Hi everyone!
I have a previous pilot's chrono with the fish crown...
And an ingenieur 322701 with the Probus scafussia written onthe crown...
So what's your favourite?
i think the fish crown means the watch is water resistant...
But the ingenieur is also water resistant and the logo is the other one...
Why??
;)
Regards...
Hi JBT,
Michael wrote about this some time ago. I remember the answer to your question has multiple motivations.
Generally speaking, people new to IWC didn't relate the little fish to something meaningful to a watch or to IWC or worse, misunderstood its original meaning (waterproofness), e.g. thinking of the fish as a representation of a christian symbol.
Personally, I like the little fish, it's just a cute little fish to me but the logo works for me as well, I don't like to think I have to remain stuck to the past anytime, in any case.
It is important to keep the watch as original as possible. So depending on which crown was used initially that is how it should stay.
Or at the very least if you prefer one crown to the other, and make a change, ensure that the original is kept by, just in case you sell the watch on in the future.
personally .....I prefer the fish
Ivan
iwcforme
Hi,
Since I have bought different iwc pilot-watches who have been used already,
I allways send them to IWC to get them fully overhauled. They all came back (like new) with the probus scafucia crown instead of the fish crown. Allthough it works for me, I like the new crown, it has never been asked..
cheers
BAS DEKKERS
wearing an 3706 with scafusia crown
Hi Dekkers,
Some time ago I heard about this issue...
Maybe the crown was changed because the watch wasn't
waterproof... but... my new ingenieur it is... so...
why the Probus scafusia crown? maybe it's because it'smore modern?
Maybe because IWC wants to unify a crown 100% IWC recognicyble?
Maybe it deppends on the watch model?
Regards,
I prefer the fish on vintage watches, but I also like the Probus Scafusia in the new models.
From what I understand, the main reason behind the change appears to have been because the fish is also a symbol for Christianity, and Richemont wants to remove all possibility of controversy from the IWC watches.
I've heard, but I am not certain, that VC (also part of Richemont) does not include the Maltese Cross in the watches sold to predominantly Muslim countries.
Each market has its idiosyncrasies, and the purpose of Richemont is, first of all, business.
As I have said, being a purist, however it came out of the factory that is how it should remain, even after service.
I understand that some fish crowns are replaced by probus scafissia but really the insignia is incidental to the crwon itself What I mean is IWC could easily inscribe the technically better crown with the origibnal fish emblem. Its only cosmetic? For me that would be preferrable to keep the originaity of the timepiece.
Regards
Ivan
iwcforme
hey guys you really know about the theme...
of course i won't never sell my IWC nor change the origunal fish crown
instead of the "probus" one...
Otherwise... I think it's not about religion... my pilot's chrono it's from the 2005's... so capytalism was already invented (...).
I Keep thinking it's just about he watch model...
best regards...
hey guys you really know about the theme...
of course i won't never sell my IWC nor change the origunal fish crown
instead for the "probus" one...
Otherwise... I think it's not about religion... my pilot's chrono it's from the 2005's... so capytalism was already invented (...).
I Keep thinking it's just about he watch model...
best regards
Of course this is not about religion. No one said it was. This about business pragmatism - to offer for sale what people think they need and are willing to spend a large portion of their hard earned money (or not) to acquire.
Being a vintage IWC guy myself, I'm partial to the fish. I like that there are multiple styles of fish. My cursory research indicates an outline fish was used on the stainless models and a more detailed fish employed on the gold models. (If I'm wrong about this, please correct me.)
The newer logo certainly fits the crown better, but I think it lacks a certain joi de vive. It's merely a corporate logo. The fish on the other hand has style and verve.
Again, it's just me. Since I only own watches with fish I may be a bit biased. Of course if I ever get around to saving sufficient funds for a new Ingenieur, I'll love the crown -- and all the rest of the watch -- just the same.
Best always from the Great State of North Carolina,
Titanos
Oh my. Trying only to fix my earlier bungled French spelling, I have made things even worse. Forgive the duplication. I'm a mere Apprentice and still learning the details of the IWC Forum. Best always from NC. Titanos
Less than 24 hours after writing the above, I've come across some evidence to suggest the outline fish/ detailed fish is more a function of time manufactured than metal used.
I now believe the detailed fish was used in the 1950s and possibly before. Sometime in the 1960s IWC changed the design of the fish logo making it more stylized (and honestly more like the Christian symbol).
More recently the Probus Schafusia logo came into vogue. The fish isn't absent from the newest logo, incidentally, it's still right there in the middle -- but in highly outlined form.
Best always from The Great State of North Carolina,
Titanos
hi all. I have a mk XV pilots watch and a port chrono and I love them both. This is my first post. After 10+ years the mk XV started to misbehave so I sent it for service via Wempe on Bond Street in London and it came back quicker that expected in great condition, full service, new crown, £480, no problem. Until I looked closely and saw that my original fish crown was gone, replaced by the regular Probus Scafusia one. I am told that this is standard now. Really rather annoyed as my mark XV is no longer authentic in my view. I should have been told about this before it got sent away to Schaffhausen because (even more annoyance) I can't get the original crown back even as proof of authenticity. I understand that the old crown was no longer capable of ensuring waterproofing (which ironically is what the fish was a symbol of) so why not fit a new, correct fish crown? Reason I guess is that IWC does not keep them in stock, yet elsewhere the company makes a play of saying that it keeps stock of authentic parts for discontinued models. My conclusion having read all the comment there has been over this over the years is that this change to delete the fish was done for the company's convenience, and never mind what the customers think. So disappointed and sorry that my first post had to be negative.
Ian Louden