to the weapons system clock of the English Electra Lighting.
Thanks for the quick reply!
I am sorry but I am not able sending the pics via my cellphone. On my case is engraved a supplementary number: 235. As I bought it in 1991 I suppose the case is not a replica as in these times there weren't anybody who made replicas. As the watch was serviced several times I wonder that IWC didn't tell me about the marriage.
Is it possible that only the back cover is used from the 10AF and the rest is a real Mk11?
What's about the value of this little bastard?
The case appears to be a Record (very popular in the early ninetees to "create" a Mk. 11), the dial is after market (not RAF) and so are the hands. The Mk. 11 hype started in the late eighties and as collectors didn't know that much on IWC and JLC Mk. 11 many put-together and Franken watches were produced.
In addition something makes me cautios regarding the back. Do you have a pic of the back from the inner side? Do you have a pic of the movement and/or the movement No.?
Hard to judge on the value, especially without facts regarding the movement.
Sorry for having no better news!
Th. Koenig
Yes, it is possible that everything belongs to a Mark 11, except the caseback. Can you post an image of the movement?
I have no idea of the meaning of the number 235 underneath the lug.
Value? To me, as a collector of IWC military watches, it has the value of its individual parts.
The dial and the hands were changed by IWC Headquater during a Service in 1996. At least this are original IWC parts.
For taking pictures of the movement I have to go to a workshop. I can't do it by myself.
So I will try to make some pics of it later...
Dear Tony, dear Fusi
The number on the lug is one of the clear indications, that this is no IWC Mk. 11 case, but a w.w.w. case, presumably a Record case (which was the "blue print" for the Mk. 11 and was manufactured by the same case making company).
Most of the w.w.w.cases, especially Record, had the last two or three digits of the case No. repeated underneath the lug.
It is no problem to screw a Mk. 11 case back on several makes of w.w.w. cases, amongst them Record. Nevertheless this is no IWC case, but a third party case from another military watch.
So we (hopefully) have an all original military Mk 11 movement, a w.w.w. case, a nowadays IWC reproduction of the hands and the dial (but not an original dial nor original hands) and a back from a 10/AF. No infos by now on the soft iron cage parts.
To sell this watch even in the nineteenninetiees was simpyly fraud.
Regards
Th. Koenig
Here a W.W.W. Record for comparison, these cases fit indeed, as Thomas Koenig has pointed out!
Yours isn't the first one I have seen with a 10AF/807 caseback, if that is any consolation to you, but I am surprised that IWC didn't mention that the watch wasn't original, when you sent it in for servicing!
Regards
Jimmy
Hi Jimmy,
I recently saw one pseudo Mark 11 just like Daniel's for sale at at "reputable" auction site, described as RAF Mark 11. I wrote to them, calling their attention to the misrepresentation which, if willful, could be considered fraud. They thanked me for the info, but did not change the description. The watch was sold to an unsuspecting collector.
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for the info. Useful.
I know Tony, Auctionata are only in it for the money they make from the sale,
I could list you at least 10-15 watches from the last couple of auctions, where they sold fakes. What do they say; "what goes around comes around" ?
Regards
Jimmy
I had a similar problem. Bought a Mark II from an AD that had been returned to IWC for service and refurbishment, new dial, hands and strap. When I sent it to Schaffhausen for the certificate I was told that whilst the case and movement were original it had had a replacement back. It appears that during its military career it had been serviced and that the back from another 'dirty dozen', a Vertex, had been accidently substituted. Whilst this may devalue my watch financially it only enhances its sense of history to me. A set of superb articles by Thomas Koenig and Adrian van der Meijden "On his Majestj's Service" confirm that this was not an uncommon occurence. Wear it and love it for what it is !!
Not quite that simple, Barry!
To screw a w.w.w. caseback on a Mk. 11 case works with several w.w.w brands, this is correct as they have the same thread. But the w.w.w. casebacks don't give the space to accomodate the inner Mk. 11 case back, which provided the main feature of a Mk. 11: Its antinmagnetic shielding. As watchmakers normally are not happy, when after finishing a service some parts of the watch are still on their desk, an unintentional mistake isn't really plausible from the watchmakers point of view.
Furthermore the Mk. 11 was serviced in the Chronometer Department at Herstmonceux Castle. The Chronometer Department was a department of the Admiralty, founded to service the sea going chronometers of the Royal Navy. Later on it took over as well the service of chronometer grade watches used in the Royal Airt Force for navigational purposes (and so amongst others the Mk.11). The w.w.w. however, were serviced by the R.E.M.E., the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, part of the British Army Royal Engineer Corps. So the Mk. 11 was serviced by a body of the Royal Navy, the w.w.w. serviced by a body of the British Army. Therefore the swap of a w.w.w. caseback on a Mk. 11 can't have taken place during their military career. On the contrary: Dealers swapped the back from one type of watch to another, especially if the original caseback was missing or - quite freqent with 1948 IWC Mk. 11 - were heavily corroded. And I dare to say, that due to the process of servicing plenty of watches both, REME and Chronometer Department swapped casebacks only within the same brand, only Record to Record, Vertex to Vertex and so on.
So a Mk. 11 with a w.w.w. caseback got this caseback only after decommissioning.
Regards
Th. Koenig
Hi Barrie
I'm afraid the only history behind these fabricated Mark 11s is one of ignorance, fraud, or both.
](
](
