The new Pilots range: thanks and thoughts

Firstly, many thanks to MF and all the SIHH attendees for their photos, blogs, thoughts and so on. Looks like a great time. I can't believe two tears have passed since I was invited to SIHH (year of the Portuguese).

I'm a big "pilots watch" fan, and have many genuine ex-military and contemporary examples. For me, a pilot's watch should be legible at a glance, with form following function. For that reason, pretty much all of this year's new watches leave me cold. I also have issues with the increasing size and triple date windows. Frankly many of the wrist shots look silly IMO as the watches are huge. Is IWC edging too close to fashion? The "Pilot" name is now just marketing. The new St. Exupery does look nice though, and I fully appreciate the technical side of the movements going into the World Timer and Spitfire perpetual.

My eye keeps being drawn to the Big Pilot Miramar. Imagine this: no power reserve, no date, perhaps 3-4mm smaller, lose the logos. It would then be a true homage to the original B-Uhr(type B dial). I think it would be wonderful, perhaps even IWC's greatest pilot watch of modern times. I can dream...

Hi Ross,

Greetings from Geneva - final day here, and spending some time with Alan and Kevin and winding down from the full-on adrenaline rush of SIHH.

I speak for my own pictures: the Leica lens makes the watches on my wrist look really really big. The casing height makes it appear that they overhang on my wirst i.e. the lugs extend beyond the top flat of my wrist - they don't. A common reaction @ SIHH once the watches - especially the 48mm ceramic Top Gun and Miramar ones - we tried on, is that they appear smaller on the wrist.

Still, as Alan commented in the other post - if u don't like big watches, you will likely be disappointed - but they won't be as big as many infer from the pics.

My 2 cents.

Ross,
Shing is correct. In order to get the weird lighting at the show to not reflect back into the camera, I had to hold my wrist and the watch at an extreme angle. The result is that it sometimes looks like the watch is falling off the back of wrist. It does not!

You know the size of the new pieces. Find something at your AD in an identical size and you will know whether you will like it.

I'm not sure that would work, since the fit on a wrist isn't just diameter. The size, shape and curve of the lugs often can make a real difference.

And to add on to Michael if I may -- I find, based on the try-outs in the last 2 days, the dark ceramic and the 'black ceramic' together with the dial (crowded for the Perpetual, and busy for the sunburst pilot & spitfire) gives the watch a total different size-wear.

To me, they are and have been ingeniously designed - not that I am saying they will appeal to everyone, but I firmly believe they will appeal to more people once they are on their wrists.

That is why I took some pictures with comparison shots.

Firstly, I would like to say that the watches all look really well thought out from the new range, I don't really know how well they would fit and feel in an actual flying situation, but they certainly look the part.

Secondly and however, I currently work down at MCAS Miramar and I think it's slightly offensive that such a company (a good company) will use the name "top gun" and "miramar" and yet produce something that no pilot (current military) would be able to afford. I understand that the aesthetic tribute of producing such a watch, it however goes against the rugged simplicity AND inexpensive nature that real pilots use. I understand that more famous pilots and aviators - astronauts - used (premium) omega watches, but they were purchased by the US government, not by the individuals.

IWC makes some of the best watches in the world with a proud heritage of classic design styles coupled with precision craftsmanship that exemplifies some of the higher echelons that we normally associate with European luxury goods. The fact that they are using a name and style to not their own to promote a product that their copied demographic cannot afford is insulting to anyone who has ever flown for the USMC or US Navy.

I respect differing opinions, but you should know that any use of the Navy or Top Gun name requires approval, and what you consider insulting was approved at the Admiral level. In addition, all IWC Top Gun watch designs were required to be submitted to the Pentagon.

Lt. Commander Guy Snodgrass, a current Top Gun pilot, traveled to Geneva at his own expense to see SIHH and brought films of arrested landings which were shown at the IWC party. I met then LT. Snodgrass about 5 years ago, when IWC execs were invited for a day at sea on the USS Ronald Reagan, where we met the Commander of the Pacific Fleet as well as the Reagan's Captain.

So I guess some high ranking Naval officers and at least one Top Gun pilot disagrees with you.

I actually assumed that someone in the DoD would've had to sign off on the use of its name and program, and I can appreciate them getting permission to use a name they don't own, as required by law.

I'm also sure Snodgrass recieved a some sort of recognition for his efforts.
One of my Navy Seal friends has told me about equipment (accessories) that they are offered to wear publicly so that the company can use it as a marketing ploy to associate all the positive epithets their breed is known for.
Approval from those above the pay grade of the USMC and Navy Pilots goes back into my questioning of the contradiction between the lifestyle represented in marketing and style vs. what it is actually like. An admiral and other high ranking officers are they themselves exempt from such a group based on the fact that they are high ranking.
Don't get me wrong, Navy Top Gun pilots aren't bad off, but generally (while serving) are out of the running for such watches. I'm not calling into question that the watches were approved by the US military, just simply that most US military pilots do not have the means to acquire them and therefore by definition are a contradiction of associated style.

Pentagon rules prohibit gifts of more than $40, I have been told, by businesses to active duty US servicemen. The only recognition that LT. Commander Snodgrass received was applause from the audience. He was not wearing his uniform nor any IWC promotional or other items.

It's a shame then that he wasn't able to get even a prototype of the watch he helped create, by design and action.

Dear Alan:

From one IWC pilot fan to another: I share your general concern (bewilderment?) over the size of the new IWC pilot's watches.

Somewhere in this current plethora of SIHH posts, Michael F. wisely remarks that a wrist shot should be viewed with caution. I would agree that a wrist shot may not necessarily give an accurate sense of how a particularly large watch looks on a particularly slender wrist. Therefore, not having seen them in the flesh, I am reluctant to criticize the new IWC pilot's watches on the basis of size.

Still, the temptation to do so is strong: with at least one new model measuring 48 mm. in diameter, one may well ask whether IWC has finally gone too far. While eventual sales figures will effectively settle the question, it is appropriate to begin asking it now.

Assuming strong sales of its new pilot behemoths, could IWC be on its way toward equaling, or even exceeding, its own alltime benchmark of bigness, the 55 mm. pilot's watch of the 1940s? How I hope not!

As for the present hugeness trend in watches generally, the famous closing sentence of Walcott Gibbs's 1936 parody of the early stylistic excesses of Time Magazine seems apt: "Where it will all end, knows God."

Cheers!

Donald

Just be clear....Ross is a different person than Alan Ross.

Alan Ross was trying to assuage Ross's fears about the size of the pilots. If you don't like big watches these are not the watches for you.

IWC crossed the 46mm rubicon because the BP's would not fit in a ceramic 46mm case. If they made such a watch the complainers would immediately note that the ceramic was inferior design. You can't have it both ways unless you completely redesign the watch.

IWC wanted the BP's consistent with current design.

Alan, Shing: many thanks for your comments. I take your point about the difference between wrist photos and reality. Indeed, I have a few wrist photos of my own that over-emphasize the size. It is also true, as MF says, that lug design etc makes a huge difference. I can't wear a BP and it is clownish on my wrist, yet I can carry off (I think) an equally large model from another brand known for their aviation marketing as the case and lug shape is very different.

Nevertheless, I personally regret the ever-increasing size. I shall continue to enjoy my older and smaller IWCs.
Safe journeys home to all.

Success and heroism has a price, apparently, like becoming famous. It is the fame and good name that is being used, you could be proud about this instead of feeling a bit offended. When looking at luxury goods, often a fantasy world is used to build attraction, that is both nice and gives a bit of fun: nobody really believes pilots would use these kind of watches. The "real" pilots watches of the past, like the Mark 11, were good, but nothing special from the point of price.

I stopped feeling envious of people who can afford very expensive watches a long time ago, and instead enjoy the ones I can afford, choosing them carefully and loving them to pieces. By the way: Miramar is a beautiful name, like Portofino. Miramar made me think of a beach resort in Argentina I visited with my parents a long, long time ago, when I was three or four years old: I still have some nice memories about that holiday. Although I like the Miramar watches I will not buy one: not out of disrespect for the military, but because I feel I cannot show myself with such a watch. So, everybody has his reasons.

Kind regards,
Paul

I'm certainly a novice in this world, but it does strike me that it's good to remember that at the end of the day it's all a matter of personal taste; and as the Romans used to say, "De gustibus non disputandum est."

I can understand Ross' perspective. Last year I was eagerly awaiting Rolex's redo of the Explorer II, and was disappointed when I saw its new 42mm size in the flesh. On the other hand, I don't find some of the IWC models to be too large for my tastes at 42mm or even 45mm.

In any case, it's always interesting to observe change even if one doesn't fully agree with the direction. Any change is in part an experiment, and we can't know the outcome until that experiment has been allowed to run for a while.

Even if IWC (or any other maker) were never again to bring out a new watch I actually wanted to own, I have enough watches I do like so that I will never be in doubt as to the time. And I can still enjoy and marvel at the latest iterations in the art and science of watch design.

Of course, I do find that I'm very drawn to the new Spitfire chronograph, so it's likely that the exchequer will be taking another hit this year.