Well, the problem is, I don´t know which segment is planned for IWC in the Richemont Group for the future and I am not fitting to the prefered customer profile since some years.
Too much bling bling stuff and leaving the roots.
So, I have already made my decision about modern IWC and can spent money for vintages :-)
Which is a wise decision, Hebe. As I stated earlier, there is much more value to gain for less money, and the vintage models of Blümlein and earlier keep their value, which is an additional plus.
A famous CEO of the watch industry has told me once: You need to make the inner beauty of a watch tangible, as you can't see it normally (the idea of glass back for mechanical watches was first introduced by Swatch in the late 80ies).
I also guess nobody would buy a "La Ferrari" if the engine was only functional.
Yea, this should be a policy of Aston Martin and plastic parts. Simply there are no. :)
I have studiously avoided this debate. I like movement decorations, and respect different opinions, but some opinions, frankly, are formed on erroneous beliefs. Stripes, perlage, and all that are relatively easy to produce and do not make a fine movement. Many of the world's finest movement are well -finished but without decoration.
Here's an image of Patek Philippe Chrono movement, calibre 13-130, used in their current reference 3670A. Please note that it has little decoration: no swirls, no Geneva stripes, but only anglage (finished edges):
I would love to own one.
And for someone to say "the idea of glass back for mechanical watches was first introduced by Swatch in the late 80ies", that's just plain wrong. There have been display backs throughout history, including this IWC Jones from the early 1870s:
...and, yes, it's original.
Just curious: which movements did IWC develop when Mr. Blümlein was CEO of IWC? I can only think of the predecessor of the movement of the current Portuguese Automatic. Were all other watches of that era driven by ETA-based movements, or quartz movements?
Kind regards,
Paul
The simple answer is none. During his reign, IWC discontinued in-house movements, but in addition to ETA it used JLC, some F.Piguet and a few others. IThe Calibre 5000 was developed under a different CEO, Michael Sarp. But it also produced the Grand Comp and Scafusia models (Valjoux based), the rattrapante, proprietary ETA models, etc.
Hi Michael
Thanks for the interesting information. On top of it, as far as I know, the PP reference 3670A, with the movement you showed, has even a display back, so they don't hide this kind of finishing.
Cheers Chris
Come on Michael, that PP is not what you should be showing us; not only is that bad boy semi-skeletonized but that anglage involved some serious work and looks gorgeous!
In my opinion, the point is that people have different views on this. To some it's a big deal and to others it's not. Nobody is disputing the fact that the movement is lacking in decoration. But the importance of that (in relation to the rest of the watch) is for each person to decide.
I find it quite presumptuous to insinuate that everyone who disagrees is either ignorant or faking it. I can guarantee that I'm not being "apologetic" when stating my opinions here and my assumption would be that others aren't either.
Thomas
Correct.
It is interesting to me that when I look at pocket watches from the 1800's and early 1900's, European watches usually have very minimal decoration on the movements, while American watches of the period generally featured high levels of damaskeening even on inexpensive watches (see representative photos). This didn't make one better than the other - just style differences at the time.
While I have watches from the 1800's that remain highly accurate, I certainly wouldn't argue that they are better than a watch from today, even if it is undecorated.
This should be a fairer comparison，undecorated and in-house:
Well, Michael, I was referring to wrist watches, not ALL kind of watches LOL. If you look for mechanical WRIST watches with display back before Swatch, it will not be easy to find it.
The PP is such a nice watch you would never need to go for stars and stripes to decorate it. It is so beautful with anglage only.
I wish IWC had still today such a nice looking calibre. Unfortunately, this beauty is reserved to Lange and Montblanc / Minerva inside Richmont.
I Dick.
I think this may have been because in the USA some movements were sold separately from the cases and then put together for the client. The decoration was apparently there to make the movement more visually attractive to the potential buyer.
According to the book F.A. Jones His Life, Legacy and Watches this was the case with the IWC Jones.
Well, what can I say, this seems to be a bit of a hot topic - I go away to a conference for a week, come back, login and see that the IWC world as I know it has exploded! What fun :)
Thanks for posting the pics Tonny - this is a lot more than I expected of a IWC with faraday cage. With limited resolution from the images, the movement seems to be exquisitely finished in a pure mechanical way - it looks very clean and functional with nothing more and nothing less than what it needs. I was surprised to see the stamping on the rotor and other components considering that this is a movement that is only meant to see the light of day every 5 years - and even then it isn't really the light of day but the light of a IWC service centre.
I agree that this isn't a beautifully decorated movement but it does seem to be finished very well. If I wanted a beautiful movement, I would go to one of the other Richemont brands - Lange comes to mind here, but then again, I cant remember Lange making a watch as functionally beautiful as this for a long long time (they have a lot of watched which I desire, but nothing like the CF3!).
Thank again for sharing Tonny and I hope you get your VF3 back promptly - as long as it doesn't get back to you before I get mine :)
Cheers,
Ben
Saw this simple and undecorated movement. No silly and useless curls or stripes. Judged by the outside it's probably rather worthless......
If only I had the $$$$. Stunner.
Yes...but is it art? ;-)