IWC Turler Cal.97 pocket watch

Hello All,
I'm after any information that can be provided on the watch pictured below.
1. I understand that Turler are a retailer. Would this piece likely have been a case made by them with an IWC movement or a complete watch made by IWC specifically for Turler?
2. The movement number seems to be from 1938. Would this seem correct for this piece?
3. I can't find any examples that have Chronometer on the dial. Was it unusual or common to have a chronometer rated movement and the marking on the dial indicating such?

The watch is marked as 18k gold. The dial appears to be a gold enamel. Watch weight is 58gm total (excluding the chain). Condition is exceptional, the dial and hands are faultless, looks completely unused.

Thanks all,
DJ

DJ, very nice piece - not rare, but certainly IMHO collectable.

Question : I understand that Turler are a retailer. Would this piece likely have been a case made by them with an IWC movement or a complete watch made by IWC specifically for Turler?

A: I'm sure that the archives would reflect that this watch is 100% IWC - meaning the movement is cased in Schaffhausen by IWC.

Question: The movement number seems to be from 1938. Would this seem correct for this piece?

A: IMHO Yes.

Question : I can't find any examples that have Chronometer on the dial. Was it unusual or common to have a chronometer rated movement and the marking on the dial indicating such?

A: this piece would have been part of an order by the retailer for high value top end pieces. Not typical but probably requested by Turler to label the dial that way. The movement is certainly well finished - but the real question is; is this watch a true chronometer? Did it get extra regulation and was it sent away for certification? That, I doubt.

A very nice watch indeed!

I am going to differ slightly with Mark on a couple of points.

First, a semantic distinction. I would be inclined to categorize any IWC watch with on original chronometre dial as rare. I am not a pocket watch collector, but unlike many other major companies that were active during the early/mid 20th Century, IWC did not, as a rule, use such designations on the original dials.

Mark is almost certainly correct that the designation was chosen by Turler, but nevertheless such original dials are, I believe, very difficult to find.

Secondly, very few watches were sent to Observatories prior to the 1940s. and, coupled with the fact that IWC has a long history of favoring their in-house standards over those of external bodies, I don't think that there would have been any reason to have sent this watch for "certification".

As far as it being a "true" chronometre, I don't know the answer, but looking at the movement and finish, I have no doubt that it was capable of achieving that level of accuracy, and as such, is consistent with the dial designation.

Cheers,

Tony C.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with Tony.

I have seen perhaps 50 IWC pocket watches with Chronometre on the dial. Now that might be a very small percentages of all that I've seen, I wouldn't consider this as "rare".

To my knowledge, none of these watches were tested by observatories or external chronometer testing. They might or might not have, but I never seen any evidence of this (other IWC watches, like Mark 11s, were tested).

On the other hand, this dial us very unusual: I have not seen any like it.

Thanks Michael. I certainly defer to your experience, and particularly when it comes to pocket watches. However, your response does beg some further parsing of the semantic question.

You have seen around 50 with a "chronometer" designation, presumably over decades, with an obvious brand focus, and having enjoyed special access to the Manufacturer, etc. So, even if one were to assume that there were at least double that number produced with such dials, let's bring some context into the discussion.

Having had a quick look at your excellent work on the IWC pocket watch site, I see that there were almost 300,000 Calibre 53 watches produced. Then, I see roughly 38,000 of the cal. 66, 67,000 of cal. 74 and 74 models, 10,000 cal. 77, and 25,000 of cal. 95 and 97. So, excluding ladies models and the ones that you characterized as "less expensive", IWC produced at least 440,000 pocket watches up until around 1960.

While I again admit that these are rough calculations, given that we have no precise ides how many more that the 50 chronometer dials that you have seen were actually produced, if there were 100, then they would represent 0.000227 of total production. Double that number (i.e. 200 produced) and the number would be 0.00045.

To my mind, such very small numbers do denote rarity, though I would be interested to learn why you might disagree.

I would also be interested to hear you comment on those, as a group, that you have seen with such designations. Would it be fair to assume that the movements found in those watches were of a high grade, and highly finished? Do you have any doubt that they would have been capable of receiving third-party certifications?

Thank you.

Regards,

Tony C.

The term "chronometer" and sometimes "half-chronometer" on the dial of IWC pocket watches may be very confusing for collectors.
First of all , the definition of chronometer has changed over the years, making the requirements to call a watch a chronometer less tight over and over again. More than a century ago the testing programs at the different Astronomical Observatories (Geneva, , Neuchatel, Besançon, Leipzig, Washington and Kew) were even not identical and lasted from 4-8 weeks. Kew had the most demanding test. Other than brands such as Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, Ulysse Nardin and others, IWC is not known as a brand that sent many watches to the Observatories and the first watch for testing was submitted around 1884. If a watch had passed the test, a chronometer certificate or Bulletin de Marche was awarded to the specific watch, indicating how many seconds the time piece gained or lost in different positions and at different temperatures, during the entire test period.
Theses extremely accurate watches were chronometers but the word chronometer was not depicted on the dial. Cal 71 (fishtail) was the most frequently tested IWC pocket watch. Already before 1910, IWC used its own testing program, which was far less severe than those at the Observatories and IWC printed on the dial: "chronometer" or "chronomètre" and even "half-chronometer". A so called "Gangschein" was delivered indicating that the watch had been tested in 2 positions and at 3-4 different temperatures, not specifically stating how long it had been tested.
This method was maintained over the decades and during the revival period of IWC pocket watch production between 1975-1985, some of limited editions ( Scarabaeus Fuchs) were delivered wit such "Gangschein". In the IWC literature has been documented that only cal. 71/72, 52/53 and 65/66 were awarded a chronometer certificate.
Research on this topic has resulted in an article called : " To Be or Not to Be....an IWC Pocket Watch Chronometer" It can be found in the archives of this Forum.
Kind regards,
Adrian,
(alwaysiwc).

No, the ones that I have seen marked as "chronometer" on the dial or inside have had no special finishing nor distinguishing or higher-grade movement characteristics. I have reason to be believe that their accuracy was better than other production by IWC.

Interesting, thanks! Did you mean to say that you have no reason to believe that their accuracy was better, or that in spite of them having no distinguishing characteristics, you do have reason to believe that?

I meant no reason --sorry.

BTW, I probably should add that I've owned three or four of them, and one half chronometer too. I felt the market didn't attach any premium to them.

Excellent insights. Thanks very much.

Regards,

Tony C.

Thank you all. Very interesting.