Earlier I posted on the mystery of a vintage cal 89 and a debate with some experienced IWC folks. If you look at the picture of the back of the watch I posted it has a straight circular polish (see below). However my inspection of other ~1950 gold cased IWC watches shows a perlage polish. Have you seen anything but a perlage polish in IWC gold watches of this era?
what makes you think it's perlage?
I don't see any perlage on this caseback.
Perlage is a tiny row of circular graining, with overlapping circles. It is accomplished mostly by using pegwood or boxwood, with an abrasive paste applied usng a rotating head. One photo of perlage is shown above and another, showing IWC's use of perlage on a GST bracelet (to the left of the lower image), is below.
With respect, I think you may be over-analyzing one case. Also keep in mind that IWC did not produce cases during that era, and in theory any case could have come from several suppliers, making generalizations difficult and hypotheses almost impossible to prove.
whatchsavant saw perlage on other casebacks...
... and not on the one he showed. It is interesting information that in some old days IWC didn't produce the casebacks, or some of them, by themselves: thank you.
Kind regards,
Paul, wearing VC Portuguese
Paul you are right-MF, please read again
Also, I am unsure why you keep questioning the motive for my posts. While this is a minor watch in my collection, because I am a collector I have an interest in it. That's what collectors do. Jack at superior watch has raised questions and Larry Seiden is also involved in the debate. I will raise the question again-- have you or others seen a vintage gold watch of this era WITHOUT perlage on the inside back?
sorry --I misread it but get the question now....
and, yes, I've seen IWC casebacks from this era without perlage.
I am not questioning your motives and I also understand the value of determining whether you have a marriage here by not having a "real" case. I just find the hyper-analysis highly unlikely to prove anything, regardless whether who is involved in what you term a "debate".
I also know very well what collectors do.
willingness to repair, investment, learning
Part of the outcome is Jack's willingness to service the watch and also how much I invest in the repair. So you may be entirely correct I will not learn anything conclusive but I am giving it a shot for good reasons. i am also very curious and learning details of representative cases of this era. Larry sold me the watch a decade ago and he is being a stand-up guy and wanting to know himself as he hadn't noticed these details at the time. Thank you for the additional data it is helpful. I am interested in other non-perlage observations from others.
It may prove more fruitfull....
To investigate if the same watch highlighted by Cellar is signed in the same manner. Personally i'm not sure what you've got, the dial being re-done (why?) upsets the plot somewhat and the type of signature used (caseback)is not unknown but does seem to have been used when outsourcing small volume lots.
Thanks- Cellar's watch and more detail
Thanks Catherine. Here is some more information. The to bezel on mine is different than cellar's and on that point Jack at Superior watch noted he had never seen my bezel attachment before. The rest of Cellar's watch looks very similar except it uses a steel movement spacer ring versus what seems to be a solid rose gold (or maybe plated?) one on mine.
It would be interesting to see Cellar's case back. Maybe what we are pointing to here is an export watch (maybe to Portugal) through a case contract house that made some kind of error in printing the serial number by ommitting digits.
Note I have just seen an example without perlage
on the inside back. Many I see do have the perlage though. Again, this may all resolve back to a contract house, error in serial number printing and an export watch meaning US based repair folks maybe wouldn't have seen it.
I value collectors interest
Hi all,
My name came up in several posts here and, so, just a few general remarks about collecting vintage IWC timepieces in general and some notes in particular.
I attach value in garnering real information about vintage pieces because IMHO history should play a significant role in the progress of a respectable watch manufacturer like IWC. Of course, it can be debated as to how much monetary benefits it yields but nevertheless it still should be taken seriously.
[i]The problems that arise in doing research through the company and its archives are several:[i]
First, there are few people left at the IWC factory in Schaffhausen who would have solid memories and knowledge about timepieces made as early as 1950.
Second, all records prior to 1990 relating to serial and model numbers were hand entered in the company ledgers thus requiring physical searches which could be time consuming.
Third, the lack of specific manpower especially in the archives department becomes more critical in economic hard times when companies look to cut back on less essential programs.
I, for one, would like to see one person hired (perhaps sometime in the future) who would concentrate daily on bringing all the archives up to the 21st century in digital format allowing quick searches through multiple categories and computer programs. I realize it's a major undertaking and investment but I can see the ultimate payoff of linking the past with the present and the future.
Now, back to the mystery of the vintage C89 timepiece with the mentioned caseback. I have seen many many without perlage and so that in itself would not make it suspicious. As mentioned in an e-mail with the collector, the top bezel (of the 3-pc gold case) has a protruding lip from underneath which snaps into the middle part of the case. This is something I don't recall seeing before. Coupled with the fact that the case number 67929, I was told by IWC, is described as a silver-case Lepine pocketwatch from 1890, I'm not sure what to make of it.
In addition, after forwarding the e-mail and URL links to the photos, I was told by my colleague at IWC that because IWC's anti-virus-program do not allow to open the pictures in a website he could only speculate about the matter. So, I copied, pasted, resized the key photos of this vintage timepiece into one PDF file and forwarded it to my colleague. I'm inclined to agree with MF that the first digit of the case back number may have been dropped off and so perhaps the puzzle can still be solved.
I have spent considerable time on this matter to spare the collector the costs of our shipping the timepiece to the IWC factory for a physical closeup examination to determine its authenticity.
In the end, if this collector has his heart and mind set on maintaining the watch that it may need to be sent overseas as mentioned.
This is a brief synopsis of what it takes to collect, research, and service a vintage timepiece.
Regards,
Jack Freedman
Jack, thanks for the comprehensive response
and your effort on this. Very much appreciated.
A lot of stock....
...that was dumped into South America can be found with just such anomalies, even down to mis-mash hand kits. The dial for me is the red-herring....i feel the case is more right than wrong, afterall if a faker can produce hallmarks and get the whimsical signature period correct then he/she are on the wrong (£) end of the stick.
I've seen a gold ref 666 caseback that was signed and hallmarked correctly though it was a different pattern (only the caseback)....the watch was correct in that the numbering started life with the movement. Does'nt mean much in itself.. other than there are examples of gold fifties Schaffhausen pieces out there...with case-parts of a different pattern to what collectors are familiar with.
Please check your email (nt)
I agree, this would have been a heck of a lot of
effort to fake. And if they could do it this well, why bother and instead do something else. Your theory that it was a mistake in printing and just sent over to South America (I'd add as a small run maybe for the particular bezel design) makes most sense and may also explain why Jack, a US IWC watch servicer, hasn't seen it as much. Also on the dial I believe that style was used for many years by IWC. I have not determined if it is a redial or IWC replacement or the original one. The case is what perplexed me so much, I'm used to seeing dials being off because its often a consumable part (though I know not always) of a 60 year old watch.
My case back has engine turning
on the inside.
I also have an extract from the archive stating the watch was sold to Egon Frank - which doesn't sound like a Portuguese dealer.
What may resolve the issue is to add "11" to the beginning of your case number of "67,929" to give 1,167,929 and submit it along with your movement number of 1,198,174 for an extract from the archive and see if IWC has records that match.
It will cost CHF 50 but if it does match you will stop worrying about the watch.
Cheers from the cellar
Not a simple matter ...
Greg,
Your idea of adding two digits of 11 is too simple to be true.
Actually I had the same idea and talked to my colleague at the IWC factory who pointed out that the case numbers could run anywhere from 11XXXXX to 16XXXXXX or beyond. Case numbers are not necessarily assigned in consecutive order to certain calibres. Which means that the C89 movement could have been used randomly in cases with any number in between. Therefore, searches in the archives are time consuming and to pay for an extract with guesswork is like throwing money in a wishing well.
Best regards,
Jack Freedman
P.S. A physical examination of the timepiece at IWC might be the best solution to solve the mystery. Stay tuned.